Does FIDE need to raise the GM/IM/FM bar?

That's certainly true. I guess I just have a sort of conservatism about chess though. I want to know that tommorow's GM game is a bona fide GM game as it always was - not today's IM game and yesterday's FM game.

Yeah! And in 100 years... Super-Duper-Mega-Delux-GM-Third-Degree, SDMDGM3rd

I think that all GMs are automatically SMs as well.  

SMs? Sadomasochists?

To strip players of titles earned honestly would be like taking diplomas and doctorates away from those who did the work to earn them. Can YOU still pass all the tests that earned you your HS diploma, college, maybe your masters ? I doubt many still can a few decades after earning such. Bisguire is a good example, would you strip him of his GM title simply because he has grown old and can no longer play at the GM level ?  I would not and I wouldnt take your diplomas either.

But there will still be the same amount or more of high quality players around. Why does it matter if we will then look to SGMs or whatever instead of plain old GMs for the very top quality chess?

 I played in the US from 1973-1997 and in all those years only played 5 games with GMs !  I moved to Europe ( Portugal ) and in my first big open tourney here played 5 titled players in one 9 round event, 3 of which were GMs ! The event was Dos Hermanas 1998.

Stripping players' titles from them is tough love I agree, but really the same thing would happen if an SGM title was added - current titles would be pushed down a rank, and the  GM title would only be #2 like the IM title is now. In fact just adding the SGM (or whatever it might be called) would be worse since it would make it appear that past players of the highest level were second stringers by today's standards, and I don't believe that is true.

Bisguier wouldn't have to worry though. He earned his title prior to the inflation (even prior to ratings). The only players who would have titles stripped (more likely downgraded to the next lower level) would be those who earned their norms after the inflation started (around '84-'85), and even then it would be decided on a case by case basis.

Also, I'm not proposing that titles not be lifetime awards. This correction of taking away titles would be a one time event to fix a problem an normalize a situation. Players wouldn't have to maintain a certain level of play to retain their titles, they would just have to achieve a level of performance commensurate with what it took in past decades to obtain them.

Does anyone have stats on the total number of FIDE rated players, titled or otherwise, in 1972 as compared to today?

The interesting thing is that these days, there is a *much* bigger gap between GMs than there is between a GM and a non-titled player - 2500 - 2280 = 220 point gap to below FM, whereas 2500-2800+ is a 300+ point gap.

Which to me seems slightly odd.

As I said in my response to Reb, It wouldn't be fair to oldtimers. People naively looking at the situation (and there are always lots of such people) might get the false impression that todays SGMs are a class above where, say, Korchnoi or Beliavsky were in in a former time - e.g. "You talk about Korchnoi, well he was just a GM wasn't he? I think today's Super-GMs-With-Sprinkles like Stompinassky could play circles around him".

I don't think it is right or fair to strip players of titles. They put in the work and the wins to get there. I think any changes would only have to apply to future title candidates.

I don't think it would be a meaningful piece of information. In the past a player had to obtain a minimum (I believe 2200, but I'll have to check) rating just to have an FIDE rating. Today it is much lower.

Hmm, well you can probably see where I'm going with it -- if the proportion of total players between then and now is the same or similar to the proportion of titled players between then and now then I don't think there's anything odd about the difference at all.

Yeah, I knew exactly where you were going. In theory I think your approach might be a really good way to settle the question, but in practice I think it is just beset with too many confounding factors.

And I think that is obviously a symptom of the inflation. Today there are some GMs who should rightly be FMs (not many, most should be IMs).

If you think about it, it's really sad that, in all likelyhood, there are people out there who never got an international title at all because they were just born too early. They might be GMs if only they had the good fortune of being born in 1987 and not 1947.

Actually winning a national championship does not get you a IM title, it's probably worse than that, those you refer got them in zonal qualifiers, an FM also got his title in one of these, and another one at an Olympiad I believe. I have seen much worse from other countries btw, a few 1900 FM's and 2000 IM's. These days at an Olympiad if you make x number of points no matter the opposition you get a title, no norms, no rating, nothing, same as many other tournaments. I agree this is ridiculous and should be stopped. These one shot tournament paper title giveaways are a shame. It used to mean that having a title meant something.

In 1972 only Fischer was over 2700 and he was closer to 2800 at 2785. Spassky was #2 and 100 points lower. Today there are more than 30 GMs 0ver 2700. I dont believe they are all better than Spassky was in 1972.

very nice article..!!

 You are wrong here, Stuart Rachels got his IM title after he tied for first in a US Closed Championship, and a team mate of mine here in Portugal got the IM title for winning the National Championship of Angola even though he has never been 2400 and didnt make 3 norms, he is about my strength. We played for the same team and I was ahead of him on board 1. I am pretty sure thats how other IMs get their titles, like the current Puerto Rican "IMs". Do you know Kramnik got his GM title on the strength of one Olympiad result , but he deserved it ! In that Olympiad Kramnik was only an FM but he was like 2680 !  LOL