A good question, one that I haven't thought about much. So your question got me thinking, which is usually a bad thing. And sorry for the delay in responding; I updated my historical rating spreadsheet containing the year-end ratings for each year from 1966 to 2019 in an attempt to track FIDE title information and in the process found many errors in the 'Title' column resulting (I think) from mistakes I made in converting ratings text files to columns in order to import into Excel. I fixed that but in the process ran into FIDE's ratings list format change starting in 2012 that have separate columns for 'Title' (men + women) column and 'WTitle' for Women's titles column, along with changes in title nomenclature. And then I had to figure out how to count Women's titles. All of this took much time. More on that later.

At any rate I thought that any addition of a FIDE title category; i.e. super-GM or SGM should be an extension of FIDE's current title awarding procedures so first I reread https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook...., which runs 19 pages and I had not read in a while. I'm sure that you are aware of them but someone else who is foolish enough to read this post might not be, so I thought I would summarize them.

1. FIDE titles are awarded based on achieving the required norms for that title, typically 2 or more. Achieving these norms is a complicated (to me) process based on achieving a specific performance rating (TPR) required for a given title, along with several other considerations. I'll ignore norms for now, they can be defined later in a manner consistent with achieving the norms for non-SGM titles.

A so-called direct title can also be gained by achieving a specific result in a tournament. I'll also ignore these for now, although I think that this method of achieving a SGM title should not be allowed since it all depends on a single particularly strong performance which might be accomplished mostly by chance, although an exception might be made if the player wins the WCC title. Better, I think, is to award SGM titles (or, frankly, any other title) based on a consistent set of performances over time rather than a one-time result.

2. After achieving the required norms the player must have a rating which is the minimum required for that title. The current rating thresholds are:

Grandmaster (GM) > 2500
International Master (IM) > 2400
FIDE Master (FM) > 2100
Candidate Master (CM) > 2000

3. Two sets of titles are awarded, one in the open (men or women) category and one in the woman's only category. A woman could have two different titles, one in the open category and one in the woman's category. I'll ignore women for now since I don't think that there are any women who are currently considered to be in the SGM category although a women SGM (WSCM) title and the requirements to achieve it can certainly be defined. In that case I think that only Hou Yifan would be considered a WSGM candidate since her latest rating (2664) is 80 Elo points higher than the current #2, Ju Wenjun (2584).

Dealing with the SGM rating threshold first, the current rating thresholds listed above have a 100-rating point interval between them. This would suggest a SGM rating threshold of > 2600. But there are 248 active players with ratings > 2600 in the Jan-2020 rating list and I personally think this would be an excessive number for what should be the top rating category, even though this represents only 0.14% of the number of active rated players. So I would bump up the SGM rating threshold to > 2700 and there are currently 37 players at this level. Since this represents only about 0.02% of the number of active rated players, I thought that would sufficiently exclusive. Besides, that seems like an agreeable threshold and in widespread usage.

Speaking of titles, in 2019 there were 1,357 players with the GM title, 0.87% of the total number of active players. Of these, 29 are women, 0.017% of the total number of active players. But determining the number of women's titles is subject to interpretation. Only since 2012 has FIDE separately listed women's titles in the rating lists, and women may have 2 different titles. In FIDE's rating lists since 2012 a woman player's title is the open category (men & women) is listed in the 'Title' column and a woman player's title is the women's category (women only) is listed in the 'WTitle' column, and the two may or may not be the same. I made the decision that if the two were different I would count each of them, so a woman player may list an IM title in the 'Title' column and a WGM title in the 'WTitle' column. I counted this a one IM title and one WGM title. But if the titles were the same in the two columns, for example, a WGM title in both the 'Title' column and 'WTitle' column I counted this as only one WGM title. Otherwise I felt like I would be double-counting that player's title. Arbitrary perhaps, but that's what made the most sense to me.

Now for the question of norms. Obtaining norms is complicated process and depends on the title being sought. In order to obtain a GM norm the player must have achieved a rating > 2500 when at least twice (or maybe 3 times) has achieved:

(a) A performance rating (TPR) of 2600 in tournaments where the minimum rating of his opponents is 2200, with an average rating of his opponents greater than 2380, and when at least 1/3 of the player's opponents, with a minimum of 3, must have a GM title.

(d) A certain number of points against opponents in each tournament, with a specified minimum number of GMs and opponents' average rating, according to the number of rounds in the tournament. These range from:

(1) A score of 5½ against opponents with a minimum average rating of 2380 or 2½ points against opponents with a minimum average rating of 2702 in a 7-round tournament. 3 of the player's opponents must be GMs.

(2) A score of 10½ against opponents with a minimum average rating of 2380 or 5 points against opponents with a minimum average rating of 2687 in a 13-round tournament. 5 of the player's opponents must be GMs.

So I would suggest that for SGM norms a similar procedure be used, but raising the required ratings and TPRs by 100 points over the requirements for a GM norm, except that the player must have also achieved a rating of > 2700 instead of > 2500 for a GM. Maybe also add the requirement that at least one opponent must be a SGM in a 7-round tournament and 2 or 3 opponents must be SGMs in a 13-round or more tournament.

