Is FIDE Corrupt?

When I started my Chess career, I posted a thrilling thread discussing exactly how easy is it to become a GM. 

(https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-easy-is-it-to-become-a-gm)

At the time of writing, I had an important assumption in mind. I fully believed that one has to be 2500+ to be considered a GM. 

This is what we all consider to be FIDE's cardinal rule for awarding the GM title. That a player must be rated 2500 and up. 

But what I found today will shock you. A list of players all rated 2500 and below, but yet hold a GM title. http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml?idcode=&name=&title=g&other_title=&country=%25&sex=&srating=0&erating=3000&birthday=&radio=rating&line=asc

This can be only explained by one thing. FIDE corruption. These players must work for FIDE or have family members who work for FIDE. How could we have let this fall through the cracks? It's time to stand up to FIDE. It's demeaning to the sport to award somebody with a ridiculously low rating like 2000 the GM title. I'm happy to share this new information with you all. I am thinking about writing a letter to FIDE. Please discuss what I should include in it. 

Lots of paper currency...

Doesn't it just anger you?

Nikola Spiridonov's dad must be the FIDE president or something. 

So by the OP's reasoning, my Master of Science degree should be taken away because I got old and slow now???? Well at least I'm still a "Grandpatzer".

I am not aware of corruption in the awarding of GM titles, but yes, in other areas, FIDE is the most corrupt international sports organization the world has ever seen.  You think the NCAA and the IOC are corrupt (they are), but FIDE does corruption better because they are smarter, probably because they play chess. 

You need only to look at the current FIDE president (and at the previous one too, that guy was something) to be able answer that question easily.  That said, all sports organizations are extremely corrupt, just due to the sheer popularity of sports, the amount of money revolving in the industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of sport consumers are only interested in the show and don't care about what's going on behind the scene - FIDE isn't that bad, compared, say, to soccer organizations.

Yes

but as expected your whole speel is, ridiculous.  A Gm is earned for life; so obviously people will fall short of their highest, best 2500+ shape.

---

@ May  while you are definitely correct; there is something particularly corrupt about Kirsan.

(....bursting into tears of laffter from the above username....TY BeepBeep !!....totally made my Monday morning !! Now. Must go clear the yogurt outta my nose....)

It shouldn't be earned for life. You should have to maintain a certain level if you want to be considered a GM. And I highly doubt that somebody like Nikola Spiridonov ever made it to 2500. He's rated like 400 points below that right now. His dad or mom probably work at FIDE and decided to give him the title for nothing. Spoiled. 

That's why they award titles for life. Otherwise it would be unfair, as titles should be more of an achievement, not a standard.

Is FIDE corrupt? Probably. I would be surprised if it isn't.

As a general rule of thumb the more money, power and prestige an organization controls the more corrupt it is; unless it has strong mechanism to keep it in check (pun intended). And by that metric FIFA should be more corrupt.

Is it organized like a democracy where the leaders are accountable to a large group of stakeholders (i.e. they can vote to remove them), or is organized more like a autocracy? Check out "selectorate theory" for more information.

In FIFA thirteen people is enough to cast a decisive vote. In IOC i think it's about fifty. Another way to look at it is to calculate how much it cost to buy/bribe enough representatives to get a majority.

What do I think? 

I think that there needs to be standards. Players should maintain a 2500 rating if they want to be considered a GM. Not have one good run at a tournament. Where they get their norms, and celebrate for the rest of their life. What example is this setting? It's ridiculous. And like I said before Nikola Spiridonov has a rating of about 2100. I doubt he ever even achieved the norms. He's probably some kid, whose uncle is working for FIDE and gave him a free GM title. 

While I agree FIDE may be corrupt in its administration, what's corrupted in this situation is the meaning of "grandmaster" in chess, specifically what the GM title is defined to be compared to what it's unconsciously associated with.  

The definition of a FIDE GM is first established by FIDE. Only when an individual or group imagines a GM as something different from what FIDE intended it to be will the conflict described in the first post occur. 

Hence, GMs greatly vary in strength, and people should have that innate assumption. 

I'm just an amateur? 

I'm near 1200 in Blitz. An expert rating should be enough to have an opinion on these things. Educate yourself: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-curious-case-of-1200-the-expert-s-rating

Do I know what norms are? Please don't insult me, I know all about norms. 

You are right now-a-days most college degrees are stupid and easy to get....cultural studies, business, liberal arts, basket weaving, etc.....but it wasn't always that way, and math, engineering and science degrees are still hard to get and only about 5% of the population are even able to get them NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORK. Advanced math, science and engineering degrees like M.S. and PhD's are even harder. most just would not understand the concepts involved because they are not capable. I have personally taken about 5 very hard classes (1970s and 1980s) that were only attended by science and math majors to start with, where 1/3 of the class drops in first week, 1/3 of the class drops by mid-term because they are flunking, and of the remaining portion only 3 or 4 get a B or A, of which I was one. I often had to work harder in one course often than all the others combined.

Kirsan definitely stands out on the sports scene, I agree - but, from my understanding, he built a corrupt scheme around himself and his close partners, he didn't reshape the whole structure of FIDE under that scheme. Plus, mostly corruption in FIDE manifests in organizational matters, such as: how much money to spend on a certain event, where in the world to conduct this event, etc. As long as you are not a world champion contestant, you are unlikely to be strongly affected by this.

Compare this to, say, Don King from boxing. A guy who was put on trial dozens times, including on the accusations of murder and life threats - every time getting away by paying large retributions to the accusing side. Who forced all top boxing organizations to play his tune. On who's word depended whether a certain match is going to happen or not. Who could destroy a sportsman's life (and did on numerous occasions) because of a small financial argument. He was essentially a part of mafia, and he was not the only one (although probably the most influential one).

I'd say, while morally Kirsan and Don are pretty similar, Kirsan hasn't managed to accomplish nearly as much as Don has. Especially after Campomanes, he doesn't look all that impressive.