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.
I would agree. According to ChessMetrics, Spassky's peak rating was 2773, and his rating was 2739 when the Fischer/Spassky match started (both figures adjusted to equate to 2005 FIDE ratings).
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.
I would agree. According to ChessMetrics, Spassky's peak rating was 2773, and his rating was 2739 when the Fischer/Spassky match started (both figures adjusted to equate to 2005 FIDE ratings).
It wouldn't surprise me if there are 30 or more people nowadays that are better than Spassky was. With the advancement of theory, even a modern player with not as much talent would get into a superior middlegame usually..
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.
I would agree. According to ChessMetrics, Spassky's peak rating was 2773, and his rating was 2739 when the Fischer/Spassky match started (both figures adjusted to equate to 2005 FIDE ratings).
It wouldn't surprise me if there are 30 or more people nowadays that are better than Spassky was. With the advancement of theory, even a modern player with not as much talent would get into a superior middlegame usually..
Well, I wouldn't deny there being such a thing as chess progress, I just think it is a slow, evolutionary process. My best guesstimate (though I admit not one with a really well founded statistical basis) from having played through master games with imput from strong computer programs, is that players of today are only on the order of 1 to 1.5 Elo points stronger per year than their predecessors. If Spassky (at his peak) was time warped in and allowed to catch up on theory and study his opponents games, I think he'd play as a lower 2700s player. Morphy, on the other hand, would probably get whipped mercilessly by today's elite.
honestly, there is almost no inflation at all, and anyway if i was a gm (which i hope to be some day) i would be very mad if i go to website forums and everyone is talking about how i didnt get my gm title legitly and wanting me to lose my title becuase of some "speculations that inflation is happening"
honestly, there is almost no inflation at all, and anyway if i was a gm (which i hope to be some day) i would be very mad if i go to website forums and everyone is talking about how i didnt get my gm title legitly and wanting me to lose my title becuase of some "speculations that inflation is happening"
I am convinced by the statistical evidence that the situation is far from "almost no inflation at all" and not just a matter of speculation. Read these links:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5608
http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/
I suppose some GMs might take offense to this thread, but honestly that is their problem. I believe the discussion is appropriate and justified by the evidence.
If I were a player who could have become a solid GM by 1970s satndards, I'd be offended that a player 150 or more points below my level would now have a good chance at obtaining my title that I had worked so hard for, and some titled players feel the same way - Susan Polgar has spoken out on the ratings inflation subject.
Instead of raising the bar, FIDE could release the Super-GM title, SGM. And 20 years from now, they can release the Super-Mega-GM title, SMGM.
SMGM sounds a little akward, perhaps WCC is better ~_~
I think it definitely needs to be stricter. There shouldn't be a reduction to 1976 levels, but there definitely needs to be a reduction.
This is an interesting post, I've been thinking about it....
Being a GM shoud be a very special thing. Too many titles diminishes it's value.
Maybe there should be a fixed number of new titles every year, say only 8 or 10.
Dunno, just a thought.
Talking about "black belts" - in chess the "first step" is titles ("he's an IM, must know something about chess"). Second step is victories ("wow, he has won Dortmund, he must be a strong GM"). The third step is distinction - when everyone knows that you're a top pro ("Morozevich"). And the fourth step is respect from those who have made the third step, i.e. being the best among top pros ("Anand")! 
Coming from average chess player ideology, I believe titles should be indicative to the pool of those registered in each federation. I haven't researched this, but I assume that more people have participated, say FIDE, in recent years than in the 70's; therefore more titles should be given out. With advancements in mass media publication people most certaintly will be more involved in the chess community.
Only lately the middle class in India has reached a stage where it can think of travelling abroad. Also air fares have come down. Add to that availability of computers. What is true for India is also true for China and many other countries. Anand had tough time travelling outside on a shoe string budget in the beginning. Clever boys and girls have better chances now of showing to the world what they can do. It is but natural that their will be more GMs and IMs now. And it will only get better.
