Hornets Nest Stirred

[John Upham]

A lively debate is likely to follow a post from Pete Doggers entitled

FIDE Likely To Make It Harder To Become A Grandmaster, But Will It Be Enough?

Opinions?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think they are trying to address a problem that is not the problem they have.

(The issue is not that the title requirements are lax, it is that FIDE have no way of checking that a norm result was achieved in good faith, and you can't affect that by changing the title requirements.)

[Angus French]

If Abhimanyu Mishra achieved his GM norm from the results listed by Lennart Ootes then I think it could be argued there is a quality issue. The results listed are the minimum required which is 27 and, at a glance, I can see they include three results against one player and two results against each of four other players... Having said this, I'm guessing that norms are permitted from double-round-robin events.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Some of that's just the way of these things, of course. For example, Ravi Haria's two recent GM norms both include games against Fodor and Turner, which is a natural consequence of Fodor and Turner both being England-based GMs not registered with England, and thus highly sought after by title norm events.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Having said this, I'm guessing that norms are permitted from double-round-robin events.

Of course they are, why wouldn't they be?

[Angus French]

Having said this, I'm guessing that norms are permitted from double-round-robin events.

Of course they are, why wouldn't they be?

Because I think a better test might be to play as many different people as possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

Because I think a better test might be to play as many different people as possible.

Insisting that a Norm was only valid if it was against players different from those in any previous Norm would be a possible if arbitrary method of making IM and GM titles more difficult to obtain.

I suppose with the insistence on using computer based pairings, the opportunity that pairing card shuffling gave arbiters to maximise Norm chances in Swiss tournaments has now disappeared.

With perhaps a little more difficulty, team tournaments can still deliver specially selected opposition.

[IM Jack Rudd]

1.42g is specifically aimed at curbing some of the worst abuses known to have gone on:

1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the event), shall be excluded.

[LawrenceCooper]

With perhaps a little more difficulty, team tournaments can still deliver specially selected opposition.

I couldn't find anything in the FIDE title regulations preventing a norm for a player having all whites and playing the same opponent more than once with the same colour as could happen in the 4NCL.

[Jonathan Bryant]

With perhaps a little more difficulty, team tournaments can still deliver specially selected opposition.

I couldn't find anything in the FIDE title regulations preventing a norm for a player having all whites and playing the same opponent more than once with the same colour as could happen in the 4NCL.

Bill Hartston told me - http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... tston.html -

that he didn't think norms gained at an Olympiad should count. He doesn't say so in the interview but I think is point you could pick and choose your games. Didn't Stean get one norm (at Haifa?) when he had White 7 games out of 10 or some such? I may be misremembering.

1.42g is specifically aimed at curbing some of the worst abuses known to have gone on:

1.42g Tournaments that make changes to favour one or more players (for example by altering the number of rounds, or the order of rounds, or providing particular opponents, not otherwise participating in the event), shall be excluded.

So would that invalidate any norms scored by anybody at a British Championship at which the Perts weren't paired together when they should have been?

I assume that hasn't actually happened (I assume I'd have heard about it if it had), but I don't see anything in the rule 1.42g as quoted by Jack that explains why it didn't happen.

[Roger de Coverly]

So would that invalidate any norms scored by anybody at a British Championship at which the Perts weren't paired together when they should have been?

In the era not so long ago before they used the Swiss Manager pairings, arbiters would use CAA rules, which seemingly can be subject to interpretation. At one British where both Perts were playing, the pairings weren't published for a round until after midnight. Whether the cause was arbiter disagreement over interpretation or something else wasn't revealed. In the event there was still a Pert v Pert pairing later in the tournament.

[Richard Bates]

Don't understand what the purpose of this is. Is there a suggestion that there is something untowards in the norms/titles obtained by certain players? If so then such suggestions should be tackled/queried/addressed directly and specifically - not via some indirect adjustment to the rules to combat the presumed "suspicion" of unproven impropriety.