chess titles

OK so I'm wondering how to equate chess "Titles" with real life college degrees. So, if a person has a Bachelor's degree, so in chess that is like an NM ? A Master's degree would be like an IM, maybe . Then a PHD is equal to a GM title? How long does it take to get a college degree, anyway? thanks !!

Goodness me, you know how to create some crackpot threads, don't you Woadman?
There is no absolutely no correlation whatever between excellence at chess, which depends very heavily upon natural ability, and achieving an academic qualification, which depends upon application, training and intelligence.
As for not being aware how long it takes to get a college degree - just google it for goodness sake.
If I were not so bored just now i wouldn't have dignified this thread with a reply at all.

I reckon with either discipline some people hit their heads against their genetic ceilings earlier than others!

I think woadman has violated, at the very least, the agreement that one must be at least 13 years old to open an account....

I think it's a good question.

A while back on another site I saw obtaining a GM title being equated to
earning a PH'd.

Of course I disagreed.

Sometimes (stress sometimes) getting a GM title depends a lot on where
you stay and how bent your federation is.

('bent as in arranging fixed FIDE events so some, if not all, of your boys
get the GM norms.)

PH'd's may be rigged as well so the university can climb up
the 'look how many PH'd's students we have' league table.

In a nutshell:

PHd's - it's not what you know, it's where you go,

GM's title - it's not what you know, it's where you are from.

Originally posted by Larkie
Goodness me, you know how to create some crackpot threads, don't you Woadman?
There is no absolutely no correlation whatever between excellence at chess, which depends very heavily upon natural ability, and achieving an academic qualification, which depends upon application, training and intelligence.
As for not being aware how long it takes to get a colle ...[text shortened]... ke.
If I were not so bored just now i wouldn't have dignified this thread with a reply at all.

I am totally serious about this question. It amazes me the reactions of some members of the website to my statements. It's obvious I am of a different caliber player than most others here. I eat, breathe, live chess 24/7. Maybe I'm a bit more dedicated than 99% of the people on RHP.

there is no such thing as a genetic ceiling for the brain, or rather there is but it is such a high ceiling (barring any disorders) for everybody that there is not one person who has touched it.

The reason why certain people become mega gms is because they started as a very young child. No, children do not learn faster, in fact adults learn much quicker because their brains have become more efficient but children are like a sponge in that they will soak up anything. what happens when you age is that your brain starts developing neural pathways(called dendrites) while pruning unnecessary ones. Unfortunately many of the patterns in chess are very unique so if you dont start as a young child your brain will not be able to grasp it very well because you have no neural pathway for it.

You can reinforce and further develop current pathways in your brain as a fully grown adult but forget growing new ones. While it does happen it just takes much longer because your brain is basically saying, "you didnt need to know that to survive this long so im not going to put that much effort into this!"

This can be circumvented though by attaching or equating patterns and ideas in chess with things we do know. Sort of organizing bits of chess into many different compartments.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
there is no such thing as a genetic ceiling for the brain, or rather there is but it is such a high ceiling (barring any disorders) for everybody that there is not one person who has touched it.

The reason why certain people become mega gms is because they started as a very young child. No, children do not learn faster, in fact adults learn much qui ...[text shortened]... chess with things we do know. Sort of organizing bits of chess into many different compartments.

rec'd - and it wouldn't surprise me if lectures have been given on this sort of thing... interesting study.

As for the relation between academic studies and chess-related skill?

I think effort is the key word behind both.
Some people may find their academic studies very tedious and monotonous and lose interest after some time,
either gaining an average or below average qualification to no qualification at all,

yet when it comes to studying chess and developing their playing style and strengths,
they could take to it like a fish to water.

... At least, this was my experience.

But again, with regards to titles?
There's no real use comparing the two... different levels of accomplishments altogether.

Originally posted by woadman
I am totally serious about this question. It amazes me the reactions of some members of the website to my statements. It's obvious I am of a different caliber player than most others here. I eat, breathe, live chess 24/7. Maybe I'm a bit more dedicated than 99% of the people on RHP.

Oh yes, you're different calibre alright.
OK, so putting to one side greenpawn's views on bent PHD's, let's consider the original question.
Like it or not, and despite your obvious dedication, this is a game, and high expertise at any game is a result of talent, nurtured by hard work and training. Take away the key requirement of natural talent and the result is a wannabe, a journeyman. For every star in every game, be it a world-class footballer, golfer, bridge player or chess GM, there are tens of thousands of individuals that are not, and will never be, capable of achieving stardom because they do not have the raw talent.
You simply cannot compare expertise at a sport or a game, with academic excellence. you cannot draw comparisons. No-one thinks of Rory MacIlroy or Lionel Messi or Magnus Carlsen as 'PHD equivalents' (No-one gets a PHD at the age of 13 in any case) (or about 5 in the case of Messi), any more than Einstein or William Herschel are considered world cup winners (equiv).
Go ahead with your eating and breathing and living chess so much better than anyone else here - good luck to you - but this is still a daft thread!

