Many people say that the Grandmaster title today is no longer the same as it once was due to the big rating inflation. At one time, players who obtained and maintained the 2600+ ratings (when only elite GMs can get to this level) for a considerable period of time were generally considered Super Grandmasters.
Today, a Grandmaster at 2600 will not even make the top 100. Therefore, the threshold has been raised and many only consider players who are above 2700 Super Grandmasters.
What do you think? What is your opinion about this issue?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I agree, we need a new title and it must be immune to dilution by limiting its numbers to a max of 16 players. Players can drop in and out of it as well.
Raise all of the requirements by 100 (2600 for a GM with 2700 performance GM norms), etc. Being a GM should be very rare.
A new title — Great Grandmater (GGM) would be good. Rating requirement is 2650.
Inflation is the normal way of these things. For marketing reasons, not at all unreasonable, FIDE has elected to dilute the grandmaster title.
Create a more select title, “Super Grandmaster”? Just watch — in thirty years it will become inflated too, and we’ll be sitting around bemoaning the need for a new title, “Superduper Grandmaster.”
Phil has a great idea!! SuperGrandmasters should only be the top 16 players in the world and players can drop in and out!!
There is simply no title “Super Grandmaster” that exists in any chess federation on the planet Earth.
Those that use it merely do so only becuase of the FIDE ranking system of who is #1-20.
These GM’s are often just playing against each other in different tournaments and since there exists no great difference in rating…you see the same names, playing against each other in different tournaments. And, it’s boring.
These people are really great GM’s…but they are human and to use the adjective “super” is to infer something beyond human capability.
Again, and no one will answer…but when any (or all put together) will play Rybka or the top chess program IN AN UNRESTRICTED MATCH, with no handicapp on the computer side, and if they win, then…and only then, can they say that they…
have “defeated the best.”
The best in chess are the programs. People can ignore this and claim all the “anti-computer” garbage they wish but in a match, on even terms, there isn’t a human GM alive that can defeat any of the best programs.
If they could, then they’d be capitalizing on it financially.
So, “super” GM is an abusrdity. However, these players are the best (at the moment) amongst human players and they deserve NOTHING more than the title GM.
Ratings speak for themself. If anyone can read then they know who is on top of the rating list and that means we know who the so called “super” GM’s are.
There is nothing…absolutely nothing “superhuman” about the top GM’s. Put them in Harvard medical or law school and they’ll be just average students.
They are not “geniuses”…not like Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, and the multitude of other truly great intellectuals.
They’ve cured no diseases and, outside of the game of chess, are nothing….just ordinary people that would probably work at Wal Mart because they lack the social skills to obtain productive careers in other fields.
Are they mathemeticians?
What profession do they have? chess is a game…and so minor in the overal scheme of life.
Today, in our world, we have war, genocide, disease, starvation, and so many terrible things.
And you think that some person that can play a game well is so special.
When they find a cure for a disease, invent something to help humanity, then they can be called “super.”
Otherwise, they are just regular people that are good at one thing:
A game.
Go to college, get a Ph.D., an M.D., a J.D. or something of value to society.
Otherwise, you are a joke amongst the true scholars in many field of social science that study human behavior…and Mrs. Root can write all the books she wants…but she never went to medical school and, hence, is not a real “Dr.”
Get real people.
Get a life.
So much strife in this world and you concentrate upon a game that cannot bring peace, equality, or anything to the overall scheme of scheme of human existence other than pleasure.
“super”.
Stephen Hawking is “Super”…but there isn’t a chess GM alive that can compare or will ever be what he is or what other fields (such as medicine) have developed.
Enjoy your game.
And the real geniuses will create the world of the future while you waste your time on a silly game that, despite Mrs. Roots “doctorate,” has no value within the academic community.
Question:
NAME ONE CHESS GM THAT EVER PRODUCED AN INVENTION, WON A NOBEL PRIZE?
You can’t.
And so many waste their life at it.
it is not inflation. players are just better than they used to be.
It seems to me that everyone who earns the title of Grand Master has spent many years studying the game, advancing through the ranks, and is well deserving of it. I would bet that anyone who earns the title today would be able to stand up to the GM’s of yesteryear.
