Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/13/06 at 06:51:20:

Alumbrado incorrectly stated that my statement of inflation was inaccurate.

We need to get this straight.  Your post claimed that "inflation is by definition the increase in the supply thereby cheapening each unit".  Now, at first glance that doesn't make a lot of sense.  Since when did inflation mean things getting cheaper?!  But I think I see what you mean - the analogy is with increasing the supply of money, thus meaning that the value of, say, $1 is less and you need more $$ to buy the same number of widgets (a dominant but by no means proven theory of how inflation actually occurs).

I think that's what you mean, except you are trying to turn it on its head - in which case you are simply saying that if you increase the supply of something you have to drop the price to sell the extra units (assuming a perfectly competive market in the first place).  Fair enough, I suppose - it just seems strange to talk about that in terms of inflation.  Surely what you are talking about is diminishing marginal returns?

But terminology aside, you're saying that the fact there are more GM titles around now means each one is worth less - but in what terms?  Purely relative to each other, yes - everyone would rather be in the top 100, say, than the top 1000.  But that doesn't mean that you don't have to play just as well to get that title, does it?

Let's say, as you seem to be, that the GM title is the product.  Supply has increased but FIDE haven't dropped the "price" in terms of the rating performance required to qualify for the title.  They have held the price constant in cash terms.  So you have to be arguing that the ratings themselves are somehow subject to inflation.  Again, fair enough - but as I've suggested earlier, I'm not sure I agree.  There may be *some* inflation - and some "gaming" of the system -  but it does not seem that pronounced.  I think the majority of the increase in GMs is acounted for by an increase in effective demand for the GM title - more players are paying the price i.e. qualifying for the title.  There is no reason to suppose that the demand curve is static over time.  Supply has expanded to meet demand.

Let me put it this way: does anybody seriously think that there are not more players playing seriously good chess now than there were, say, 30 years ago?

I think you will find that many of those derive secondary incomes from teaching, writing, seconding and so on rather than exclusively from playing.

But say 2550 if you will. 2200 is way off the mark. 2600 may be high, but it depends on classification.

IMJohnCox wrote on 07/13/06 at 12:35:42:

Iirc it czar of all russians, which makes more sense

JEH wrote on 07/03/06 at 18:37:03:


actually some gradations of the GM title are already standard in club parlance...

Super GM
GM
Noddy GM

Greetings,

A fascinating discussion!

As someone who is definitely not an "I", "F", "G" or indeed any kind of "M", I'd like to add my tuppence worth, if I may.  

I believe both viewpoints here are valid - keano's and Nietzsche/Smyslov_Fan's.

I agree with keano's assertion that the title of GM should denote a player whose mastery of the game is clearly in evidence. Although one might go further, as Smyslov_Fan says, and say that one worthy of the title "GrandMaster", should be (well-)above such "mere" mastery.

Perhaps it might be helpful to define what constitutes such "mastery".

For me, this would have to at least include:

1) A clear "mastery" of all three phases of the game - opening, middle- and end-game;
2) A clear "mastery" of all types of positions - open. semi-open, semi-closed and closed.

(If there are any other general requirements in terms of "erudition", I can't think of them at the moment.)

How many current players would fulfil those requirements?

(Most people would reel off the names of "The Greats" of the 19th and early-20th centuries - definitely Capablance and perhaps Alekhine and Lasker. I think, of the modern players, Karpov would certainly have to be on the list! You don't rack up a tournament record like his without being able to play all types of positions and phases of the game "well"! Kasparov is another possible. I can't comment on more recent champions - Kramnik - and others like Anand, Topalov, etc. I've been "out of it" for a number of years. No offence to anyone who has their own favourites!)

Perhaps only judgement of a player's skill by his/her peers can truly indicate who are worthy of the title "GrandMaster", in the truest sense of the term, as keano holds. A "Players' Player" who is recognised as amongst the "Best of the Best" by his/her peers.

Many could fulfil some aspects of the stated criteria - perhaps, at a very high level of skill - but I think the need to fulfil both of the above two criteria would cut down the list of names in most peoples' minds.

