Title or Rating ?

Which do you think is a more accurate indicator of a chess players strength? Is a 2500 FM stronger than a 2400 GM ? What about an untitled 2250 (fide) player compared to an IM with 2150? I am speaking of otb ratings and titles.

RATING IS NOT A FACTOR OF A CHESS PLAYERS STRENTH

So you think a player with 2500 isnt stronger than one of say 2000?

I think you make it too complicated ret, while I understand your point. For me personally I would have to say rating is a more accurate indicator of the player's strength. Ofcourse, I refer to current strength and not when they may have achieved the title or 10 years ago. FIDE also gives out titles now to players that do NOT earn all the norms nor achieve the necessary minimum ratings, which cheapens all fide titles imo. Just look at the " IMs" of Puerto Rico for example. I have played several times here with 2 IMs from Angola who have never been 2400 and one of them has never been even 2300. They are not stronger than me as I score about 50% with them both and yet I am not even FM. How did they get their title? Well, by winning the Angolan championship is what they told me, but it doesnt matter that they played against weak opposition. Is it right for FIDE to do such things? I suspect the Puerto Rican IMs "earned" their titles in the same way. So, to answer my own question, I believe an untitled player with 2500 fide rating IS currently stronger than a GM with 2400. For me, rating is the more accurate indicator of strength.

Jeeees, it's just some guys kicking a ball around ;o)

I don't know anything about titles, but i would have thought a rating  would be a better indicator of a players strength, whereas a title would show merely his status.

Ratings don't lie.  Titles are significant, but arbitrary in their construction.

 

 The title of GM and IM meant a whole lot more 25-30 years ago. Now i'm not saying all the players with titles don't deserve them because some clearly do but the title has been cheapened over the years. A GM with a bogus title may not be as strong as a 2500 player that does not have a title so it is hard to say which is the better indicator of a persons playing strength..I knew a boy a few years ago that achieved a rating slightly above 2000 by playing in only the open section of a couple of major tourn. He was probably no stronger then 1200 but always bragged about being an expert but would never play in any more tourn. I know he was not that strong because everyone in our club could easily crush him, all the way down to the beginners.

I can remember when titles were handed out as a cold war ploy. Which country was better. The ratings were invented to try and figure if players were really that good. GM Vidmar was very vocal about the watering down of the title GM. The political gadflies drove many good players to become recluses. The otb ratings will continue to evolve as those who try and beat the system find ways to do it. It is still the best way to measure one's merit. Those that carry a title know if they have earned it against their peers. This internet chess is intriguing,having  players from all over the world.

yes,now adays i understand,rating is factor

 

The GM title may imply a certain 'stick-with-it-ness' where a bald rating doesn't.  But for strength, the FIDE rating is the best indicator.

Nothing.

 

Inventor of rating system Arpad Elo said, that rating number shows only statistics and shouldn't be used to evaluate player's strenght. Sad fact is that organisers do so: people without FIDE rating (or with low rating) can't play in good tournaments without extreme entrant charges. (At least here in Europe.)

 

Titles are honours, nothing less, nothing more.

 

And yes, there is a slight correlation between rating and current player's strenght and between title and player's strenght in the past.

My former teacher told me that IM Ben Finegold was the strongest IM in the US. The implication was that he just never bothered to put in the effort to achieve the GM title but that my teacher and the other US GMs considered him a peer.

So, I think the answer to your question is "the rating" -- but I think that a lot of the top players "have their own idea" about the true strength of the other top players. Maybe some guy is typically in the 2480-2500 rating range, but has a great year or so, and is all the way up at 2560, perhaps a couple of points higher than some GMs... I still think they'll consider the player, not the rating or the title.

Does that make sense?