| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2008 14:04:34
From: John Salerno
Subject: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
Just curious. Are there people who attain these titles without having been
some child chess prodigy starting from the womb (or even as a teenager)?
And just to be clear, is the title of IM the same as saying "Master"?
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 12:31:10
From:
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
On Aug 25, 2:04=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just curious. Are there people who attain these titles without having bee=
n
> some child chess prodigy starting from the womb ...
Definitely. Most people who have attained the IM and/or GM title
would not be considered child prodigies. That label is usually
reserved for the likes of Morphy, Capablanca, Reshevsky, Fischer,
Adams, Carlsen etc., all of whom showed considerable chess skill no
later than their early teens, and usually while their age was counted
in single digits.
On the other hand, chess history has many examples of men who
advanced very far though they did not learn the game at an early age
or made only slow progress in their youth. Staunton, Blackburne,
Chigorin, Lasker, Rubinstein, R=E9ti, Leonid Stein, and Lajos Portisch
are just a few off the top of my head.
> (or even as a teenager)?
I would say that the teens are prime chess-learning years, but you
need hardly despair if you are past them, which, considering how
clearly you write, I would guess you are.
> And just to be clear, is the title of IM the same as saying "Master"?
Not exactly. In the old days, the term "master" was more loosely
applied. When you see it in an old book, say from the 1920s or
earlier, chances are it is used to mean top players, the sort who
played in international tournaments, players whom today we would
usually call GMs. But it might also mean what today we call a national
master (NM), i.e. someone who is a strong player within his own
country but sees little or no international play.
Today there are three official levels of master titles as granted by
FIDE, the International Chess Federation: FIDE Master (FM),
International Master (IM) and International Grandmaster (GM). I won't
go into the requirements in detail. If I recall correctly, FM requires
only attaining a FIDE rating of 2300 or better; the other two involve
attaining certain scoring levels, called norms, in a certain number of
FIDE-rated tournaments within a prescribed period of time.
The NM title is given by a national organization, and the
requirements vary from one country to another. To be a USCF Master,
you must attain a rating of 2200 or better. 2400+ entitles you to the
Senior Master title. I believe that retaining a 2200+ rating over a
certain number of games entitles one to the Life Master title.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 17:27:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
John Salerno wrote:
> Now, if I recall correctly, there are at least 1,000 GMs, maybe
> 2,000, I'm not sure. One can have a GM title and not even be the
> 1,000th-best player in the world. Some feel this has cheapened a title
> that was originally intended to belong only to the real greats. So
> gradations have been proposed, like maybe 1-star through 5-star, as
> with the ranks of army generals. Nothing has come of it, though, as
> far as I know.
> ------
>
> Interesting. I don't suppose you can remove the GM title, but maybe making
> the requirements stricter would help? I always assumed that being a GM was a
> very rare thing, so hopefully it isn't at the point where people would joke
> "Well, who *isn't* a GM?" :)
The trouble seems to be twofold:
1) the GM title is awarded for life, so even a
100 years old 1900-rated player can be a GM;
2) the pool of chess players has grown
dramatically.
I would suggest going with a sort of title
which already exists, but breaking with
tradition and making it a title which can both
be given, AND taken away. The title I have
in mind is that of "super-GM", which was at
one time applied to a mere handful of the
very topmost players. A player who falters
from the level required to warrant this title
would have it stripped away, yet he/she
would retain the title of GM (IGM really), so
all is not lost so far as the delicate ego is
concerned. Granted, this still leaves too
many ordinary GMs, all lumped together
under the one FIDE title.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 13:14:03
From:
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
On Aug 25, 3:37=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3afdb229-0c82-40dc-8e00-abbf75856700@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 2:04 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would say that the teens are prime chess-learning years, but you
> need hardly despair if you are past them, which, considering how
> clearly you write, I would guess you are.
>
> Heh heh, yes, I'm 28. But I was also an English major so that helps me so=
und
> smarter than I might actually be! ;-)
>
> =A0 Today there are three official levels of master titles as granted by
> FIDE, the International Chess Federation: FIDE Master (FM),
> International Master (IM) and International Grandmaster (GM). I won't
> go into the requirements in detail. If I recall correctly, FM requires
> only attaining a FIDE rating of 2300 or better; the other two involve
> attaining certain scoring levels, called norms, in a certain number of
> FIDE-rated tournaments within a prescribed period of time.
> =A0 The NM title is given by a national organization, and the
> requirements vary from one country to another. To be a USCF Master,
> you must attain a rating of 2200 or better. 2400+ entitles you to the
> Senior Master title. I believe that retaining a 2200+ rating over a
> certain number of games entitles one to the Life Master title.
>
> Ah, so there are a variety of Master titles. I noticed this somewhat when=
I
> was reading about it on Wikipedia, but didn't really get a sense of what
> each one meant. I guess all of the above could be considered "chess
> masters," or is that title not really even used? :)
There has even been talk of adding different levels to the GM title.
