Should GMs who fall below 2500 lose their GM title?

"Organize your own GM tournament and have whatever rules you like."

So, you are conceding that non-GMs can have an opinion about this? Also, it wasn't the tournament organizing that I was addressing. It was the fact that "GM" clouds the issue when selecting potential players. If we said, "We are going to have a GM tournament.", the implication is 2500 and higher. So, I am stating let's enforce the understanding we ALL would normally have.

If you traveled to a city to play people at your level, and then you find out that they are actually 500 points lower, how would you feel about that encounter? This would be like an 1800 rated player playing against 1300 rated players.

"Boxers who win the world championship are known as "champ" for life. Retired (US) presidents, senators, cabinet secretaries and the like are usually referred to by their former office."

Same as the previous person. They are FINISHED!!! I am talking about people currently participating in tournaments who could go from 2499 to 2500 back to retain their GM title. It's not a death sentence removing their title, it is just saying "Hey, you aren't playing up to standard level, you need to win some games before we can assess you as a GM again." 

Wouldn't it be good to make sure all people before they retire if they want to be known as a GM maintain that standard before leaving?

If a president just up and walked out of the White House, they would be impeached. That scar would be with them. Leaving after 4 or 8 years of complete service shows they held the title from beginning to end. 

No, just because someone isn't the level they once was, doesn't mean they don't deserve to have the title for life.

A GM title isn't dependent on rating alone. There are several GMs in the 2400 range. They're still grandmasters. They've still earned the title, via a difficult process that current IMs have been unable to do.

If you speak to IMs who have worked with GMs, they'll almost invariably tell you that GMs see the game at a deeper level than they do.

It might seem confusing, if we only look at rating, but a 2450 GM actually understands the game better than a 2450 IM.

To strip away the GM title, once one dips below 2500, is to consider rating as the only factor of importance. I don't agree with that. (It's also worth noting that rating isn't the only factor when it comes to awarding the GM title, either.)

Lol.

I don't think I am. My goal for before 2022 is 2500 blitz. Till I reach 2500 blitz, I consider myself a bad player.

Yes. As I said, organize your own tournament, implement the rules YOU wish to implement, and see what happens. You don't like the idea of grandmasters playing at a level lower than what they used to. So, just tell all the grandmasters in your tournament that if they don't perform, they will lose their grandmaster title. It's not up to them, it's not up to FIDE, it's up to you. 

They may love that idea, you may have a great turnout, and some grandmasters may lose their title. Small price for them to pay, right? That title was only a temporary thing anyway. Easy come, easy go. Really it's the only way to see if this idea is worth anything at all. Do it, see what happens. 

"No, just because someone isn't the level they once was, doesn't mean they don't deserve to have the title for life."

That's still not quite what I am addressing. Let's say you put on pants. You go out on a rainy day, walk around puddles, but that doesn't stop someone from splashing you (beating you in chess). You go to your destination or come home, hang the pants up to dry or clean before doing so, and voila!! You put the pants back on.

I am not saying you should never wear pants again if you get them dirty. They are just removed temporarily.

"It might seem confusing, if we only look at rating, but a 2450 GM actually understands the game better than a 2450 IM."

That is a valid point, and I was never contradicting that. In fact, if we are in agreement that a 2450 GM is stronger than a 2450 IM then it should be that much easier to bounce back (put their pants back on as in the analogy above) to 2500 for the 2450 GM.

"So, just tell all the grandmasters in your tournament that if they don't perform, they will lose their grandmaster title. It's not up to them, it's not up to FIDE, it's up to you."

Tournament directors don't give or take back GM/IM titles. I think you missed the boat here.

"That title was only a temporary thing anyway."

Temporary is a vague term. I used pants as an example. You wear pants and "temporarily" don't wear them when they are being cleaned.

Sorry guys, I couldn't think up a Karate Kid analogy for this one. I'll try better next time.

First, you don’t know how difficult it is to become a GM and to jump back to a certain rating (in this case, 2500). This is why more experienced people such as GM’s should have more of a voice as to this issue. Just because a GM eventually decreases in skill over time (as everyone does), it doesn’t mean that the title they worked so hard for should be taken away from them.