I'm not talking here about slashing the actual ranks of GMs, etc, - merely the list of names of which you could think.

On the other hand, as both Nietzsche and Smyslov_Fan point out, there is the problem of the ever-increasing number of people playing "professional" chess!

How can one take this explosion into account in awarding titles?

If I may digress for a moment - in keeping with others who've used analogies to explain their points...

There was a time, a few centuries ago, when the "well-educated (European) gentleman" could be said to "know everything".

Alas, this is simply no longer possible!

The depth and breadth of knowledge has increased far beyond any individual's ability to know it all - nowadays, we have to become specialists in one or, at most, a handful of areas.

This is somewhat akin to the current problem with applying a static value (2600) to a dynamic "maximum" rating - especially one which is growing ever greater.

Perhaps, in this situation, it would be better to use a percentile of the contemporary highest rating as a title's threshold.

Taking 2800 as the current "highest" - I know it isn't but I'll use it as the example...

80% = 2240
85% = 2380
90% = 2520
95% = 2660
98% = 2744

As can be seen, a suitable upper-percentile would be "best" in dealing with the ever-increasing total of "professional" players throughout the world.

How would this affect current and future awarding of titles - whether GM or lesser?

In order to ensure that players who manage to get "blips" - shock high performance ratings - are not awarded titles of which they're unworthy, I think a player should have to maintain an average rating equal to or above the title's threshold for a full year (12-month period) over a suitably wide-range of tournaments.

Individuals who succeed are awarded the relevant title for the following year's rating list - thus, "professional" titles would be awarded annually.

From this you can see that I differentiate between the two - thus adding a third possibility to the main protagonists'!

Just a thought!

Kindest regards,

James

I haven’t posted anything substantial for a long time. So let me add my 2c and confuse the issue.

Rating inflation is pretty obvious. Karpov was the only 2700+ player and Kasparov was the only 2800+ player. When the number of masters increased, there was need for differentiation and GM title was invented. I think we are heading towards a similar situation. There are about 700 players with a rating of 2500 or more.

http://fide.com/ratings/topl.phtml?code=5011132

Two years before when I checked up the figure was around 550 or so. It’s frightening. That you can call yourself a GM without bothering to enter top 1000 even for a nanosecond will be a mathematical certainty within 5 years. 

In my country, we expect to have 30 GMs by 2010 and 100 GMs by 2020.

The situation is fast becoming organizer’s nightmare. GMs have special treatment in Open Swiss tournaments. At this rate, soon,  tournament prospectus is going to say Entry Fee exempted for GM with rating of 2500+, Bed and Breakfast free for GM with 2550+ and Full board only for GMs with 2600+ !! That would be a sad day for chess.

I’m not kidding. In my country there are indications of this happening. Already not all IMs can have free entry to our National B tournament (Selection tournament for Nationals). He has to have a rating of 2350+ in the latest list! Otherwise he has to pay entry fees which is approximately $200. FMs have to pay entry fee for most of the tournaments. They are treated like any other player of the rating category he is in. We don’t want our GMs meet with this fate. Do we?

standard has gone up Willempie - time does not stand still and we are not in the good old days anymore where people created as they went along. The IM title I am not too bothered about - I think it still means a bit, like the guy is quite a competent player and has achieved a level of proficiency. THe GM title is far harder to get (as it should be!) I challenge anybody to tell me getting a 2600 performance is easy! These people better try and live in the real chess world - this is VERY VERY DIFFICULT

Willempie you are right of course there were already some popular tournaments - the point of Fischer is he brought chess "to the masses" as it were and sparked interest in chess outside of standard chess circles. Many small countries not very good at chess before developed rapidly, trying to think of a suitable example I might put forward my most hated football team - ENGLAND !!

In chess terms there was the so-called ENglish chess explosion in 70´s - I am not saying this is all down to Fischer, but the Fischer phenomenon for sure played a part - kids who before would not be caught dead playing chess were taking it up started taking out the sets - chess was a popular phenomenon not something to be hidden away.

Anyway, I digress..