Sorry I can't be more concise but this is the format for obtaining FIDE's GM norms. As I said before, currently 37 players are rated above 2700 and this is the maximum number of players that could be considered for an SGM title, subject to them having achieved at least 2 or 3 SGM norms. I don't know what that number of players would be and it's a monumental task to try to figure it out so, no, I'm not going to attempt to do it!

In the current Live Rating list, https://2700chess.com/, he gained 3 rating points in the 2020 Tata Steel tournament and is ranked #24th in the world. That means that there are 23 players that are better than he is and, per the Jan-2020 FIDE rating list, 173,529 who are not as good as he is.

Послезавтра, 1 марта, в швейцарской Лозанне стартует третий этап женского Гран-при ФИДЕ – соревнование, результаты которого весьма существенно повлияют на состав будущего турнира претенденток на мировую шахматную корону, а еще две недели спустя в Екатеринбурге начнется главное соревнование первой половины этого года – претендентский форум мужчин.>

Of course MC has been closer to the human side of the gap than the engine side, but nonetheless his play has been super-human, compared to everyone else on earth.

Then, when I watch BB (and it is always with Carlsen's commentary, not his opponents') he is surprisingly normal.

What I mean by that is, he will calculate out a line, and then at the end say "but he has such and such move. So I guess I'll just go here"

In <Think Like a Grandmaster> this is <exactly> the kind of thinking that Kotov derided!

Then Carlsen will get down on the clock and say "I don't have time to calculate." So he just makes a move on general principle or intuition!

And he often misses blunders until immediately after he makes a move. How many times has this happened to us patzers? It happens a lot to me, and to everyone else, and evidently to MC.

So, in most areas of chess he is a lot like a not-so-great player.

Except for his results!

And, in analysis, there is one area where he is just incredibly great, amazing really. He spots his opponents' mistakes instantly.

That is the most remarkable thing to me about BB - his opponent will have a position that is about equal, and almost always eventually spoil it with a mistake.

Often these mistakes look like very good moves! (to me, anyway) Yet MC knows, right away, it's bad. So he spots mistakes immediately after a move - both his opponents' move and his own!

And so I watched him play Alireza. I expected MC to win, and was cheering him on (MC is my favorite player). But Alireza is a tough match up for MC (for anyone, really, at least in blitz)

And I couldn't really tell if MC is off-form, past his prime, or if Alireza has just surpassed him in blitz.

Most world champions (in classical) are also superb blitz players. Fischer, Tal, Kasparov come to mind. BTW, this is why I was surprised that Fabiano had a chance to become WC, and world #2 rated. He isn't in the top 5 in blitz, IMO. The retired Kasparov is still better than Fabi.

But Alireza has that quick eye for tactics. And, as we saw from his reaction in the World Blitz Championship (after losing to MC on time), he has that burning passion to win. The "no mercy" attitude that you need to become champ.

Capablanca also comes to mind..

Carlsen's ability that you described, to immediately spot his opponents errors and accurately punish them, is an indication that he has a complete sense of the position, he feels every little aspect of the position, and so he immediately knows when his opponent went wrong, and it also enables him find good moves when he has no time to calculate.

I think that this is the main ability that separates a world class player from a chess genius. It is impossible to get this ability from training, no matter how much (and how good) one trains. Top players can improve on that aspect, but they will never get this ability to grasp the entire essence of the position in no time.

Now, when looking on Firouzja here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb9...

He did give me the impression that he has this ability too. The ease in which he just knows the main aspects of the position is just amazing. He is playing 3 mins blitz with Carlsen no less, and just calmly has the time to explain his thought in the video streaming, and although he usually gives just one variation, in most cases it is the main one. Also when Carlsen makes the slightest mistake, he immediately spots it, and punishes him so quickly and easily and in the most accurate and painful way, that it is quite amazing.

I don't think that this ability is enough to be the best in the world though, one also needs to have the ability to get deeper into the position, and being able to take right decision after considering all the options. But Firouzja is only 16 and already has 2730 rating in classical chess, so he does seems to have that ability too (but only time will show to what extent..).

There is one important thing about his blitz match with Carlsen though: it was 3 minutes without increments. That is on the borderline of bullet. If Firouzja can hold carlsen in a blitz match with 4+2 time controls, then it would really be something. (meanwhile he will soon play rapid mini-match with him, in Carlsen Invitational, which will also be interesting).

<metatron2....I think that this is the main ability that separates a world class player from a chess genius....>

Seems enough evidence that Firouzja is a very dangerous opponent for anybody. Probably most dangerous when he has the initiative. And he does seem to have the ability to easily spot opportunities to get that initiative if the other player slips. There's a YouTube video of an offhand game with Nakamura that seems to demonstrate.

The longer term question is how Firouzja ends up playing equal or slightly worse positions. Especially against guys like MVL or Caruana or Ding or even Anand or Karjakin who most of the time won't give much in longer time controls.

Carlsen's ability that you described, to immediately spot his opponents errors and accurately punish them, is an indication that he has a complete sense of the position,>

Thank you for sharing the link. I can't watch it now as I have to go to work, but I will later.

And you're right, Capablanca is in that category too. The anecdote of his easy blitz victory over Nimzovich, combined with his cocky and confident comment about "others" having to guess what will happen in a position, but he "knows" it, support your point.