Next English GM

[Roger de Coverly]

But does the presence of GMs increase the entry level of tournaments, generally speaking. As is so often claimed?

At the level of a Norm seeker, the more GMs the better. At lower levels, players may have ambitions to play a GM, if they don't normally face such opposition. It can also be good for local publicity.

[MJMcCready]

But some GMs ask for appearance fees claiming they attract more players to a tournament, even though few of them would actually have the chance of playing them. I can see that they can raise the profile of a tournament but I often thought the claims that their appearance fees are justified are a bit much.

[Chris Goodall]

But some GMs ask for appearance fees claiming they attract more players to a tournament, even though few of them would actually have the chance of playing them. I can see that they can raise the profile of a tournament but I often thought the claims that their appearance fees are justified are a bit much.

It's like Instagram "influencers" with 1,500 followers asking for free meals. It's another of the 99 kinds of micro-corruption by which we postpone the catastrophic day when there are fewer self-styled professional players than there are today.

I can offer random 2450 GMs 100% of the spectator revenue plus a free stand for their merchandise.

[LawrenceCooper]

But some GMs ask for appearance fees claiming they attract more players to a tournament, even though few of them would actually have the chance of playing them. I can see that they can raise the profile of a tournament but I often thought the claims that their appearance fees are justified are a bit much.

It's like Instagram "influencers" with 1,500 followers asking for free meals. It's another of the 99 kinds of micro-corruption by which we postpone the catastrophic day when there are fewer self-styled professional players than there are today.

I can offer random 2450 GMs 100% of the spectator revenue plus a free stand for their merchandise.

A lot of grandmasters are professional players. If they are making a living from chess it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to look for teams and events where they will be paid. Organisers and captains are free to decide if this fits in with their tournament/team.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"A lot of grandmasters are professional players. If they are making a living from chess it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to look for teams and events where they will be paid. Organisers and captains are free to decide if this fits in with their tournament/team."

Yes - I have no objection to GMs getting conditions. It gives me the chance to play them. I know I'm unlikely to win big Opens, so playing a GM is great, especially if it is later than round 1.

[Joey Stewart]

Plus it really gives very little incentive for our up and coming young IMs to make that final push to GM if they see the UK tournament scene treating them like some sort of parasites leeching money instead of the reverence that such a title demands from lesser players.

[Keith Arkell]

Who's better, an IM rated 2505 or a GM rated 2504?

Perhaps I am qualified to shed some light on this kind of thing, as I have been both of these.

The GM is better. The rating system is currently highly unreliable. For example there are active young 1500 to 2000 players who would wipe the floor with inactive 2200 and 2300 players. And if you go to India and play a bunch of 14 year olds you will quickly lose 100 or more rating points. So the ratings are currently very dependant on who you play and where you play.

When I was a 2500 IM I was incapable of making 4GM norms in a row, As a GM I managed the achievement, back in 2014/2015.

By going out of my way to be active during lockdown, I played in Hungary against a bunch of extremely underrated young players, and am now just 2370 as a result. However, I am still 2500 strength, and played at a decent level to win the British Online Championship, for example.

So my point is that you can be over or under-rated for all sorts of reasons, but titles do not lie.

[MJMcCready]

Who's better, an IM rated 2505 or a GM rated 2504?

Perhaps I am qualified to shed some light on this kind of thing, as I have been both of these.

The GM is better. The rating system is currently highly unreliable. For example there are active young 1500 to 2000 players who would wipe the floor with inactive 2200 and 2300 players. And if you go to India and play a bunch of 14 year olds you will quickly lose 100 or more rating points. So the ratings are currently very dependant on who you play and where you play.

When I was a 2500 IM I was incapable of making 4GM norms in a row, As a GM I managed the achievement, back in 2014/2015.

By going out of my way to be active during lockdown, I played in Hungary against a bunch of extremely underrated young players, and am now just 2370 as a result. However, I am still 2500 strength, and played at a decent level to win the British Online Championship, for example.

So my point is that you can be over or under-rated for all sorts of reasons, but titles do not lie.

Thanks, that's a good answer. Yes I suppose you do have a point since ratings do fluctuate and it does seem to be harder these days to determine playing strength from them, owing in part to rating inflation and also that you can practice and prepare so much more easily now than you could 30-40 years ago. Form is never factored into ratings, which can make them deceptive or misleading whereas, like you say, a title indicates a certain achievement which doubt cannot be cast upon. Is this why I am hearing that the term Super Grandmaster should be introduced? I keep hearing it brought up in the commentary to the world championships.

Keith, I know you have been around a bit for a long time, so you should know this one but correct me if I'm wrong but when I subscribed in the British Chess Magazine in the early 90s there was debate and even questions put to FIDE that a GM should lose their title if their rating dropped below a certain point? I think it was 2400 and I think one of the advocates of that was GM Plaskett but since it's quite some time ago I may be wrong on both counts there. From memory this was discussed at length before right?

[MJMcCready]

"A lot of grandmasters are professional players. If they are making a living from chess it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to look for teams and events where they will be paid. Organisers and captains are free to decide if this fits in with their tournament/team."

Yes - I have no objection to GMs getting conditions. It gives me the chance to play them. I know I'm unlikely to win big Opens, so playing a GM is great, especially if it is later than round 1.

Yes I agree with you there but there are two tournaments I played in in Asia where the tournament organizer explained to me what the fee was (sorry not fair to say) and the justification for it was that the tournament profited from the presence of the GM playing but I distinctly remember thinking there was a huge disparity in play between the fee for the GM and the entry fees collected from the number of players asking if GMs were playing. It wasn't nearly half as much, which led me to believe that the title of GM was being used for personal profit rather than a raised profile of the tournament. In the second of the aforementioned tournaments, the organizer also told me that there were quite a few IMs from India also wanting some 'pocket money' as he put it. I found this odd because European and American players typically rated between 2000-2200 probably aren't well versed on Indian IMs and when I looked at the list of them, I only knew of 1 and has certainly never heard of any of the others. From what the organizer said, he refused their requested and many dropped out but some came anyway, and those were the ones he showed me.