That there are more GM’s now than in the past is attributable to a number of factors. There seem to be more tournaments for top level players now than 30 – 50 – 100 years ago. The prizes seem to be larger, and more people can actually be “professional” players and make a living at it. Recently there was an article about how Nakamura turned down an invitation to play in the prestigious Corus Tournament, because he could make more playing in the tournament at Gibraltar. A number of the top players in the US have already declined invitations to play in the next US Championship. I don’t think GM’s had these kinds of options in the past.
The attitude toward it has also changed over the years. Back in the 1800s, Paul Morphy abhorred the word “professional.” Chess then was a “gentlemen’s” pass-time, and the idea of making a living at it was looked upon with disdain.
The game has also increased in popularity on a world wide basis. A hundred years ago, most of the chess masters and grandmasters were concentrated in Europe. Now other countries, especially China and India, are producing GM’s. Parents of talented children are now willing to spend great amounts on chess tutors, and allow them to pursue full-time devotion to the game. Wider participation equals more world class players.
Another factor is longer life spans. Many of the great players of the past died relatively young. Capablanca, Alekhine, and Tal all died in their 50s. Morphy, Reti, and Pillsbury died in their 30s or 40s. Longer life spans equal more GM’s in the world.
Of course, modern training methods that include the chess “teaching industry,” powerful data bases, and being able to practice with strong computer programs, has resulted in many people attaining levels of chess proficiency that would not have been possible in the past.
I don’t believe there has been much rating inflation. The higher ratings we see today are a product of the game’s development and advancement.
IMO it’s perfectly sound to call GMs with ELO 2700 and higher as Super-GMs.
Once the inflation continues the level may rise to 2750 or 2800 ELO some day in the future.
There should be no other official title higher than GM though.
I think it is good news for humanity and technology that we humans now play much better chess than we did 50 years ago and that there are many more grandmasters today. In essence, the current situation is a direct consequence of the fact that many more people are devoting as much of their time and resources as they need to become GMs and are actually becoming GMs. So why should we fret that there are now so many of them?
Look at it this way. How many professors were there on earth 400 years ago? And who set the standards then for who did and didn’t become a professor? Fast-forward 300 years, check the number again, then finally, check the number of professors humanity currently has.
Human knowledge of himself and his environment is advancing daily. More college graduates are getting advanced degrees and devoting themselves to research than did 50years ago. And there are probably currently tens of thousands of professors worldwide. But such titles as Assistant Prof., Associate Prof., etc (which for the sake of my argument can be seen as parallels to chess titles such as FM, IM, and GM) have not been dropped in favor of something like SUPER PROFESSOR just because there has been an inflation in the number of professors.
There are things you must do to earn a GM norm and ultimately to become a GM, just like there are things you must do to become a professor. And the simple fact of the matter is MORE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS because ‘learning and delivering’, if you will, have been made easier. In the case of chess, Elo ratings help diffuse the ‘confusion’ brought about by the ‘inflation’ in the number of titled GMs because while there are GMs at 2500, there are also GMs at 2700. Elo ratings and game results are sufficient to tell the story of hierarchy. In my opinion, it is okay to use the term “Super GM” unofficially. But to formalize it would be nothing short of referring to the president of my birth country of Nigeria (who I don’t particularly like) as simply PRESIDENT while referring to George W Bush as SUPER PRESIDENT. Yes, it is that preposterous!
By the way, John Nunn was once asked which was harder for him; getting his doctoral degree or becoming a Grandmaster. The Englishman, as though bemused by the stupidity of the question, replied “Becoming a GM of course!” For some people reading this, “it was harder in his days” will be their most likely rebuttal here. True. Chess players are getting stronger because becoming stronger has been made easier. They don’t travel around with thick volumes of opening encyclopedias and a team of six seconds.
There are more grandmasters for the same reason that there are more pilots, doctors, professors and potential recipients of Nobel Prizes. Learning and becoming highly skilled have all been made easier. We are cool with the tags FM, IM, and GM, whether in the masculine or feminine gender.
super gm for me is for players above 2720.
since the rating for me is grown of 30 points in last 10 years.
and it will happen always more frequently, since thare are:
1) more players
2) More fide players
bye
To Anonymous @ Thursday, April 3, 2008 1:30:00 PM CDT:
The Greeks asked one question upon the funeral of a companion. Did he live with passion?
