What separates a FM from an IM ?

🔞 please.

We all know , that in a chess world only two titles, that have some kind of recognition, which is IM and GM titles.

So what I'd the real difference between an IM and FM ?

about a 100 elo

DragonPhoenixSlayer wrote:

about a 100 elo

Oh really? I didn't know that! Thank you so much, now I know. I never knew that, so is it exactly 100 points or can be 99 points?

No it's exactly 100 nothing more nothing less that's why I said "about a 100 elo".

hitthepin wrote:

Don’t IMs have to get norms and stuff?

Well obviously, but I'm looking for a bit more specific, open answers here, especially about game strength.

Is it better opening knowledge?better middle game? Endgame? Maybe just an endgame , that's where FM gets outplayed etc... or..... something else perhaps?

IM's have better intuition maybe? Maybe because they are played too many GM's ? I mean they are just 100 points apart, yet no one "cares", "respect" a FM title , not like an IM title, so why is that?

I mean what does IM sees better, that FM lacks of? And MOST IMPORTANT why IM title is respected, honored etc,wether FM title is just ok....

If this is of interest, checking online for the FIDE updated requirements is fairly easy to find - simply type something similar into the search engine Google and there it is. The general differences among titled players is elo, norms/conditions met, and of course the money put into availability to meet such criterion. Most titles have some elo norm/minimum requirement and must of played at least X rated games against X rated players (usually of the title desired, so a person attempting to become a GM must play at least some games against other GM players). Additionally, most know little of the math regarding how elo is calculated; you must play people at/better than your level to improve - in other words, it is mathematically impossible to reach a GM elo (of say 2500) by only playing games against players of 1000 elo. After the gap between players' ratings becomes too great the winner will be awarded zero points for winning (but still lose for a loss or draw). 

I have never noticed any vast difference in how FM's and IM's are treated. There probably isn't any specific thing that makes an IM better than an FM. There are probably FMs who have GM level tactical abilities but lack in other areas and IMs who suck at Tactics but are extremely good at playing positionally.

good point mickynj, IM and GM players combined make up less than 1 % of the world's chess players. Any titled player is exceptionally strong, FMs included.

CM, candidate master, has no norm and is 2200. NM, national master, is 2300. FM, Fide master = IM, international master, is 2400 and must pass norms. GM, grand Master, is 2500 and must pass norms.

2700+ is informally called super grandmaster. Expert and lower have 200 point increments. I don't know if an expert is considered an amateur.

Actually National Master is 2200 in most countries but is completely seperate from Fide. Fide Master is 2300 and require no norms.

 many FM really do not deserve this title, because it is obtained once you have 2300 and that's it. many of them later drop to 2200, even soon after they became FMs.

IM norm is more harder to reach, not only by rating, but you have to complete norms (it used to be 3 norms in 2 year period).

so not "only" 100 points difference is there.

the point is than for IM need to be done much more efforts than for FM and is only one rank above.

but again the one may meet some FM even stronger than some IMs, but these have no oportunity to meet requirements for IM due to varios lifetime reasons

I think FM is a really cool title.  Of course, this is a patzer who dreams of hitting 2000, lol.

FMs have the toilet paper go down behind the roll. IMs know it goes down the front.