Talk:Chess master

There is a distinction between 'title' and 'rating class'. When a player passes USCF 2200, he is sent a certificate saying he has earned the TITLE of 'National Master'. He has done this by entering the CLASS of 'master' under the USCF rating system, much the same was as a FIDE Master has earned his title be remaining about the rating of 2300 FIDE for 20 games. Even if the FM's rating goes below 2300, his TITLE remains. Same with the USCF NM. The sources I cited show a document released by the USCF using the TITLE of 'National Master' in the exact same sentence and context as FIDE Master, thus demonstrating that the USCF views it as a 'title'. The second source is a discussion of the USCF rating CLASSES. CaptainChrisD (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found this excerpt from the 2002 USCF Delegates Meeting:

""Ernie Schlich (TX) introduced a motion to allow players who reach a rating of 2200 or higher to request a National Master certificate. After Frank Camaratta (AL) pointed out that a title system passed earlier, the motion passed by a vote of 30-21. Jerry Hanken (CA/S) asked if that wasn't the status quo. Tom Brownscombe indicated that it was. DM02-49 - NDM 02-66 Ernest Schlich (TX) - Any USCF member who has had a regular post tournament rating of 2200 or higher (published or not) has demonstrated a significant level of chess ability and is recognized by being automatically awarded the lifetime title of National Master. Any member achieving this title may request a certificate from the office. PASSED"

Please note that it says that the ONLY thing necessary to earn a LIFETIME title of National Master is the achievement of a 2200 rating.

CaptainChrisD (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, that is certainly news to me. It has some personal significance to me, actually, since my current rating is 2201 (a 2-point drop would put me below 2200) and I haven't played for many years. If you can put the source for that in the article, it obviously would support your assertion. Krakatoa (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, stuff like that started to matter to me more as I started to lose to 1800 rated 6-year-olds :)  CaptainChrisD (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be true in a legalistic sense, but it's completely unrealistic. I can assure you that no one ever refers to a player rated 2100 as a "Master" just because he once had a rating over 2200. Any player who described himself that way would be ridiculed. At most, he might be called a "former Master." I'm not even sure the USCF still issues those certificates, and I certainly didn't take mine too seriously. Treating "Master" as a title rather than a rating class is especially silly since the USCF made a point of creating "Life Master" as a lifetime title. Eddore (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I know several people commonly referred to as 'masters' even though their ratings have fallen below 2200. In some cases below 2100 even. I know a 2040 who calls himself a 'master' and deservedly so. He *is* a master. He met all the requirements the USCF put forward, and he is STILL in the top 1% of all USCF players, even at 2040. The USCF says a player who was once over 2200 is ALWAYS a 'National Master' and in any real sense they are right. The lifetime titles are a nice thing, but I also know USCF Life Masters (who earned it via the old norm system) who are also rated below 2200. As the citation from the USCF indicates, meeting the criteria for 'National Master' demonstrates exceptional skill, worthy of recognition. That skill, in any real sense, hasn't diminished when you are 'only' in the 99th percentile of all tournament players as opposed to the 99.5th. CaptainChrisD (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above paragraph contains the false statement: "and he is STILL in the top 1% of all USCF players, even at 2040." and: "when you are 'only' in the 99th percentile of all tournament players as opposed to the 99.5th." The fact is that a player below 2100 is in no more than the 97% of USCF tournament players. I've been playing competitive chess for over 20 years, and this percentage has been consistent each of the many times I've looked it up. (I am not expressing any opinion on whether a player with a former 2200+ rating is to be considered a current master.)- Jonathan Maxwell, USCF id:12468711 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.236.138 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)