Should FIDE Abolish the Candidate Master Title?

Hello and welcome back to another blog! I've only been back in the USA for a month since my vacation in New Zealand, and while I enjoyed the break from serious blogging, it's time to get back into the flow.

This blog is going to be different. Instead of recapping a chess tournament or giving a summary of my improvement over a period of time, I'm going to be diving into a topic that was a big to-do in one of my previous blogs, the question of the Candidate Master title.

Along the way we'll dive into rabbit-holes like: what is a title? How do you get a title? What is the purpose of a title? All of this will lead us to the final decision...

Should FIDE Abolish the CM Title?

Table of Contents: 

• How we got here.
• What is a Chess Title?
• What is the purpose of a title?
• How many people hold titles?
• Is the Candidate Master title meaningless?
• Should FIDE Abolish the CM title?

How we got here.

Many of you know that I posted a blog in New Zealand about beating the champion of New Zealand, then IM-elect Felix Xie (he's now IM - congrats!). I also played chess in many clubs around the country and had some awesome experiences. 

This was my first blog written about overseas chess and given that I also managed to beat the champion of New Zealand in my first ever game with him, this blog led to quite a fervor. I dropped a rock into a pond, so to speak, and the ripples are still moving.

But what led me to write this blog, the one you're reading right now, was a comment left a few days after I posted my article. I played a couple of Candidate Masters (CM) in one of the tournaments, and in my recap I made a brief side comment about how those CMs hadn't reached 2200 FIDE to earn the CM title; they had instead scored a strong performance in one singular tournament and had earned their titles that way. One person anonymously asked me to word this more gently, so as not to 'degrade them'. Below is the full statement. (link to the comment)

Hello, Welcome to New Zealand Glad you had a good time.

"The title 'CM' that he has is a bit deceiving, because he earned it through inter-zonal tournaments and not by reaching 2200." - A lot of our titled players receive their title automatically. We are a small country, it is not easy to get your rating up. Although a lot of our titled players will admit to not being the rating of the title they have, I don't believe there is any need to shove it their face. They still work hard to receive these titles, and you should know there is experience, dedication and years of hard work behind them. Some of our titled players already feel defeated if they are not at the rating they should be. There is no need to point out the obvious. Please be proud of our players achievements instead of degrading them 

I hope you enjoy the rest of your stay here. Good luck in Invercargill!

— @ticklepudding

Well. That was curious. I later edited my blog for clarity, and the situation was resolved amicably. 

But is it over? I don't think so. 

During the rest of my trip in New Zealand, the wheels kept spinning in my head, and I kept wondering about the deeper implications. I've always considered the CM title to be a 2200 strength title, and it just seemed off to earn it some other way.

The final straw was when I played the New Zealand Chess Congress from Jan 2-11 and saw many more CMs below the rating of 2200. I knew that I wouldn't be able to rest until I had settled the matter once and for all. 

As soon as I got back to Minnesota, I started work! Along the way, I stumbled across the idea of interviewing some titled players to get their thoughts on this matter, and I was fortunate to have a few Masters give me their time to answer a few questions. These Masters are: WGM Jovana Erić (@jolie92), an author and coach who has represented Serbia at multiple Olympiads; IM Eric Li (@Commando_Droid), a strong American who earned the International Master title in 2024 at the age of 17; and FM @isengard1, a junior from Germany and owner of "The FanWings." club. 

What you are reading is the work of almost ten weeks of thought and research, the interviews of some experienced masters who graciously gave me feedback and their thoughts, and my conclusions at the end. Enjoy!

What is a Chess Title?

At first glance this question seems easy. One quick Google search and you'll find the Wikipedia page on chess titles, which has the following description: "FIDE titles are awarded by the international chess governing body FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) for outstanding performance. The highest such title is Grandmaster (GM). Titles generally require a combination of Elo rating and norms (performance benchmarks in competitions including other titled players). Once awarded, titles are held for life except in cases of fraud or cheating."

FIDE titles are awarded by the international chess governing body FIDE for outstanding performance. *

— Wikipedia

*(To clarify, I will not be including national titles as part of this article. National chess organizations can give out titles, however these are not regulated or recognized by FIDE, and national titles also vary in strength and method of achievement.)

Objectively, a title is recognition for chess success, but in my opinion, it also carries more weight than that. A chess title should be worth the journey. It should be difficult to get, not everyone can be a master. 

A chess title should be the sum of your chess journey.

— @theeldest1

To use an analogy, gaining a title could be similar to going up the ranks of the military, with GM being a four-star general. Each title is higher than the last, harder to get, and carries more weight.

Chess titles serve the function of recognizing the world's top players. Titles like GM and IM stand for an extremely high level that only a few players can reach, while FM has traditionally been a realistic goal for strong, ambitious players.