Second, your analogy about vaccines is pointless. Vaccines are based on science and facts, while whether a GM should lose their title or not if they fall behind a certain rating is much more opinion based. People believe in vaccines because trusted and qualified people and scientists and medical officials recommend them.

Third, titles are marks of achievement. The fluctuation and measurement of someone’s skills in playing chess is measured by rating. For example, say a GM has a bad tournament and they fall below 2500. This person might have a lesser chance of being invited to certain tournaments while also having to climb all the way back up to 2500 in order to achieve their title again. If you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense to have rating barriers for titles. Have one measurement for their current skill and another for their achievements.

Fourth, this can discourage GM’s from playing. Either 1. a GM stops playing and keeps his title or 2. another one wants to keep playing and eventually loses it. Since both eventually will be below the skill of a GM, shouldn’t retired GM’s lose their title too then? The title is meant to be a mark of achievement, a lifelong achievement obtained by years of hard work. Getting pants dirty is nothing like falling below a rating such as 2500. Yes, it is possible to clean your pants as it is to gain rating again, but that doesn’t mean that it is as easy to gain rating to rise above 2500 as it is to just wash your pants again.

Fifth, tournaments or organizers for tournaments can establish their own standards for who is allowed to be in the tournament. If they wanted to do it by rating instead of by title, they would.

So no, GM’s shouldn’t lose their title if they fall below a certain rating. Titles are marks of achievement and rating is for how they are performing and their skill level in the present or since they played. Period. Plus, there are more norms required to become a GM than just rating.

And there is the amount of knowledge that won't go away so easily as practical strength. To me a black belt will always be a black belt, even if he/she gets disabled.

Don't worry about that, online chess has nothing to do with FIDE rating and titles. And losing on time is as legitimate as a loss as getting checkmated.

Bad internet? What are you talking about? 

But yeah, I agree with you - no they shouldn’t 

A lot of politicians have college degrees, and a lot of them say stupid things, so yes.

     Boxers who lose their titles continue to box and often regain their titles. Actors who win Oscars continue to make films and sometimes win more Oscars. Nobel prize winners (young Albert Einstein for example) go on to long careers in research and teaching. In all of these cases they continue to be called "champ". "Oscar winner", "Nobel prize winner". They legitimately earned their titles and get to keep them. The same applies to GMs. If you don't like it, form an alternative to FIDE with your title standards and see how many titled players will join.

    (And you should brush up on your American history. President Nixon--as he continues to be known--did walk away in the middle of his term. He quit before he served two years of his second term and so was still eligible to run for another term.)

"Me, for an example, passed the driving licence with success like 35 years ago. Hence, I've got the legal right to drive. I pray God I don't have to, cos I barely drove any vehicle since my exam."

I am not sure that is a good comparison on two grounds. One, I question the need for cars in Europe compared to the USA. There will be some need, but how much when mass transit exists in Europe and is pretty much nonexistent in the USA other than Greyhound buses and Amtrak trains which stop at fewer places than a classical rock reunion tour in a US state?

The second thing is, and it coincides with the first, in the USA you DO have to retake the test and prove yourself. I was out of the country for over a decade, I came back, and they looked at me and asked, "What happened?"

The material they gave me to retake the test addressed drinking and driving (like I lost my license due to that), health issues (like I lost my license due to that), and had nothing much to say about rules of the road (which was on the test). You could say on one side that this means exactly what you are getting across, that people are keeping their license. You could also say they are likely to lose their license when driving under some standard if they are driving regularly today. In your own words, you said you haven't driven and might pose a threat (if I can use that word). To some extent, I am the same way. I never drove a roundabout before and I still mess up trying to understand it. This would mean if we aren't driving at the standard we risk losing our license.

In the above, the parameters are set to revoke the license. With chess, you don't need to retest. You just tell the person they must perform better and earn the points back. Hans Niemann I understand had 2500+ before he earned his norms. I don't think, relatively speaking, that getting 2500 is as difficult as getting the norms. Is there a huge contradiction here? Are GMs stating the opposite? They got their norms but never reached 2500?

