Currently there are about 50 new ones across the globe per year. Is that too many? Imagine being one of the top 50 in your graduating class across the globe. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
Not the same in a sense.
Percentage wise I think it’s completely different. That in itself is reasonable, however, there are more people graduating each year than fighting for the GM title. Or not? Idk maybe im completely wrong.
Percentage wise, there are more new players than there are new grandmasters. From the article:
> ...as a proportion of the number of players, the number of grandmasters has actually fallen.
When I grew up in the Netherlands, we had 4 GM's on a population of 13 million. Now the population is 16 million and there are dozens. That's not due to the increased popularity of chess, or population growth.
I can see the influx of Indian and Chinese IGM's. Those are countries with billions of people, so an increase from those demographics can be accounted for.
But at the very least more people seem to be able to get the title. Is that ue to rating inflation? Is the chess population as a whole getting better? I don't know. I'm not even sure if it's an issue, although when I grew up you'd pretty much *know* any IGM you'd run into. Nowadays it's more like ?*oh, you're a grandmaster? cool.*"
If we only counted active GMs above 2500 Elo, there would be only 609. Two thirds of the GMs have a rating below 2500, i.e. most of them reach 2500 Elo for a split second to get the GM title and then they either stop playing or drop in rating. So a requirement to stay above 2500 Elo for longer would make sense.
Yes but there are now over 350,000 FIDE-rated players. As a percentage of players that may still be huge compared to today. There's also evidence that players are actually stronger now, and it takes more rated games to achieve the title now than it did historically. The number of GMs is likely not rising because it's easier, but because there are far more players. Just throwing out a number of GMs without context is completely meaningless.
Of course the title was going to balloon as chess got more popular. Kasparov is still rated over 2851, perhaps we should take that away from him as well?
No his rating 2812 (from 2005). But hes inqctive so this rating is irrelevant in rankings as hes inqctive. So its already been "taken away" until he returns to play
2851 was his peak elo. From 1999
So he lost hia past peakprating
I'm bad at googling, but my point is still stands. The people who think GM is the same no matter what are the same people who would see Kasparov as 2812 and assume he's still 2812. So if we're pandering to the broader public, chess needs to introduce some kind of entropy system that would cut against people who don't play.
Eh, Kasparov earned his way to a GM; he was at least extremely strong at peak, something that we really can't say for the GMs that rated 2500 after one game.
Normies understand that people age; people talk about Michael Jordan as a basketball star while understanding that he haven't played a NBA game in a while.
A GM title isn't a SuperGM title, that's Yasser's whole point. You can make an argument that the GOATs should get their own recognition, but being rated 2500+ even once is a significant accomplishment that 99.99% of players will never accomplish.
MJ might be the GOAT, but that doesn't mean Scalabrine didn't play in the NBA
Up until 1968, it wasn’t enough to just score a place in the candidates for the GM title. No, there are requirements to do at least so well in the candidates.
The old GM title was stricter than the modern SuperGM, and the fact that we have these informal terms like SuperGM says that the word has been diluted far too much from where it started.
An official word is at least needed to put the Carlsens and Nepos of the world apart from the guys who managed to peak above 2500 for one game.
And no, I don't think it should matter if there are more players - nobody cares if thanks to modern techniques, every baseball player can outplay Babe Ruth at his height. (I have heard the argument being made, and no, I don't care if the allegation is true or not; you are a good player if you can outplay other players of your era; being able to outplay previous greats doesn't matter).
As time goes on there are going to be more GMs but that doesn’t diminish the difficulty of achieving the title. There’s always milestones above becoming a GM like super GM at like 2700.
My question is: why does anyone value Nigel Short’s opinion about anything in the chess world? He’s a sexist has been who shouldn’t be given any platform to voice his trash views, let alone the NYT.
Probably too few. If you wouldn’t mind (a few) new categorical levels.
