Re: 2nd GM norm for Daniel Fernandez
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:15 pm
Looks like 2329 in May 2013.Mick Norris wrote: Carl has won, for his 4th IM norm; do we know what his highest ever rating was?
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Looks like 2329 in May 2013.Mick Norris wrote: Carl has won, for his 4th IM norm; do we know what his highest ever rating was?
https://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=616753 His rating yo-yos almost as much as Jack'sIM Jack Rudd wrote:Looks like 2329 in May 2013.Mick Norris wrote: Carl has won, for his 4th IM norm; do we know what his highest ever rating was?
the CCF website wrote:
UPDATE 7.54pm - McPhillips (white) to move with Ke6, Nf1. Fernandez Ke4, Pf2, Pf5.
Drawn according to the website so an IM norm for Joseph and three rating points needed for Daniel.Alexander Hardwick wrote:the CCF website wrote:
UPDATE 7.54pm - McPhillips (white) to move with Ke6, Nf1. Fernandez Ke4, Pf2, Pf5.
I believe so, yes. To be on the ultra safe side he's not planning on playing any further games on the October rating list.Mick Norris wrote:Thanks Loz
As 2499.5 gets rounded up to 2500, does that mean Dan has done it?
LawrenceCooper wrote:I believe so, yes. To be on the ultra safe side he's not planning on playing any further games on the October rating list.Mick Norris wrote:Thanks Loz
As 2499.5 gets rounded up to 2500, does that mean Dan has done it?
It's his choice and one I respect. In terms of admin it's quicker to point to a published rating rather than having to send in the calculations, albeit it's only two games in this case. The title application is already submitted, albeit at the time it was dependent on subsequently reaching 2500.Stewart Reuben wrote:Congratulaions to Daniel.
Even if his rating dropes down, h has gained the rating. I see no advantage to stop playing. If there is an error, and he is below 2499.5, then not playing will not help.
Quite extraordinary.LawrenceCooper wrote:To be on the ultra safe side he's not planning on playing any further games on the October rating list.
It does rather suggest he's failed to understand the rules.NickFaulks wrote:Quite extraordinary.LawrenceCooper wrote:To be on the ultra safe side he's not planning on playing any further games on the October rating list.
I suggest the strategy has more to it than that.Alex Holowczak wrote:It does rather suggest he's failed to understand the rules.
You are right. But that may be because the rules are difficult to understand. From where I'm at, neither title regulation 1.53 nor the rating regulations make it clear that live ratings can be rounded (for the purposes of an application, or otherwise) whereas published ones, by definition, have been rounded. So applying for the title using a live rating of 2499.5 may not satisfy the 'greater than or equal to 2500' rule. (Indeed, it should not.) If my live were 2500.0 I would have no issue playing on.Alex Holowczak wrote:It does rather suggest he's failed to understand the rules.NickFaulks wrote:Quite extraordinary.LawrenceCooper wrote:To be on the ultra safe side he's not planning on playing any further games on the October rating list.