Every GM who passes this world will have this question answered resoundingly ‘yes’ for him, for it takes a special passion to become so good at such a game as chess.
It also takes such ignorance on your part to compare the Nobel Prize, given to ignorant to idiots like Al Gore, to a life’s passion and make THAT some sort of badge of accomplishment to compare with.
I feel so sad for you.
And, note the lack of posting Anonymous on my part. Another cowardly act by you.
There are only 2 GrandMasters: Garry Kasparov and Magnus Carlsen. Everyone else is a patzer.
There are actually two issues:
1. There will also be an elite subgroup of players who are among the very best. This top ten group are consistent favored and usually can defeat their GM colleagues.
2. Being a GM means that you’ve accomplished a certain number of requirements – which have changed over the years – minimal rating and the achievement of norms. As others have noted, inflation and a general push to produce GMs has seen a rise in their numbers. Also can’t be discounted is that for players who want to pursue the title, it may actually be a little easier today than in the past. In Europe there are regularly organized ‘norm’ tournaments.
3. One of the problems with the requirements is that the conditions are so variable. It isn’t like the professional golf associations where newcomers have to earn their playing card through the Qualifying School tournament (the infamous Q school) – perhaps in the future, one could qualify for title by playing and winning a certain number of games with a standardized computer program – like a Rybka or Shredder or Junior set to play at something lower than the highest level. Such a requirement would be easy to reproduce and more objective.
Insane.
I doubt any of the top GM’s care about some superflouous title like ‘Super Grandmaster’. The only people that care one bit about is the patzer public and the incessant arguments that derive from it.
“well, yeah, he’s good, but he’s not a super GM like Kramnik.”
Jeez.
“Go to college, get a Ph.D., an M.D., a J.D. or something of value to society.”
Pffft. College is over-rated. I know plenty of Ph.D. -toting idiots who couldn’t talk themselves out of a paper bag. Bad example, Sir Genius.
I’m guessing you have one of those said Ph.D.’s?
Yah?
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Yah?
Invent anything lately?
No?
How’s that book coming along?
Not well?
You up for the Nobel this time around? Al Gore got one – you must be as bright as him, no?
Thought so.
I think it is time to replace the Elo system with something better, similar but improved. For example, there are rating systems which take the colors into account. AFAIK, FIDE Elo ignores if a win was with white or black. Although, that is (probably?) not a reason for inflation. I’m not an expert of statistics but I can only assume that the system must have immanent flaws, causing inflation. But we also observe rating inflation on internet chess servers which use other rating systems. It seems even possible that inflation in high categories and deflation in low categories happen simultanously.
I think it is a very complicated matter with not just one, but a number of reasons, some of which may even be contrarian.
As for the titles, I am not for a new higher title. There was something else in the time of the old World Championship cycle: If a master was a candidate, once (or even several times). This wasn’t a title, but still created a specific top category of “extra strong” GMs.
Raise the requirements by 100 pts. so that GM title becomes more difficult to get – that’s a good idea
And keep the IM title as it is
FYI:
Edward Lasker had degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering. He invented and patented a breast pump to secure mother’s milk.
If inflation in the ELO ratings is the problem, then why can’t we calculate inflation into the Grandmaster requirement too? In other words, the requirement (currently 2500 I think) will rise or keep up with the ELO ratings inflation. I’m not saying this is the answer; it’s just a suggestion!
As a mental health professional…I absolutely love to see the hostile responses to my comments. I learn a lot about the impulsive nature of the people from a variety of backgrounds.
Blogs such as this provide an immense source of primary source material regarding, primarily, for some to “lash out” and post what they perceive are “insults” (or “getting back”) at the individual that they disagreed with or perceived as a “threat” to their personal belief system and/or world view.
Please, continue these. I rarely post but often observe and this is a wonderful place to see the irrational side of the human psyche over a subject that has little bearing upon the overall mechanics of human survival.
