What distinguishes IMs and GMs?

It wasn't a good idea to use Carlsen's name to explain some truth. My mistake. I take back the name. And I'm not in a position to tell who could/should be at the top of the chess world. But still I support my claim about IM's and GM's playing power can't be comparable by current conditions.

According to something I read many many moons ago (source?) IMs tend to have full-time jobs or careers away from the chessboard and are, by and large, not full-time chess professionals. Some GMs also have other "jobs" or careers for instance Vidmar and Botvinnik were electrical engineers, and  Tarrasach was a medical doctor but by and large GMs more often tend to be full-time chess professionals with fewer "distractions" to keep them from reaching their full potential.

See IM Silman's remarks about Deep Thinking and the Differences Between Titled Players for more details by someone who probably has a little more expertise on this subject than most of us

http://www.chess.com/article/view/deep-thinking-and-the-differences-between-titled-players

NimzoRoy.

Good post, thanks for the link.

Sure there and have been outstanding I.M.s ....here we are talking about 24/2500 vs, 27/2800 and that is another level of chess.

Let's make it happen!

@sisu: Salov quit, because he wanted to play real chess as Fischer wanted also. The story about Salov's quit is long and doesn't fit to this thread. English version of this story almost removed from the net, you can find it in Russian language.

Im going to make a wild guess...hmmm... was it IM Pfren who defeated Carlsen?

I thought he went crazy............

There is no right answer as to why a GM is better than a IM, it could be done to talent, work ethic or even something like bad nerves.

I think the differences might be due to many reasons, such as some IMs are (relatively speaking of course) poor with time management (and by "poor" I mean maybe expert or FM level at time management, so their so-called "poor" time management is still better than yours or mine), endgames, converting hard to win won positions, and other knowledge gaps that if fixed will help them make GM.  

Also, GMs probably chunk far more information.  That is, they remember far more positions (not necessarily exact positions but their individual units such as weak color complex, more active minor piece, etc.) and this is on top of their understanding. 

GM Kevin Spraggett once told me that there are many IMs that are GM strength but simply dont put in the work necessary ( for various reasons )  to get the GM title . The late IM Boris Kogan was one IM he mentioned by name that was GM strength but never got the title and I knew Kogan well and played him many times .... 

What about Salov? He was a Grandmaster.

[COMMENT DELETED] - NimzoRoy already posted the link

mhchess13 there are IMs with more than 2400 elo.

About why some strong IMs never become GMs, you have to remember that in some countries there are no big tournaments, so you can´t get the norms that you need. And if you are poor, you are not going to travel to play to another country.

You are correct money has a lot to do with it if you can't afford to play in the big tournaments that offer norms you may be as strong as an IM or GM but it will be very hard for you to get the title

What miri is saying is true, except the part about carlsen.  I play primarily on lichess now and there are many IMs with plus bullet and some plus blitz scores on there against GMs.  You can check for yourself, IM opperwezen has a plus score against many GMs in the lichess titled tournaments.  Just being a gm doesnt necessarily mean the player will be better than the IM.