Curbing the glut of grandmasters
By Jack Peters, International Master
January 18, 2009
The chess world is suffering from a glut of grandmasters. The January rating list issued by the World Chess Federation (FIDE) contains 1,188 grandmasters, including 66 representing the U.S. Some FIDE officials want to introduce a new title to distinguish “elite” grandmasters from the pack.
More than a century ago, the term “grandmaster” was used informally to describe leading players. Chess lore credits Czar Nicholas II with awarding the first “official” grandmaster titles to the top five finishers in the great St. Petersburg tournament of 1914. However, no international organization sanctioned titles until FIDE took charge in 1950 and deemed 27 living players worthy of the GM title.
FIDE set up a committee to evaluate future title aspirants. Inevitably, political factors influenced many decisions. FIDE’s efforts in the 1970s to link the process to the completely objective rating system profoundly changed the international circuit, as young players sought tournaments offering title norms and organizers tailored events to satisfy the growing demand. Although FIDE raised the performance standard for a grandmaster from 2550 to 2600, the number of title applicants rose sharply. Rating inflation, estimated at about 80 points since the 1970s, has more than offset the change.
There are now 32 players rated over 2700, a level reached in the early 1970s only by Bobby Fischer. At the same time, there are 426 grandmasters rated below 2500, a full class lower. Those who claim a grandmaster should be a serious contender for the world championship would consider hundreds of current titleholders unqualified.
However, I believe FIDE should refrain from creating a new category that would damage the irreplaceable tradition of the grandmaster title. Instead, raising the minimum performance for a GM norm to 2700 would halt degradation of the title without depriving present titleholders.
Here is the full article.
New class: Elite Master
Requirement: #1 live rating at 12:01AM GMT.
Determining if a match counts depends on whether the game has officially started at 12:01AM, not whether it has ended by that time.
This is of course a deviation from the rating-based title, but rating inflation will inflate this title in due time as well. At any one time being the best of all is something to be noted, I think.
Additional constraints can be imposed, such as requiring the #1 position to be held for at least a week.
Maybe some people will think it unfair to, say, contemporaries of future Kasparovs and Fischers, but second best, is still second best, and that’s how people regard these players, despite their perhaps great skill. I’m sure there are non-GM’s that have beat many GM’s, so there will always be players who just don’t make the cut, even though they might deserve it.
With all due respect to Jack Peters, who is a fine chess journalist and who was clearly GM strength during his peak years, I disagree that there is now a glut of GMs. What has happened is that many more players have reached GM playing strength. Why? In my opinion the chess engines have had a lot to do with it — what better way to improve than to play against a very strong GM opponent at any hour of the day or night.
So I don’t think the GM title has been cheapened in terms of playing strength.
doubtless it is better to raise the bar now. Say 2600 for a GM title.
Fine for Peters to say, he is never going to be a GM under any system.
But leaving 1200 GMs with the title for decades to come and making it next to impossible for new title holders (2700) is unfair and a massive disincentive for players.
The present system is fine. GM is a very high achievement, and Elo allows finer distinction for current actual strength.
I say go back to the original number of 27 GMs in the world and strip the title from the others. If the world was happy then, it will be now. It will create a better situation than now where we have patzers holding the GM title.