I really don't think the distinction is necessary.
I mean, there's Calculus, which I'm sure everyone can agree is far more powerful than the every-day pedestrian math that's performed at the club level, and then there's an elite set of calculations among it that everyone recognizes with or without the extra qualifier on the title. It really seems superfluous to me. Aren't the existing titles, Calculus and World Champion Calculus, sufficient?
As far as chess goes yes. But the human being playing chess is another matter. In response to the debate on why don't people resign? and about ratings, the threads are numerous, so I tryed to capture it with a new topic.
One can overcome great odds, King and pawn-verse King and pawn and rook. I posted a bit on Sun Zu and odds. The response was the spirit of aggressiveness can overcome the odds. I agree it can but the odds are not good. Because the human being is greater than the some total of his parts. I believe the Universe is also greater than its parts.
In 1660 they complained that Newton turned people and thier creativity into mere numbers with his calculus. Today a bunch of guys are using super calculus on wall street and earning a ton of cash. Super calculus has moved into medicine, Psychiatry, and government, as it permeates every aspect of our lives.
But, Einstein said "Nature say's no" after years calculating there was always that one number, just one more diget to the right of the dismal that turned everything upside down.
One person can overcome very great odds in life and chess. This is because the human being is greater than the some total of his parts. I think the chess rating is only giving us the odds.