what does CM stand for? 
Chess Titles GM, IM, FM, CM - devalued !
Sort:
PimpSlap wrote:
Though I do have a question: Those listed as FM,CM,NM or GM`s are they indeed titled players? I mean how does chess.com verify that.
Just curious coz if I ever choose to take training from listed coaches who have marked themselves as titled are really titled
Think you have to send in your certificate, or a scan at least. It's in the FAQ.
baddogno wrote:
Awarding titles to juniors for winning certain tournaments is a symptom of our times. It's like 12 year olds with black belts in martial arts. Nice to encourage the youngsters but everyone knows it's not real. Of course we also have "celebrities" who are famous for nothing other than being famous so chess is just going along with the rest of the world.
I've got to disagree. The best junior player in the world is deserving of the title they're awarded. They have the playing strength or they wouldn't have it. I believe even Bobby Fischer was only awarded the GM title because he qualified to play in the interzonals for the world championship. If he wasen't GM strength he'd have never made it that far. It was nothing more or less than recognizing their strength for what it is.
No argument here from me, Ron. The article which the OP cited however (which you may not have read 
) notes that under 8 champions are being awarded FM titles while playing far below that rating. Surely you're not saying that a 7 year old who's rated below 2000 can seriously be considered to be an FM?
baddogno, you're right. Under 8 champs getting a FM title is pretty absurd when their playing strength doesn't reflect it.
I think there are just a lot more strong players now which is the reason for so many more GMs and IMs. When you can train against computers its no longer just those guys from Moscow or London that can play decent competition. Anyone can even if they live in a little cabin in backwoods Alaska. I'd like to see an analysis where someone would feed games of 2500 players from history into a chess computer and get their rating compared to today's players. I'm guessing they'd be similar except the old time masters would be poorer in openings than today's masters. I really think it's just more availability of chess training because of computers that makes for a larger pool of strong players in general. All that said, the FM title just lost a lot of respect in my eyes. 
Will take your word for it!
So you want to stop it being a life title too?
Seems a fickle rating system, which BTW would reward the title for winning tournaments, just as people are complaining about here with other titles.
Dunno, but there's already a title for it, world championship candidate.
It just turns the GM title into one you can win and lose without your playing strength necessarily changing, which I don't think is a good change. Also, leads to confusion with fans.
I tend to consider the GM title more as a measure of absolute strength. There are more GMs nowadays simply because there are more strong players. The average chess strength is increased enormously thanks to resources now available to anybody. It makes sense that more people are successful there where 50 years ago only a minority could get.
Would a modern 2500 FIDE beat some of the famous masters of the past? I think so, just because of better preparation and possibly more experience (travelling abroad for a tournament is more practical today). So they totally deserve the GM title.
ok, so the solution is that all GMs hunt each other with swords until there's only one left.
Getting close to the truth now. A little coercion will reveal all:
Who wants to live forever?
true
Awarding titles to juniors for winning certain tournaments is a symptom of our times. It's like 12 year olds with black belts in martial arts. Nice to encourage the youngsters but everyone knows it's not real. Of course we also have "celebrities" who are famous for nothing other than being famous so chess is just going along with the rest of the world.