Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:49:44 08/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2002 at 06:56:03, Dadi Jonsson wrote: >On August 02, 2002 at 05:18:36, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>On August 01, 2002 at 23:15:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 01, 2002 at 11:47:35, GuyHaworth wrote: >>> >>>>Did Hiarcs do enough to earn a GM norm, had it been carbon rather than silicon? >> >>>> >>> >>>No idea. I thought that a GM norm was equivalent to a 2600+ performance >>>rating... Could be wrong there however. >> >> >> You are correct here Bob. This is one of the basic criterias for making >> a GM norm. And this is strictly calculated. Some months ago IM Berg >> played a a swiss in Hamburg. The situation before the last round was that >> a draw would give him a performance of 2594. This was not enough for a >> GM norm. He had to play for a win (lost it by the way) to make this >> 2600+ performance. >> >> Sune > >There are two possibilities. A GM norm can be based either on the old category >system or the performance of the player (since 1998). In the latter case a >player may choose to include or exclude his own rating from the calculation of >the tournament average. In addition it seems that the "performance-method" is >only allowed in Swiss (as in Berg's case), Scheveningen or Team Tournaments. >Unfortunately the handbook at the FIDE-site (www.fide.com Yes, it's up again) >has not been updated for a long time, but if someone is interested I believe >that the latest version is available on some European sites (I have a link >somewhere). There is no such thing as the "GM-Norm" for computers. Rolf Tueschen
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.