So, please….insult, post your thoughts…for as the months and years go by, a few psychologists are becoming aware of the dynamics of the “blog phenomena.”
A most fascinating study that each day fills more notebooks for future journal articles (peer reviewed, of course).
Please…keep the insulst going. If you don’t toward me, then they shall continue toward others on different topics and for many mental health professionals…we’re reading it, not posting…but taking notes and learning much about the nature of…
Wait and see.
And, I thank you GM Polgar for all of your kind work. I have just noticed over the last 11 months an increased level of emotional discourse on this blog, and the same happening on other blogs. Truly, these are a rich source of primary source material.
To all that read…
keep up your emotional postings.
They are valuable evidence in a future peer-reviewed journal article.
Wow, lots of philosophical comments that I as a professor (in computer science) ought to weigh in on. But I just have time to say:
() My sense is that “super GM” starts at 2650.
() The Lasker-Noether Theorem in algebra is considered to be an important underpinning of conservation laws in (particle) physics. Emanuel, not Edward, here!
() Research I am currently actively engaged in promises to tell (much more acutely than the Guid-Bratko study) whether today’s 2600 players are stronger than those rated 2600 in the 1970s, and many questions like that. A draft will not be ready before summer, however, as our tests take 60–100 times the effort *per game* as the Guid-Bratko runs did.
No rating inflation??? Someone hasn’t been paying attention. If there were to be an official “Super Grand Master” or whatever they may call it, there should be a non-ratings based requirement. Ratings will only continue to inflate at an alarming rate. In 10-15 years the entire top 100 will be all over 2700…what’s the point then of basing it on a rating.
An earlier suggestion for the top 15 or similar requirement would be the only way for the title to never get diluted.
Some argue that there are better players today, and that’s the reason for ratings inflation. The ratings are only a comparison to other players at the same time.
If FIDE wanted to eliminate the ratings inflation they easily could by hiring a statistician to come up with a rating system that won’t inflate.
It’s simply good for marketing that there are all these 2600+ GMs around. The same reason baseball ignored steroids for many years(home runs were great for marketing baseball).
I think all titles should be based on something similar to what I suggested for the “super GM tag”.
Top 15 are super GMs
Top 200 are GMs
Top 1000 are IMs
Top 2000 are FMs
Who cares about the ratings….they are numbers that change as time goes by. Give me the real top players. If you can’t hang in the top 15 then you lose your title, or maybe if you are in a group for a certain amount of time(5 years?) then you get to keep the title???
Just thoughts….and I hate ratings inflation
Top 10 in 1972:
Fischer 2785
Spassky 2660
Petrosian 2645
Korchnoi 2640
Botvinnik 2630
Karpov 2630
Tal 2625
Smyslov 2620
Stein 2620
The bottom 3 on that list woudn’t even make the top 100 today…ratings comparisons for historical purposes are a complete joke?
Karpov would be ranked near 100th in the world today…yet his rating today, at the age of 57 is 2655 and he’s ranked 66th.
-Richard Rajchel
Quote, Top 15 are super GMs
Top 200 are GMs
That sounds good, but again, to determine if somebody is #15 or #16, or #199 or #201 etc. you need some kind of “objective” performance data to rank them…
“And so many waste their life at it.”
Wow, anon, you’re right! Great essay! I’m quitting chess because of you, going for the Nobelistic proze! Harward? Who’s that?
There are no supreme grandmasters, ask tha FIDE losers, I mean lawmen. A supergrandmaster is just another patzer who will lose to Rybka or Fischer 6-0 in a match.
There is only a grandmaster, so, both Anand and Polgar and Federowicz and Kamsky are the same here. Why grandmasters aren’t structured in a better way, is a question again for the FIDE losers and fake grandmasters.
So if you wan’na make a dif. use – grandmasters and – fake grandmasters instead.
Calling some people super gms is plain insulting to other gms, who got the title under same conditions. Meaning, I’m insulted. I’d beat your super gms in a match anyday of the week, at least a few times, anyways.
If you want new titles (and you don’t, otherwise you’d be recommending conditions for becoming super-gm and how to get norms), make it happen.
