Talk:Grandmaster (chess)

I think this note no longer work. Does anyone know where the original source can be found? Pincopallino555 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think a few points have failed to be considered in the article regarding the surge of GM's in recent decades. 1) Computers and software have become commonplace allowing for absurd amounts of high-level analysis to be performed by anyone. Days of analysis by a human can now be replaced by 10 minutes of cpu crunching. 2) The internet has allowed for large databases tracking both GM, M, and amateur matches to be shared rapidly. This not only allows for players to analyze other competitor's favorite moves and develop counter strategy, but a whole host of "what if" scenarios can be run through very quickly. Finally, 3) The internet has probably led to a vast increase in the amount of chess literature (either original or compiled from print literature). Frankly, the internet alone can turn a poor player to a decent player overnight via strategy/counter-strategy googling.

So in summation I think that the increase in technology should be considered a possible explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.77.96 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that has very little if anything to do with GM title inflation. Most international masters 50 years ago were better players than most grandmasters today. The reason is that in order to get the title of GM, you need three GM norms. These are earned by good performance in tournaments that have a certain number of GMs. There are a lot more GMs today plus there are a lot more tournaments. A player hase many more chances to get a GM norm. Bubba73 (talk), 21:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whilst it is true that an IM 50 years ago probably had a higher world ranking than some GMs today,the overall continuous rise in standards of chess playing has resulted in almost all of today's Grandmasters being far stronger than even the best players in the world from 50 years ago. A rough estimate,applying some critical analysis and research done by Doctor John Nunn GM suggests that the standard of play worldwide increases by about 5 ELO points per year,and thus by 500 ELO points in 100 years.

This falls in line with scientific theory that the average IQ is also continuously rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.169.186 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is this title "International Grandmaster"? My certificate (awarded in 1984) says only "Grand Maitre", which, if my woeful French does not deceive me translates into English as "Grand Master". The entry is simply wrong, in my view. Nigel Short —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel Short (talk • contribs)

Could someone who knows how to do so move the article? Narssarssuaq 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The title International Grandmaster was used back in the 1970s as it was more consistant with the only other open international title that existed then: International Master. Also many countries had (and may still have) national Grandmaster and Master titles. The International part of the GM title seems to have been officially dropped somewhere along the way, possibly when the FM title was introduced in 1978. Some people continue to use IGM though, as often is the case when you try and change established naming conventions. (Goldmanuk (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

Deleted Alex Sherzer because he is not a known Grandmaster (to me), so not a good example in a list of Grandmasters.

I've heard of him (he's American, rated 2486 in the April 2003 rating list), but agree he's not nearly as well known as most of the others on the list, and looks a bit out of place. I'm not sure how useful the list is at all, to be honest, seeing as we have List of chess players, and who we include here is bound to be rather subjective, but I'll leave it for now. --Camembert

Sherzer is definitely a GM, whoever took him off is on crack. Fide.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliopolitanus (talk • contribs) 00:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Tzar did not create the term "grandmaster"; it had been used before. Why anyone would give Tzar Nicholas, who was no chess authority, the right to declare players "grandmaster" is simply because its a colorful, factual, story, a powerful hereditary political figure annointing the chess great, the same as he would creating titles of nobility.

"Grandmaster" was used popularly around the time of the Tsar to denote those masters who were so good, they were masters of the masters, beating them the way that masters beat amateurs. It also came to mean a master who had a rightful claim, based on his results, to challenge the World Champion. Hence it is wrong to limit the usage of the term to after 1914; masters in the 19th century who were of the highest caliber have a rightful claim to be called "Grandmasters"...especial as today, lots of masters are awarded the FIDE title who arn't even in the top group of masters, those who could could give the champ a tough fight. In any event, the Tzar did not invent the title. ChessPlayer 01:48, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Got a source on any of that? --Malathion 02:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford Companion to Chess backs up what ChessPlayer wrote. It says that the term grandmaster seems to have first been applied to chess in an 1838 issue of Bell's Life. Later Philidor was called a grandmaster among others. The Oxford Companion also says that strong tournaments in the early 20th century were sometimes called grandmaster events, including Ostend 1907 and San Sebastian 1912. It goes on to say that at that time grandmaster was used only for players who could reasonably compete for the championship, but that today the title is given to players to whom the champion could give odds. Its final observation is that in 1991 Britain alone had almost as many GMs as existed in the whole world in 1950. Quale 03:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like something that should go in the article, with a reference. --Malathion 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