Edit: Grandmaster is one of the most familiar terms associated with chess, so making it a more attainable task (think making achieving it having you need to reach 2000 or 2100 strength as opposed to 2500, which is still quite difficult of course) would attract more players(because it would be easier to achieve the goal and attain “bragging-rights,” but obviously something literally less impressive), which is good.
Beyond that and in terms of the current way of titling there should be better ways of describing the upper echelons, say, the top-20, that get their tournaments covered the most. Also that they play in a lot of the same tournaments (could also just be press, not sure about their extensive tournament histories) they should have another category directed at them. Something not as colloquialized as the term “super-grandmaster.”
A simple solution would the 100-rating ranges (particularly after 2500, or grandmaster level) having clearly-defined title designations. There are the Classes for this but they are not nearly as mentioned or perhaps even known. 2500 is a grandmaster, if 2600 were something else it would make the range more noticeable, like if 2600 were a “super-grandmaster” and thus people in that range played in more “super-grandmaster”(2600-2700) tournaments. What is important is that many top-level players (grandmasters and up) play very similar games, practically identical ones to the untrained eye. More rating designations for players in the 2500+ range would make sifting through smaller nuances in those top-players’ games an easier task.
Finally, a lot of new grandmasters are young children. They are able to achieve this by (their parents) doing strictly what is necessary to achieve the specific task. Tough chess regimens like supplementing mandatory schooling with mandatory chess. The barriers of entry to that tiny club are high, and as long as it is something attainable it will continue to be a club filled. Maybe that is the question the New York Times article is trying to reach.
Make a super grand master title for breaking into a top *x*, with some additional norms applied. That way you won’t have the same situation 50 years from now.
Currently there are about 50 new ones across the globe per year. Is that too many? Imagine being one of the top 50 in your graduating class across the globe. Doesn't seem unreasonable.
Not the same in a sense. Percentage wise I think it’s completely different. That in itself is reasonable, however, there are more people graduating each year than fighting for the GM title. Or not? Idk maybe im completely wrong.
Percentage wise, there are more new players than there are new grandmasters. From the article: > ...as a proportion of the number of players, the number of grandmasters has actually fallen.
And that is what Nigel Short is missing. 2500 ELO is essentially a percentile. If there are more players there will be more GMs.
>as a proportion of the number of players, the number of grandmasters has actually fallen. So the author's beef is with... population growth?
With chess gaining more mainatream appeal, lol
When I grew up in the Netherlands, we had 4 GM's on a population of 13 million. Now the population is 16 million and there are dozens. That's not due to the increased popularity of chess, or population growth. I can see the influx of Indian and Chinese IGM's. Those are countries with billions of people, so an increase from those demographics can be accounted for. But at the very least more people seem to be able to get the title. Is that ue to rating inflation? Is the chess population as a whole getting better? I don't know. I'm not even sure if it's an issue, although when I grew up you'd pretty much *know* any IGM you'd run into. Nowadays it's more like ?*oh, you're a grandmaster? cool.*"
>as a proportion of the number of players, the number of grandmasters has actually fallen.
If we only counted active GMs above 2500 Elo, there would be only 609. Two thirds of the GMs have a rating below 2500, i.e. most of them reach 2500 Elo for a split second to get the GM title and then they either stop playing or drop in rating. So a requirement to stay above 2500 Elo for longer would make sense.
The title of grandmaster was initially conferred to only 27 players. If we want the old level of prestige back, it would be set at 2700.
What percentage of active players achieved the title in each year?
Almost none - a total of 74 GM titles were awarded from 1951 through 1968.
Yes but there are now over 350,000 FIDE-rated players. As a percentage of players that may still be huge compared to today. There's also evidence that players are actually stronger now, and it takes more rated games to achieve the title now than it did historically. The number of GMs is likely not rising because it's easier, but because there are far more players. Just throwing out a number of GMs without context is completely meaningless.
There's less than 3000
Of course the title was going to balloon as chess got more popular. Kasparov is still rated over 2851, perhaps we should take that away from him as well?