— FM isengard1

Just about sums it up there. But there's one point I'd like to highlight, which is that chess titles are for the best players in the world. That will become more relevant as our journey continues, so let's dive into the next question and see where that takes us.

What is the purpose of a title?

So we know what a title is. But what does it mean, both to the person who earned it and the people who see it? 

Let's see what our titled friends think. What does their title mean to them?

There are definitely some benefits to having a chess title, especially if you are a professional or competitive OTB player. In order to play in some strong international tournaments, you can often get certain conditions (accommodation, meals, since these can be expensive for those who are not financially well situated, and sometimes even travel tickets), which allows people to compete with strong players ... For me personally, this title is just something I attach to my name when I have to write a chess introduction.

— WGM Jovana Erić

That makes sense, the benefits to having a chess title can be very good. In early January, I played the 133rd New Zealand Chess Congress, and there were two GMs from Europe who received many 'freebies' to entice them to play in New Zealand. The reason organizations will do this is to encourage more participation, with the prospect of playing a Grandmaster very enticing for the masses. 

I think IM is a great recognition of my own personal success. However, I stopped feeling the effect of it 1 month after receiving it. At the end of the day, it's just 2 letters, yk. 

— IM Eric Li

One thing both of these masters agreed on was that their titles aren't the "Holy Grail" of chess. I also noticed this with many of the best grandmasters in the world. GM Hikaru Nakamura, for example, is so good at chess and known for so many other things than being a GM. You almost forget that Hikaru is a grandmaster because of his other activities.

A title certainly is meaningful and special, but the charm does wear off after a while. 

Despite this, I do believe that a title is a treasure, something to strive for, earn and then cherish and display as a symbol of your accomplishments. 

Even though the novelty of having a title can wear off after a while, the sensation of being a titled player still affects everyone around you. I conducted a poll in several clubs, asking non-titled players what they thought about chess titles and the people who hold them. The overwhelming response was along the lines of awe, respect, and curiosity. When you see a titled player, you think: "Wow, (s)he put in the effort, studied hard, and is a master at this game". 

What does it mean to me? This person is no mere chesser… they are a chessman (or chesswoman). They have dedicated years of time and effort into chess to make it either their profession or simply to live life enjoying their passion - respect. Also, I know they're mooching off the rest of us and getting Diamond for free - that irks me.

Even so, what I feel when I see a title is a little awe and curiosity about who they are and what I'll find by looking at their profile. I also wonder if they would like to be my friend or join one of my clubs.

If I were to randomly play against a titled player (which I've yet to do), I would feel shocked, excited, a little nervous, more excited, focused, and curious (as to how the game will go and what I'll learn from reviewing their play).

— @King_Red_A, blogger and owner of iCHESS, one of the oldest clubs still active today.

I believe this sums it up for most players, myself included. Whenever I play a titled player (regardless of the title they hold), it's an opportunity for me to test myself against one of the best in the world; and if I win, I treasure that win far above a win against a non-titled player. There's a reason that I remember each and every win against Grandmasters, all 14 wins to date.

Okay, so we know what a title is and what it means. Now let's dive into specifics, and then we'll talk about the Candidate Master title. How many people hold titles? 

How many people hold titles?

Now that we've defined what a chess title is and what it means, the next question is fairly obvious. How many people have titles? Wikipedia came in handy for this, as the data is already compiled in a nice table on the Wiki page.  Note: Perhaps due to timing, there are some discrepancies between this table and FIDE's current tally.

The first obvious thing that jumps out about the table is the vast majority of men that hold titles vs women. That is a whole other rabbit hole, and we won't go down there today! For clarity's sake, I'll be using the "Total" column for my next few points. 

While in New Zealand, I had a conversation with two experienced tournament directors, Craig Hall and Richie Christie. I asked them about the number of titles and relative strength, and received the logical answer that the higher a title is, the fewer titles there are. An easy illustration of this is a simple pyramid: as you go up the pyramid (indicating that your strength is higher), there are fewer and fewer people there.

It's logical to make that inference, since it makes sense that the farther up the rating ladder you go, the fewer the number of people that make it there. But then why are there so few CMs? Let's take another look at that table, but this time we'll focus on the number of players that hold the FM title vs CM.

So why is that? Why are there almost three times as many FMs as CMs? If the CM title is truly a stand-alone achievement of mastery, then why are there so few of them? It's not like CM is harder to get than FM, is it?

The first reason that jumps to mind is actually regarding the requirements for CM vs FM. To get the FIDE Master title, you need a rating of 2300. That's it, no norms, no nothing. That is significantly easier than IM and GM, which need higher ratings and norms (norms are extremely strong performances in a top tournament), thus leading to more FMs compared to IMs and GMs. 