Question is: Is it due to availability of cheaper and better facilities, the talent has got more opportunities to reach it's potential, leading to more success stories, which makes the bar to appear lowered or the bar has actually been lowered?
In case bar has not been lowered (and yet there are more GMs) then do we need to raise it further so that there are fewer GMs in the world? In that case how will we compare future GMs with current ones?
In case bar has been lowered, it should be corrected ASAP.
How would players hold their trousers up before they get the black-belt? Thank goo it's a sitting down game.
Coming from average chess player ideology, I believe titles should be indicative to the pool of those registered in each federation. I haven't researched this, but I assume that more people have participated, say FIDE, in recent years than in the 70's; therefore more titles should be given out. With advancements in mass media publication people most certaintly will be more involved in the chess community.
From Chess Companion:
The word (grandmaster) gained wider currency in the early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated Granmaster events, eg Ostend, 1907 and San Sebastian, 1912. At that time a Grandmaster was someone who might sensibly be considered as a challenger for the world championship, but now some to whom the word champion could give odds bear that title.
I am totally fine with them raising these bars.
After I get the FM title.
Ok. Here 13 years later...
About, Ratings now vs then, Spassky, etc.
Elo ratings are relative to the rest of the population. If you had a closed Elo system of 12 year olds in the US (or any country), where you only counted matches between members of the same group, you would have a normal distribution and there would be ratings of 2000-2700 or over. Elo gives points for beating people, it doesn't measure against a universal standard that would be the same in 1972 vs 2022.
About, raising the bar for titles... The most accurate way would be to award them only on the basis of Elo rating, not for winning events where the field may have weak ratings. But, that brings back the problem FIDE is likely trying to solve by awarding titles for reasons other than strictly Elo. People inside a close Elo population, like a country, will have a high ranking within the country and if they don't compete sufficiently within the Worldwide Elo systems you can't place them accurately.
Now, another question comes up. Once a player reaches a threshold for a FIDE title he keeps it for good, but he may stop playing for a long time for some reason and we cannot assume they are still the same level. They may come back and perform 200-300 Elo below their title requirements. Should there be some rules for keeping titles or being "demoted"? eg. Keep it for X years, after that player must participate in Y number of sanctioned matches a year to keep their title or other criteria
Now, another question comes up. Once a player reaches a threshold for a FIDE title he keeps it for good, but he may stop playing for a long time for some reason and we cannot assume they are still the same level. They may come back and perform 200-300 Elo below their title requirements. Should there be some rules for keeping titles or being "demoted"? eg. Keep it for X years, after that player must participate in Y number of sanctioned matches a year to keep their title or other criteria
No. A FIDE title is like winning an Olympic medal. Once an Olympic medalist, always an Olympic medalist, and you don't lose it when your performance declines (it can be lost for other reasons like doping, but that's because you didn't earn it legitimately in the first place).
The FIDE rating is another matter; that will go down when performance declines, and maybe there should be some kind of age-decay formula for inactive players, which gradually decreases the ratings of players who haven't played a minimum number of rated games each year.
It would help the situation if they just did away with all the bogus/affirmative action titles they give. Look at the ratings of the current top Puerto Rican players for example. There are several "IMs" that have never been over 2400 which is the min required rating for the IM title, so why are they IMs ? Apparently , if you win a National Championship you get the IM title, no matter how weak the players you play may be, this should be stopped.
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.
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
Well that may be true for some countries, maybe it depends on certain requirements the country or national championship must meet, like a certain average rating and/or number of titled players, etc. But I can say for fact that nobody in Puerto Rico has achieved a title in a national championship BUT, they have mostly (2 exceptions) indeed made it in a single tournament (no norms, ratings, etc) like the old zonal tournaments which were very easy to get titles since the overall competition was weak and you just needed to make a few points. So winning a national championship is not how most make these easy titles, it seems not all countries qualify for this and you only get 1 champ per country cycle, but there are other easy tournaments where any number of people can walk out with their very own mass market title and it's how Puerto Rico got most of its titled players.