If you are making a living out of chess, it's quite natural for such things to be asked I think but I got the distinct impression that some try to use their title for their own benefit but will hide that and state it is for the good of the tournament that they enter, and that I thought was lacking in class.

[MJMcCready]

"A lot of grandmasters are professional players. If they are making a living from chess it doesn't seem unreasonable for them to look for teams and events where they will be paid. Organisers and captains are free to decide if this fits in with their tournament/team."

Yes - I have no objection to GMs getting conditions. It gives me the chance to play them. I know I'm unlikely to win big Opens, so playing a GM is great, especially if it is later than round 1.

Please see comment above this. I agree with you if titled players are honest about their intentions. But when they want to be paid, and ask for everything to be free (hotel and so one) then put in a below par performance making no real effort to win the thing, that's rather disappointing. At one of the tournaments mentioned in the post above, one GM (not fair to say nationality let's just say he's not GM D.Norwood's best friend) drew with one of my friends. He's the same rating as me and was easily beaten by me the last time we played. Since I struggled to make it into the top half of the Bedfordshire County first team, it can't be right that a friend of mine can draw with someone around 600 ELO points above him can it?

[LawrenceCooper]

Yes I agree with you there but there are two tournaments I played in in Asia where the tournament organizer explained to me what the fee was (sorry not fair to say) and the justification for it was that the tournament profited from the presence of the GM playing but I distinctly remember thinking there was a huge disparity in play between the fee for the GM and the entry fees collected from the number of players asking if GMs were playing. It wasn't nearly half as much, which led me to believe that the title of GM was being used for personal profit rather than a raised profile of the tournament. In the second of the aforementioned tournaments, the organizer also told me that there were quite a few IMs from India also wanting some 'pocket money' as he put it. I found this odd because European and American players typically rated between 2000-2200 probably aren't well versed on Indian IMs and when I looked at the list of them, I only knew of 1 and has certainly never heard of any of the others. From what the organizer said, he refused their requested and many dropped out but some came anyway, and those were the ones he showed me.

If you are making a living out of chess, it's quite natural for such things to be asked I think but I got the distinct impression that some try to use their title for their own benefit but will hide that and state it is for the good of the tournament that they enter, and that I thought was lacking in class.

Chess is far from being the only profession where if you work for many years to achieve a qualification then you can hope to earn enough to make some sort of living.

I have no idea why you think that someone offering a service by stating how it would benefit the customer is lacking in class.

[MJMcCready]

I've already explained that quite clearly. If you ran a tournament in London with a first prize of £5000, and you've got 5 GMs wanting that in appearance fees also, how are you supposed to run at a profit? Regarding the second of the aforementioned tournaments, one GM wanted a penthouse and an appearance fee more than 3 times great than the first prize. To meet her demands a benefactor had to meet them, also from the same country as her. It was a coup but had very little impact on registration as it was a last minute change. So how does that benefit a tournament, which was the claim made

[LawrenceCooper]

I've already explained that quite clearly. If you ran a tournament in London with a first prize of £5000, and you've got 5 GMs wanting that in appearance fees also, how are you supposed to run at a profit? Regarding the second of the aforementioned tournaments, one GM wanted a penthouse and an appearance fee more than 3 times great than the first prize. To meet her demands a benefactor had to meet them, also from the same country as her. It was a coup but had very little impact on registration as it was a last minute change. So how does that benefit a tournament, which was the claim made

Offering a first prize of £5000 doesn't appear to be the most advisable way to organise a tournament if your intention is to run at a profit.

If the GM in question wanted £15000 as an appearance fee and a penthouse then that would appear to be somewhat more excessive than a standard GM fee. In this case I would agree that the cost would outweigh the benefits to the tournament

[MJMcCready]

Yes it was, and her argument was that it was for the benefit of the tournament but they couldn't find the money and it was only when a benefactor came in right at the death that she could register but she still kept to the same line -and I should know I had to photograph her and show her around the basement of the hotel. She's not the only one though. Yes of course GMs and IMs should use their title and sometimes rightly so but many, and through experience India appears to be the worst country for this many use it because they are acting out of self-interest and not for the good of the tournament organizers, even though this is what they say.

We once had a rather aged Soviet GM playing once. He also wanted, and received appearance money. It was well-known by everyone that he used that money on prostitution and alcohol as he spent nearly the whole tournament hung over and the worse for wear. His performances became so bad that my friend who drew with a GM we all know, went and beat him in the final round. He told me he arrived very late, blundered and resigned even before my friend had made a move, assuring me he hadn't even seen he blundered. I don't wish to sound condescending at all but Brits ought to be aware more than most that when people are given are title, some of them will use it to get whatever they can out of it, even if it means clinging onto the establishment for dear life for as long as they can. Anyone who's been involved in organizing tournaments overseas can tell you there is quite a bit that goes on behind closed doors that people don't like to talk about. Well just like at what happened with the London Chess Classic years ago and the comments Malcolm Pein made about 'donations' that could not be accounted for. Anyway, I am sounding a bit cynical so I will shut up but there certainly is a lot that goes on in chess which is not spoken about -most journalist will tell you that.

[Kevin Thurlow]

Well, clearly there are bad experiences. I can think of occasions where visiting GMs annoyed the organizers so much that they wouldn't be invited back (and occasions where the visiting GMs were annoyed with the organizers...). Other GMs were so popular they got invited back repeatedly.