Master points

[Gavin Hughes]

The ECF, for those unaware, have titles for players reaching certain grade levels. At the top end for instance, a player with a 200A+ grade for two years in a row can claim a National Master title. The "starter" title is the chess maestro title awarded to players graded 95A or above.

The question is can you get these titles with an rp A grade or are they sp exclusive? Many players are better (sometimes a lot better) at rapid than sp.

[Roger Lancaster]

ECF website seems clear enough. Titles (a) and (b) below based on ANY grading list, remainder standard play only.

(a) Chess Maestro: A player must achieve a grade of at least 95 on any ECF official grading list.
(b) Team Master: A player must achieve a grade of at least 120 on any ECF official grading list.
(c) Club Master: A player must achieve a standard play A or B grade of at least 145 on an ECF official grading list.
(d) County Master: A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 170 on an ECF official grading list.
(e) Regional Master: A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 185 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).
(f) National Master: A player must achieve a standard play A grade of at least 200 in two successive seasons on ECF official grading lists (note – grades must be 12 months apart e.g. July 2012, July 2013).

[Leonard Barden]

The ECF, for those unaware, have titles for players reaching certain grade levels. At the top end for instance, a player with a 200A+ grade for two years in a row can claim a National Master title.

To become a British Master 60 years ago you needed (I write from memory which may not be exact) one appearance at 234+, two or three at 225+, or around six at 216+.

[David Robertson]

Didn't we have a ruck about this 'Master point' nonsense in here a decade back. I distinctly remember vast scorn being heaped on the term Chess Maestro for players who would barely know one end of the board from another. I'm surprised ECF hasn't sunk the entire lot in a deep ocean trench. Then again, I've been saying the same about the Nat Clubs Championship, and that still zombies along

[Roger Lancaster]

Well, turning the clock back 60 years, there was an entire generation of British players (including Leonard) who never gained the titles that their playing strengths warranted or probably warranted. Best example is perhaps Jonathan Penrose who, top board for England in successive Olympiads, beat then world champion Mikhail Tal in 1960 and won individual silver medals in 1962 and 1968, but who remained an IM throughout his playing career, receiving the IGM title only long after he had retired from over-the-board play.

[Ian Thompson]

The ECF, for those unaware, have titles for players reaching certain grade levels. At the top end for instance, a player with a 200A+ grade for two years in a row can claim a National Master title.

To become a British Master 60 years ago you needed (I write from memory which may not be exact) one appearance at 234+, two or three at 225+, or around six at 216+.

... and my recollection, also not necessarily exact, is that 25 - 30 years ago you needed to be graded 226+ twice or 213+ four times. Getting the FM title also counted as two of the four 213+ gradings. That was at a time when the FIDE requirement to get the FM title was a 2300+ rating for 25 games, unlike now, when it's 1 game.

[Alex Holowczak]

Didn't we have a ruck about this 'Master point' nonsense in here a decade back. I distinctly remember vast scorn being heaped on the term Chess Maestro for players who would barely know one end of the board from another. I'm surprised ECF hasn't sunk the entire lot in a deep ocean trench. Then again, I've been saying the same about the Nat Clubs Championship, and that still zombies along

No it doesn't, the National Club isn't running in 2019.

The Master Points system, unlike the National Club, isn't something I've tried to do anything about or put any thought into. I see it in the budget once per year with some nominal amount of income alongside it, and then forget about it for another twelve months.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Didn't we have a ruck about this 'Master point' nonsense in here a decade back. I distinctly remember vast scorn being heaped on the term Chess Maestro for players who would barely know one end of the board from another. I'm surprised ECF hasn't sunk the entire lot in a deep ocean trench. Then again, I've been saying the same about the Nat Clubs Championship, and that still zombies along

I must admit I've managed to play competitive chess for over twenty years without realising that I've been eligible for a title (Team Master in my case). I certainly have no intention of forking out £10 for the privilege of claiming my title.

And yet ... there is that underbelly of chess players even we forget about. These are the people who might have played with their Dad thirty years ago, who went to the school chess club twice in the 1970s before getting bored or who occasionally play a free playing program online for want of something to do (this list is hardly exhaustive). To these players who know the moves and nothing else a 95 graded player would probably seem to be a `maestro`. Many of my non chess friends think I must be better than I actually am.

Of course I explain that there are infinitely stronger players than and certainly wouldn't take any pride in any worthless title. But to a young and improving player that incentive and little reward, together with a gradual scale of improvement, might provide useful encouragement. So it has a place.

[Gavin Hughes]

Titles in chess give people something to aim for. They give students a sense of achievement and purpose in a scalable form. It is a positive didactic approach to improving the national standard of chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is a positive didactic approach to improving the national standard of chess.

The grading system has been doing that for sixty years or more. Being a "180s player" ranks well above being a "140s player".

[Gavin Hughes]

It is a positive didactic approach to improving the national standard of chess.

The grading system has been doing that for sixty years or more. Being a "180s player" ranks well above being a "140s player".

True. The titles add value.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Maestro can be used to describe a "distinguished figure in any sphere" and master "having or showing very great skill or proficiency", so that could be confusing. Why have only one title not called master?

I have no wish to denigrate people graded under 100. I recall overhearing two players graded 70 odd, who seemed to attend every weekender or RP in the London area (so they played a lot more than I did), and one said, "I'm playing X this round." and the other said, "ooh, he's very strong he's graded nearly 100!" It's all relative, and if you didn't have a room full of those players, tournaments would not run.

I think Alex's approach is best - I assume nobody applies for the titles anyway. One tournament organizer said he wouldn't label my name with Candidate Master as it was irrelevant and didn't count for anything. Given the strength of the opposition, he was right.

[Alex Holowczak]

I must admit I've managed to play competitive chess for over twenty years without realising that I've been eligible for a title (Team Master in my case). I certainly have no intention of forking out £10 for the privilege of claiming my title.

I remember when Roger dubbed the scheme a "fiver for a title" on here, back when it was £5. Soon thereafter, the decision was taken to increase it to £10. Maybe I should increase it to £20 now that it's come up again?!

[Alex Holowczak]

I think Alex's approach is best - I assume nobody applies for the titles anyway. One tournament organizer said he wouldn't label my name with Candidate Master as it was irrelevant and didn't count for anything. Given the strength of the opposition, he was right.

There's normally double digits of pounds at the end of the year, never a multiple of 10 due to VAT.

[David Sedgwick]

Didn't we have a ruck about this 'Master point' nonsense in here a decade back. I distinctly remember vast scorn being heaped on the term Chess Maestro for players who would barely know one end of the board from another. I'm surprised ECF hasn't sunk the entire lot in a deep ocean trench. Then again, I've been saying the same about the Nat Clubs Championship, and that still zombies along

No it doesn't, the National Club isn't running in 2019.

The Master Points system, unlike the National Club, isn't something I've tried to do anything about or put any thought into. I see it in the budget once per year with some nominal amount of income alongside it, and then forget about it for another twelve months.

Like Kevin, I too respect weaker players, the vast majority of whom have no wish to pump themselves up. Players graded 120 understand that they are not Masters and do not take up the ECF's kind offer to proclaim them as such for a payment of £10.

When the scheme was introduced in the 1990s, I was urged to support it. In those days you qualified for the Regional Master title by obtaining norms. I accepted an offer of a short draw in the last round of a tournament as that would give me a Regional Master norm.

Shortly afterwards the Regulations were changed with retrospective effect and my norm was disallowed. At that point I lost all interest in the scheme.

I am in the rare position of finding myself in total agreement with David R. I hope that the new Director of Home Chess will quickly scrap this scheme.