I always thought it meant more players are becoming stronger. Training methods have advanced and are even easier than decades ago with our chess tactic databases (no board and piece set up required, which drastically cuts down on between position time) and Chessbase products.
And... I see Stephen Colbert watching over 15 year old Bobby Fischer's shoulder! He's a time traveler!
I like this topic. See the thread I made yesterday: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/if-titles-were-a-little-more-accurate
bumping this thread :)
I think that the rules for becoming a GM should remain the same as present. It may lack the prestige that it use to have as I can imagine if you are rated the 900th best player in the world then really who cares.But to make harder to get will make it unfair for those that are easily >2500 elo.Maybe they can create a new title Super GM which is already accepted by most people as being >2700.
I think being the top 250th player in the world is quite an achievement, you make it sound in your article that top 100 is much better than top 250th, but the population of the planet compared to the 1900s is much much larger!
It is all well and good to bemoan the fact that the Good Old Days are gone, especially if it is used as an excuse to drink a beer to the Good Old Days.
But, truth be told, they weren't all that good.
The reason we have more GMs today is we have more players playing at GM levels today. Forget "Chessmetics" and their imagined formulae. Put the players of today and of antiquity against a top chess engine, their moves were all recorded, were they not?
The mendacious whining about the "cheapening" of the GM title always seems to come from those who haven't a prayer of ever making a norm on their own, doesn't it?
Yeah Blackburn and Capablanca have a jawdropping uncanny ability to calculate whereas Grischuk can flop so badly on some positions that even I found better moves (though obviously aren't better than him on average or else I'd be a super GM).
not to be a jerk or anything, but that was incredibly long for a forum, you should turn any kind of articles like that into blogs
If I can't have a title then neither should any of you!
I don't really care much about title issues as I do with ratings. I think the rating inflation is a nagging issue that no one wants to tackle or even may know how, but that is the more cheapening of the chess game to me.
Or another perspective is that more people are feeding the bottom and pushing the others up and it's easier to get "good" at chess if you want to with new technology and what have you now. The arguments I've heard on the matter is amazing and contradictory that it makes me wonder if we have an actual problem or if it may be an imaginary issue stemming from people's inability to be successful or not wanting others to be successful.
Man I wish they'd give me a title like "dedicated amateur"(DA)!
interesting, he's acount was closed, maybe more people are getting better becouse of rybka.
GM Kevin Spraggett was a candidate in the mid 80s and his top rating was only 2580 , he couldnt break 2600 when he was at his peak . Almost 2 decades later , in his 50s , he broke 2600 fide for the first time in his life . He is a friend of mine and we both lived in Portugal and were often together . I asked him was he actually stronger in his 50s than he was when he was a candidate and he said ofcourse not . So , how is it that only after you are 50 you break 2600 fide barrier ? He said due to inflation , ofcourse . He is not the only example out there like this but he is the only one I know personally . There are those who refuse to believe ratings inflation exists . They stick their heads in the sand and ignore any and all evidence to the contrary . There is no help for them . The fact that fide is awarding titles to young kids who are hundreds of points away from what adults have to do for the same title is ridiculous and certainly lessens the value of such titles . FIDE also has affirmative action titles . These are titles like IM that are automatically awarded if you win your country's national championship ...... even if you didnt face a single master in the competition ! There doesnt even have to be any masters playing ! Originally the GM title meant you were world class . Which GMs are really world class today ? Perhaps only those over 2700 ?
Giving kids the FM title for winning an event in which there isnt even anyone over 2100 playing is ridiculous beyond belief . If they don't have the 2300 FIDE rating they don't earn the title .... plain and simple .
The way opening prep methods have been advanced its not at all uncommon for modern day GMs to match a super engines #1 and #2 choice their first 10,20 sometimes 30moves. This I think will continue to be the reason why the next generation will be stronger than the last and the study of master games masters are generally better of the last era simply by standing on the past master shoulders in a way. I think anyone below 1900/2000 is just the same strength as amatures rated below 1900/2000 in any era but after breaking that barrier that's when you start to notice the strength gap in generations slowly getting bigger.
A study should be conducted to determine if the amount of chess information today and places to play (internet) has increased the strength of players than in decades past when information and strong players to play where not as easily accessible.