“IMO it’s perfectly sound to call GMs with ELO 2700 and higher as Super-GMs. There should be no other official title higher than GM though.”
That’s a childish remark. The anon saying ther eis no rating inflation is perfectly right.
Super-blogger.
P.S. Why is everyone being so SEXIST? Why isn’t anyone talking about SUPER-WGMS?? Why?
“Insane. I doubt any of the top GM’s care about some superflouous title like ‘Super Grandmaster’. The only people that care one bit about is the patzer public and the incessant arguments that derive from it.”
I second this motion.
Super-FM exgefzo
Here is a Super-FM for you:
http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4157770
He’s the man.
Are you insinuating that Anand is a super-gm and Karpov is not, because of ratings they have now?
thats not whats being said … learn to read pal… even with inflation karpov had a peak rating of 2780 which would equate to probaly 2880 now…for now i think grandmaster should be any rating over 2700…they should calculate the yearly elo inflation and go back to when chess players achieved there grandmaster level…have the chart start at say 2500 in 1970 with a slope up until 2700 for 2008… then you can put chess player elo points on the chart and see if at any time did the player reach above the line if they did they get to keep there grandmaster status… if not they lose it and get demoted a rank in status to say international master… it would restructure the chess rankings to an appropriate level and give the grandmaster the status it had back in the 1960’s and 1970’s…
“I think all titles should be based on something similar to what I suggested for the “super GM tag”.
Top 15 are super GMs
Top 200 are GMs
Top 1000 are IMs
Top 2000 are FMs”
Another sexist remark! WHAT ABOUT WOMEN IN CHESS?
Super Grandmasters? Yes! We need this sort of thinking! Thanks Susan, for pointin out the flaws in the current system!
This is a wonderful blog with many wonderful bloggers and I wish to say thank you to all.
Cheers.
Susan is flawless, you said it bro.
If there is superman and superwoman, there must be supergm and superwomangm, too.
I feel to get the Super GM title one would have to have a rating of over 2740 or something high and had to have played in a number say 16-20 of super elite status tournaments and has to have at least won or tied for four or certain number of these elite tournaments. Philip S.
I really didn’t read many of the posts above, I am sorry, but I have my own opinion on the subject
all this super GMs including Kramnnik and Anand are only rated so high because they don’t play the ones rated between 2560 through 2700 enough, if they did most of the top GMs would not even be rated 2700
in my opinion most of the chess elite are nothing but bubbled boys
end of story!
I am sorry I forgot to say something: ‘Bubble boys’
oh, I think I did already
“Again, and no one will answer…but when any (or all put together) will play Rybka or the top chess program IN AN UNRESTRICTED MATCH, with no handicapp on the computer side, and if they win, then…and only then, can they say that they…
have “defeated the best.”
Anonymous, by the way you write, I feel you do not like chess that much, not to mention chessplayers.
Computers ARE NOT chessplayers. Let us start there. And computers do not breathe, sweat, eat and do any biological functions, so they are not even ALIVE.
Computers do not get nervous, excited, do not experience doubt, fear, joy, love, compassion….
Computers do not have relatives who get sick and die, do not have the daily stresses of a human being.
So, a chessplayer, by definition, is human.
The best chessplayers are the grandmasters. The best grandmasters are titled “”Super”, because they are superior, which means “super-excellent”, for example. It does not mean above human, but really, really good! Nothing wrong with that.
Regarding the usefulness of chess as a skill, you are badly misinformed. The individual and social benefits of chess are well documented, every day more and more, as more schools adopt chess programs and see that students who play chess improve in many areas: decision-making, academics, etc.
The Chess Olympiads are a great example of teamwork, as well as international friendship and harmony, two very, very useful social values…I can go on and on.
Your negative characterization of the top chessplayers is prejudiced, at best, and extremely bigoted and shortsighted at worst.
I find your attack on chessplayers quite unnecessary.
I have been playing chess since 1972 (36 years), and I love the game!
By the nature of your post, I do not feel that you love the game of chess, but you definitely love to put down people who love the game, and attack them verbally in any way you can.
Why are you so frustrated? Can’t you find something you like, and do that instead? Why do you have to attack chessplayers in such a way?
