| gesl | Дата: Среда, 26.06.2013, 10:53 | Сообщение # 1 |
|
Генерал-лейтенант
Группа: Модераторы
Сообщений: 320
Статус: Оффлайн
| 
Language : DE EN ES ShopDownloadSupportDistributors
‘A GM is a GM’? – FIDE title devaluation 26.6.2013 - Although much has been made of the
rising Elos, little has been said of the FIDE titles that rely on them,
and their increasing devaluation. It is not just the grandmaster title,
but all titles that are losing their value, and even those dropping
standards are being tossed aside as FIDE hands out titles to players who
are underrated by hundreds of Elo. Here is a look at this worrisome
trend.
‘A GM is a GM?’ – FIDE title devaluationBy Albert SilverWhile voicing serious concerns with a grandmaster about the inflation of international chess titles and their dwindling value, the
grandmaster agreed there was reason to worry, but then added “still, a GM is a GM to be fair.” Is it? Many players view the issue as a relatively recent phenomenon,
as if it were just a minor issue of Elo adjustment over the last
decade, but the issue goes much deeper and further. Since its adoption
and creation by FIDE in 1950, the title has not only changed in its
requirements, but its very definition. History of the grandmaster titleWhen FIDE first awarded the grandmaster title in 1950, it was bestowed upon 27 players of the day, which included world champion
Mikhail Botvinnik and all those who had qualified or been seeded in the
inaugural Candidates Tournament: Isaac Boleslavsky, Igor Bondarevsky,
David Bronstein, Max Euwe, Reuben Fine, Salo Flohr, Paul Keres,
Alexander Kotov, Andor Lilienthal, Miguel Najdorf, Samuel Reshevsky,
Vasily Smyslov, Gideon Ståhlberg, and László Szabó.It was also given to players still living who, though past their prime in 1950, were recognized as having been world class at their peak:
Ossip Bernstein, Oldrich Duras, Ernst Grünfeld, Borislav Kostic,
Grigory Levenfish, Géza Maróczy, Jacques Mieses, Viacheslav Ragozin,
Akiba Rubinstein, Friedrich Sämisch, Savielly Tartakower, and Milan
Vidmar. Jacques Mieses playing Akiba Rubinstein in 1909. 41 years later FIDE could not
fail to recognize their stature.The standard used for the title was clear: a grandmaster was someone who was recognized as a world-class player at some point in their
career. As the process advanced, clear criteria needed to be established
for future title contenders. Under the 1957 regulations, the title of International Grandmaster was automatically awarded to the world champion and to any player
qualifying from the Interzonal tournament to play in the Candidates
Tournament. It is worth noting that it was under these conditions that
Bobby Fischer became the world’s youngest grandmaster at age 15, when he
qualified for the Candidates tournament. Looking at it in today’s
eyes, one might conclude these draconian conditions were ridiculously
tough, but when FIDE convened in 1965 with the purpose of revising the
rules, the prevailing opinion was that the 1957 rules were… too easy!  When Bobby Fischer was awarded the grandmaster title at age 15, it was because
he had qualified as a world championship contender.At the FIDE Congress in 1961, GM Milan Vidmar said that the regulations "made it possible to award international titles to players without sufficient merit", and when FIDE convened in 1965 to revise them, GM Miguel Najdorf
echoed Vidmar’s concerns, and stated that the existing regulations were
leading to an inflation of international titles. As a result, the
rules were tightened up, and now the grandmaster candidate had to score
40% in the Candidates Tournament, or reach the quarter finals of the
Candidates Matches. This is what was expected of a player holding the
grandmaster title.Although this undoubtedly kept the prestige of the grandmaster title immaculate, it was probably a little overprotective. The consequence
of the new regulations was that in 1966 only one title was conferred
and the same was true again in 1968. In 1970, the modern system for awarding titles was presented at the FIDE Assembly at the Siegen Chess Olympiad with proposals by Dr.