I guess the relevant question would be whether the population of chessplayers has doubled in keeping with the overall increase. I would guess not.
The population of the world has gone from 2.4 billion to 7.1 billion from 1950 to 2013...so, between double and triple just there alone. The Fischer effect also made a startling increase compared to the 50s, much like the World Series of Poker has 8 to 12 thousand players a year instead of dozens (though the effect is not as pronounced, surely). There is also the Anand effect...an Indian becoming world champion had no small effect on the number of chess players. Indian players are #3 on this site, for example, behind the U.S. and England. But in general, it's the demise of the Soviet strangehold on chess that made the game increasingly popular over time.
When I was 7, in 1972 no less, I won 3rd place in my age group in San Francisco, a chess Mecca, at least from a U.S. standpoint...you would think that I would have heard about a ratings system and the existence of a chess federation...nope. I was oblivious...I just played every day at the playground clubhouse next door to my house, an amusing oddity beating the 10-12 year olds ;). There was no outreach or structure. Until high school, I had 1 book: Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess.
The effect of online playing, free online training, etc. needs to be taken into account. The average chessplayer can improve on their own by having ready access to master level games, lots of opponents, playing games anytime they like, at faster time controls, etc. which was not really the case in 1950. A player that lost to the Fried Liver Attack prior to the new milleneum could not go to YouTube and watch 35 video lessons/examples on the opening (I counted) to figure out what to do next time...
Now, imagine a 7 year old in that situation today. There is no way they would not be inundated with information. In 1950, the USCF had 1,000 members. Yes, 1,000. Today it's over 75,000 (and it has peaked at almost 90,000). The number of GMs in the world is probably too low, not too high ;). The U.S. has about 75 GMs right now. In 1950, it was 2.
So the ratio in 1950 was 1 GM/500, and now it is 1 GM/1000...I don't see the problem.
Not only are there a lot more chess players...those chess players on average are better players. But the GM title does not actually seem to be inflating because of it.
Maybe the most telling evidence is right in front of us...look at the photos in the original post. Fischer is playing Keres in relative obscurity. If you were to look at pretty much any chess photos from the black and white photo era, you will never find more than a couple dozen players gathered in one place at one time, ever.
I'm considering this line refuted ;).
As usual with such pop articles, the author (who obviously doesn't know much about top-level chess) fails to realize two things: 1) there are more skilled players nowadays than ever 2) there are generally more FIDE-rated players than before. It makese sense to talk about proportion of GMs to the general playerbase as opposed to counting the heads.
There are two main types of people who complain about title devaluation: a) certain strong GMs who aren't regarded "super" and hence feel inferior and want to distinguish themselves from lower-rated colleagues somehow b) amateurs who have no idea how hard it is to earn the GM title and will never even come close to doing it. 
Grandmaster Flash received his tittle in 1970. He was one of the few to gain the title by sheer awesomeness. This route to the title is not recommended. FIDE trainers advise the easier paths such as winning the World Senior Championship or time travel.
I'm an amateur, I know I will never receive a title (much less GM). It's not my goal, and I couldn't care less about that. I simply have the opinion that "Grandmaster" implies not only the best, but the best of the best. It is clear now that there is a level higher than "regular" GM. We all know that. That higher level is unofficially called "Super GM." But doesn't it make sense for the absolute highest level to be called Grandmaster? Super GM basically translates to Super Supermaster. What?
I'm sure that a 2500-level player is extremely good at chess, and that level is very difficult to achieve, and unfathomably stronger than I will be ever be. But to a Super GM, those "Grandmasters" are a clear level below. Any "Grandmaster," in my amateur opinion, should be able to compete (and have a chance) against another Grandmaster. How much chance does a 2500 or even 2600 player have against a 2750+? From what I've seen, not too much of a chance... it's a whole nother level above...
I do not believe "A GM is a GM." And anyone who uses the term "Super GM," also doesn't simply believe "A GM is a GM."
yeah, that is an often claim
traditionally GM were those who had potential to become WC
As for the argument that there are more strong players now than ever before. Yes, this is true. But "Grandmaster" is a relative term. If there were 5,000 players who performed at a 2500 level, and 50 players who performed at a 2800 level... do we call the 2500 people "Grandmasters?"