Anyhow, best of luck to you, but I really feel that chessplayers and computers are two very, very different things. Chess is much more than pure calculation.
Humanity has seen great minds that do evil things, so a great mind is no guarantee. But goodness of heart is truly great!
Human beings can love, give birth (I never saw a computer do THAT, by the way), feel compassion and do so many things a computer will NEVER be able to do…
Today Yaz would be rated 2700
Some poor schmuck is writing articles based on ‘researching’ this blog? We can be sure if he was smart enough to play chess at IM level he’d do that instead.
“Truly, these are a rich source of primary source material.
To all that read…
keep up your emotional postings.
They are valuable evidence in a future peer-reviewed journal article.”
“Anonymous said…
Raise all of the requirements by 100 (2600 for a GM with 2700 performance GM norms), etc. Being a GM should be very rare.”
They did that already but left out GM Polgar. FIDE are stupid cavemen who drag butt on ground for pleasure.
From now on, Super Grandmaster should be world Champion title holders?!
Alexander Shabalov said it best….GM means almost nothing now (There are almost 1,000 currently)…rating is what should matter most. Makes sense to me…I figure that: NUMBERS ARE THE SCIENCE OF REALITY. As for titles…how many more do you want? A Super Grand Master title is stupid(SGM)-Then make a Super Duper Grandmaster (SDGM). Get the point? The Grand Master title is OK-forever-As long as the standards for earning the title is kept high.
Super GM is just a thought in people’s minds. Most of us these days consider anyone with a rating of 2700 and above as Super GM’s.In fact K Humpy claimed that she was happy at becoming a Super GM after breaching the 2600 mark.Now she is a great lady player and we all wish her well,but certainly she is no Super GM,when there are more than a 100 players ranked above her. The best thing would be to raise the bar for qualifying as GM’s. say by 50 rating points at least.The rest, IM’s etc can remain as it is. After all we want to encourage chess. But the GM club should certainly be more exclusive. The world should not have more than say 250 GM’s or so.
Well in general i think all of these players are strong you know. We just have a lot more people being competitive at the high level. I believe that more people have greater access to materials especially via the internet and computer programs, databases and access to games are giving everyone a huge advantage to preparing and getting stronger. I do not particulary think that anything needs to be changed or that there is any danger to this. I do however believe that one problem exists in the “buying of games”. Stronger players throwing games for $$ profit needs to be cut out. That will not be an easy objective.
Just like the “anonymous” above mentioned, it would be quite ridiculous to refer to George Bush as “Super President” while Yaradua is just President, but the “Super GM” term is not quite as ridiculous: Lets face it, a Super GM will trash a GM 80% of the time and that soundly!
‘Super GM’ makes sense, at least as an informal distinction.
Statistically, a 2800 player will beat a 2600 player with about 15 out of 20.
For a 2700 player against a 2600 player it will be 13 out of 20.
To quote Short: Grandmaster? I’m not one of these XXXXs. (There was a time when he could rightly say so.)
My opinion (if it interests anybody, anyway) is that ratings are just an approximate way of measuring a player’s strength. They shouldn’t have as much importance, since a thirty- or even fifty-point difference between two players may not mean a lot concerning over-the-board play. So why worry so much about this? Ratings should be nothing more than good indicators of an overall level of play. They’re really efficient for that, but all this academic discussion is a bit fruitless and senseless, don’t you think?
Cheers,
Bruno
“Anonymous said…
As a mental health professional…”
“Mental Health Patient” is more likely…and what journal would publish any tripe you would care to write about?
Freaking hilarious. You’re probably a liberal too.
That’s right. I labelled you.
My guess is you just either came off a 6-day bender or your 5-year old beat you in 10 straight games of chess. Either way, you’re pissed at chess and chessplayers in general. Why?
And your question was answered, hot-shot.
Now answer mine:
WHY POST ANONYMOUS? If you need help figuring out how to create a google account, I’m sure that 5-year old is willing to teach you…
🙂
There are so many posts, maybe someone has already done this. But I don’t like the idea of having people go in and out of the top 16, say, because of all the players even former world champs, would be “former GM Whatever”. The simple solution is to base GM norms on world rankings.
Lew