Where can I find the nitty gritty details on the Life Master title, and the Original Life Master title?
Specifically, I would like to know. Do I have to play 300 consecutive games at or above 2200 to receive the OLM title, or can I dip below 2200 at times and only count the games that I played while I was rated 2200+?
Do match games count toward the 300?
Could I hold a tournament where I play 20 games per day (g/25+5) for 15 days and then qualify?
Hmm, that last idea would be sure to raise a red flag.
(Edited to be less snarky.)
Bill Smythe
Details about the norms based Life Master title can be found here: glicko.net/ratings/titles.pdf
The 300 games do not have to be consecutive.
No
Theoretically, yes, but that is up to 20 hours of chess in one day!
He already has earned a national master title.
I suspect the word “properly” as used in Mr. Smythe’s post has some added meaning. I hold no position on whether I agree with that (imputed) meaning.
Thanks to everyone who posted (except B. S.). It is true that I have already earned my NM title.
Another question, if I play games while rated 2200 do they count toward the OLM 300? Or must I be rated above 2200 as it is written here http://glicko.net/ratings/titles.pdf, “…the original Life Master title, which requires 300 games above a rating of 2200.” I have read it both ways, all in unofficial sources.
I wonder if the language in the document is inexact and should read “…the original
Life Master title, which requires 300 games at or above a rating of 2200.”
I would love to find a document like the one above from the USCF that speaks definitively about the Original Life Master title.
I’m grateful to all of you that have this information and share it.
As one who earned the OLM and LM certificates, the rules as explained to me were that one had to play 300 games under the regular rating system at or above the 2200 rating to earn the old titles. Quick chess games did not count. The number of games did not have to be consecutive, though I believe IIRC that I did it that way between 1984 and 1991. The tournaments back then were reviewed to see that no hinky stuff was done to earn the title, like playing 20 games a day for 15 days at Game 30 (Game 25, d5 was not regular rated back then). The oddments would not count. Matches also did not count, but I am not sure about this as it is possible that matches between masters might have counted. As a comparison, it used to be that in order to earn the Master title in the old USSR, you had to play a match to secure and verify the title; rating was not enough.
It was a fun, intense ride to earn the titles, no less work than earning a PhD. Playing 300+ games with all of the other crabs trying to pull you back into the pot of lower ratings was no joke. There was a lot of pressure to keep above the 2200 mark.
Oops. My apologies.
Bill Smythe
It would be possible to hold the twenty game per day tournament if you could find players to compete in it and a TD that would stay awake along with you. Long tournaments are not unheard of, I played in at least one Monadnock Marathon. The Marathon was twelve straight rounds and it was not G/30! Also there was a player in Texas who became the most active player in America by playing more than twenty games in one day at times. I forget his name but I think this record was 2,366 games. Who knows? Set up some big marathon tournament and good luck!
tmagchesspgh, thanks for your reply. I know what you mean about players gunning for you. I pretty much had to bunny-bash my way to 2200. I think it takes a different mindset than getting there by upsetting 2300+ players.
That’s interesting you say that it takes as much work as a PhD.
Another question for anyone who knows, if I play in a tournament at or above 2200 and I receive a bye, does the bye count toward the 300 games? See this tournament for example - http://www.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/XtblMain.php?201106261061.0. Should I count 4 games or 5 games toward my OLM 300?
Robert Smeltzer had many matches in his total. Kids in Dallas used to love to play him because he was nowhere near as strong as his 1600 floor. I think it was (largely) because of him that match rules were changed to make a match played while you were at your floor to automatically be a request to lower it.
Look at the DCC New Year Insanity on 31 December-1 January. http://www.uschess.org/tlas/upcoming.php?STATE=TX It is a pale imitation of the Monadnock Marathon (I played in 1990 and 1991). For one thing, there were no wimpy “hour breaks” in New Hampshire.
Alex Relyea
Byes (and forfeit wins) do not count towards the 300 total. You can see how many games you have towards the 300 total here: main.uschess.org/datapage/gamest … d=12630415
Oh my gosh. That line has probably been there for years and I never noticed it. Thank you so much Micah Smith! Much appreciated.
This document should answer the above question.
Thank you Eastside, but that document only speaks to details about the Norms based LM title, not the OLM title.
The last sentence of section 1, paragraph 2, does in fact cover OLM.
Eastside, there is a sentence about OLM there, but the document does not answer any of the specific questions about OLM that I asked in this thread.
Additionally, the sentence about OLM appears to be inaccurate. It defines the required rating to be “above a rating of 2200” when in fact it seems that the required minimum rating is 2200.
The last sentence of section 1, paragraph 1 defines the scope of the document, and it is not OLM.
Thanks Bill!
To be clear, I am not intending to play such a tournament. What I would like is an official USCF document that defines the details of achieving OLM, (and would likely address such a ridiculous tournament).
Right now the best I have is the line on my statistics page that tallies the game I have played at or above 2200. I will regard this as my semi-official OLM count.
Mr. Brumley, it does answer the question in the OP, which was the post to which I responded.
Having reviewed your subsequent questions, I would say they likely do not have the sort of answers you seek, because the OLM qualification (note the single noun - more on this anon) is not sufficiently specific to give them.
This is correct, but also a small matter.
The document’s formal subject matter is not relevant to the question of whether it addresses OLM (which it does).
My understanding has always been that there is only one requirement for OLM - 300 rated games in the regular rating system with a regular rating greater than or equal to 2200. (Corrections are welcome.)
Could one potentially game the system? Sure. Any system can be gamed. The question is whether it is worth the effort. A rudimentary cost-benefit analysis should be enough to dissuade those who might try it in this case, and the national office (particularly the Executive Director) has authority to address attempts at manipulation by those who choose to try it anyway.