Aronian on Fire
by Susan Polgar
Most of the recent buzz on the international chess scene has been about the young Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, and deservingly so. However, there is another talented player, who does not command the same attention. He is super-grandmaster Levon Aronian of Armenia.
The first glimpse of his potential came when he won the 1994 World Under-12 Championship in Szeged with the score of 8/9. In 2002, Aronian became the World Junior Champion (20 and under), scoring 10/13. Two years later, he progressed to the third round of the FIDE K.O. World Championship before being eliminated by Pavel Smirnov.
…Aronian began 2008 with a bang by tying for first at Corus with Magnus Carlsen, and most recently winning the Amber tournament with a 2868 performance. He tied for first in the blindfold section at 6½ with Kramnik, Morozevich, and Topalov. Yet he proved superior in the rapid section, finishing 2½ points ahead of the field.
Aronian has a very unique and versatile style and a very easy going nature. He is a very nice individual, but do not confuse his personality with his play on the board. He is definitely one player who will be reckoned with for a long time.
Click here to see the entire article.
“super-grandmaster”
Sorry, but there is NO SUCH title. You just confuse the audience. He is as plain a grandmaster (in title) as any other. If you want new titles in chess, then write to FIDE to make a change, OK? I am a GM, he is a GM, and that’s it. He doesn’t mind, why would anybody else?
When any of the “super” GM’s can play a 4 game simul and NOT LOSE against Rybka, Zappa, Shredder, and Fritz, without any of the games being played at odds….
then, that person would be a “super” GM!!
but, no human can beat any of these program in regular play with no odds given.
Pretty simple.
You are either a “GM” or not…”Super”….I agree it’s an absurd adjective to describe people that only play against each other.
Let them play the programs. When they beat them…they can be called “super.”
it will never happen. Thus, they are just the “better GM’s.”
“SUPER” GRANDMASTER
Of course this is an un-official title. No debate on this…
Nevertheless, the inflation in ELO-Points over the last decades and the related increase in GM-titleholders make it perfectly sound to use a term like this for the stronger GM’s rated above 2700 ELO.
Everybody not agreeing with this un-official usage of the term “Super Grandmaster” is just envious IMO.
BRUZ
When these “super” men can defeat computer chess programs (when the program aren’t playing a handicapp game) then they completely deserve to be calle “super” “great” or “God” for all that matters.
There is no, none, ZERO…title called “Super” anything in chess. These guys haven’t proven anything, nothing until they can beat the best computer programs (AND DO NOT AVOID THIS POINT)under normal match circumstances (time control, no “pieces removed” on the computers side).
It cannot happen. Put all the “Super” GM’s together as a team and they could never defeat Rybka in a match that isn’t handicapped and under normal time controls.
Period.
So, what makes them “Super”? they are human…just like you and I. Outside of chess, they are nothing. Are any of them M.D’s? Can any make a living outside of chess?
They show no genius until they beat the best. And the best is Rybka, Zappa, Shredder, Fritz, etc.
Until that happens…they are just a small group of people that have no other talent than chess, which is, in the overall scheme of the universe, quite miniscule.
I merely say that they should be called the “best” GM’s and not “super” GM’s as “super” infers something beyond normal human capabilities.
When any chess GM…regardless of who they are, where they are from, or anything else can defeat the BEST computer chess program…with the program having NO handicapp, and under normal circumstances just as if it was another person…..then, and only then, can the adjective “super” even be contemplated.
“super” means “more than human.” these guys are just like everyone else. They sweat, change their shorts everyday (we hope…but Europeans have a different outlook on this than Americans), get mad, act stupid sometimes, and are no better than anyone else.
Do you EVERM HEAR OF A “SUPER” DOCTOR? Or a “Super” Accountant???
NO.
It’s absurd to use the adjective “super” beside someone that can’t do anything but play chess for a living and probably couldn’t pass an Ivy league school entrance exam.
And, who is there competition if they cannot beat (nor will even play) computers on an even basis? They just play each other in a tournament and make money.
Sad.
They can be called “super” when they defeat the best…Rybka, shredder, Fritz, Zappa, etc.
Until then…they’re just GM’s in chess.
I don’t see any of them being nominatef or a Nobel Prize for anything.
.
Aronian has been dominant at Fischer Random Chess (FRC, chess960).
Chess960 Tournaments
Aronian has twice won the Swiss style event. He has won the 1-on-1 ChessTigers title match, and mini-round robin over Anand most recently.