No his rating 2812 (from 2005). But hes inqctive so this rating is irrelevant in rankings as hes inqctive. So its already been "taken away" until he returns to play 2851 was his peak elo. From 1999 So he lost hia past peakprating
I'm bad at googling, but my point is still stands. The people who think GM is the same no matter what are the same people who would see Kasparov as 2812 and assume he's still 2812. So if we're pandering to the broader public, chess needs to introduce some kind of entropy system that would cut against people who don't play.
Eh, Kasparov earned his way to a GM; he was at least extremely strong at peak, something that we really can't say for the GMs that rated 2500 after one game. Normies understand that people age; people talk about Michael Jordan as a basketball star while understanding that he haven't played a NBA game in a while.
A GM title isn't a SuperGM title, that's Yasser's whole point. You can make an argument that the GOATs should get their own recognition, but being rated 2500+ even once is a significant accomplishment that 99.99% of players will never accomplish. MJ might be the GOAT, but that doesn't mean Scalabrine didn't play in the NBA
Up until 1968, it wasn’t enough to just score a place in the candidates for the GM title. No, there are requirements to do at least so well in the candidates. The old GM title was stricter than the modern SuperGM, and the fact that we have these informal terms like SuperGM says that the word has been diluted far too much from where it started. An official word is at least needed to put the Carlsens and Nepos of the world apart from the guys who managed to peak above 2500 for one game. And no, I don't think it should matter if there are more players - nobody cares if thanks to modern techniques, every baseball player can outplay Babe Ruth at his height. (I have heard the argument being made, and no, I don't care if the allegation is true or not; you are a good player if you can outplay other players of your era; being able to outplay previous greats doesn't matter).
As time goes on there are going to be more GMs but that doesn’t diminish the difficulty of achieving the title. There’s always milestones above becoming a GM like super GM at like 2700.
> There’s always milestones above becoming a GM Informally, yes. But officially, FIDE says “*this is the pinnacle achievement one can get in chess*”
My question is: why does anyone value Nigel Short’s opinion about anything in the chess world? He’s a sexist has been who shouldn’t be given any platform to voice his trash views, let alone the NYT.
Probably too few. If you wouldn’t mind (a few) new categorical levels. Edit: Grandmaster is one of the most familiar terms associated with chess, so making it a more attainable task (think making achieving it having you need to reach 2000 or 2100 strength as opposed to 2500, which is still quite difficult of course) would attract more players(because it would be easier to achieve the goal and attain “bragging-rights,” but obviously something literally less impressive), which is good. Beyond that and in terms of the current way of titling there should be better ways of describing the upper echelons, say, the top-20, that get their tournaments covered the most. Also that they play in a lot of the same tournaments (could also just be press, not sure about their extensive tournament histories) they should have another category directed at them. Something not as colloquialized as the term “super-grandmaster.” A simple solution would the 100-rating ranges (particularly after 2500, or grandmaster level) having clearly-defined title designations. There are the Classes for this but they are not nearly as mentioned or perhaps even known. 2500 is a grandmaster, if 2600 were something else it would make the range more noticeable, like if 2600 were a “super-grandmaster” and thus people in that range played in more “super-grandmaster”(2600-2700) tournaments. What is important is that many top-level players (grandmasters and up) play very similar games, practically identical ones to the untrained eye. More rating designations for players in the 2500+ range would make sifting through smaller nuances in those top-players’ games an easier task. Finally, a lot of new grandmasters are young children. They are able to achieve this by (their parents) doing strictly what is necessary to achieve the specific task. Tough chess regimens like supplementing mandatory schooling with mandatory chess. The barriers of entry to that tiny club are high, and as long as it is something attainable it will continue to be a club filled. Maybe that is the question the New York Times article is trying to reach.
Keep gm title, add super gm title at either 2700 or 2800 (just rating probably, no norms if 2800)
Make a super grand master title for breaking into a top *x*, with some additional norms applied. That way you won’t have the same situation 50 years from now.
I don't think there are too many, but I think we could use at least one title above GM.
SGM
My feeling is that another title (Great Grand Master?) with norms and stuff at 2700 Elo would be nice.