Foreign Requirement for Titles

There are two major factors that lead to an increase in the number of players with the GM title:

1) there are a lot more people playing chess on a regular basis, which means that there are going to be more playing at or above any demarcation line you want to draw - unless you draw that line at like 3200 FIDE or something

2) You can't lose the title. There are probably a pretty decent number of GMs out there now who couldn't make the requirements again if they needed to, given their age, but FIDE isn't going to yank the title out from under then them (and they are absolutely right not to).

The question is whether or not there's a third reason for the increase - rating inflation. And while I think there *is* to a small extent, I also think that it's pretty overblown - players are getting better.

Batman is so much better. He's the only regular guy (except for the whole billionaire thing) with no superpowers yet he is still a superhero. Superman on the other hand is lame. I would pick the Flash over him any day.

Cary Elwes should be granted honorary GM status for wearing tights so well.  and for Princess Bride...

But musiclife, the topic is about how to get Krypto. So...who's holding?

I propose introducing a new title "Great Grandmaster", which will have requirements suited to the modern era. Perhaps 2700 rating performance for a norm, etc.

[Incidentally, not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I understand the reason for the foreign player requirement was to limit the influence of collusion by fellow nationals].

It is infeasible to radically redefine the existing title of GM, since there are already so many people with the title. Do you take all their titles away, or have a situation where for several decades you have a mixture of old and new GMs with different requirements, as well as many players of adequate standard to be an old style GM but who haven't got the title? Either option is unacceptable.

Really it does, though. What else could cause the increase?

Basically the problem is that you want the GM title to be conferred on, more or less, a certain top number (or maybe top percentage) of chess players, so like the top 20 in the world should be GMs, or the top .001% of players should be GMs, or something like that, whereas my position (and I think that of most people and of FIDE) is that a certain standard of playing strength should get the title. That strength is defined (and as far as I know, this has been true essentially since the Elo system came into effect) as a consistent 2500 rating with at least three peaks of over 2600 strength. If I'm wrong and those numbers have come down, then I'll agree with you. But I'm pretty sure they haven't. If I'm right, then either the same standard has been held, or the only way that players today of the GM title aren't as strong as those of 50 years ago (or however long it was that the system came into place) is if there's been rating inflation.

I'm sorry if this offends you, but there are simply several hundred players of today capable of playing at least as well as Marshall or Tarrasch. In fact, there are probably quite a few IMs who are that strong, including, I think, IM Shankland.

i agree with wandering on pretty much everything. the explanation for more gms is basically more people playing with a dash of rating inflation (but that might be 25 points over the last couple decades).

it seems like you want to change the gm title from being a title based on meeting certain requirements, to being a titled based on "are you in the top 10" (since you exclude Nakamura, i'm assuming you don't even want the top 20). so basically, you could always just look at the top 10 list and call those ppl your grandmasters.

but i think there is a group of a few thousand professional players in the world today. and for them and people involved with them, it's somewhat helpful to be able to divide them between fm, im, gm. so if you made your gm title a title for the top 10, it would still make sense to add in some title that helps differentiate between larry christiansen and someone like me.

overall, i'm getting the feeling that it *would* nowadays make sense to have one more title. people do want to see that distinction between people who can legitimately compete with Anand, and other unbelievably strong people.

at the risk of offending more people again, i'll make another cross-historical point. i think the odds are overwhelming that Nakamura would score more points in a 12 game match with Anand than Marshall would in a 12 game match with Capablanca.

If the possibility of achieving the GM title is a motivating factor for legion of IMs to actively play and promote chess, then I would argue that leaving the requirements for the GM title they way they are is a good thing.  Removing the GM title from feasible grasp would be a drastic disincentive to a large number of people.

Increasing participation and interest in competitive chess necessitates the availability of levels/titles one can earn.  Moving those out of reach would seem counter-productive.

Creating a formal Super-GM title or Top X notation only rewards the folks who are already at or near the top.  I don't see why they would need or want it, they already know each others names and we already know their names from looking at the ranking lists.

One thing which those who are always going on about ratings inflation ignore as a possibility, is that the general standard of professional chess has increased: there are a lot of players who are technically as good as WC candidates of the past. Reasons why this could have occurred recently include the use of databases for preparation (a vast improvement in efficiency on paper sources), and the use of computer engines for training and assisting with analysis, particularly of middle game situations.

