Are FMs stronger than GMs?

A noob FM came in 2nd in titled Tuesday today beating super GMs. Are FMs better than GMs? 

I recall a few quotes

"2nd class players beat 1st class players because sometimes 2nd class players play 1st class moves."

and

(when asked why he lost to a lower rated player) "My rating doesn't protect me against good moves." 

Lol no. It could be someone who is a GM, but never updated on his prof

So FMs are grandmasters that haven't updated their profile

Yeah, now you've got it.

Good for you. You're a big boy now.

I once drew with a GM who defeated Bobby Fischer at Rovinj/Zagreb 1970. Does that mean that I'm in fact better than both Fischer and Spassky? A year prior to that game I drew with a lad rated E1200. Does that mean that in one year I improved from being a player basically worse than anyone who isn't an absolute beginner to a player of world champion-beating calibre?

Yes, joined 5 hours ago

GrantMacDonaldYT: Of course, it does! You and me, Champ!

GrantMacDonaldYT: Come, come! Now you're just being modest!

TakeThisPawn: The above little conversation between GrantMacDonaldYT and yours truly should answer your question.

just me

An FM can be as strong as some GMs. The titles are based on different things: FM is earned by achieving a specified rating, while IM and GM require norms, which are earned by obtaining specified results in FIDE events. It's entirely possible for a very strong player to become an FM but not play in enough international tournaments to get the norms for IM or GM.

A fellow I used to know, Milan Vukcevich, fell into that category. He was an FM but devoted his life to teaching and scientific research instead of chess competition. His consolation for that choice was considerable: nomination for a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, winning against a number of GMs in his infrequent chess tournaments, and induction into the Chess Hall of Fame as a problem composer.

I have 4 current grand masters under my belt but am rated low here as my son played a few games without me knowing it. 

Exactly. There are far too many players who are looking at their absolute top results or achievements, conveniently forgetting that on all other days they've been playing, they've not been of or anywhere near GM strength. I've drawn with three GMs, beaten two IMs (and a couple of draws), and have beaten FMs.  However, I've also drawn and lost against lower-rated players where the rating difference was much greater than against the above-mentioned GMs, IMs and FMs. The real indicator of a player's strength is their rating, because it's an average of their results.

Yes, they can be, but it is highly unusual. Furthermore, to become a GM, you have to consistently perform at a level much higher than an FM to get the title. Without going into too great detail (since the exact requirements vary slightly, and there are some special events where you can get the title directly such as the Junior World Championship), these days to become a GM, first of all, you have to score three performances above E2600 against fields including at least three GMs (or if it's two GMs and two IMs) over nearly 30 games. In addition to this you must get your rating above E2500. The same goes for an IM, but there the performance is above E2500 and the rating above E2400. An FM only needs to get above E2300 once or actually win an official amateur or youth championship, which means that there are plenty of FMs well below E2000.

It's obvious that, as a rule, a GM will be considerably stronger than an FM. There's marked difference in the level of consistency required.

T