Title Inflation

In 1972 there were only 88 GMs with 33 representing the USSR. The current FIDE ratings list includes over 1000 grandmasters.^[14] According to one researcher, ratings inflated by about 100 points between 1985 and 2000. Nigel Short, a product of the era when computer chess technology was in its infancy, was rated the third best player in the world in 1989 with a rating of 2650; in the 21st century such a rating would only be good enough for a player to reach the top 50 or 60, with the third best player in the world usually rated around 2750. In September 2010 the top three players are all rated at or above 2800.^[15] Other minor factors come into play: there are more tournaments worldwide and cheaper air travel makes them more accessible to globe-trotting chess professionals, who include many players from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe whose movements are no longer restricted as they were before the 1990s. Additionally, players can make norms in tournaments that would have been previously considered too short for norms,^[16] making norms easier to get and allowing for more norm tournaments to be held.

The grandmaster title still retains some of its prestige because it represents a very high level of chess performance against other titled players.^{[citation needed]} A chess master is typically in the top 2 percent of all tournament players.^{[citation needed]} A grandmaster is typically in the top 0.02 percent at the time he or she earns the title.^{[citation needed]}

In order to restore the full prestige of the GM title, it is sometimes suggested^{[by whom?]} that it ought to be reserved for those who, at some time in their lives, become serious contenders for the World Championship, or who have actually held that title. December 2008 saw a record number of GMs (1,192) and IMs (2,916) causing some FIDE officials to suggest that FIDE should consider an "elite grandmaster" title.^[17] The proportion of titled players is actually growing smaller due to the rise in the number of all chess players worldwide who have FIDE ratings.^[17] In response, one member of the FIDE Titles & Ratings Committee observed that it is now more common for weaker players to get FIDE ratings, so the comparison of Grandmasters as a proportion of all rated players is not really helpful.^[18]

Nigel Short has suggested that the title should be abolished altogether since it no longer helps to distinguish between true championship contenders and much lower-rated players who have no serious chance of challenging for the world title.^{[citation needed]}

I like Short's suggestion myself.... 

The more titles you have the less meaningful they become, thats the whole point. If GM was reserved for only those who have a realistic chance/shot at the world championship there would be very few GMs.... not even all those over 2700 today would be GM by this standard. If you did include all over 2700 you would still have fewer than 50 GMs . 

Does anyone really care? Let us assume for a moment , that beacuse of some unbelievable coincidence Carlsen never made his GM lnorms and holds an IM title. Or even better is still a Fide master. Would it bring any change to the way he plays ? His chess performance ? No! People play not titles. Morphy was completely unknown and yet he won with almost every counting chess playes in the world . Why bother ?

Not surprising. Several factors would lead to an increase. Technology is a big one. It enables a chess player anywhere in the world to find a competative game at any time. The development of what was then the "third world" such as India and China has, I'm sure, had an effect. I'd bet that those two countries account for a lot of the new titled players.

also, what was the population in '72?  with the dramatic increase in human beings on the planet, it makes sense that we have ten times the grandmasters haha.  :P

I think you are making some good points. I think FIDE should create a new title "Super GrandMaster" reserved only for those that are, for instance, the top 10 Players in the world. People already call V. Anand a "Super GM" so why not make it official?

This is the opposite of the point Reb was trying to make. Instead of creating a new category, he was saying that we should do away with the old category of Grandmaster and use the title for only world champion candidates.

We already have such a term for these players though: world champion candidates!

I sympathize with Reb's perspective, but I don't see it as remotely practical. There's no good way to erase a player's lifetime achievement award, which is what titles are.

But to illustrate Reb's point, the chess world is rife with weird titles. In England, it is possible to become a "Chess Maestro" with an ECF rating of 95. That is, about 1400 on the USCF scale! They also have Team Masters, Club, Masters, County Masters, Regional Masters, and National Masters.

 So if your lifetime goal is to become a master, I suggest moving to England!

The USCF has complicated things by having a rating system and a norm system.

I think there are too many GM's, it cheapens the title.

Maybe the number of titles awarded should be limited to say 6 or 10 new ones per year.

More GM's because there are more players? I dont think so, if you xtrapolate that we should have multiple World Champions too.

It's still an incredible accomplishment, and that's what matters. For those who want to know who is "really" the best, simply look at their ratings and look at how well they contest the world championship. The title doesn't have to give you information on that.

I think it does. In an ideal world.

And perhaps even a world champion!

Sorry but what you say doesn't make any sense. In order to become GM a player must prove him/herself over a number of 3 times, at above a certain rating level, with a 9 or more rounds tournament. Today thanks to computers, books, videos, and good wealth especially in western countries, more children can learn the game at a younger age, and reach that high level of chess knowledge. A level of chess knowledge which is above and beyond the one of the 1970ies, when there were fewer GMs, and that can be seen by the amount of opening knowledge the new elite has, plus the shortened times, which make endgames crucial in winning or losing. While the title for world champion is one, not multiple titles. Also if we all can see that today the world champion is not the first in the FIDE rating list, but the 6th, and he is not able to win the same amount of tournament in one year that Carlsen or Caruana win.

On the other hand, poor continents like Africa don't have the same number of GMs and the quality of level (but this could be said also of US) that a European championship has. Since in the European championship the first 100 players are all above 2600. So the wealth of the nations, and the possibilities children have in western countries, have made possible to have a huge number of GM. In the publishing field also the number of high quality chess books has grown, thanks to reaching this amount of GMs.

The same can be said for other spheres of knowledge, since the western, Indian, and Chinese universities are producing a number of PhDs in the sciences that just 100 years ago would have been unheard of. Consequently also chess is benefiting from this new level we have reached, but it is clearly all based on richness of the countries.

Sorry, I dont agree.

In every sport there is a top elite. eg. Today, most lay people recognize the names of the top 5 or 6 male tennis players. They are the "gm's of tennis", so to speak.

Just because there are probably hundreds of players today who could wipe the floor with Fred Perry, doesn't give them the same status as Perry had.

So following your absurd logic, we should also abolish all the academic titles, because now we have probably 1000 times more PhDs than 100 years ago, and they have become meaningless right?

Some of your other statements don't make any sense either. Euwe was a GM, has been a world champion, but honestly the only way he had a realistic chance at the world championship, would have been if a 90% of the USSR GMs would have died in a plane crash, so should have they take away his title? (After all he gained it from a drunk depressed Alekhine)

What about the others? Gligoric didn't have any chance in the 70ies to become world champion, was he a GM? Benko was forced to give his place at the interzonal to Fischer, otherwise Fischer would have not become a world champion, should have had his GM title taken away too? Because also Benko didn't have the slightest chance to win a world championship.

And the number of GM examples that didn't have any chance at the world championship, is endless, but the world championship today is a title that doesn't reflect reality. Instead the Elo rating, the knowledge we have, and the amount of tournaments the elite plays, is surely is a more accurate measurement of how good players are.

What is this obsession with equating GM's with Phd's?

I see. It's post #9 which we can thank for replying to a fourteen-month-old thread.

I didn't realize how old this topic was.

Bit odd, ain't it?

Any idiot can get a PhD.  GM is a much more impressive title, in my eyes.