Foreign Requirement for Titles

On yesterday's Pardon our Blunders on chess.com/tv, we had guest co-host US Jr. Champion Sam Shankland.

My first topic was specially designed for him:

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

1. Should FIDE lessen the foreigner requirement for title norms in large countries that don't border many other countries? (USA, Canada, Russia, Australia...

by the way, I know Russia borders a lot of countries, but if you were somewhere in the middle of Russia, you'd be far from many foreigners.

Do games on chess.com count towards norms?

no. norms are achieved in over the board play at FIDE-sanctioned events that meet a variety of requirements.

IMO, it would be a great marketing strategy.

I wouldn't repeal the rule entirely, but I would allow Fide the option to recognize events of a certain stature (national championships) and size (World Open).

Wow, that is a really interesting point bsrasmus!!! Maybe instead of thinking of the US as harder, we should realize that the rest of the world (in regards to this topic) is a litle soft... Who knows?

I personally beleive that the FIDE regulations are fine as is, and I believe it is the organizer's responsibility to create enough incentive for both titled and foreigners to play -- thus providing all the opportunities for norms that ambitious players need...

And no, an organizer should NEVER manipulate pairings to favor or allow for norm opportunities. Either a player plays well enough, and gets enough foreigners, or the player doesn't... That's it!!!

i still think the GM title is pretty special.

but it seems most people agree that it is easier to earn in Europe than anywhere else.

 What are you talking about?

Also i agree they should loosen it up abit.. Here in Canada its very hard to achieve such a title.

I don't know what Sam had to say about this on chess.com TV, but obviously after the Philadelphia Open he was pretty upset by FIDE GM standards.

But, yeah, there's got to be a "foreign" requirement.  And yeah, that does put a special burden on US players and on any players that are physically or financially separated from the hotbeds of chess.

Let's face it, chess is not baseball...it's not an American game.  Maybe it was an American game briefly in 1859, and maybe in 1972, and maybe it will be again.  But it isn't now.  And that is a bigger obstacle to American chess than any set of FIDE requirements.

Amy

but bsrasmus, the number of people competing in international chess competitions has grown tremendously. thus i don't think the standard of play of GMs has fallen-- it's just that they are selected from a larger pool of contestants.

if you want GM to mean "top 100" that is one thing-- but then one might as well just look at the rating list? if on the other hand, GM is supposed to indicate a certain high level of play, i don't think you'll find many of today's GMs lacking.

The requirement may seem weird, but it gives the GM-holder some sort of international respect and credibility. I.e. proves that he/she can play on par with strong players from different countries, not only his/her own region (which may be weaker or stronger than the average pool).

I agree with this.

Gm's are special, but not as special as they used to be, if you know what I mean.

1000 and something GM's are too many, it diminishes the title IMO.

I reckon 10 or so titles per year should be awarded.

"Chess.com- Get your international norms here!!"

Looks like this idea was shelved.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-buzz/fide-sanctioned-facebook-tournaments

Maybe the requirement should be a certain number of players from a different continent?

Then if you're in Yekaterinburg you could just pop over the Urals. However it is set up, some people will have an advantage.

definitely agreed: it will always be someone's advantage. the question is always "is it too far out of line?"

A compromise solution may be to provide two roads to the norm: (1) the status quo play X people from different countries, or (2) gain your norm within your own region/country but only at X, Y and Z particular tournament (which tournament must meet certain FIDE criteria to ensure that it is not the type of Yankee-friendly gerrymandering GM-creating tournament that the original rule was implemented to prevent in the first instance).

I think the foreign requirement also limits the ability of people in a pocket of lesser talent from getting an apparently good-looking record.

i like jhb's idea that you could designate a few tournaments which are known to be international in their scope, eg world open, and then even if someone plays 2 or 3 foreigners, everyone knows they were playing in an intl event, and won't question the exception.

also ivan i think you are right, avoiding pockets of over-rated players creating weaker IMs+GMs could be another original reason for this rule.