tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post6598842755257414770..comments2023-08-31T18:05:53.836+01:00Comments on John Saunders' Chess Blog: When 5½/6 Wasn't Good Enough...John Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03533087091700425575noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-46465164179235585682007-08-06T19:03:00.000+01:002007-08-06T19:03:00.000+01:00He's going to take some catching now.He's going to take some catching now.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-58775541407781473392007-08-06T19:54:00.000+01:002007-08-06T19:54:00.000+01:00BH Wood also had 6½/7 in 1948 and only managed ano...BH Wood also had 6½/7 in 1948 and only managed another ½/4. You're probably right, but maybe Haslinger has what it takes. Like Aagaard, he is going for the rating threshold of 2500 for his GM title and I think he might now be very close. He's 2468 on the July list and unofficially I made him gaining +21 from the South Wales International and he's +8.8 after seven rounds in Great Yarmouth. That would be 2497.8 so he is agonisingly close to 2500. I imagine that may be on his mind but he could have bigger fish to fry in Great Yarmouth (I hear the fish are very tasty there).John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-34610477862509296992007-08-06T21:19:00.000+01:002007-08-06T21:19:00.000+01:00Incidentally the live games site is now billing Aa...Incidentally the live games site is now billing Aagaard as GM, Jacob Aagaard. Is that correct, or does one only become a grandmaster upon official ratification? A pedantic point to be sure, but that's what the internet is all about.<br><br>Will Haslinger now have Black against Aagaard? I'd have thought the latter could wrap it up with four draws from here and if Haslinger is so close to the title he'd surely think carefully before taking a risk.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-67579584701456978372007-08-06T21:45:00.000+01:002007-08-06T21:45:00.000+01:00Strictly speaking, it cannot be right to bill Aaga...Strictly speaking, it cannot be right to bill Aagaard as a GM until FIDE have had a chance to ratify or otherwise, but the organisers are probably keen to 'big up' the tournament as finding a sponsor is a major issue right now. We insiders all know that the GM title doesn't mean what it used to, but potential sponsors are impressed by these mysterious titles that chessplayers like to give themselves. Or so people try to tell me... perhaps we should rename the world champion 'the Grand Wizard' and get him to wear a tall conical hat with stars and half-moons all over it and that would impress sponsors even more...<br><br>I'm afraid I'll have to duck the question about pairings as I've never really learnt how swiss pairings work. As a player I just play the person listed on the pairing chart and never join in the traditional pre-game moan about how the arbiters have messed up the pairings, downfloated someone they should have upfloated, etc etc. I would probably notice if they gave me three straight blacks but otherwise I'm almost 100% swiss-ignorant.John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-52370569242266569082007-08-06T22:56:00.000+01:002007-08-06T22:56:00.000+01:00Well i'm going to challenge the view that the ...Well i'm going to challenge the view that the GM title, <i>as a measure of objective strength</i>, does not mean what it used to (obviously with exception made for those who have bought their title in dodgy tournaments in unnamed countries). As a start perhaps you could name a UK grandmaster today who wouldn't, given sufficient opportunities, have become a GM, say, 20 years ago.<br><br>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-36309057389450862272007-08-07T00:26:00.000+01:002007-08-07T00:26:00.000+01:00I think I'll decline the invitation to name na...I think I'll decline the invitation to name names. There were nine British GMs in 1987 and there are about 40 today. I think some of the guys who were top IMs in 1987 were better players than some people today who already have the GM title. <br><br>However, leaving to one side rating inflation (which means that people get their title sooner than they used to), I think it is true that the bar representing objective strength has been raised a couple of notches in that period of time and that worldwide there are more strong players around today than there used to be (probably because chess knowledge is more plentiful and gets around faster than it used to). When it comes to numbers of GMs, 'more' doesn't mean 'worse', it just means 'less significant'.<br><br>On a personal note, when writing about the proliferation of GMs (rather a hackneyed theme, I fear), I find it salutary to remind myself that I've never even had a sniff of the FM title! This helps put things into perspective for me and maintains my respect for individuals who have qualified as GMs.John Saundersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-461666380265364189.post-79237053615043871462007-08-07T18:02:00.000+01:002007-08-07T18:02:00.000+01:00Good God, Haslinger's done it.Good God, Haslinger's done it.ejhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01582272075999298935noreply@blogger.com