There should be a higher title on top of GM

evert823

There are hundreds of GMs but there is no higher title for the few strongest GMs. Perhaps such a title should exist.

evert823
Chessereal wrote:

Why?

 

We don't say a candidate is "higher" during elections.

We don't say Lebron James is not a basketball player.

We don't say a cook at a restaurant is higher. If you call them a chef, we don't have a title higher than chef.

We don't reward heart and brain surgeons with a higher title.

 

Why should we have a different title for chess?

That's not my point. Sure we can do without titles. But as a matter of fact FIDE has titles. I am pointing out that within the existing titles there is lacking one and that is not logical.

torrubirubi
evert823 wrote:

There are hundreds of GMs but there is no higher title for the few strongest GMs. Perhaps such a title should exist.

Super GM is not official but is often used.

sardar_simar

it  only can be legend master

testbruker
[COMMENT DELETED]
lordmagnus1
evert823 skrev:

There are hundreds of GMs but there is no higher title for the few strongest GMs. Perhaps such a title should exist.

I agree. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmaster_(chess)#Title_inflation

Just taste the words. Simply "International Master" should mean the absolute elite. Now there are about 5,000 (five THOUSAND!) people who are "International Masters" or better. So to decide the absolute best of the best, the very special world class ones who could actually defeat an International Master, the title of GRAND MASTER came to be. Well, now there are 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred) so-called "Grand Masters", with a rating spread of almost 400 rating points. The top and the bottom Grand Masters are nowhere near the same level. I find it hard to accept that someone who is titled a "Grand Master of Chess" (which, remember, is supposed to be a premium elite distinction from the "International Masters"), can be consistently anally raped by HUNDREDS of other players in the world. How the F* can you be titled a GRAND MASTER when you'll be destroyed in 90% of games played against, let's say, the 300 best players in the world? The title is being so inflated that "International Master" doesn't even sound impressive anymore. Again, taste those words. International. Master. They should be restricted to the very best. And then Grandmaster should be for just the little handful of people capable of beating an International Master. 

 

No, deflate this shit. You are not a master if you are consistently crushed by thousands and thousands of other players. No matter what FIDE says. 

RedGirlZ

There is a higher title. World Champion

WSama

Mmmh, I see. I recommend 'First Master'. For every sub-group there can only be one at the top, and they shall be known as the 'First Masters'...

torrubirubi

Or you change, Only people above 2750 are GMs, all the others are something else. 

But I still think that super GM is still a nice unofficial title.

evert823
RedGirlZ wrote:

There is a higher title. World Champion

Titles are permanent. World Champion only as long as you keep winning.

evert823
torrubirubi wrote:

Or you change, Only people above 2750 are GMs, all the others are something else. 

But I still think that super GM is still a nice unofficial title.

Yes they could make Super GM official.

JayeshSinhaChess

Are you kidding? You want more titles. No there is no need for more titles, if anything there should be less titles.. They have already given out a lot of useless titles like FIDE M & Candidate M. There should be IMs and GMs nothing else.

 

Super GMs is a fine unofficial title. Vishy currently is considered a Super GM, but he won't be for much longer. What happens when he slips to 2600s and is called a Super GM because they made it official and permanent. It would be stupid calling a 2600 guy a Super GM.

 

Super GMs as an unofficial title works fine.

 

Super GMs