The competition has included the majority of the world’s top 10 and top 25 grandmasters (tho these are shifting lists).
The rap against Aronian, and he has agreed, is that he has not memorized the chess1 opening ideas as deeply as the other top 10 GMs (though that is less true every year).
Aronian’s chess960 successes suggest that when opening memorization is removed as an issue, he can excel to the top.
GeneM
CastleLong.com …for FRC-chess960
.
There is 250 points between Levon and some GMs. Bigger difference in playing strenght than between GM and IM.
Thus, it is fair to call him Super.
and this has absolutely what to do whith him or ANY other “Super” GM playing against Rybka or any other program (under normal time controls…just as if it were a human) and see how good they do?
They can’t win.
They can’t even draw.
Not without handicap games.
You can change the subject but until one (or all of them combined) can defeat the leading chess computer program under normal controls, with no restraints, can they ever be called “super.”
They are the “best” GM’s…not “super.” As, yet again…and you’re avoiding this issue…”super” infers “beyond human capability.”
None have shown this because none have nor can defeat the best computer programs under normal tournament conditions.
And that’s just the way it is.
And you know it.
That’s why they never play Rybka…you have a silly “Kranmik vs Fritz” match when Fritz isn’t even near the best program!
“Super”…this adjective is silly…
These GM’s are, in chess, far above anyone else. I completely agree. But, they should be referred to as “the best” or the “top rated” but never “super” GM’s.
Again, it’s akin to calling someone a “super Doctor” or “Super” anything….we are all human..and there is nothing “super” about defeating other humans when you have chess computers that are far better.
When the “super” GM’s can defeat them…they’ll be deservedly “super.” But, they won’t even play them. They don’t like to lose in that fashion.
So, I agree completely with the 1st post…there exist NO TITLE called “Super Grandmaster.”
Period.
“Super-GM” is just a term used to differentiate between higher and lower-rated GMs. Use it or not, as you like. I don’t really see what the big deal is.
First Comment/Anonymous at 9:44:00 AM said:
“I am a GM, he is a GM, and that’s it.”
IMO no real GM would react like this “anonymous”. I’m pretty sure this anonymous has more likely a USCF rating closer to 1500 than to 2500.
😉
In this context, a requirement to “beat all computers” (or not to lose against them) makes no sense at all. The FIDE titles and reatings reflect the performance of the players against each other, and that’s it.
Comps are another league…
– “super” infers something beyond normal human capabilities.
Not in English as usually used:
adj. Informal.
1. Very large, great, or extreme: “yet another super Skyscraper” (Dylan Thomas).
2. Excellent; first-rate: a super party.
So clearly Super GM is synonymous with a very large GM. Only GMs over 2meters tall should be considered super GM.
“You can change the subject but until one (or all of them combined) can defeat the leading chess computer program under normal controls, with no restraints, can they ever be called “super.”
They are the “best” GM’s…not “super.” As, yet again…and you’re avoiding this issue…”super” infers “beyond human capability.”
Anonymous, computer programs are NOT EVEN chessplayers. A chessplayer by definition is human. Humans get tired, nervous, excited, experience doubt, fear, courage, etc.
This is part of what makes sport so great. To try to achieve something which is difficult, to excel under pressure.
A computer program can calculate better than a human being, that is true. BUT a computer program will never be a chessplayer, because human beings are not just neurons, you know? We are much more than that. When was the last time you saw a computer give birth to a child? Or risk its own life to save another? Computers do not know what compassion is, or love.
Therefore, to compare and judge human beings on computer standards is unfair and incorrect.
A computer does not have human circumstances that might affect its play. Suppose your father is dying, and you are playing in a chess tournament. You cannot concentrate properly, you have a bad tournament. This is called being a human being. HELLO?
And by the way, “Super” is OK. It means “SUPERIOR”, as in excellent, outstanding, etc.
Why are you constantly trying to introduce computer chess programs into this discussion?! That’s troll behaviour. It’s about human master’s titles, as a reward for their performances against each other.
Aronian is a nice guy. I met him in Berlin airport recently and he seemed genuinely pleased to have been recognised. I am also impressed with his play and would expect hime to provide opposition to Carlsen’s progress in the future.
“Grand” means “large” in French.
So only chessplayers who are extraordinarily tall or fat are “Grand”masters. The rest are only masters.
Hey, let’s be even more picky about words here. In English, “Master” normally refers men only. Hence, Susan Polgar is a “Grandmistress”, not a “Grandmaster”.