English Chess Forum

Really enjoyed this Chessbase report on chess in Botswana:

http://en.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/ ... 30513.aspx

Not sure though about the awarding of the IM title for the winners of these zonals. Does anyone have a way to reliably identify for all FIDE titles ever awarded (i.e. both the living and the dead), the origin of those titles, and to get an idea about what percentage are non-norm titles, i.e. awarded for winning events?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Not sure though about the awarding of the IM title for the winners of these zonals.

It's a practice that goes back many years. It has its points in that it facilitates Norm events in countries with few titled players.

In UK chess history there were a number of IM titles awarded by FIDE in the early 1950s based on historic achievement. After that, the only new British IM title was obtained by Penrose, until Levy of Scotland got the second in 1969 by scoring above 67% in a Zonal.

More recent title holders have their means of obtaining the title documented on the FIDE site. I'm not aware of any searchable database given the qualifications for every titled player. One way of searching is to look for titled players with ratings below the standard you might expect. You need to filter those with low ratings due to advancing age.

Rupert Jones is your expert
http://yorkshirechess.org/boleswa-fide- ... t-success/

http://yorkshirechess.org/interview-fm-rupert-jones/

THE FIDE GOLDEN BOOK by Willy Iclicki covers 1924 - 2002. Of course it has some errors, but is a considerable work.

My view is that what are called 'the direct titles' for adults should no longer be in the regulations. There are now many more opportunities to get norms. The ECU has done away with zonals so that option isn't available in Europe. The Asian titles are mainly deserved.
It is the Central American and African ones that bring the system into disrepute. I have referred to them as 'lollipop' titles. Somes IMs are not even FIDE Rated.
Most of the IM titles obtained in junior championships are fine. Some very young children have obtained titles. Luke McShane won the World U10 at 8 and became an FM. Josh Altman last year got the CM title. I don'tg think this does any harm.

But IM titles in zonals? I am not sure that this is in the best interests of the player when he is just rated about 2200 or lower!

Politically it would be very difficult to do away with these title regulations from zones. I tried, the QC agreed, but Allan Herbert (Barbados) made a very strong case and the change was shelved.

Rather than award a title that represents a certain strength, ability and commitment over time to the game why not create a title specifically for this sort of thing? Honorary Chess Master or something...

There used to be FIDE Honorary GM and IM titles. This was particularly useful for older Soviet players who had been denied the opportunity to travel when at their best. Eventually any new appointments was discontinued.
Similarly from 1 July 2013, all norms prior to 2003 will no longer count, unless registered prior to that date.
Of course sometimes people got the title because their representative was persuasive.
Now the regulations have become more user-friendly, unclear titles are rare. The FIDE Rating System only started in 1970.
The players appointed GM in 1950 were all appointed on the basis of the committee 'feeling' they deserved the title. There were about 27 of them.

Stewart Reuben wrote: Similarly from 1 July 2013, all norms prior to 2003 will no longer count, unless registered prior to that date.

I do hope some countries whose representatives in this area are less efficient than the ones for England don't end up having large number of older norms lost in this way. That would be rather unfair. Or to put that another way, I hope efforts have been made to ensure that this change is widely known and efforts make to help those players who may have had problems with dealing with their national organisations to get older norms registered with FIDE.

I am currently in extensive correspondence about a 1986 WGM norm for Christine Flear. We canot find the rule that justifies the assertion made in that period that she obtained the norm at the Olympiad. The current chairman is less patient with such research.

Geurt Gijssen and I once discussed this. We agreed that there must be many norms and titles unclaimed due to ignorance. e.g.
16 year old Pentala Harikrishna came to London to play in the Commowealth Championship.
Me, 'What is your position regarding the GM title?'
Pentala, 'I need another norm because I don't have an all-play-all one.'
Me, 'But didn't you get a norm at the Olympiad?'
Pentala, 'Yes.'
Me, 'The Olympiad is counted as if it were an apa. You have met the requirements.'

The Secretary of the Indian CF came in for some criticism in newspapers for not knowing the rules. Unfair in my opinion. Pentala won the Commonwealth title, returned to India and was given a house by the local government.

I was unable to persuade the QC that all norms and titles should be generated automatically by computer and the federations then alerted.

Stewart Reuben wrote:I was unable to persuade the QC that all norms and titles should be generated automatically by computer and the federations then alerted.

Is this actually possible given the complexity of some of the rules?

Stewart Reuben wrote: I was unable to persuade the QC that all norms and titles should be generated automatically by computer and the federations then alerted.

It's a start at least to have Norms recorded on the FIDE rating site. I would have thought it a relatively simple extension of the rating process to have potential Norm qualifications flagged, even if intervention was required to ratify them. There's enough data available to compute this even if the rules regarding the count of players from the same Federation come into consideration.

It would be simple working only on the current regulations. The late Richard Furness provided a norm calculator for 9-11 rounds. Of course it is out-of-date as the regulations have changed.
The main problem has been establishing the old regulations. We used to have to rely on the memory of the late Mikko Markulla. Now Michalis does an excellent job. There is an unresolved English norm that will have to be decided at the FIDE Congress. Chris Duncan got a TPR 2450+ in Hastings. But that method of calculation didn't come in until later. According to the regulations only category norms were acceptable. But I had seen people being awarded titles on that basis earlier, although not a member of the commission of the time. Thus the validity depends on the commission accepting my fallible memory.

Stewart Reuben wrote:It would be simple working only on the current regulations. The late Richard Furness provided a norm calculator for 9-11 rounds. Of course it is out-of-date as the regulations have changed.

The simplest approach would be to determine and record the Norm at the time of the rating submissions. It only gets complicated if you change the rules and then want to backdate some additional claims.

Of course. But this wasn't done at the time and still isn't done as far as I know.

There was a considerable amount of plea-bargaining until 2003.

If they used the current regulations about ignoring games after a norm was achieved, Bill Hartston would be a GM. After 13 rounds he had the norm at Hastings and then lost his last two games.