Reading between the lines... .

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:29 pm

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?
Last edited by MJMcCready on Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10579
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:36 pm

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?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:44 pm

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.

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:45 pm

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

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 5155
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:53 pm

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.

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:59 pm

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.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:08 pm

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.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:22 pm

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.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3493
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:24 pm

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!

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:51 pm

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.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:00 pm

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.

Niall Doran
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Niall Doran » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:04 pm

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'.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3493
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:04 pm

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.

User avatar
MJMcCready
Posts: 4418
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by MJMcCready » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:08 pm

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.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 22691
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Reading between the lines... .

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:08 pm

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.

Post Reply