So what is the Candidate Master title like? Well, to get CM, there's one main option. If you reach a classical rating of 2200 and apply for it, you get the CM title. That's 100 points below the FM title, so there should be more CMs than there are. Why is that?

 I guess CM is simply not worth paying for those who have crossed 2200+, as they are already very close to 2300 and the FM title, which carries much more recognition. I think this is the main reason people don’t want to spend more money than necessary to make these titles official. Many people have earned them but prefer to chase the next step instead.

I’m also not sure whether CM holders receive any conditions for tournaments, perhaps if they are very young prodigies, organizers might grant them some, but in general, I’m not sure what it brings them other than credentials.

— WGM Jovana Erić

That's a very good perspective, since there are certainly many thousands of people who are at the 2200 level. Maybe they just ignore the CM title to go after the FM title, and CM isn't worth applying for. 

International Master Eric Li agrees.

There are more FM's than CM's, because many people who achieve CM don't even bother claiming it. 

— IM Eric Li

Why bother going after the CM title, when FM is just around the corner? The same logic notably doesn't apply for IM and GM, since those titles require a much higher rating (which is far harder to get), and three norms which are also difficult to achieve. 

The only other thing that needs to be mentioned is the fact that CM is a relatively recent title, as it was only introduced in 2002. Since it has only been around for the last 24 years, there may some timing issues, and perhaps over time the number of Candidate Masters will increase. 

Is the Candidate Master title meaningless?

The reason why I ask this question is really because of direct title tournaments. The main way to achieve the CM title is by reaching 2200, but it's not the only way. You can also get the CM title by placing in the top 3 of the World Youth Championships (U8-U16), top 3 of the Continental Youth Championships, and by achieving a 50%+ score at an Olympiad. Usually, you also need to have a minimum rating of 2000 in order to apply for Candidate Master.

Yes, this is in fact true for every title. I once played against an IM from the UAE who was rated 1900. Some countries have special rules for awarding titles if they don’t have many masters. I’ve seen this with the UAE, some other Arab countries, and parts of Africa as well.

For example, when you win the World Cup, you get the GM title in both the open and women’s sections, even if you don’t have the necessary norms. The same applies to continental events, winning a strong tournament can open this opportunity. I think that’s reasonable, as certain achievements deserve to be rewarded with a title upfront.

— WGM Jovana Erić

Okay, so you can get the CM title when you're only 2000. That's not too bad, is it? But there's more. If you're very young and over-perform in one international youth tournament, you can get the CM title regardless of rating.

There are many examples of young children who earned the Candidate Master title with ratings just over 1000. 

Is that going too far? Should FIDE be awarding titles based off of one-time performances, even when the player — with all due respect — isn't close to 2200? We seem to be getting dangerously close to the infamous 'American participation trophies', where everyone gets a medal regardless of performance. This isn't what titles are about.

The only reason that jumps to mind about this is motivation. As has been pointed out, the CM title can be a very good motivator for many people on their chess journey, and especially for juniors. Perhaps giving juniors an easier path to a title will encourage them on their journey, and help them reach heights that they thought were impossible?

But unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. Looking at each of the examples listed above, they have a few things in common. All of them are still well below 2200, and a couple of them are inactive (haven't played FIDE chess in years). For some of them, the title wasn't enough to keep going.

I think it's nice for them, but honestly unnecessary, as it means very little later on if they played well once in an under-10-year-old championship and then are stuck at 1000-1600 for the rest of their life. This distorts their strength and needs to be changed.

— FM isengard1

Yes, I dislike direct title tourneys, especially for the higher-up titles like IM and GM. Yes, I did get CM from a youth tourney, when I wasn't even 2200 FIDE or CM strength. 

— IM Eric Li

Eric earned the CM title when he was 10, rated around 1800. However, his journey didn't stop there, and he reached 2200 in 2019, eventually earning the title of International Master in 2024.

I'm also against direct-title tournaments, because I think it dilutes the meaning of the title itself. For example, the only difference between me and a CM who earned their title through one tournament would be that (s)he had one really good tournament, and I didn't. But we're still at the same strength chess-wise, when normally the CM should be far above my level.

Of course one could suspect FIDE of issuing this title for financial purposes. Since you have to pay a fee to apply for the CM title, FIDE makes around $150,000 a year from title applications (counting all titles). That said, the FIDE budget is around $18,000,000, so the title fees only constitute ~1% of the total income that FIDE generates each year suggesting that probably wasn't a significant factor for them. 

Should FIDE Abolish the CM title?

And now we wrap all of this together, get some final thoughts from our distinguished titled masters, and I'll conclude with my thoughts. In summary, this is what we have covered, specifically relating to the Candidate Master title.