Wilfried Dorazil, then FIDE Vice-President, and fellow Committee
members Svetozar Gligoric and Professor Arpad Elo. These changes were
based on the widespread adoption of the Elo system by FIDE and its role
in awarding the grandmaster title. At the time, a rating performance
equivalent to 2551 was enough for a norm, and the rating required was
2450. Just as today, the player needed three norms, but at the time the
three norms had to be scored within a three year period. Eventually
the rating requirement was raised to 2500 as the ratings rose and the
preservation of the title’s value became a concern.Lowering the standardsTo put this into perspective, in 1973, 40 years ago, a Grandmaster norm performance was the equivalent of a player ranked in the top 20-40
players in the world. This was still true ten years later in 1983, and
it is worth noting that the 2450 rating required to become a
grandmaster was still quite close to the world top 100, where the 91st
to 100th players were rated 2485, and included Boris Gulko, Joel
Benjamin, and others.  In 1987, Boris Gulko was barely 25 Elo above the minimum tobe
recognized as a grandmaster, yet that ranked him 80th in the world.By 1993, 20 years ago, things had changed significantly after several inflationary rules did their damage, such as a rule in which a
tournament winner could not lose Elo, and the GM norm was now the
equivalent of a player ranked in the top 60. Today, in 2013, a GM
performance equates to a player ranked in the top 250, and the minimum
rating to earn the title, which 30 years ago would have almost had you
in the top 100 players, would now rank you around 930 in the world. A GM is a GM? The title may be the same, but the definition and expectation of the title have clearly changed. Assuredly there are more
strong players than ever before, but the grandmaster title was not an
exam one passed with a diploma at the end, it was a stamp of prestige
that implied world-class ability. Still, the trend of the devaluation
of titles does not stop there.The trickle-down effectA few special cases were also introduced over time, such as winning the World Junior Under-20 Championship. At first, this prestigious
championship, won by players such as Kasparov, Karpov, Spassky, and
even top players of today such as Anand, Aronian, and Mamedyarov,
earned the player the International Master title. As time passed this
was upgraded to earn the winner a grandmaster norm, until finally in
2004 it was deemed worth the title outright. From a purely Elo
perspective this would seem to make sense. After all, by 2004 there
were no sub-2600 winners, so the promise of the title was never actually
put into practice. Unfortunately this has also led to an alarming
trickle-down effect to other titles.  Garry Kasparov, winner of the World Junior Championship in Dortmund in 1980.
Second was Nigel Short (right) and third Chilean IM Ivan Eduardo Morovic (left).Until now, the discussion has been the nonstop devaluation of what it means to be a grandmaster and the devaluation of the title itself,
but this affects all other titles as a result. The reason is that all
titles are actually proportionate to the grandmaster title. The
requirements to become an International Master (IM) are the same as
those of a Grandmaster except the rating required is 100 below. This is
how it was even in 1970. In 1978 the FIDE Master (FM) title was introduced and today the requirement is that a player be rated 2300 FIDE, which is 100 below that
of the IM, or 200 Elo below that of the Grandmaster. There is also a
Candidate Master (CM) title for players who reach 2200. No norms are
required for these last two titles, and they are strictly dependent on
one’s rating. Although there has never been any question about these
titles suggesting world class ability, the problem comes with the
alternate ways one can achieve these lifetime titles.  Gata Kamsky is the highest ranked player ever to not be a grandmaster,
when at age 16, and still untitled, he was 8th in the world with 2650 Elo.One example is that one can become a FIDE Master for life by winning an event such as the Pan-American under eight championship. One might
think this means that these chess-playing seven-year-olds are in fact
playing at 2300 strength, but the fact is you will not find a single
one of these players rated even 2000 FIDE much less 2300. So why are
they receiving titles that suggest a 2300 playing strength? Good
question. As of July 1st, FIDE will expand on this title generosity, by providing a free-for-all for the Candidate Master title, which is a
lifetime title conferred to players who are rated 2200 FIDE. The idea of
a title to allow players, unable to achieve grandmaster status, to
show they reached a dignified level of skill is commendable, but what
is one to think of FIDE regulations that then guarantee the title to a six-year-old player for coming
third in the Continental School under-seven championship despite being
rated hundreds of Elo below the requirements? What value does the title have then?It is obvious that the strict definition of a grandmaster as a world-class player no longer holds true, but there is a vast difference
between a world-class player and one ranked no.930 in the world. It
would be a tragedy for FIDE to let its most prestigious title, and
aspired goal, dwindle down to mediocrity.SolutionSo what is the solution? If FIDE acknowledges the problem and wishes to revert this worrisome direction, then strong measures need to be
taken. When the Elo system was implemented by FIDE in 1970, no
provisions were made for possible ratings inflation and subsequently the
titles, as a result, only one 50 Elo adjustment has been made in the
last 40 years. Since then the rating of the 100th player has risen
approximately 150 Elo. To those who would argue that it is due to an increase in stronger players, realize that the difference between the 10th and 100th player
has not changed in over 40 years. For example, in 1983, the world no.10 was 115 Elo stronger than the world no.100, and today in June 2013 the difference is 109 Elo. In theory this would seem to indicate a need to recalibrate the title requirements, rating and norms, by 150 Elo, but a compromise would
be a 100 Elo raise so that new grandmasters entering the list would
still be in the top 240 players, instead of the 930th as is the case
now. To prevent the problem from getting out of hand again, FIDE would
implement a practice of regularly re-examining the requirements every
five years and recalibrating them, if necessary, according to the
lowest rating of the top 200-250 players. As to the distribution of Elo-based titles such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master to players who have not proven their worthiness in any
way or form, cease the practice immediately, as this not only
besmirches the value of the title, but is an insult to players who earn
them through dedication and skill. Otherwise, why stop there? Just
declare them all grandmasters.
|
| |
| |