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
rec'd - and it wouldn't surprise me if lectures have been given on this sort of thing... interesting study.

Adriaan de Groot did a famous study on this very subject. He got a doctorate out of it, but he never got a GM title. "Het Denken van den Schaker"/"Tought and Choice in Chess". It's an interesting read.

Natural talent is one thing.Hard work and dedication is another.It's when the two are combined that you get the world champions in any walk of life.
One without the other and sooner or later you'll hit the ceiling mentioned earlier in this thread

Originally posted by woadman
I am totally serious about this question. It amazes me the reactions of some members of the website to my statements. It's obvious I am of a different caliber player than most others here. I eat, breathe, live chess 24/7. Maybe I'm a bit more dedicated than 99% of the people on RHP.

It's sad that you actually are serious about the question. I do not believe you are in any sense positively a different caliber player then the vast majority on this site. The fact that you feel the need to speak of 'your caliber' shows a low level of confidence on your part which is perhaps reinforced by your unwillingness to play myself or Fat Lady.

Ever since your entry onto this site you've posted mostly juvenile nonsense on the forum-most of it not worthy of a response. If you were a caliber player maybe you wouldn't crack jokes about a female player on here playing topless (an inane joke, pervert, sexist, objectifying a person, inappropriate etc etc).

Here's the thread, scroll down to middle of page and you'll see woadman in his/her glory...

Thread 162671

You make statements that sound like they come at best from a highschool boy's locker room.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I think it's a good question.

A while back on another site I saw obtaining a GM title being equated to
earning a PH'd.

Of course I disagreed.

Sometimes (stress sometimes) getting a GM title depends a lot on where
you stay and how bent your federation is.

('bent as in arranging fixed FIDE events so some, if not all, of your boys
...[text shortened]... at you know, it's where you go,

GM's title - it's not what you know, it's where you are from.

Anyone who equates becoming a GM with attaining a real PhD has obviously never attempted a PhD.

I suppose to really be able to talk on the subject I would have to be a PhD and a GM, I am just the former though.

I agree it is disgustingly possible to buy PhDs or lower standards of course.

However, I feel the question is pointless if we are talking about real PhDs and real GM titles. They are not like, similar, or even analogous.

Becoming a GM requires natural talent and years of study. I've said this before and will again, with users like @roadstar in mind, study does not improve your rating by 1000 points...maybe a couple hundred at best. So attaining GM titles requires a certain level of natural talent.

Attaining a PhD requires years of study. I am a firm believer everyone possesses the ability to pursue and attain any level of education (barring disorders etc). Intelligence does not always equate to education. Some of the most intelligent people I know failed to attain their educations because they never learned the slow slog through the mud because everything was always so easy and when they hit something hard they don't know how to actually slog it through. It is dedication and hard work that attain PhDs not intelligence. Any PhD will tell you this-so I'm not alone in this opinion.

And yes, intelligence helps-I'm not denying this but it is certainly not the primary factor.

Chess titles are not academic titles, but woadman said:.... "Equivalent"
-
Of course the PhD has to be the GM in this equivalence.
-
Or you can make any equivalence ex:
-
7 Dan in Go is like an GM in Chess
a 1 Kyu GO player is a Master in Chess
-

Black belt in martial arts is the equivalent of a Chess Master

-
The President of a country is a GM
the senator is a IM
the Mayor of a city is a Master
-
So you can make "equivalences" to cross any activity or scale.

For example, now comes the caos:
-
A mamal is like a GM
a reptile is the IM
a fish is the Master
Insects are the patzers
-
program languages
Java is GM
Phyton is the IM
C is the master

-
Even with the internals of the chess is possible to make this equivalences:
-
The King is the GM
Rooks are IM
Bishop is the Master
Pawns are 1200 Elo players
-
Equivalences....
-
So woadman is rigth in the opening post, any projection of GM, IM and Master is pretty valid(GM is Red, IM is Blue, Master is Black) etc, etc...

Originally posted by Schlecter
Chess titles are not academic titles, but woadman said:.... "Equivalent"
-
Of course the PhD has to be the GM in this equivalence.
-
Or you can make any equivalence ex:
-
7 Dan in Go is like an GM in Chess
a 1 Kyu GO player ia a Master in Chess
-

Black belt in martial arts is the equivalent of a Chess Master

-
The president of a country is ...[text shortened]... r
Pawns are 1200 Elo players
-
Equivalences....
-
So woadman is rigth in the opening post

Is that like your posts being equivalent to the imagination of a 5 year old?