My opinion is that the truth is a combination of both effects - inflation and genuine improvements.

I just wanted to remind people who bring up the "there were less than 100 GMs, now there are too many of them" argument over and over again: in 1971 there were indeed only 83 GMs and...592 FIDE-rated players in the whole world! That is, nearly 1 player out of 7. Nowadays there are 1299 GMs and 264 386 FIDE-rated players, i.e. 1 player out of 200.

If we take into account the difference between rating floors (2250 in 1971 and 1200 now), the figure would be 13 760 (number of 2250+ players today), i.e. less than 1 in 10. So, what is the problem?

"Should" is a normative ambiguity"  You say "the standard should be: is this person a WC candidate." "Should" just means that you believe it ought to be that way based on some unarticulated value position you hold.

The assumption underlying your value position deserves questioning.  Why is your position any more (or less) valid than someone elses?  There isn't a universal truth driving the answer, it's purely a question of value positions.  And different value positions held by different people will produce a different should statement.  

You'll notice that here (as elsewhere) normative thought has a very pressing and urgent tone. It wants to know right away what should be done. Right away. And true to its name, normative thought wants to engage right away in the enterprise of norm-selection. Normative thought wants to decide as quickly as possible which norm (which doctrine, which rule, which theory) should govern a particular activity.  Sadly, there's no one on the other end of line except us folks in the forum.  Quite the postmodern rhetorical conundrum.

This begs the question: At what point in time does one peg the standard for the GM title being correct or "just right"?  Based on your prior posts, I gather it's either (a) the way it was in 1914, or (b) based on a subjective assessment of who a WC title contender could be.

Question 1:  Why is that characterization of the GM title better than the one now?  I understand you say that the title has "slipped" or been "diminished" since 1914, but that assessment presupposes that there is some inherent value in having a smaller number of GMs.  I question why that would be true.  

Question 2: What rule, theory or principle should we return to?  Options abound:

A.  The way it was in 1914

In the St. Petersburg 1914 chess tournament, the title "Grandmaster" was formally conferred by Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who had partially funded the tournament. The Tsar reportedly awarded the title to the five finalists: Emanuel Lasker, José Raúl Capablanca, Alexander Alekhine, Siegbert Tarrasch, and Frank Marshall (respectively, the World Champion, the next two World Champions, and two players who had lost World Championship matches to Lasker). Chess historian Edward Winter has questioned this, stating that the earliest known sources that support this story are an article by Robert Lewis Taylor in the June 15, 1940, issue of The New Yorker and Marshall's autobiography My 50 Years of Chess (1942).  (refs. from wikipedia for this and the following:)

B. The way it was in 1927

In 1927, the Soviet Union's Chess Federation established the title of Grandmaster of the Soviet Union, for their own players, since at that time Soviets were not competing outside their own country. This title was abolished in 1931, after having been awarded to Boris Verlinsky, who won the 1929 Soviet Championship. The title was brought back in 1935, and awarded to Mikhail Botvinnik, who thus became the first "official" Grandmaster of the USSR. Verlinsky did not get his title back.

C. The way it was in 1950

 FIDE first awarded the Grandmaster title in 1950 to 27 players. These players were:

• The top players of the day: world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, and those who had qualified for (or been seeded into) the inaugural Candidates Tournament in 1950: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky, David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres, Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky, Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, andLászló Szabó.
• Players still living who, though past their best in 1950, were recognised as having been world class when at their peak: Ossip Bernstein, Oldřich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostić, Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin, Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan Vidmar.

Since FIDE did not award the grandmaster title posthumously, world-class players who died prior to 1950, including World Champions Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine, never received the title.

