Talk:Life Master (chess)

"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)

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)

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 I'm not sure whether the "norm" LMs were supposed to get a floor or not, but since the norm system is obsolete and the titles awarded on that basis are generally ignored, this really deserves no more than a footnote.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)

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)

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. Eddore (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you must associate with different USCF members than I do. Because whenever a holder of ANY USCF Master is introduced in any chess setting, it is usually in the form of "This is Joe Schmoe, chess master and former city champion"...even if his rating is now 2100. Please remember that ALL titles are 'abitrary'. The original version of the USCF NM title required a 2300 rating. Basically, a USCF Master is whoever the USCF says one is, and the USCF has repeatedly said that the norm-based Life master is indeed a Life Master. In fact, the USCF rating committee is currently considering reimplementing a very similar system. Most 'experienced' USCF members that I know recognize ANYONE who has earned a USCF Master title (Either NM, or Life) as a 'Master'. Why wouldn't they? The USCF already did. One thing the norm system did well was to get rid of this silly 'number' mentality that set the bar at some arbitrary silly number. The Norm-based system recognized master-level play over a period of time...to earn a USCF Life Master title under the old norming system, you had to perform like a strong master (The norm for a 4-round tournament to earn a single Master norm was 2350 or so...in a 5 round tournament 2300 or so...and you had to earn FIVE of them) over multiple tournaments. The original 'Master' titles awarded (initially in Germany)were based on your performance in winning or doing well in tournaments of a given quality....a good case can be made that the norm-based system is much more in keeping with the ORIGINAL title of 'master' than rating-based system.

2200 is meaningless....it varies in terms of standard deviation over time. In the late 1980s (when we had rating inflation) it included the top 3% of chess players (about where 2000 places one today)....a 2200 in 1988 is certainly less strong compared to his peers than a 2200 today (who is in the top 99.2 percentile or so). But regardless of what you might THINK of the system, USCF Life Masters are 'Life Masters', and since this Wiki article is about 'Lfe masters', this is right where a discussion of them belongs. CaptainChrisD (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the previous USCF title system was ridiculous. My opinion is obviously irrelevant. However, the USCF seems to have realized that a weak player with a few abberant results is not a master, and now requires a 2200 rating to receive the Life Master title - http://www.glicko.net/ratings/titles-0910.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.147.100 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bridge title

I was under the impression that "Life Master" was also a status title achieved in bridge play, but the article doesn't mention that. Am I mistaken? Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. you are right, at least in the American Contract Bridge League. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)