Amateur/Master distinction

[MJMcCready]

Hi there, I was wondering if I could get some thought on the following. What was the criteria in play for the use of the terms 'master' and 'amateur' in later Victorian times in England? Why were some players called masters and some amateurs? I also see world class and expert being used but they don't appear to be the norm. From what limited understanding I have, popularity was a major factor but what I can't determine is whether the ability to make a living from chess was a determining factor also. Does anyone know? It is today, even Luke McShane is referred to as an amateur by some because he works for a living. The difference in playing ability between some (strong amateurs) and some masters was negligible, and since no one was actually rated at the time, I'm curious to know how a player actually went from being classified as an 'amateur' to that of a 'master'. Was it winning major tournaments that decided it?

[Stewart Reuben]

Nobody seems to have responded to this query about master and amateur in late Victorian times.
Until the 1950S, there was no formal definition of the term ' master; nor indeed of GM.
Amateur surely meant, as now, somebody who plays chess but doesn't expect to win money and indeed may not play for money. Amateurish is sometimes used as a disparaging term for a weak player. Luke is not amateurish in this sense.
Going back to Victorian times. The term was just proclaimed by commentators and there would be some agreement. If not, presumably the term would disappear for that player.

[MJMcCready]

I don't think that can explain how tournaments across Europe were reported as being categorized by the Master/Amateur distinction as there was no consensus at the time from what little I understand. Some tournaments were presented as masters versus amateurs even. In A Century of British Chess, Sargeant does not delve into the origins of the terms but often uses them and sometimes rather disparagingly towards players who frequently beat him again and again but were mere amateurs as he sometimes put it.

I have a horrible feeling it was little more than those who made money from chess and didn't need to work and those who didn't make money from chess and did need to work but I hope I am wrong. I can't tell if its just a British classification or not because I've never read any chess literature from Europe in Victorian times, so cannot tell what terms were employed in Germany, France, Russia and so on back then.

[Stewart Reuben]

Consider Hastings. 1895 was before any ratings or titles existed, apart from the World Champion. Entries must have been invited based on reputations and perceived quality of games. Move on some years. All the tournaments were round robins. Still no ratings or official titles.
Fairly early in Fischer's career, he wanted to play, but applied too late. There was still no FIDE Rating system.
Move on to my involvement from 1986-7. The Premier was an invitational round robin. 1 or 2 people qualified from the Challengers which was a Swiss.
Move on. We can no longer afford a Premier. The top tournament, a Swiss, is called the Masters. a substantial number of GMs play each year.

In Victorian iimea some people played chess for stakes, often at odds. This practice died out in Britain, but not the US. Many games were played at odds. Fischer would only play at money odds, not material. That is how I played him. - $1 per blitz game from me and $10 from him.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Though by the 1930s and 40s many tournaments had sections rated according to ability - Masters, First Class, Second Class and so on.

How exactly were players allocated to a section in the absence of any rating system?

[Roger de Coverly]

How exactly were players allocated to a section in the absence of any rating system?

Apart from players self selecting where they thought their ability would place them there would be an organising committee to take such decisions. As well as relying on reputations, they had previous tournament results, including their previous year's event, along with individual club and county championships plus club and county matches.

Hastings for exanple continued to place players in sections long after the development of grades.

[MJMcCready]

Yes I noticed that.

[MJMcCready]

Having thought more about your answer, I am wondering how 'amateur' players became -Masters'. Who ove4saw such things. There must be some formalised procedure in play some how