D.  1953 regulations

Jacques Mieses, one of the first FIDEgrandmasters

Title awards under the original regulations were subject to political concerns. Efim Bogoljubov, who had emigrated from the Soviet Union to Germany, was not entered in the first class of Grandmasters, even though he had played two matches for the World Championship with Alekhine. He received the title in 1951, by a vote of thirteen to eight with five abstentions. Yugoslaviasupported his application, but all other Communist countries opposed it. In 1953, FIDE abolished the old regulations, although a provision was maintained that allowed older masters who had been overlooked to be awarded titles. The new regulations awarded the title of International Grandmaster of the FIDE to players meeting any of the following criteria:

1. The world champion.
2. Masters who have the absolute right to play in the World Championship Candidates Tournament, or any player who replaces an absent contestant and earns at least a 50 percent score.
3. The winner of an international tournament meeting specified standards, and any player placing second in two such tournaments within a span of four years. The tournament must be at least eleven rounds with seven or more players, 80 percent or more being International Grandmasters or International Masters. Additionally, 30 percent of the players must be Grandmasters who have the absolute right to play in the next World Championship Candidates Tournament, or who have played in such a tournament in the previous ten years.
4. A player who demonstrates ability manifestly equal to that of (3) above in an international tournament or match. Such titles must be approved by the Qualification Committee with the support of at least five members.

E.  1957 regulations

 After FIDE issued the 1953 title regulations, it was recognized that they were somewhat haphazard, and work began to revise the regulations. The FIDE Congress in Vienna in 1957 adopted new regulations, called the FAV system, in recognition of the work done by International Judge Giovanni Ferrantes (Italy), Alexander (probably Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander), and Giancarlo Dal Verme (Italy). Under the 1957 regulations, the title of International Grandmaster of the FIDE was automatically awarded to:

1. The world champion.
2. Any player qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates Tournament, even if he did not play in the Candidates for any reason.
3. Any player who would qualify from the Interzonal to play in the Candidates but who was excluded because of a limitation on the number of participants from his Federation.
4. Any player who actually plays in a Candidates Tournament and scores at least 33 ¹⁄₃ percent.

The regulations also allowed titles to be awarded by a FIDE Congress on recommendation by the Qualification Committee. Recommendations were based on performance in qualifying tournaments, with the required score depending on the percentage of Grandmasters and International Masters in the tournament.

F.  1965 regulations

Concerns were raised that the 1957 regulations were too lax. At the FIDE Congress in 1961, GM Milan Vidmar said that the regulations "made it possible to award international titles to players without sufficient merit". At the 1964 Congress inTel Aviv, a subcommittee was formed to propose changes to the regulations. The subcommittee recommended that the automatic award of titles be abolished, criticized the methods used for awarding titles based on qualifying performances, and called for a change in the makeup of the Qualification Committee. Several delegates supported the subcommittee recommendations, including GM Miguel Najdorf who felt that existing regulations were leading to an inflation of international titles. At the 1965 Congress in Wiesbaden FIDE raised the standards required for international titles. The International Grandmaster title regulations were:

• 1. Any World Champion is automatically awarded the GM title
• 2a. Anyone who scores at least 40 percent in a quarter-final match in the Candidates Tournament
• 2b. Scores at least the number of points in a tournament corresponding to the total of a 55 percent score against grandmasters plus 75 percent against International Masters (IM) plus 85 percent against other players (a GM "norm").

To fulfill requirement 2b, the candidate must score one GM norm in a category 1a tournament or two norms within a three year period in two Category 1b tournaments, or one Category 2a tournament and one Category 1b tournament.

The categories of tournaments are:

• 1a—at least sixteen players, at least 50 percent are GMs, and 70 percent at least IMs
• 1b—at least twelve players, at least 33 ¹⁄₃ percent GMs and 70 percent IMs
• 2a—at least fifteen players, at least 50 percent IMs
• 2b—ten to fourteen players, at least 50 percent IMs.

Since FIDE titles are for life, a GM or IM does not count for the purposes of this requirement if he had not had a GM or IM result in the five years prior to the tournament.

In addition, no more than 50 percent plus one of the players can be from the same country for tournaments of 10 to 12 players, or no more than 50 percent plus two for larger tournaments.

Seventy-four GM titles were awarded in 1951 through 1968. During that period, ten GM titles were awarded in 1965, but only one in 1966 and in 1968.

G.  Today

The requirements for becoming a Grandmaster are somewhat complex. A player must have an Elo rating of at least 2500 at one time (although they need not maintain this level to keep the title). A rating of 2400 or higher is required to become an International Master. In addition, at least two favorable results (called norms) in tournaments involving other Grandmasters, including some from countries other than the applicant's, are usually required before FIDE will confer the title on a player. There are other milestones a player can achieve to get the title, such as winning the Women's World Championship, the World Junior Championship, or the World Senior Championship. Current regulations may be found in the FIDE Handbook.

