Title Inflation

In my state, there are more Ph.D's in Physics than there are players rated +2200. I imagine that is true in most places.

I don't get what rating inflation is, can someone explain.

I know that the USCF refused to give ratings below 100 in like, 1997-2000.

Equating PhD's and GM's belongs in the '1000000 Things You Don't Know About Anything Forum'

There need to be 2 new titles, 1 for 2600+norms and 1 for 2700+norms. Then there would be a title for only the very top players

Then, in 5 years, we have this discussion again, and move the goalposts to 2700 and 2800?

I still think the titles should be limited by number of players recieving it, not by rating.

Determine by some means or other (consistent & transparent) the top (6,10 other number?) of players without a GM title and award it to them, every year.

With growing population we need more teachers, engineers, cops, labourers, PhD's(!). We dont need more presidents, Wimbledon Champions, ambassadors to Luxemborg, or Gm's

Here Here! I second this motion!

You're just jealous of my 4 GMs

More people enter the game of chess all the time, which leads to more Grandmasters. So what?

There have been less than 2,000 IGM titles awarded in history, which is an ever decreasing percentage considering the amount of new players introduced the game every year.

When the GM title was introduced in 1950 by FIDE, there was no rating system and a relatively small number of international players. So, it made sense to restrict the title to World Championship contenders, but even in the first decade the title was in existence, the requirements were continually loosened--appropriately, in my opinion.

Today, the GM title represents a certain level of play (basically, 2500 Elo and above). We have the rating list to tell us who the World Championship contenders are likely to be.

The perceived "extra" GM titles are not hurting anyone. What is the big frickin' deal?

Sorry, the following is slightly plagiarized, because I cant rmember real names and source:

New GM: Hi Garry, now I am a grandmaster just like you

Kasparov: No, you're not. Now You're a grandmaser just like Luis Galego.

Someone (I forget who) made such a comment to Korchnoi. And his reply included Damjanovic I think.

Personally, I would not make such a comment to Kasparov (or Korchnoi, etc.) if I became a GM, because they are an entirely different level of player. I would rather say that I am part of an incredibly exclusive club, but there are higher-ranking members than I!

The correct term is leftist commie b********

Try GM = PhD in a foreign language, for example PhD in Astrophysics in French...

That would make it closer, but I still think becoming a GM would be tougher! In many fields one has to be able to have some reading ability (at least) in foreign languages.

There is no point of SGM, that would get inflated as well!

Also, ratings should be the only guage of strength, apart from the WC title

Is it fair, that an IM with a rating of 2563, gets less tourney invites than a GM who is 2553? No!

I thought it said "Tire Inflation."

Sorry to correct you rooperi - lefty commie b*******

It was, batgirl.

If GM is a measure of objective strength, there probably isn't much inflation at the GM level. If the measure of a GM is whether the player has a chance to beat the current world champion, then there are too many GMs in the world. 

But again, I don't see a practical solution. Creating an official new category of Grandmaster is fraught with problems. Erasing titles that have been earned is even more problematic. 

FIDE has gone the opposite route and has created more titles recently. This is good news for members here who are active in OTB chess. It may also be useful when advertising chess coaching. 

Chess coaching is the best reason I can think of for not changing the current system. A GM today may not be a better player than a GM 20 years ago. But IMs and GMs still make better coaches (in general) than players without titles. 

So let's keep the titles as they are. Chess fans can tell the difference between a garden-variety GM and a world class GM without creating new categories.

Of course this is about money and real politik.

People like titles - chess being no exeption indeed it could be taken as an exemplar.

In bridge titles represent almost nothing more than an indication of longevity and dedication to playing. But they are used to fund the game world wide and give lots of pleasure to many, so where is the problem?

The same in chess to some extent. True chess titles do mean something, you can't become any sort of Master just by playing a whole lot of ranking games, you have to win some of them.  But the powers that be want chess to be popular, they want to attract people into the game and they know titles will help this process. What is wrong with that?

And look. By the time you achieve the second GM norm, if you are young - 20 say - you just don't care about titles any more. You care, passionately, about rating points and where you stand in the pecking order - after all unless you are Luke McShane you probably hope to make a living out of the game w/o being confined to the drudgery of endless coaching so you really need to be invited to the few tournaments that count as regards money and repute. But what do you care how many GMs there are?

I suppose a journeyman GM hoping to pick up cash from minor events whether as prize money or appearance money cares. But he or she knows they are more experienced businessmen and know far more about the circuit than any newbie GM so they don't really care either.

What about us, the rank and file who won't ever get close to one norm let alone a title - well we should be happy to see lots of titles too. For exactly the same reason that the guys who make a living at FIDE. It pleases folk and draws more people into the game.

I really cannot think of a loser.

If you achieve a great level of skill, it shouldn't matter that there are others like you who have also done so. Having a grandmaster sitting next to you does not telepathically take out all of the chess understanding from your brain. My point is the people around you are not connected to the skill that is present in your brain.

Woah, I was expecting a thread on tire inflation.