From the article:
"Assuredly there are more strong players than ever before, but the grandmaster title was not an exam one passed with a diploma at the end, it was a stamp of prestige that implied world-class ability."
and
"It is obvious that the strict definition of a grandmaster as a world-class player no longer holds true, but there is a vast difference between a world-class player and one ranked no.930 in the world."
By Albert Silver
While voicing serious concerns with a grandmaster about the inflation of international chess titles and their dwindling value, the grandmaster agreed there was reason to worry, but then added “still, a GM is a GM to be fair.” Is it? Many players view the issue as a relatively recent phenomenon, as if it were just a minor issue of Elo adjustment over the last decade, but the issue goes much deeper and further. Since its adoption and creation by FIDE in 1950, the title has not only changed in its requirements, but its very definition.
History of the grandmaster title
When FIDE first awarded the grandmaster title in 1950, it was bestowed upon 27 players of the day, which included world champion Mikhail Botvinnik and all those who had qualified or been seeded in the inaugural Candidates Tournament: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.
It was also given to players still living who, though past their prime in 1950, were recognized as having been world class at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldrich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostic, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.
Jacques Mieses playing Akiba Rubinstein in 1909. 41 years later FIDE could not
fail to recognize their stature.
The standard used for the title was clear: a grandmaster was someone who was recognized as a world-class player at some point in their career. As the process advanced, clear criteria needed to be established for future title contenders.
Under the 1957 regulations, the title of International Grandmaster was automatically awarded to the world champion and to any player qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates Tournament. It is worth noting that it was under these conditions that Bobby Fischer became the world’s youngest grandmaster at age 15, when he qualified for the Candidates tournament. Looking at it in today’s eyes, one might conclude these draconian conditions were ridiculously tough, but when FIDE convened in 1965 with the purpose of revising the rules, the prevailing opinion was that the 1957 rules were… too easy!
When Bobby Fischer was awarded the grandmaster title at age 15, it was because
he had qualified as a world championship contender.
At the FIDE Congress in 1961, GM Milan Vidmar said that the regulations "made it possible to award international titles to players without sufficient merit", and when FIDE convened in 1965 to revise them, GM Miguel Najdorf echoed Vidmar’s concerns, and stated that the existing regulations were leading to an inflation of international titles. As a result, the rules were tightened up, and now the grandmaster candidate had to score 40% in the Candidates Tournament, or reach the quarter finals of the Candidates Matches. This is what was expected of a player holding the grandmaster title.
Although this undoubtedly kept the prestige of the grandmaster title immaculate, it was probably a little overprotective. The consequence of the new regulations was that in 1966 only one title was conferred and the same was true again in 1968.
In 1970, the modern system for awarding titles was presented at the FIDE Assembly at the Siegen Chess Olympiad with proposals by Dr. Wilfried Dorazil, then FIDE Vice-President, and fellow Committee members Svetozar Gligoric and Professor Arpad Elo. These changes were based on the widespread adoption of the Elo system by FIDE and its role in awarding the grandmaster title. At the time, a rating performance equivalent to 2551 was enough for a norm, and the rating required was 2450. Just as today, the player needed three norms, but at the time the three norms had to be scored within a three year period. Eventually the rating requirement was raised to 2500 as the ratings rose and the preservation of the title’s value became a concern.
Lowering the standards
To put this into perspective, in 1973, 40 years ago, a Grandmaster norm performance was the equivalent of a player ranked in the top 20-40 players in the world. This was still true ten years later in 1983, and it is worth noting that the 2450 rating required to become a grandmaster was still quite close to the world top 100, where the 91st to 100th players were rated 2485, and included Boris Gulko, Joel Benjamin, and others.
In 1987, Boris Gulko was barely 25 Elo above the minimum to be
recognized as a grandmaster, yet that ranked him 80th in the world.
By 1993, 20 years ago, things had changed significantly after several inflationary rules did their damage, such as a rule in which a tournament winner could not lose Elo, and the GM norm was now the equivalent of a player ranked in the top 60. Today, in 2013, a GM performance equates to a player ranked in the top 250, and the minimum rating to earn the title, which 30 years ago would have almost had you in the top 100 players, would now rank you around 930 in the world.