1. Chess titles are for the best players in the world. They distinguish masters from the rest.
2. Although the novelty of having a title can wear off for the person who earns it, a title carries extreme prestige, honour, and weight within the greater chess community. 
3. It is currently possible to earn the Candidate Master title without reaching a CM level of play. 
4. The pros of direct-title tournaments are: increased motivation for the player, recognition for success, and potentially a shortcut to a title if the player was going to get there anyway.
5. The cons of direct-title tournaments are: a number of titled players who are far below the strength that their title indicates, an increasing lack of respect for the CM title, and an unfair representation of titles.

What do our titled friends think?

I don’t think [the CM title] should be abolished, as players themselves decide whether they want to pay for the title to become official. If they don’t, nothing is attached to their name and they can continue chasing the next one. So basically, its existence in the rules doesn’t mean you instantly get it unless the payment is made, it’s entirely up to players how they want to proceed next.

— WGM Jovana Erić

That's fair. I mean, if players would rather just continue on to the next title - that of FIDE Master - and skip CM, it's entirely in their own rights to do so.

Yes, CM and WCM should be abolished. They are not seen as legitimate titles by most players in the chess community. 

— IM Eric Li

Since the CM title is so close to the FM title, why have CM at all?

Generally, I think the CM should not be abolished. However, it is an interesting case.

Some years ago the CM title became popular. Overall, the title is often not taken seriously, for example, in IM norms tournaments where a certain number of points against titled players are required, the CM title isn't counted. In my club, some older FMs also made fun of the title. It's different for juniors, where the title is viewed is a popular goal. I also planned to apply for it, I was only prevented from doing so, because I reached 2300 right after. Anyway still many say it dilutes the specialty of the titles and the CM title is therefore often skipped. Additional because of the unequal ratio of 9,500 FMs compared to only about 3,500 CMs some may even go so far as to say that the CM title is useless and should be abolished.

I disagree with that. As I mentioned before, I also planned to apply for the CM title because I hadn't made any progress for a long time back then, and one of the few things that kept me motivated to stay active in chess was to achieve the CM title. I think many other juniors feel the same way, so it's important to keep it. It could also be that titles in some federations stand out positively and the players are promoted accordingly. Another reason is the chess creators. One of the best and most popular streamers, @Witty_Alien, is CM, and he certainly wouldn't have been able to build such a successful community if he wouldn't have the title. The CM title may lack the prestige of higher titles, but reaching 2200 Elo is still a significant achievement, meaning you are about top 20,000 global, so why not honoring it? 

Personally, I respect the CM title and do not agree with the arguments against it, even though I understand where they come from. I wouldn't also support any newly introduced title for 2100 ELO, but the CM title is fine to me.

— FM isengard1

Excellent summary of the debate surrounding this issue. The biggest issue with removing the CM title entirely is that it is a major stepping stone for many players, providing motivation and a reward to help you along as you journey onto greater heights. 

Now we come into the most interesting part of this whole discussion: differing opinions. This is where you make your own decision, where you formulate your own opinion based off of the evidence.

What do you think? Do you think the Candidate Master title is obsolete? Maybe devalued since people can get it without meeting the criteria? Or perhaps you think that it's a fair solution trying to do the best it can, giving more people the chance to stand out while also encouraging them to keep going?

Whatever you decide is up to you! I'm not going to tell you what to think. All I will do is provide the evidence, add some speculation, and leave the rest up to you.  My personal opinion is below.

What do I think? I have had multiple opinions on this, and I actually flipped while writing this blog. Originally I thought that the CM title should be discarded completely, as there didn't seem to be much point to it. Now I'm not so sure about that.

The reason why this topic is important to me is because of the Candidate Masters that I played in the NSCC Lightning Championship in Auckland. I played against two CMs there, and both were rated around my rating, or slightly higher. For one of them especially, we were both around the same age, with roughly the same rating (~1900), yet one of us was a Candidate Master, and one of us wasn't. The only difference between us was that he had competed in and won a special tournament. That doesn't seem right.

Despite this, I don't think the CM title should be abolished. I think it is a good introduction into the world of chess mastery for many players and provides encouragement and motivation to reach the next height. However there is one important change that should to be made.

FIDE should abolish direct-title tournaments. It undermines everything that a title is if you can skip the line and the hard work and win a title in one tournament. I believe this applies to all titles, from WCM to GM, but especially for the Candidate Master title. The only way to earn a title should be through the established method; for CM that means getting to 2200. 

— theeldest1

I hope you enjoyed reading through this blog! Hopefully you learned something, and will sift through the data and arrive at your own conclusion. 

This is my first time writing as an 'investigative journalist', and I honestly had so much fun. There was a ton of material left over from this blog; so much that I might make a part 2, but that depends on the reaction that this blog gets. Drop a comment down below with your opinion!

Take care, have a good one!

— Ethan Harrison

Check out my blogs!