Author: Bill Gletsos
Date: 05:12:53 06/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 18, 2001 at 15:53:59, Albert Silver wrote: >On June 18, 2001 at 15:13:57, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On June 18, 2001 at 14:34:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Mark, everything falls apart in the presence of your ignorance. >>> >>>to wit: >>> >>>For a GM to earn the title "International Grandmaster" he _must_ (and there are >>>no exceptions) produce a 2600+ rating over 24 games. >>> >> >>Bob, no need to call anyone ignorant. >> > >Your point is quite valid, but I think that most of these rules, the revised >conditions, are garbage and only serve to devaluate the title. > >>One 2600+ can be over 9 games, the 24 games is for the 2500. Also, there are >>exceptions where a single performance can get you the GM title without the 2500 >>and two 2600 norms (9 game minimum for a norm): >> >>1.1 Grandmaster: Obtained by achieving any of the following: >> >>1.11 Two or more GM results in events covering at least 24 games (30 games >>without a round robin or Olympiad) and a rating of at least 2500 in the FIDE >>Rating List current at the time the FIDE Congress considers the application, or >>within seven years of the first title result being achieved. (See 1.7, 10.10) >>(GA '93) > >This I agree with because the old rules stated that it had to be at least 3 >norms, of which at least one had to stem from a round robin. However, how are >you going to claim that a guy who went through a couple of grueling 15+ round >national championships and scored GM norms wasn't eligible. Albert, Its always been Two or more norms. It has never said 3 norms. > >>1.12 Qualification for the Candidates Competition for the World Championship. > >The what? This dates back to the Fischer days, but the rule seems a bit outdated >considering the knockout system being employed. This became irrelevant when FIDE introduced their knockout system for the world championship as there are no longer Candidates matches. > >>1.13 One GM result in a FIDE Interzonal tournament. > >Eh? See above. Didn't 46 players just qualify for the World Championship through >the European championships? There was a time when the Interzonal was the >qualifying event for the Candidates event, and a candidate was one among 16 >players. Now he is one among 200. This became irrelevant when FIDE introduced their knockout system for the world championship as there are no longer Interzonal Tournaments. > >>1.14 Winning the Women's World Championship match. (GA '93) > >Perhaps this is sexist of me to say, but I think this rule is rubbish. No comment. > >>1.15 Winner on tiebreak in the World Junior Championship. (GA '93 and EB '99) >> >>1.16 A tie for first place in the World Junior Championship is equivalent to >>one 9-game GM result. (GA '93) > >Could someone kindly explain to me 1.15 and 1.16? As I see it, if I tie for >first in the World Junior Championship, not only do I automatically become a GM >(1.15) but I ALSO get another GM norm (1.16)! Why I need this norm if I'm being >handed the title is a little beyond me. > >NB: Giving a norm might be ok, but handing the title gets a similar comment to >1.14 1.15 used to say "Clear first place in the World Junior Championship". In this case there was no anomaly with 1.16. However the FIDE Executive Board changed 1.15 to the wording above in 1999 and thus introduced the stupidity you pointed out above. Shows what happens when these changes are made by the EB and not by reccomendations by the FIDE Qualifications Commission. The EB would argue that if you are the winner on teirbreak then you did not tie for first place as per 1.16. A case of splitting hairs no doubt:)) > >> >>1.17 Winner on tiebreak in the Continental Individual or Continental Junior >>Championship is equivalent to one 9-game GM result. (GA '95 and EB '99) Arab and >>Centro American - Caribbean Youth events will be treated as Continental >>Championships. (GA '93) >> >>1.18 Clear first place in the Women's Candidates Tournament is equivalent to >>one 9-game GM result. (GA '93) >> >>1.19 One 13-game GM result in the Olympiad will lead to the award of the full >>title. (GA '93). >> >>1.20 Winner of the World Senior Championship (GA 97) > >1.18, 1.19, 1.20: rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. Why is the Olympiad an exception? I >paid an airplane ticket so I only need half the requirements? If FIDE thinks >that the winner of the World Senior is a clear GM then that same winner should >be able to come up with the goods in proper GM norm qualifying events. >Otherwise, they are just handing out honorary titles to make everyone happy. >Problem is that there are no rules about restricting the validity of such titles >in other GM events. IE I never made a GM norm in my life and certainly never had >a rating over 2450. Now I'm 55, rated 2350, and win the World Senior, but get >this wonderful title that was no doubt placed there only to attract more >participants. Now that I have this title, I can sell my presence in GM norm >events despite the fact that the two letters are nothing more than a massage to >my ego. FIDE is turning the GM title into a joke. I expect those special >conditions to only multiply at this point. > > Albert It would be interesting to know which GM's got their title by criteria other than 1.11 above and if 1.11 was the only criteria would they ever have been awarded the GM title. Regards, Bill > >> >>So the 2500 rating and the two 2600 performances is only one way to get the >>title. >> >>Best Regards, >>Chris Carson
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.