IM Shankland quitting chess

I know this is blasphemy to say on a chess website amongst chess playing professionals and chess worshipers but;

It's just chess. It's a board game. There are other things he can do with his life. He has been able to apply himself to this game successfully (up to a point) and with talent. But maybe this IS for his own best interests.

You'll be missed IM Shankland

Nobody should be bagging on him for venting. Who hasn't vented? I admire him for not hiding his feelings when there was a camera in front of him. It's none of my business but I still hope he has a change of heart because I believe those obstacles that are getting him down can be overcome.

How many here ever made decisions as a teen and lived by them, never changing their mind ? 

For norm opportunities the US should do like Europe does and have more closed round robin events specifically for the purpose of making IM and/or GM norms. IN this manner he would be guaranteed to get the necessary minimum # of games with GMs .... I dont know why this isnt as popular in the US as in Europe.  

Depending on the number of GMs playing there are events where a win ratio of 75% is not enough to get a GM norm, so winning a lot is not enough, and it should not be.

Besides I agree that there are too many grandmasters, to the extent that the title has become almost meaningless. The original grandmasters were only a half-dozen or so, and we still know their names today; now there are hundreds, and even regular chess players would not recognize most of their names.

 They pay them to play, plus all their expenses . I have even been paid to play a closed round robin event here because I gave them a very cheap extra flag. I was paid 200 euros just for playing in an event that was for IM norm possibilities. GM norm was impossible since no GMs played. THey need to have a minimum number of countries represented as well , I think its 4 or 5 countries, not sure.

Looks like the minimum number of countries that must be represented is 3.  Here are the norm rules from FIDE.

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=58&view=article

 Mars is cold.

Let's have some perspective people.  Sam is 18, as NM Reb said above, people make irrational decisions/comments at that age.  It's not an excuse, it's just context to the situation. 

@ WGM Pogonina's comment on the first page, Sam never calls the players stupid, he talks about dealing with stupid people, which I almost guarantee is referring to the tournament organizers and/or chess governing bodies (FIDE).

One rule that should be scrapped is the need to play GM's from 3 different countries.  I suspect, this is a relic from the Soviet era when they feared thrown games.  Having to only play 3 grandmasters would be sensible or even up this number to 4.  This would make it easier for U.S. players to get the G.M. title without traveling to Europe.  Also, I suspect the large prize funds of open tournaments draw grandmasters.  Closed IM/GM tournaments would be ideal for norm hunting but are rare in the U.S.  I suspect they are rare because they need corporate or rich benefactors to pay for them.  Chess isn't popular to attract tons of money to its support.  We need professional GMs who have the time and money to promote the game and compete seriously to make chess more popular.  Instead they spend too much time teaching students.  Ordinary masters are plenty strong enough for this task, of course. 

I suspect Sam's decision makes sense.  We treat our chess professionals with a certain negligent contempt.  If we want chess to succeed in the U.S. we need G.M. level players to be able to succeed as chess professionals.  Bobby Fischer despite all his many flaws, raised the living standards of GM"s by making "outrageous" financial demands.  His leverage made himself wealthy and eventually made wealthy Kasparov, Karpov, and few other elite players.  Chess in the U.S. really needs something on smaller scale to make more GM's stick with chess.

It's possible Sam is making the decision for irrational reasons, but who knows?  Four years of college aren't harmful to anyone unless perhaps they're aspiring to be world champion.

As someone mentioned, there are too many GM's.  I would suggest creating a new official title of super-GM for those over 2700.  This would make the true living legends of the game clear. They would lose it if their rating dropped below this rating.   I think they do that currently with the master title in the U.S.  This would give GMs another goal for their lives.  I notice many IMs become less ambitious once they get their GM title.

Um. Last year (when I was 16) I decided to quit soccer. I've done well so far and I'm 17! I guess it is possible!

Why is it referred to as a norm, anyway? The only norm I had ever heard of before getting on this site is Norm Peterson on Cheers reruns.

I read Sam's blog. He said that he is losing $20,000 in possible income by not hitting his goal in this "gap" year before college of getting one more norm to make GM.

Why can't there be 1000+ new GM's per year? If they are at Grand Master playing strength, then why not award them the title? I don't here anyone complaining about too many martial artist black belts awarded each year.

Especially in the U.S. where chess is not as popular, I'd like to see more financial support (sponsors) for all the titled players. We as non titled players need good instructors and won't have many to pick from if most are starving.

While the GM title is not the same as when Kortchnoi got it- as he as pointed out on many occasions. I agree with IM Pruess that it is in fact difficult enough. The distribution of player base vs GM's has not changed significantly over the last few decades and the quality of play has only gone up in that time period.

ret,

you are right that if they had a quota of 1000 new gms each year, the title would be diluted.

the notion that you could cherry-pick tournaments to raise your rating-- and that rating is not a good indicator of whether or not you have actually reached a gm level... i have to disagree with strongly. rating is quite a good indication of your level; and it's hard to manipulate it by picking certain tournaments. i think really the one way to inflate it would be to either A) play in an area with an inflated rating pool if there is one, and i don't know of any big difference between elo ratings in n amer, s amer, europe, africa, or asia. or B) cheat.

and saying that a high rating does not indicate whether someone has good communication skills is a bit beside the point, since having a gm title does not indicate that either. in any case, you have to try to find someone who has teaching/communication skills.

finally, i think it's pretty obvious that by "starving" he meant not dying from lack of calories, but perhaps: not having health care; or not having a nice room to stay in; or finding another job bc playing chess will not cover their expenses.

Just out of curiosity: where did the number come from? A special scholarship which he hasn't been awarded?

A combo of entry fees, increased rates for lessons, and other tournament considerations (free hotel, appearance fees etc)

yeah, in 1. i can imagine there are some spots like that. i just don't know of them.

3. yes, i agree. for 99.99% chess remains a hobby payed for by other employment.