A GM norm is not just winning over a GM. Its a certain performance over a tournement for each norm. And you also need 2500 rating + the 3 norms. So there is no way one could become GM by 'luck'.
wouldnt it be possible that any master could become gm by luck??
Sort:
well you would get the 2500 anyway when beating gms who had a bad day. yes and couldnt it be by so many tournaments not be mathematically possible that most gms played bad in 3 tournaments???
Sure, and given an infinite amount of time a chimpanzee sitting at a keyboard will eventually turn out a piece of great literature. Mathematically possible is a long way from the reality of probability.
so you think its not possible, that in the reality of probability it could happen?? or already happened or happened with normal master titles?
You wouldn't get to 2500 just from beating a couple of GMs if you're at 2200, not even at three tournaments. That's a pretty huge gap.
You could make GM by playing three strong tournaments in a row if you're already an IM, and drop down to 2400 afterwards; there's plenty of ~2400 GMs. But playing three strong tournaments isn't luck.
There are, however, several tournaments that grant the Grandmaster title to whoever wins them, that you could enter without the title. On the other hand, you would not only have to play an exceptionally strong tournament, you would have to actually win. That's not something you do by luck only, especially since the tournaments I'm talking about are the Men's U-20 world championship (there are loads of <20 GMs with ratings above 2600) or the Women's World Championship (A bit "easier", sure, but you'd have to actually be a woman first!).
I'm not sure how often players manage to skip IM and go straight to GM, but I'd imagine it is exceptionally rare.
Jul 7, 2011
0
#7
I've known a few people rated 2550+ who couldn't get the norms for a few years. Luck...
u need 3 gm norm to get gm right? i mean sometimes gm seem to lose to people who play master like. dont get me wrong they lose to people who might be great, and strong player, but in the game they only had lost to tactics wich any master should or can understand. not to mention those gms who blunder ocassionally, i mean if a mathematicans count those numbers and calculate in freak accidents, couldnt any master become gm just by luck??? another question, about missing talent, i mean was there ever a player who loved chess so much, that he didnt care for his gf, family and anything and really didnt use time for anything else then chess and didnt become gm??