Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 19 May '11 16:12
    It may be an old fashioned term but how does the numerical rating compare to the term Grand Master?
    For example I see that the highest rated player is at 2380. So is that Grand Master level. Might be useful if you explain the term Grand Master as well 😉
  2. 19 May '11 17:45
    Originally posted by ludio
    It may be an old fashioned term but how does the numerical rating compare to the term Grand Master?
    It doesn't, strictly speaking. You have to get a number of "norms", that is, tournament results of a certain standard. There is a minimum rating floor in many cases, but even that can be lifted in unusual cases. Here is a link to (since we're on a correspondence site) the ICCF title requirements: http://www.iccf.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=51
    FIDE has similar, but more complex rules for OTB ratings and titles.

    For example I see that the highest rated player is at 2380. So is that Grand Master level.

    Not even close. For FIDE, that would be just about IM. For the ICCF, it's not even that. Except for Ladies' GM, but there are no ladies on the internet (there's barely any women).

    Richard
  3. 19 May '11 20:52
    generally speaking a FIDE rating of appr. 2500+ equals GM strength.
  4. 19 May '11 21:08
    Thanks for the info.
    Here is a quote from that site which I find surprising:

    "Titles is [are] dependent upon achieving Norms (linked to Ratings) in ICCF International Title events. Listed below are the various ICCF Titles with the minimum Rating performances required to achieve a Norm in each:
    Grandmaster - 2600 Senior International Master - 2500
    International Master - 2450
    Ladies Grandmaster - 2300
    International Ladies Master - 2150 "

    Why on earth are the ladies requirements lower than the mens?
    In most physical activities most men can out perform most women, if the men can be botther to put the required effort in to the task. So a lower standard for women is understandable. It's biology!
    However chess isn't exactly physical, so are the ICCF saying that women are mentally inferior to men and have to be compensated by 300 points?
    If I were a woman, I'd be quite insulted by that!
  5. 19 May '11 21:38
    Originally posted by ludio
    Thanks for the info.
    Here is a quote from that site which I find surprising:

    "Titles is [are] dependent upon achieving Norms (linked to Ratings) in ICCF International Title events. Listed below are the various ICCF Titles with the minimum Rating performances required to achieve a Norm in each:
    Grandmaster - 2600 Senior International Master - 2500
    Inter ...[text shortened]... nd have to be compensated by 300 points?
    If I were a woman, I'd be quite insulted by that!
    When a male plays chess, 100% of the brain is used to concentrate on the task in hand. Women, however, always reserve part of their brain for shopping for shoes. FIDE know this, which is why womens ratings are pro-rata.
  6. 19 May '11 22:43
    Originally posted by ludio
    Thanks for the info.
    Here is a quote from that site which I find surprising:

    "Titles is [are] dependent upon achieving Norms (linked to Ratings) in ICCF International Title events. Listed below are the various ICCF Titles with the minimum Rating performances required to achieve a Norm in each:
    Grandmaster - 2600 Senior International Master - 2500
    Inter ...[text shortened]... nd have to be compensated by 300 points?
    If I were a woman, I'd be quite insulted by that!
    Both men and women often have better things to do than playing chess. Unfortunately men aren't so good at realising this so waste more time mucking about with little lumps of wood on 64 squares. As a consequence they become very good at chess but crap at important stuff. Ladies usually do know that chess is less important than real life and therefore can't be arsed to expend as much effort on pointless wood rearrangement.
  7. 20 May '11 06:24
    Originally posted by Diophantus
    Both men and women often have better things to do than playing chess. Unfortunately men aren't so good at realising this so waste more time mucking about with little lumps of wood on 64 squares. As a consequence they become very good at chess but crap at important stuff. Ladies usually do know that chess is less important than real life and therefore can't be arsed to expend as much effort on pointless wood rearrangement.
    ''............on pointless wood rearrangement''


    Sounds like my wife, with garden furniture.
  8. 20 May '11 07:17
    Originally posted by michael liddle
    When a male plays chess, 100% of the brain is used to concentrate on the task in hand. Women, however, always reserve part of their brain for shopping for shoes. FIDE know this, which is why womens ratings are pro-rata.
    lol
  9. 20 May '11 08:24
    Originally posted by michael liddle
    ''............on pointless wood rearrangement''


    Sounds like my wife, with garden furniture.
    But is she a grandmaster of garden furniture?
  10. 20 May '11 16:42
    Thanks for the hhhmm... interesting replies to the issue of why women are required to achieve a lower standard for the same title.

    I'm sure there must be more considerations, so... keep 'em coming 🙂
  11. 21 May '11 09:58
    Originally posted by ludio
    Thanks for the hhhmm... interesting replies to the issue of why women are required to achieve a lower standard for the same title.

    I'm sure there must be more considerations, so... keep 'em coming 🙂
    Yeah. Statistics. We may not fully understand why (many reasonable reasons have been put forward, but they all apply only to most, not all, women; and all of them seem to be considered insulting by those few women who are acknowledged exceptions), but there simply are fewer women who even want to play high level chess, and consequently, also fewer who succeed.
    Note that it is not illegal for a woman to hold a GM (not WGM, certainly not MGM, plain GM) title. Even fewer exist who succeed at that, but they do exist. Judit Polgár is still the most well-known, but there are others.

    Richard
  12. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    22 May '11 23:42
    Originally posted by ludio
    It may be an old fashioned term but how does the numerical rating compare to the term Grand Master?
    For example I see that the highest rated player is at 2380. So is that Grand Master level. Might be useful if you explain the term Grand Master as well 😉
    The International titles are not calculated based upon rating, and generally form a dividing line between professionals and non pro's (though not always).
  13. Standard member ChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    22 May '11 23:53
    I'd be a Grandmaster if I didn't suck. 😕
  14. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    23 May '11 03:32
    Originally posted by ChessPraxis
    I'd be a Grandmaster if I didn't suck. 😕
    I guess that depends on just what....