1. Back to your bourbon, D'Aloisio!

2. @bsrasmus.  So 90 years ago a Tsar in Russia bestowed the title upon participants in his tournament.  I fail to see inherent value in that.  You say as much when noting that there's no inherent value in having a smaller number of GMs.

3. "It's not that there is some inherent value in having a smaller number of GMs.  It's simply that there is a utility in being able to honor those who are among the elite in the world in a way that is in accordance with the way that they dominate the chess world."  

   The utility of title is not unique to recognizing those who are at the top.  In today's world, we have access to ranking lists.  We all know and recognize the names of the top players, we see them and their games being analyzed by other top GMs at the top invitational tournaments.  We have tools, utilitarian means, to recognize and honor these folks independent of giving them a special label.  So, what utility?  Why is a label (Grand Poo-Bah... Super-GM...etc) better than a ranking list?  Better than simply their own name?  

4. "In order to honor the most elite in the world with a title in accordance with how they dominate the chess world, such a title must exist".  

   Why?  Says who?  Money talks.  Invitations talk.  Rankings list talks. Sponsorships talk.  Being known by ones name (Carlsen) rather than title (GM Magnus Carlsen) talks.  The proof is in the pudding.  Could we pile on with other laurels and accolades beyond their ranking #, elo, tournament placement, and so forth... sure.  Would it matter?  Likely not.  It certainly doesn't seem compelled, nor to have an inherent value.  The subjective value is highly debatable.  

But if the title were something like: "The Captain and Galactic President Superstar McAwesomeville" I might go along with it.

Spot on. As long as a similarly low percentage of players are still getting the title I can't see how anyone can argue that the standard is slipping. Becoming a world championship contentendor in 1914 was obviously much, much easier because everyone was competing against far fewer, and far lower quality players. As hard as it is to believe bsrasmus Ray Robson is probably just as comparitively "elite" today compared to the pool he's competing in as Marshall was in 1914. 

And if someone wants to bring up the "well it was harder for them to improve back then with less rescources and less knowledge" argument. Well that's true, but that doesn't mean that today players have an easier job rising to the percentage who are GMs, because everyone has the same opportunity to use the newer methods and instruction to improve, thus making sure it's still just as difficult as all that happens is the level of competition rises as it becomes easier to improve.

I dont think the standard overall has slipped, it has clearly improved.

But the relative standard of the elite within this overall improved standard has slipped. I hope that makes sense.

We don't need to reform the existing title either.  Has the title changed since it was first bestowed by Russian Tsar Nicholas II to the five finalists in his tournament?  Yes.  Is there any reason to give primacy to the standards by which a Tsar in 1914 handed out the title?  No.  Is it objectively better/more meaningful/just/righteous/correct/truthful/etc etc that the title be 'limited' to the current WC contenders?  Only in a circular, self-referencing way of enforcing one's own value position on others.  

Is there anyone on the end of the line listening to this?  No.  This is essentially "value talk" in which each arguer selects their value position, argues the status quo ought to be changed to match that value position, and posits that such value position is superior (for whatever reason) to the competing value positions.  This value talk has no transcendent hold on thought or action by those in positions to implement it.  

Postmodern shadow-boxing, at best.

i think the fear that a super-gm title will lead to a greater gm title, and a really super greater gm title is a little overblown. the number of people playing chess professionally has expanded dramatically  from 1914 to the present day. and i don't know that it is likely to expand as dramatically every 20 years.

i think the GM title is useful for professional players and people wanting to learn from professional players, and so i'm in favor of keeping it as it is. if you made the GM title apply to the top 12ish players and the next thousand all became IMs it would just make it slightly harder for people to distinguish between the vast majority of professional players. in some disciplines the professionals would be divided into 9 dan levels, making for a more granular title system. i feel that having 2-4 levels of titles among professional chess players provides a fair accuracy for the current number of players we have, but i also feel a bit like jhb that we can make several claims as to what would be good, and it's not clear how to prove one is better than the other.

restore the traditional meaning of the GM title.....

I like that

that could be good.