Why doesn't chess.com award Candidate Master (CM) for USCF???

Yes, in terms of titles that they send a certificate for, a USCF CM is not one of them.

The point was to answer the OP's question.  Well, to be fair, it will only officially be answered if someone from chess.com chimes in.  But that only happens in the case of naming and shaming it seems.

As far as a direct answer to the question, I think it's just that chess.com views that anyone who hasn't reached 2200 (becoming a FIDE CM or NM) is simply too weak to qualify for a free membership and red letters

Then again, there are those junior tournaments where winning it makes you an IM without the normal requirements or something like that aren't there?

If you establish a FIDE rating of 2400+ you are an FM full stop.  Can just skip right past CM and NM.  So just study really hard and play in a few FIDE tournaments ;)

The uscf CM is not a legitimate title imo, the fide rating approach is a better way of giving titles. If I had my way, I would have canceled the NM title too. FM, IM, GM are ones who should have titles imo, I like the old school approach. 

These days, with all these titles, and divisions called "class A, B, C etc.", well....its designed to make everyone feel like a winner haha. 

Believe me, being called "2nd Category Elubas" is not going to raise my self-esteem :p

after that logic you can also cancel FMs... and if we talk serious now dont we already have too many GMs? we might should cancel IM´s too. 

I'm 1st Category Abhishek :P

As others have pointed out there IS a USCF CM title (I earned mine in August 2011). It is NOT the same as Expert (which I earned in December 2008).

Expert requires a rating of 2000, but Candidate Master requires a 2000 rating AND five CM norms. A norm is earned by scoring greater than 1 point MORE than a 2000-level player would be expected to score in a tournment of 4 or more rounds.

In practice, this means five 2200+ performances. NOT easy...trust me!!

I dont get it. Sorry im bad in math, if someone needs to score one point higher then a 2000 player would, how is that a 2200 perfomance?

I think the confusion is that the "point" andre is referring to is not a rating point, but a tournament score, right? So if for example a 2000 would be expected to score 4/6 in some tournament, you have to score 5/6 to get the norm I suppose?

How do you keep track of the # of norms you have?

I mean 1 point more IN THE TOURNAMENT than a 2000-level player would be expected to score.

It is true that the longer the tournament, the lower the performance rating seems to be. For a 9-rounder the performance needed is like 2150. I made 2200+ for all my norms.

When the USCF introduced these titles why did they choose to name them similarly to FIDE titles yet award them for different rating levels? This seems to be causing some confusion outside (and reading this forum) also within USCF.

i understood that but its still confusing.  especially if you consider that beating a 2200 is much harder then beating a 2000 player twice or three times i suppose.

i find it much more confusing that they dont use the metric system in america

Actually, beating a 2200 player results in a performance rating higher than 2200 (it makes sense if you think about it -- you took the win away from the master, so your performance was beyond him). The equivalent to a 2200 performance rating could be, yes, consistently beating players between 2000-2200 in a given tournament (i.e., playing in a way that a player better than 2000 would be expected to play, which would include beating 2000 players as a 2000 player would be expected to only draw other 2000 players), or it could be drawing a 2200(s) as well. But beating a 2200 player is different.

You do the excruciatingly difficult task OF...wait for it....

COUNTING!!!!

COMMENT DELETED

EDIT:  IM JUST HAVING AN OFF DAY

lol wtf, I could have sworn abhiskek's comment was at the top of page 3.