English Chess Forum

Does anyone know if "Super grandmaster" is definined in any dictionary
and when the term started to come about?

What would you take it to mean

It used to be an informal term for grand masters rated over 2600. It probably now should be applied to those over 2700 (not that 2600s are not very strong GMs, there are just too many of them now)

Joey Stewart wrote:It used to be an informal term for grand masters rated over 2600. It probably now should be applied to those over 2700 (not that 2600s are not very strong GMs, there are just too many of them now)

thanks for replying. Susan Polgars just tweeted me "Don't care for that term. There are grandmasters and there are classical world champions."

I guess she is right in that the term is a bit ridiculous.

Jan Gustafsson asked Peter Svidler whether 2700 is a super Gm in the WIjk commentary. Peter's view is that 2750 is now the mark, if your definition is a GM who mostly makes their living from invites to all-play-alls rather than opens. Lots of caveats of course.

The problem is that there were about 30 "official" grandmasters announced by FIDE about 65 years ago (although the term was in use before), this grew over the years, until it reached 1500 or so recently. This is too many really, and you end up talking about "weak" grandmasters and "super" grandmasters. FIDE likes titles as it can charge for them and there is a deplorable modern fad for labelling everybody. Nobody is an individual any more!

It's too many if you think grandmaster is meant to be a label for those in the world's elite. If you think it's meant to be a label for those who've reached a certain absolute standard, it's probably about right - the game has gone through a population explosion and an information explosion, so there should be many more players of that standard now than there were in 1950.

Deleted with an apology.

[quote="Phil Makepeace"]

Please tweet me this has nothing to do with chess

IM Jack Rudd wrote: the game has gone through a population explosion and an information explosion, so there should be many more players of that standard now than there were in 1950.

This is a very good point - what do Short, who thinks the title is worthless, and other critics of the title say to counteract it

Joshua Gibbs wrote:Please tweet me this has nothing to do with chess

No thanks. I think it's fair to let people know the kind of guy they're engaging with on a public forum. That's all from me.

Phil Makepeace wrote:

Joshua Gibbs wrote:Please tweet me this has nothing to do with chess

No thanks. I think it's fair to let people know the kind of guy they're engaging with on a public forum. That's all from me.

ok for the record Banks is my Mum's maiden name. If anyone wants to read about my (very boring) views on the IPCC and the Police decision making system its on my blog which is linked on twitter.

Theres random stuff about language learning and even some chess if you look.

I tried to i ntroduce the term 'ELITE GRANDMASTER' to FIDE. I was asked to do so. I didn't like the term super GM as I thought it too flashy.

Have no doubt, the 50 GMs appointed in 1950 were no better than the current 1500. Why should there not be an improvement in playing strength.There are many more opportunities. The game is better understood. Training is better. Computers are very useful.

The proposed regulations for EG that I wanted to introduce were basically 200 points higher than he GM title. Thus:
Minimum result in the tournament TPR 2800 and finishing first or second. Average rating of the opponents at least 2580.
Rating of at least 2700 at one time or another.
Only the World Champions to receive the title automatically.

At the time I looked into the matter, the only open Swiss where such a result could be obtained was Gibraltar. I suspect this is still true.
I think it was rejected because many GMs feared it would belittle their title. They did not understand that it might have led to an increase in the
number of round robins for 26o0+ players. I firmly believe that tiype of chess is better for improvement.

I introduced it the first time and it was voted down. I was asked to repeat it four years later, although I do'n think you should go over the same ground.
Agsin it was voted down.

I think the GM title is perhaps equivalent to a Ph.D, Some might say D.Sc. It is interesting that we have several English players with one or more GM norms who have never completed the requirements.

Stewart Reuben wrote:
I think the GM title is perhaps equivalent to a Ph.D, Some might say D.Sc. It is interesting that we have several English players with one or more GM norms who have never completed the requirements.

Ive heard this several times and I think it to be nonsense, without wanting to sound rude. Universities give out honorary doctorates to people who do no work but the same isnt true of GM titles. A GM title is MUCH more valuable.

I think Gary Quillan in Merseyside has a GM Norm but had to run a business? I honestly think some people just have work to do.

Stewart Reuben wrote:The proposed regulations for EG that I wanted to introduce were basically 200 points higher than he GM title. Thus:
Minimum result in the tournament TPR 2800 and finishing first or second. Average rating of the opponents at least 2580.
Rating of at least 2700 at one time or another.
Only the World Champions to receive the title automatically.

At the time I looked into the matter, the only open Swiss where such a result could be obtained was Gibraltar. I suspect this is still true.

It's not easy to tell from chess-results, because for some reason it doesn't display a player's field, only his TPR, but it looks like Eljanov and Caruana may have done it at last year's Isle of Man international.

Joshua Gibbs wrote:I think Gary Quillan in Merseyside has a GM Norm but had to run a business? I honestly think some people just have work to do.

Joshua,

I don't believe Gary has a GM norm, I have been playing tournamentsand for 3Cs in the 4NCL with him before and after he got his IM title and he has never mentioned it

Here is the ECF list of English players with GM norms

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/fide/eng ... tle-norms/