English Chess Forum

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 02, 2026 12:38 am

In the beginning titles were actually awarded and didn't depend on norms at all, as I am sure you know.

Yes, I did know that. The system of norms was introduced in 1957. Penrose was awarded his IM title under that system four years later, so I do not see how the period prior to 1957 is relevant.

Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 01, 2026 7:49 pm

Though looking at it another way I regard "honorary" GM's as proper GMs anyway tbh, what else is such a status if not an admission by FIDE that the title should have been awarded earlier?

I don't think that is true at all. I don't even understand what "should have been awarded" means.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 30, 2026 7:17 pm

Hmm. So Malcolm's influence so far has been zero?

The charitable view is that it is too early to say.

Of the agreed points, some were always going to happen, some are unlikely to happen and some are difficult to measure. Those relating to Commission appointments will be an early test.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 27, 2026 12:49 pm

A doubt there's a desire in FIDE and the ECU to modify this dilution of the title system.

There certainly is within FIDE, not so much within FIDE Council. We shall see whether the new management is interested.

But it is more than 7 - see Peng Zhaoqin above in 2004. Ah yes, that one. In 2003, when the European lobby was in the ascendency, they somehow pushed through a rule that a 2600+ performance in the European Women's Championship procured a direct GM title. This nonsense wasn't widely noticed until 20...

Shorter version of the above: where do you get "as a general rule" and "say, by 13" and "about two years" from? Is it anecdotal, an impression you have? Based on fifteen years of checking and/or approving every one of these things and subsequently taking an active interest. The information required...

Broadly speaking, Russians out, Kazakhs in.

It is interesting that such commentators are confident enough to say this. Probably because they have seen this trajectory before and can recognise what they are seeing. As a general rule, and in the absence of lockdown distortions, players who achieve their IM title at an early age, say by 13, get...

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 25, 2026 12:07 am

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2026 10:40 pm

Is it known who "we" are? I'm sorry if this question leads to someone else watching the thing.

It appears to be a website by the name of king takes king

I know that, but I have a feeling that isn't their real name.

Wow, Jon Arnott's performance had passed me by.

Is it known who "we" are? I'm sorry if this question leads to someone else watching the thing.

Nick, obviously, the ECF would need to inform them as a prelude, or as part of, the consultation. We're going round in circles. It can't be the job of the ECF to institute a consultation regarding any half-baked idea that comes their way. The proposers should do that - more properly, they should ha...

"Isn't it a bit early in the proceedings to pass such a judgement? Perhaps other players would like to have a say." When I suggested this earlier, I meant other players from the wider ECF membership How many of them even know about it? I doubt that most have read through the Council papers in detail.

Derrick Walker wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:50 am

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 24, 2026 9:00 am

Whilst leaving the board whilst your clock is running is technically banned

It is not banned, technically or otherwise.

Someone should explain that to Fair Play Commission.

I don't think a good case has been made for all this proposed complexity. If organisers are concerned about this issue (I'm not suggesting it has to be ignored) then why not alter the time control from (say) 90+30 to 93+30 ? In the (very) old days, the clocks used to be set with two extra minutes t...