Jump to content

Talk:Life Master (chess)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eddore (talk | contribs) at 06:00, 28 January 2009 (OLM vs LM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChess Redirect‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis 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 I'm not sure whether the "norm" LMs were supposed to get a floor or not, but since the norm system is obsolete and the titles awarded on that basis are generally ignored, this really deserves no more than a footnote.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]