Talk:Life Master (chess): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 18 April 2009

Chess Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Chess portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"This it is possible to have a player with a USCF rating of 2100 who is a Life Master." Yes, it's possible, but it's extremely rare, since Life Masters automatically get a 2200 floor. The only way to go below that is to request that the floor be removed, after a long period of inferior results. Perhaps the writer would like to rephrase this? (And correct the first word.) Eddore (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't all that uncommon. The 2200 floor was never implemented for players who earned the USCF Life Master title via the old norm system. I am rated below 2100 and am a USCF Life Master. Just in my area, I know at least 3 other players who are as well. CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean those silly norms the USCF used for a while in the mid-1990s? Those were a short-term aberration. That's why the titles earned before (and after) by the original system of 300 games with a rating above 2200 were renamed "Original Life Master." All of those got a 2200 floor. I'm not sure whether the "norm" LMs were supposed to get a floor or not, but since the norm system is obsolete and the titles awarded on that basis are generally ignored, this really deserves no more than a footnote. Eddore (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No...I mean the OFFICIAL norm system, that was implemented by the USCF for several years. This system has no more or less validity than the arbitrary requirement of 300 games at the arbitrary rating of 2200. Probably half the persons legitimately holding the title of Life Master from the USCF obtained their title via this mechanism, and it is fully recognized by the USCF, so it is certainly at least as worthy of discussion as the current 300-game system. Not sure ANY USCF Master titles are ignored any more than any other tho....they are all legitimate, and all mean that the holder has demonstrated exceptional skill at chess, and met the requirements set forth to be recognized as a Master. CaptainChrisD (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaken. I know of a few people who still use one of those "norm" titles, even though their ratings are far below that level. Most experienced USCF members realize that it's just egotistical grandstanding. The "norm" system was a brief and unsuccessful experiment. It's "recognized by the USCF" because they couldn't take away something already awarded, so they were stuck with it. The 300-game method has been in use since about 1977, and it should be treated as the "real" definition of Life Master. The "norm" should be a minor footnote. If you really think it's important, break it out into a separate article.

Revision as of 18:44, 17 April 2009 edit CaptainChrisD (talk \| contribs) 97 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:12, 18 April 2009 edit undo Eddore (talk \| contribs) 287 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:::: No...I mean the OFFICIAL norm system, that was implemented by the USCF for several years. This system has no more or less validity than the arbitrary requirement of 300 games at the arbitrary rating of 2200. Probably half the persons legitimately holding the title of Life Master from the USCF obtained their title via this mechanism, and it is fully recognized by the USCF, so it is certainly at least as worthy of discussion as the current 300-game system. Not sure ANY USCF Master titles are ignored any more than any other tho....they are all legitimate, and all mean that the holder has demonstrated exceptional skill at chess, and met the requirements set forth to be recognized as a Master. [[User:CaptainChrisD\|CaptainChrisD]] ([[User talk:CaptainChrisD\|talk]]) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)		:::: No...I mean the OFFICIAL norm system, that was implemented by the USCF for several years. This system has no more or less validity than the arbitrary requirement of 300 games at the arbitrary rating of 2200. Probably half the persons legitimately holding the title of Life Master from the USCF obtained their title via this mechanism, and it is fully recognized by the USCF, so it is certainly at least as worthy of discussion as the current 300-game system. Not sure ANY USCF Master titles are ignored any more than any other tho....they are all legitimate, and all mean that the holder has demonstrated exceptional skill at chess, and met the requirements set forth to be recognized as a Master. [[User:CaptainChrisD\|CaptainChrisD]] ([[User talk:CaptainChrisD\|talk]]) 18:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

			:::::I think you're mistaken. I know of a few people who still use one of those "norm" titles, even though their ratings are far below that level. Most experienced USCF members realize that it's just egotistical grandstanding. The "norm" system was a brief and unsuccessful experiment. It's "recognized by the USCF" because they couldn't take away something already awarded, so they were stuck with it. The 300-game method has been in use since about 1977, and it should be treated as the "real" definition of Life Master. The "norm" should be a minor footnote. If you really think it's important, break it out into a separate article.