English Chess Forum

A little over 3 weeks to the start of the London Chess Classic and entries stand at a healthy 171. There's still time to enter though!

As e2e4 regulars will know, I try to avoid byes like the plague. Therefore, I'd like to maintain a list of players willing to act as a filler in the FIDE Open. If you can play any of the rounds (1-9 December), let me know by pm or email ([email protected]) with rounds and a contact number and I'll let you know if we need you. Please note that we are likely to be in touch only the evening before we need you!

<replaced with pm>

I really need to get to this one (work permitting...) and will see if I can get a freebie ticket as well

Is it me, or is the fact that on the press release on Chessbase (by the LCC people I presume), oor Gawain; new British Champion, is the only one not being designated a Super Grandmaster (a title which doesn't even exist) incredibly insulting to him? I mean so what he's not 2700; the guy's barely 25! I should have thought being ranked 117 in the world would be worthy of equal billing with all the other players, not to mention he's one of only three Englishmen in the event. Bit of a publicity own goal there! (Not to mention that oor Nigel is later in the same paragraph billed as both the 1992 AND 1993 World Championship finalist...)

Dan O'Dowd wrote:Is it me, or is the fact that on the press release on Chessbase (by the LCC people I presume), oor Gawain; new British Champion, is the only one not being designated a Super Grandmaster (a title which doesn't even exist) incredibly insulting to him? I mean so what he's not 2700; the guy's barely 25! I should have thought being ranked 117 in the world would be worthy of equal billing with all the other players, not to mention he's one of only three Englishmen in the event. Bit of a publicity own goal there! (Not to mention that oor Nigel is later in the same paragraph billed as both the 1992 AND 1993 World Championship finalist...)

I think a lot of people (including myself) consider Super-GM to be 2700+, but agreed that this unofficial and vague.

I don't think Gawain can be called Super-GM yet. You say Gawain is barely 25, Magnus is 3 years younger and Nakamura is the same age. I don't think age makes any difference as to whether someone is a Super-GM anyway.

It seems that the initial text including the grid on the ChessBase article is by ChessBase, the banner below has the LCC's description of the players and interestingly ranks Anand above Carlsen even though the gap between the two players is edging closer to 100!

Dan O'Dowd wrote:I should have thought being ranked 117 in the world would be worthy of equal billing with all the other players ...

117 is pretty good by mosts standards, but not when compard the field at the LCC. 117 just isn't equal to 1, 2, 3, 6 etc.

That said, I'm not sure I'd call Judit Polgar a Super GM at the moment. Once maybe. Not just now, though.

I tried to introduce a new official FIDE title 'Elite Grandmaster'. I dislike super GM as I regard it as being too brash. Basically it was goig to be like GM plus 200 points, i.e. TPR 2800, against a field at least 2580 plus having to finish first or second in the tournament.
Unfortunately, in my view, this didn't receive adequate support.

I'm looking for a filler who can play this afternoon. Any takers? PM, email or phone me (07883 495758). Thanks.

Thanks for the responses. We've now found a filler.

Looking at the results to date in the FIDE Open (after round 6):

http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2012 ... index.html

Does Peter Roberson (currently on 5/6, +4,=2,-0, two wins against GMs and two draws with IMs) have a good chance at an IM norm?

An IM norm is a 2450 performance (a GM norm is 2600). Peter Roberson is currently performing at 2596, so I'd say he had a very good chance of an IM norm.

In fact, Peter Robson is only just short of a GM norm currently.
I rather think he has achieved an IM norm even if he loses his last 3 games.

Stewart Reuben wrote:In fact, Peter Robson is only just short of a GM norm currently.
I rather think he has achieved an IM norm even if he loses his last 3 games.

Peter Roberson (2350), not Robson. And he drew today against an IM, so still well on course (the IM norm looks almost certain now). TPR has dropped slightly to 2583, and he has White tomorrow against Hawkins. To put this in context, another FM (Rafal Gunajew, from Poland, 2260) also on 5.5/7 has a TPR of 2386 and an untitled player from Venezuela (Andres Guerrero, 2206) is also on 5.5/7 with a TPR of 2454.

Round 8 pairings are here:

http://www.classic.livechess.co.uk/2012 ... rings.html

Williams-Melkumyan (both on 6/7) is the board 1 clash. No less than 15 assorted IMs, GMs and the two FMs and the untitled player I mentioned above, form the chasing pack on 5.5/7. Home interest along with Williams includes Houska, Hawkins, Hebden, Roberson and Rowson.

Matthew Turner wrote:An IM norm is a 2450 performance (a GM norm is 2600).

Has this changed much over time? Didn't it used to be something like IM = 2300 and GM = 2500?

Greg Breed >Has this changed much over time? Didn't it used to be something like IM = 2300 and GM = 2500?<

The requirement of 2450 performance for an IM norm has not changed since the introduction of the system in about 1970. The minimum rating level required changed from 2350 to 2400 many years ago.

The 2600 performance for a GM norm last changed in about 1979 from 2550. I don' think the minimum rating level requirement has changed from 2500, but could be wrong.