The point of a rating and title is different. Ratings convey how good a person is at the time, whereas titles are achievements, more like winning a tournament. Someone's achievement shouldn't be taken away just because they are no longer good enough to replicate it.

Additionally, when players get older they inevitably can't play as well as they could when they were younger. People who are "past their prime" shouldn't be punished for playing after their "prime" is over. 2380 GMs are still GMs and they earned their titles just as deservedly as any other GM. Besides, some GMs retire and don't play rated games. Surely they become overrated but under OP's system they would maintain their title while players who kept playing, even if the two are the same strength now, would lose their title

"First, you don’t know how difficult it is to become a GM and to jump back to a certain rating (in this case, 2500)."

This might help explain the difficulties women are having in moving up in chess. If GM titles are not revoked, then you dirty the pool of players. Example, Hou Yifan plays in a tournament with other women. How does this help her? Goryachkina is 50 points below her now, and this is with Yifan being pretty inactive other than a few online events. I am not saying it is a walk in the park, but when you expand on this and realistically look at the higher level chess pairings, there is often 100s of points separating opponents.

This is where the "dirtying" comes into play. When you fall below a standard and retain the title, then any more losses are not real wins for the other player. Their rating begins to inflate when both sides are probably not up to standard.

If this is still confusing, look at countries. Some countries have stronger NMs than others. We can replace the NM title with IM to make it more practical. I would say the performance range is vastly wider between IMs than say a 100 point bracket of GMs 2600-2700. This is due to the same thing. Qualifying is spread out. Mishra got his qualifications in a similar way. We could say the same of GMs. However, with such a young age, Mishra has plenty of time to prove himself.

We could also project this on the "super" GMs. If you play a 2750 player your rating is calculated based on that. Why would you want to play a 2600 then? It is a bigger gamble. Just like the rich stay rich, the super GMs stay super.

"Second, your analogy about vaccines is pointless."

You have 6 replies, so I will keep this short. I brought it up because it is something people have to take a side with. Either you take the vaccine or you don't. However, the vast majority of people don't have absolute proof on either side. And no, there are no facts that prove vaccines are the solution. I took mine, but I am not convinced I needed them.

"Third, titles are marks of achievement."

That's fine. So are trophies. Do you travel around with your trophies? Do you introduce yourself to people prefacing with all your achievements?

"Hi, I'm Bob, the guy who threw the winning pass in my high school football game against our rival team."

I think the GM title should be more of a status if it is going to be used to give IMs the title also. You could be a GM, completely perform bad, then play an IM and we get the dirtying effect again.

"Fourth, this can discourage GM’s from playing."

No, the opposite. If you know you are a 2600 GM and you fall below 2500, then you know you can get it back. When I fall below some expected rating, it fires me up to get those points back. If I could get 1500 rating and then have a title for that, then I would get lazy and say "1450? So what? At least I am still a 1500 "achiever"".

"Sixth, tournaments or organizers for tournaments can establish their own standards for who is allowed to be in the tournament."

Five comes after four. You have five points, not six. I wasn't referring to tournaments. I don't know why some of you are referring to this same "point". If the health department in your country said you can't do something, wouldn't that effect all stores and food markets? How can the stores override the health department? How can the district override the circuit court? How can the circuit court override the supreme court?

The direction is to go up, not down. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TOURNAMENT ORGANIZERS.

"Additionally, when players get older they inevitably can't play as well as they could when they were younger. People who are "past their prime" shouldn't be punished for playing after their "prime" is over. "

That hasn't stopped Alex Yermolinsky. He plays in senior tournaments. I am not saying all 2500 GMs and those who fall below and are GMs should lose their title forever. What I am saying is, you avoid the Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik, etc... retirement approach to keep your rating high. Instead you would play in different categories. 

So, Alex wouldn't play in an open tournament to some extreme where 2800 players are participating. He would play as we see with people around his age and rating range. You could very realistically speaking get those points back, and we wouldn't see the Kremlin masters retire. They might still be playing today if the system were actually more flexible to maintain averages.

In my opinion, no, since the title is not an indication of current strength but of past achievements.