Jumping titles

[NickFaulks]

When norms are achieved by performing at a certain rating level against opponents of a minimum average rating why should it matter at all what title those players have, or don't have?

I can offer a couple of answers, although it is possible that neither will satisfy you.

There is an argument that a player who wishes to join the "GM club" should prove themself against existing members of that club. Of course, it doesn't matter if they lose to all of them, which has always struck me as a little inconsistent.

A GM title is sold as a meal ticket for life, making the player likely to receive conditions from tournament organisers hoping to produce title norms. This is particularly true for round robins. [ Before anyone leaps in, I am not suggesting that a GM title automatically puts you on a path to obscene riches. ]

[Joey Stewart]

I never thought this would happen but I do very much agree with nick here - the title is one of great prestige and should not be obtainable in underhanded ways, piggybacking off masters past their prime.

[NickFaulks]

I'm trying to remember the rationale for FIDE stopping 2 GMs being acceptable in place of 3 IMs in IM norm all-play-all tournaments. Nick F will undoubtedly know the answer.

I suppose because a GM is still only one player, not one and a half players. It was the previous approach that I found strange.

[LawrenceCooper]

I'm trying to remember the rationale for FIDE stopping 2 GMs being acceptable in place of 3 IMs in IM norm all-play-all tournaments. Nick F will undoubtedly know the answer.

I suppose because a GM is still only one player, not one and a half players. It was the previous approach that I found strange.

Fair comment. It also provides consistency for the respective norm requirements (3 specific titles + 2 other) which is probably a good thing.