Why so many GMs?

Sort:
Oldest
Alister24127

When FIDE started in 1950 there were only 27 GM players.  In 2019 there were 1649 GM players.  Have standards for becoming a GM weakened?  In 2019 there were 44 super-GMs.  Could it be that the original (1950's) GMs were actually super-GMs, comparing to modern GMs?

notmtwain
Alister24127 wrote:

When FIDE started in 1950 there were only 27 GM players.  In 2019 there were 1649 GM players.  Have standards for becoming a GM weakened?  In 2019 there were 44 super-GMs.  Could it be that the original (1950's) GMs were actually super-GMs, comparing to modern GMs?

FIDE started in 1924.

 

 

Alister24127

Oops.  I meant to say that the first titles awarded by FIDE were in 1950, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Grandmaster_(GM)).  According to that article there were 27 GM titles awarded, the first official GMs. 

dannyhume
Difficult to compare. The first GM’s were awarded. Now they are earned. Also, the population has tripled since then and the number of tournament chess players has likewise increased.

What is a super-GM anyway? 2700 FIDE rating? With ratings inflation, one day there will be 1649 “super”-GM’s, and the top players will be in the 2900’s (super duper GM’s?).

A super-GM should be something defined more along the lines of accomplishment ... someone who has won a round in the candidates tournament or someone who has had a top ten rating for more than 2 years, for instance.
Alister24127

I was an active chess player over the board in USCF tournaments 60 years ago when I was in high school, USCF tournament rating mid 1700's.  I quit playing in college due to the demands of my studies and hadn't played for over 50 years when my grandson asked me to play with him.  I asked the question above about numbers of GMs because I remember in the 1950s I pretty much was familiar with the names of all the FIDE GMs in the world.  Now I found that there are 1600+ GMs and I have no chanc e of knowing their names much less their playing styles.  So I wondered how it came about that the number of GMs increased so much.  Rating inflation was mentioned above.  That begs the question of how much inflation has taken place.  For example, in 1958 my USCF tournament rating was around 1775, what FIDE rating now would that translate into?

 

dpnorman

I'm not a big believer in rating inflation. There are vastly more chess players, and players at the top have gotten considerably stronger. I think many more players are able to achieve a level that very few players used to be able to achieve, due to the growth of the game, the computer age, etc

bong711
Alister24127 wrote:

When FIDE started in 1950 there were only 27 GM players.  In 2019 there were 1649 GM players.  Have standards for becoming a GM weakened?  In 2019 there were 44 super-GMs.  Could it be that the original (1950's) GMs were actually super-GMs, comparing to modern GMs?

Everything is relative to population. But with the rise of engines and declining interest in professional chess by both players and sponsors, I'm not expecting a significant interest in GMs in 2050.

DannyRoberts1
As an active chess player of over 40 years, my guess would be that there has been rating inflation of around 100-125 points at the top level, in terms of FIDE over that time? Back then 2600 was world top 10 at least. Yes, there have been changes in computing and suchlike, but surely the rating should be a consistent measure inter-temporarily of a player ranking amongst his peer group. Even with more players accounted for there has been rating inflation,in my view.
delcarpenter

Global travel on commercial jet planes newly available throughout the world since the 50s brought more GMs into world notice than any lowering of standards.  The opening of Communist China into more contact brought millions more potential candidates.  The rise of living standards in most of the less developed AND in the developed world brought more of the leisure necessary to support extended chess study, and that had to lead to more GMs.  My guess is the increase in the number of GMs can be entirely explained by changes in the non-chess portions of the world.  I'm regarding the creation of the internet, the increase in internet speeds, and the proliferation of the internet throughout the world as entirely "non-chess" changes.  On 9-19-19 I was playing 13 games on Chess.com: one each from Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Egypt, India, Iran, Norway, South Africa, and 4 from the United States.  In the 50s how would we have found one another, would all have been able to afford the postage?  (On a side note: All of the competition available from such a variety of players has surely strengthened chess play.) 

   

notmtwain
darwinwasright wrote:

we now have GM's getting their title well past peak playing strength in their 40's. FIDE has so ridiculously low standards compared to like shogi or go which regulate the number of players that become pro. In eastern europe there are title factory tournaments where people get to play almost elderly GMs that havent been competitive in decades yet winning against them count for norms.

Hm, I don't think it's quite that bad.

 

Most readers will know about the general requirements to become a GM: one needs to score three "grandmaster norms," and get a 2500 rating or higher. Although it's a highly simplified version of the actual FIDE title regulations, three norms and 2500 is usually what it takes.

/ A 2500 rating is no joke.

Tja_05

2375 is VERY hard to get, are you kidding me?!

st0ckfish
darwinwasright wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:

2375 is VERY hard to get, are you kidding me?!

not for people of GM strength it isnt

if they are of GM strength, they deserve their title....no?

st0ckfish
darwinwasright wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
darwinwasright wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:

2375 is VERY hard to get, are you kidding me?!

not for people of GM strength it isnt

if they are of GM strength, they deserve their title....no?

alright i should have put alleged gm strength they can earn the title with cheapened requirements of today vs the requirements of 40 years ago

So basically you just said (comment 16) ...2375 is hard to get

"not for people of 2375 [alleged GM strength] strength it isn't"

You're comment is redundant. 2375 is obviously not extremely difficult to get if you are of 2375 strength....

st0ckfish
darwinwasright wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
darwinwasright wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
darwinwasright wrote:
JustARandomPatzer wrote:

2375 is VERY hard to get, are you kidding me?!

not for people of GM strength it isnt

if they are of GM strength, they deserve their title....no?

alright i should have put alleged gm strength they can earn the title with cheapened requirements of today vs the requirements of 40 years ago

So basically you just said (comment 16) ...2375 is hard to get

"not for people of 2375 [alleged GM strength] strength it isn't"

You're comment is redundant. 2375 is obviously not extremely difficult to get if you are of 2375 strength....

if you want to play "I got the bigger brain" then go play with your self I find it annoying

 

I am not....I'm just pointing out the fact that your response isn't correct, which means that @JustARandomPatzer 's comment still stands.

Not to mention that rating is based on the relative strength of other players. It goes up as you beat players, and down as you lose to others. More rating is gained when you beat stronger players than weaker ones....rating is based entirely on your opposition, and thus how you compare to others.  Which means there is no real way to quantify rating other than a comparison. 2375 is in the top 100 percentile of players.....certainly deserving of a grandmaster title, don't you think?

Forums
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic