English Chess Forum

Hi all, could someone help with the following. I found the article below on the Telegraph website

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/ches ... ateur.html

I'm a little confused here as this is the first time I have ever heard a GM described as an amateur. Is there a history between the author and the player concerned? If I were a GM and I had someone who had not only a lower rating but a lower title calling me an amateur and publicizing it, I'd be pretty unhappy about it. So for now, I am assuming there is a history of animosity between GM Norwood and IM Pein or am I reading too much into it?

Ah, doesn't he mean Norwood and doesn't he go out of his way to explain that Norwood is an amateur now, i.e. it's not intended to denigrate?

Okay, do you really read it that way? I don't. GM Norwood still has his title, it seems disrespectful to describe him so...but I stand to be corrected.

GM Luke McShane doesn't play much and has a regular job but I don't hear anyone calling him an amateur.

I do, all the time, albeit in the context of the phrase "perhaps the world's strongest amateur".

The opposite to "amateur" is "professional", isn't it? I think that most non-professional GMs are entirely happy to be referred to as amateurs on that basis, and not surprisingly given the meagre prospects of most of those GMs who do try to make a living through playing.

Norwood certainly wouldn't blink at the description. He described his reasons for not turning professional more than 25 years ago.

Hmmm, okay well I just thought that the title over-rides all. I understand the need to write a headline, I just read it differently I guess. I thought once a GM always a GM. Maybe you're right after so long he doesn't care but I can't help but feel that there's a bit more to it than that.

I agree with everything which Julian has said.

I can't find anything in Malcolm Pein's article which is in the least disrespectful towards David Norwood. Nor would I have expected to have done so.

David Sedgwick wrote: I can't find anything in Malcolm Pein's article which is in the least disrespectful towards David Norwood. Nor would I have expected to have done so.

Agreed.

Aside from anything else, there’s no reason to assume that the author of an article has anything to do with the headline of that article when it appears.

And also agreed re: the other Jonathan. I use 'amateur GM' all the time - including for Luke McShane.

Not all Grandmasters are professionals, and not all professionals are Grandmasters...

If anything the headline was being a bit mischievous at Wesley So's expense!

So you would understand the term 'amateur' to mean someone who doesn't make a living by playing chess? So, in theory, we could have an amateur 2800 player? That's an oxymoron to me, there's got to be a better way to put it.

MJMcCready wrote:So you would understand the term 'amateur' to mean someone who doesn't make a living by playing chess?

Yup. That’s English. English with a word borrowed from French, true, but English nonetheless.


Depending on context it is possible to use the word 'amateur' as another way of saying 'not very good' but that’s clearly not what is meant here.

Well technically, you could have an amateur 2800, but to reach that level and maintain it would require professional levels of dedication, so the player would pretty much have to be a professional. A 2800 player who stops playing wouldn't be called an amateur either, as they would probably make a living as an ambassador for the game.

I think the 'problem' with the word amateur is that it technically means someone who doesn't make a living from the game, but that the word also means 'someone who's not very good at something'.

MJMcCready wrote:So you would understand the term 'amateur' to mean someone who doesn't make a living by playing chess? So, in theory, we could have an amateur 2800 player? That's an oxymoron to me, there's got to be a better way to put it.

It's not an oxymoron at all, it's what the word means! I'm sure there are several (active) English GMs who would be quite comfortable in being described as "amateur". Being an amateur yet able to compete at the level of professionals only paints them in a good light (in practice I think that in many cases these "amateur GMs" will still approach serious games in a pretty professional manner, even if they pretend not to!).

Of course the fact that some people might misunderstand the word "amateur" to mean "weak" is why its use in the context was perhaps a bit mischievous.

Richard Bates wrote: I'm sure there are several (active) English GMs who would be quite comfortable in being described as "amateur".

Ok, not sure if I can agree. I thought they preferred to be called by their title and that alone but I don't know.

MJMcCready wrote:So you would understand the term 'amateur' to mean someone who doesn't make a living by playing chess?

Not just playing, any commercial activity to do with chess. Norwood wouldn't have qualified in the days when he was an author and chess columnist. Actually does Luke still have a column?

The term "amateur" is being used with its "not being paid" meaning, rather than its "load of rubbish" meaning.