A GM is a GM? The title may be the same, but the definition and expectation of the title have clearly changed. Assuredly there are more strong players than ever before, but the grandmaster title was not an exam one passed with a diploma at the end, it was a stamp of prestige that implied world-class ability. Still, the trend of the devaluation of titles does not stop there.
The trickle-down effect
A few special cases were also introduced over time, such as winning the World Junior Under-20 Championship. At first, this prestigious championship, won by players such as Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, and even top players of today such as Anand, Aronian, and Mamedyarov, earned the player the International Master title. As time passed this was upgraded to earn the winner a grandmaster norm, until finally in 2004 it was deemed worth the title outright. From a purely Elo perspective this would seem to make sense. After all, by 2004 there were no sub-2600 winners, so the promise of the title was never actually put into practice. Unfortunately this has also led to an alarming trickle-down effect to other titles.
Garry Kasparov, winner of the World Junior Championship in Dortmund in 1980.
Second was Nigel Short (right) and third Chilean IM Ivan Eduardo Morovic (left).
Until now, the discussion has been the nonstop devaluation of what it means to be a grandmaster and the devaluation of the title itself, but this affects all other titles as a result. The reason is that all titles are actually proportionate to the grandmaster title. The requirements to become an International Master (IM) are the same as those of a Grandmaster except the rating required is 100 below. This is how it was even in 1970.
In 1978 the FIDE Master (FM) title was introduced and today the requirement is that a player be rated 2300 FIDE, which is 100 below that of the IM, or 200 Elo below that of the Grandmaster. There is also a Candidate Master (CM) title for players who reach 2200. No norms are required for these last two titles, and they are strictly dependent on one’s rating. Although there has never been any question about these titles suggesting world class ability, the problem comes with the alternate ways one can achieve these lifetime titles.
Gata Kamsky is the highest ranked player ever to not be a grandmaster,
when at age 16, and still untitled, he was 8th in the world with 2650 Elo.
One example is that one can become a FIDE Master for life by winning an event such as the Pan-American under eight championship. One might think this means that these chess-playing seven-year-olds are in fact playing at 2300 strength, but the fact is you will not find a single one of these players rated even 2000 FIDE much less 2300. So why are they receiving titles that suggest a 2300 playing strength? Good question.
As of July 1st, FIDE will expand on this title generosity, by providing a free-for-all for the Candidate Master title, which is a lifetime title conferred to players who are rated 2200 FIDE. The idea of a title to allow players, unable to achieve grandmaster status, to show they reached a dignified level of skill is commendable, but what is one to think of FIDE regulations that then guarantee the title to a six-year-old player for coming third in the Continental School under-seven championship despite being rated hundreds of Elo below the requirements? What value does the title have then?
It is obvious that the strict definition of a grandmaster as a world-class player no longer holds true, but there is a vast difference between a world-class player and one ranked no.930 in the world. It would be a tragedy for FIDE to let its most prestigious title, and aspired goal, dwindle down to mediocrity.
Solution
So what is the solution? If FIDE acknowledges the problem and wishes to revert this worrisome direction, then strong measures need to be taken. When the Elo system was implemented by FIDE in 1970, no provisions were made for possible ratings inflation and subsequently the titles, as a result, only one 50 Elo adjustment has been made in the last 40 years. Since then the rating of the 100th player has risen approximately 150 Elo.
To those who would argue that it is due to an increase in stronger players, realize that the difference between the 10th and 100th player has not changed in over 40 years. For example, in 1983, the world no.10 was 115 Elo stronger than the world no.100, and today in June 2013 the difference is 109 Elo.
In theory this would seem to indicate a need to recalibrate the title requirements, rating and norms, by 150 Elo, but a compromise would be a 100 Elo raise so that new grandmasters entering the list would still be in the top 240 players, instead of the 930th as is the case now. To prevent the problem from getting out of hand again, FIDE would implement a practice of regularly re-examining the requirements every five years and recalibrating them, if necessary, according to the lowest rating of the top 200-250 players.
As to the distribution of Elo-based titles such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master to players who have not proven their worthiness in any way or form, cease the practice immediately, as this not only besmirches the value of the title, but is an insult to players who earn them through dedication and skill. Otherwise, why stop there? Just declare them all grandmasters.