Road to Grandmaster

[Justin Hadi]

Didn't GM norms used to be a lot more difficult to get what with rating inflation? I know the requirement is about 2550 now from 2500, but wasn't 2500 in the olden days about 2600 today?

Edit : I mean 2600 from 2550, with the numbers adjusted accordingly.

[Roger de Coverly]

Didn't GM norms used to be a lot more difficult to get what with rating inflation? I know the requirement is about 2550 now from 2500, but wasn't 2500 in the olden days about 2600 today?

It seems to cut both ways. There are more players of the necessary rating, so it's easier to get the opposition. Against that, 20 years of working with computers has made people stronger even down at relative rabbit level (to a GM) of 2100

So it's a hypothesis that if you do a lot of work at chess, you get better. That may not improve your rating much because many of the people you play at equal chances do the same. You get a modest increase in rating because of drop-outs, however you are that bit better than the "average" player at around 1500/1600.

[Justin Hadi]

Yeah 2100 is pretty rubbish in the top end of things, but enough to get a respectable score in big tournaments like the London Classic Open, British Major Open etc.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

As well as the various e2e4 international events, Coulsdon, Big Slick etc

IM norms yes, I'm not sure there's quite the field strength in these to make GM possible. Yang-Fan's 9/9 was only IM.

I believe Haslinger achieved his final GM norm at a Welsh International a few years ago.

[Stewart Reuben]

There is very little evidence of chess rating inflation this century. There was around 1990 (year not rating) perhaps 5 points a year.
It is logical that players are improving and Macieja was very convincing last year when he did demographics of the rating gains and that it was perfectly normal. Markkula and De Ridder have also presented papers on these matters. Silman has shown there has been growth in the ratings - well we know that; but he seemed to assume this is inflation rather than possibly growth in playing strength.
Thus there are more GMs, about 1000.
The diaspora when the USSR broke up had a huge effect.
As Roger said it is easier now to meet the appropriate set of opponents.
Use of computers has improved the quality of chessplay.
Use of databases has helped improve standards.
It is much cheaper to travel.

Justin Haki is referring to the fact that the TPR for a GM norm used to be 2550. This was changed in about 1980 to 2600 as it was thought the 2550 level had been set too low. Usually the only people nowadays who ask for the level to go up is the GMs who have a vested interest in there being fewer new ones.
I wanted to introduce an Elite Grandmaster title but was voted down in FIDE. The TPR would have been 2800, the average rating of the opponents a minimum of 2580 and the player had to finish first or second in the event. It would take an event like Gibraltar for it to be possible for a player to get a norm in an open Swiss. Thus I hoped there would be a growth in the number of round robins for players rated around 2600. There are very few such. There are more like the London Chess Classic for even stronger players.

I had hoped we would take the FIDE Ratings down to 1000 from 1 July and the system go monthly instead of the current bi-monthly. That was agreed in 1999. But we are still on 1200 and every two months. I don't think that has much effect on the GM side of things. We have been very gingerly about going down too rapidly for fear of damaging the system.

It is a legitimate question for older players to ask what their rating might have been had they been at their best today. My highest rating was 2270 (in 1977 in the top 1500 in the world. Very few people were rated!). I doubt I would ever have been much over 2300 and was nowhere near IM standard. Had I played the necessary events (they didn't exist at all until the Lloyds Bank Masters of 1978) and worked much harder than I ever did, I still don't think I would have become an IM. Thed innate ability wasn't there.
People who take a gap year playing chess often go up by about 150 Rating points. Let us look at Lateefah's rating in the autumn.

Professor Elo once said a player rated 2350 should get an IM norm (TPR 2450) 1 in 7 events. Anecdotally that does not seem to be statistically true. A 2500 player usually gets to be a GM and it does not take 20 tournaments. Naturally a less steady player will get norms more often and have disasters more often.

Stewart Reuben

[Justin Hadi]

Justin Haki is referring to the fact that the TPR for a GM norm used to be 2550.

Who?

[LozCooper]

As well as the various e2e4 international events, Coulsdon, Big Slick etc

IM norms yes, I'm not sure there's quite the field strength in these to make GM possible. Yang-Fan's 9/9 was only IM.

Well in Yang-Fan's case there were only two GMs in the tournament so a GM norm wouldn't be possible anyway. It is true that Sean concentrates mainly on tournaments offering IM/WGM/WIM norms but I'm sure if he felt there were a demand for tournaments with players seekers GM norms he would have no problem assembling such a field. It's also cheaper to have 2 GMs instead of 3 IMs which explains his favoured format. The lowest average for a player to have a chance of a GM norm is 2380 but he will also have to play 3 GMs and 3 other titled players as well as 4 foreigners etc

Big Slick will offer seven players the opportunity to get a GM norm and in 2009 it had six non GMs playing. Coulsdon has also offered GM norm opportunites albeit it can be diffcult in the swisses as you may not get all the criteria required but they have also ran GM norm all-play-alls.

[James Byrne]

...

[Roger de Coverly]

In my opinion I think anyone with above avg intelligence can become at least an International Master if they put in the work.

I have to say I'm unconvinced. In my experience of playing IMs and GMs, most of them can raise their game when it really matters. It can be that their understanding and knowledge of openings is exemplary so you get blown away before the game has really started. It can also be that their standard of play in difficult positions and when short of time is also high. It might just be that their knowledge and judgement of endings is just better. Really strong GMs can do all of that which I accept is partly down to study.

It might just be your own fault. If you can play to a IM/GM standard 19 moves out of 20 and complete rubbish on the twentieth, you will fall short of being able to challenge them directly.

[Justin Hadi]

According to Dvoretsky, Chess skill = Intellect x Character.

[Justin Hadi]

Here's the link if anyone is interested - http://www.chesscafe.com/text/dvoretsky87.pdf

Let’s assume that 10 units is the maximum possible. A player with a middling development
of both components (5 out of 5) would reach a level of achievement equal to 25; a player
with purely chess abilities in the brilliant range (9) and low-level personal qualities (2) will
have a significantly lower result – 18.

[Arshad Ali]

In my opinion I think anyone with above avg intelligence can become at least an International Master if they put in the work.

Opinions vary. In my opinion most people with above average intelligence (for purposes of this discussion, let us say with IQ of at least 110) will not be able to make IM -- regardless of how much work they put in. Stewart Reuben is arguing along similar lines when he says he didn't have the innate ability. Every player eventually runs into the brick wall of his own limitations, adamant and implacable. As Clint Eastwood says -- in Magnum Force, I think -- a man's gotta know his limitations.

[Justin Hadi]

Every player eventually runs into the brick wall of his own limitations, adamant and implacable

I don't agree with this. It's hard to believe that giving anyone under IM strength a year's worth of training with a great player wouldn't benefit them at all. In practice this is obviously unlikely to happen due to money constraints, real jobs, real life... After getting all the help possible then the player runs into his/her limitations, but I don't think players get as much help as they could do.

[Arshad Ali]

Every player eventually runs into the brick wall of his own limitations, adamant and implacable

I don't agree with this. It's hard to believe that giving anyone under IM strength a year's worth of training with a great player wouldn't benefit them at all.

But what you're saying here is not at odds with what I'm saying. If you don't agree, contend along the following lines: "A non-IM player who works hard and is coached properly will eventually make IM." Then you're not agreeing with me.

[Justin Hadi]

"A non-IM player who works hard and is coached properly will eventually make IM."

OK. Take coaching by say Karpov, hard work from an early age and plenty of tournament practice, and an IQ of above 110 then I believe it's possible.