Legend has it that the title "International Grandmaster" was first
given to a very select group, the 5 finalists at St. Petersburg 1914:
Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Marshall, and Tarrasch (though there is
some doubt about this story). The first official FIDE GM titles were
bestowed on an elite group of 27 players in 1950.
Now, if I recall correctly, there are at least 1,000 GMs, maybe
2,000, I'm not sure. One can have a GM title and not even be the
1,000th-best player in the world. Some feel this has cheapened a title
that was originally intended to belong only to the real greats. So
gradations have been proposed, like maybe 1-star through 5-star, as
with the ranks of army generals. Nothing has come of it, though, as
far as I know.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Aug 2008 16:31:57
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Now, if I recall correctly, there are at least 1,000 GMs, maybe
2,000, I'm not sure. One can have a GM title and not even be the
1,000th-best player in the world. Some feel this has cheapened a title
that was originally intended to belong only to the real greats. So
gradations have been proposed, like maybe 1-star through 5-star, as
with the ranks of army generals. Nothing has come of it, though, as
far as I know.
------
Interesting. I don't suppose you can remove the GM title, but maybe making
the requirements stricter would help? I always assumed that being a GM was a
very rare thing, so hopefully it isn't at the point where people would joke
"Well, who *isn't* a GM?" :)
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 13:24:40
From:
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
On Aug 25, 3:37=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3afdb229-0c82-40dc-8e00-abbf75856700@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 2:04 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I would say that the teens are prime chess-learning years, but you
> need hardly despair if you are past them, which, considering how
> clearly you write, I would guess you are.
>
> Heh heh, yes, I'm 28. But I was also an English major so that helps me so=
und
> smarter than I might actually be! ;-)
>
> =A0 Today there are three official levels of master titles as granted by
> FIDE, the International Chess Federation: FIDE Master (FM),
> International Master (IM) and International Grandmaster (GM). I won't
> go into the requirements in detail. If I recall correctly, FM requires
> only attaining a FIDE rating of 2300 or better; the other two involve
> attaining certain scoring levels, called norms, in a certain number of
> FIDE-rated tournaments within a prescribed period of time.
> =A0 The NM title is given by a national organization, and the
> requirements vary from one country to another. To be a USCF Master,
> you must attain a rating of 2200 or better. 2400+ entitles you to the
> Senior Master title. I believe that retaining a 2200+ rating over a
> certain number of games entitles one to the Life Master title.
>
> Ah, so there are a variety of Master titles. I noticed this somewhat when=
I
> was reading about it on Wikipedia, but didn't really get a sense of what
> each one meant. I guess all of the above could be considered "chess
> masters," or is that title not really even used? :)
It would be quite all right to refer to any/all of the above as
chess masters, though keep in mind that the difference in skill
between a high-ranking GM (Elo rating 2700+) and a low-ranking NM (Elo
in the low 2200s) is as big as the difference between a USCF class A
player (1800-1999) and a patzer. With a rating difference of 500, the
higher-rated player will probably win over 95% of the time.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 15:37:05
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3afdb229-0c82-40dc-8e00-abbf75856700@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 2:04 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
I would say that the teens are prime chess-learning years, but you
need hardly despair if you are past them, which, considering how
clearly you write, I would guess you are.
Heh heh, yes, I'm 28. But I was also an English major so that helps me sound
smarter than I might actually be! ;-)
Today there are three official levels of master titles as granted by
FIDE, the International Chess Federation: FIDE Master (FM),
International Master (IM) and International Grandmaster (GM). I won't
go into the requirements in detail. If I recall correctly, FM requires
only attaining a FIDE rating of 2300 or better; the other two involve
attaining certain scoring levels, called norms, in a certain number of
FIDE-rated tournaments within a prescribed period of time.
The NM title is given by a national organization, and the
requirements vary from one country to another. To be a USCF Master,
you must attain a rating of 2200 or better. 2400+ entitles you to the
Senior Master title. I believe that retaining a 2200+ rating over a
certain number of games entitles one to the Life Master title.
Ah, so there are a variety of Master titles. I noticed this somewhat when I
was reading about it on Wikipedia, but didn't really get a sense of what
each one meant. I guess all of the above could be considered "chess
masters," or is that title not really even used? :)
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2008 11:42:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: IMs and GMs that weren't child prodigies?
|
On Aug 25, 1:04 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just curious. Are there people who attain these titles without having been
> some child chess prodigy starting from the womb (or even as a teenager)?
>
> And just to be clear, is the title of IM the same as saying "Master"?
Yes at chessgames.com there is a discussion of someone who achieved IM
at 49.
Yes and no; there are many forms of "master". National, FIDE.....
|
|
