FIDE updates titles and requirements

Hypothetical situation. FIDE changes titles and their requirements:

2300+  Expert

2500+  Master

2700+  Grandmaster

This is basically how we think of them anyways. Someone rated 2400 isn't so strong compared to the top guys. Someone rated 2525 is obviously a strong chess player, but still on a whole different level than the 2700+ guys.

Could possibly happen in the distant future. Although more slight like 2550 for GM etc.. due to rating inflation.

Yeah I doubt they would make these kind of drastic changes, even though it makes more sense.

I think they should leave the thresholds for each title the same, but adjust  everyones rating to counter inflation. For example, every year they could subtract like 3 points from everyones rating or something.

The should leave the titles where they are, but add a new tier at say, 2750.

SuperGrandmaster. Or something cool like that.

Somehow I am just fine with the titles as they are. Maybe because I have been accustomed to them for so long. Yes, some grandmasters are (much) stronger than others, but they all share what it means to be a grandmaster. Some have gone above and beyond and got into the elite top 10. I don't know I just don't see a particular problem or think there simply must be a new title for every 100 rating points.

I still think, for example 2200 USCF deserves a distinction. Some bitter old players might only want recognition for the top 15, but I would consider 2200 USCF pretty darn exceptional (considering, for example, their percentile rank). They also happen to be much worse than grandmasters. Which is why they don't award you the GM title for 2200, but rather the appropriate title.

I don't want to start an inflation argument at every opportunity but the issue is a little more complicated than just polling some old players who say "you know I think Fischer was stronger than these guys today, I don't care what the numbers say."

Anyone weaker than Carlsen or Caruana = Patzer

Why should there not be more FMs, IMs or GMs these days? There are more players playing today than in the past, which will mean a lot more titled players now.

I don't think there is a need for a super GM title either, they are easily distinguished by being able to earn a living from competitive tournaments. Most titled players end up treating chess as a hobby eventually in their lives, but just happen to be very good at it.

Do they? A 2750 player is on a different level than a 2500 player. They should both be "grand" masters? Shouldn't the point of "grand" master be to separate the best from the not-so-best?

I don't think there should be either. But that's what we have now with FM, IM, and GM. 2300, 2500, 2700 makes more sense.

ratings have inglated close to 150 points since the time of fischer

2700 should be gm

2600 im

2500 fm

2400 cm

The overall skill of all chessplayers in today's computer age has progressed beyond the mathmatics of determing a persons strength with a number.

Well it's hard for me to say why I'm fine with what I'm fine with. I know grandmasters have achieved something special -- whether I see Magnus or some "regular GM," I know that. The fact that some people go above and beyond shows just that. I feel like this is perfectly coherent given the titles we have, which is maybe why I don't see a need to just arbitrarily add a new requirement for a title.

Although the level of play has changed, the (minimum) level of play appreciated by being a grandmaster hasn't changed. I appreciate a 2500 GM today as I would a 2500 GM back then.

Unfortunately it's hard for me to say much else as to why I have my view. If I want to know whether one GM is stronger or much stronger than another I just go by ratings. Perhaps also, in some sense, maybe the fact that "super GMs" aren't going for norms is a symbol of their maturity, as if they've already proven enough and so they don't need to go for norms anymore -- any improvement beyond GM is maybe a bonus in some philosophical sense. Of course we do have one further distinction, that of world champion, and the unofficial "world champion contender" distinction follows quickly from that.

"Do they?"

Yes, norms and achieving 2500 FIDE. That's what was meant. They share that. They don't all have to be equally strong to share that particular thing.

I guess I don't feel a need to subscribe to the assumption that some people are better than others, therefore we must have a new title to reflect that. It's not unreasonable to make such a claim, but I don't think it automatically holds either. We already kind of know what it means to be a grandmaster. Whether it's "desirable" to be one may depend on your perspective -- if you're Carlsen maybe you're not that impressed. Sure. I'm not seeing a problem here.

The title requirements don't need to be changed. The key thing is percentile rank. The percentage of people taking up chess each year is increasing much faster than the percentage of players becoming GMs (or any other title).

In 1950 when the GM title was created and through the 1950s, the grandmaster title WAS intended for players who demonstrated that they were world championship caliber. This was changed as long ago as the 1960s or 1970s, when Grandmaster signified a base level of playing skill and achievement. As Elubas says, we have the rating system anyway to tell "who is who." But remember that FIDE ratings did not exist until 1971.

You are using the current definition to define what it means to be grandmaster. Kinda like defining "to jump" as: "when you are jumping."

If GM was at 2200 instead of 2500, you could make the same argument and say "we know what it means to be a GM: 2200 and norms."

We can recognize accomplishments at 2500 rating without calling it "GM." I'm arguing it makes more sense to have a grand master be not merely strong players (where "expert" or "master" would suffice), but to distinguish the best of the best. In the current age, the elite players are 2700+, not 2500+.

"The key thing is percentile rank."

Yes, this is a good point.

Well like I said I know how strong a grandmaster is, and it's appreciated in the same way as it was back then. When we say "grandmaster," we know we are referring to someone of at least some certain strength that we are already familiar with, so it works fine. If anything we should add a new title, rather than change the title of GM, to represent a new sort of rank.

While we could do that, I don't see the need to bother. The more titles we get the more confusing it can get as well, and to be honest I'd rather just avoid that as I've taken long enough to learn all the titles we do have :) I think it's good the way it is. I do think 2200s deserve a title even if they're much worse than some other players. Anything below that I think is too much of a stretch though.

I guess another point is we don't need to take grandmaster quite so literally. After all we don't think "experts" or "masters" have actually mastered the game. We just use it as a convenient way to recognize their skill; how far they've come.

"You are using the current definition to define what it means to be grandmaster. Kinda like defining "to jump" as: "when you are jumping.""

More like defining "to jump" as: "Whatever we have been using the term for." And in the case of grandmaster, we know what we have been using the term for.

Perhaps definitions should change? Chess has changed a lot since computers came on the scene. We now have higher expectations for people at the top.

We don't have to take the titles literally, you're right. But I think it'd be better for them to mean something closer to what they are supposed to be resembling. If 10,000 people were "grandmaster," it would lose its meaning. It's already lost a lot of its meaning with how many "GMs" there are now. It was originally a title to signify the elite, not necessarily anyone above a certain rating. Why settle for less? A lot of problems in the world happen because we aren't willing to stop the machine and make adjustments (or even re-create the machine). Don't get me wrong, this isn't as important an issue as real social and political issues in the world. But, same principle of not adapting.

I hope this doesn't happen besides 2500 is really impressive and GM worthy 2700+ is a SUPER GM the group that's the top of the top. I Prefer it this way especially the distiction between CM and GM.