OK, I agree. I'm looking for some more references but eventually I'll make an update. Quale 21:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think the Tsar story was largely given currency as fact by Harold Schonberg's 1973 book The Grandmasters of Chess. (Goldmanuk (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC))Reply

For what it is worth, the 1914 Tsar story is also in Bobby Fischer Goes to War, page 35. Bubba73 (talk), 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure where the following should be inserted,but I believe that it needs to be said in order to bring some balance to the argument about the relative standing of modern day Grandmasters: Today there are approximately 1150 GMs worldwide.There are,according to FIDE,one million International players,and there are altogether 300 million people who can play chess.These numbers were dramatically smaller in the days of the early GMs.Furthermore,there can be no dispute that,as with any information based activity,the standard of play increases sharply with time.For example,a player such as Frank Marshall,one of the origional five GMs,would today be judged as little more than a tricky club player. I also dispute the claim,albeit made in "The Oxford Companion to Chess",that the current champion could give odds to another GM.The only actual recent example of odds giving saw the then World Champion,and probable greatest player ever,Garry Kasparov only narrowly win a match(2.5-1.5)giving odds of 2 pawns per game to Terence Chapman,ranked outside the world's top 15000. In other words,as is the case in most competitive activities,there is today far more strength in depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.169.186 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article says that the rating requirement for IMs is 2400 (plus the required norms). Looking at the FIDE Handbook it looks to me like the required performance rating is now 2450. Is this correct?

Per 1.50c, an IM needs to attain a rating >= 2400 at least once, but a performance rating of >= 2450.5. The rules for becoming an IM and a GM are exceedingly complex; I suppose it's worth going into this in some depth, provided it doesn't unnecessarily disturb the flow of the article. Neilc 04:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I just created some short articles for other FIDE titles, in particular the women's titles Woman FIDE Master, Woman International Master, and Woman Grandmaster. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to merge and redirect all FIDE over-the-board titles except GM into a single article, maybe FIDE titles. Then the norms stuff could be explained in one place. (I would recommend keeping GM separate because it has added historical significance that the other titles lack.) I'm afraid I don't understand the norms requirements well enough to write it up accurately, and of course FIDE has occasionally changed the rules. Also, related to this discussion, I'm not sure that the claim in this article that the WGM title is roughly equivalent to the FM title is accurate. I think the women are short-changed by this statement, since it looks to me like the requirements for WGM are significantly higher than those for FM and in fact are just a bit below IM. Is that right? Quale 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think merging the articles is a good idea. This article could cover the title pre-FIDE, and the FIDE titles article could cover the period since FIDE took over the management of the title. --Malathion 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

On the WGM/FM comparison: it could be argued that the two titles represent a roughly comparable level of ability, as they both require minimum ratings of 2300; however, the WGM title is considerably harder to achieve, as it also requires norm results of a performance rating of at least 2400.5 (a result which an FM might never achieve) against other WGMs, FMs, IMs or GMs.

Incidentally, do we really want to mention Schonberg's Grandmasters of Chess in the "further reading" section? I only looked at the book once for a few hours a few years ago, but I don't think it has any special relationship to the subject of this article beyond the title; it's just about strong chess players (on those grounds, we could include any random issue of, say, Shakhmaty v SSSR ;) --Camembert

Thanks Camembert. I have updated the comparison of the WGM to the unrestricted titles to say that it is intermediate between FM and IM. It seems that nearly a third of WGMs also have the IM title so it can't be that much tougher. Regarding Grandmasters of Chess, I'm not familiar with it. Maybe someone else can comment. Otherwise I say remove it if you think it isn't germane. Quale 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if we can cut back on that list of over-2700 gm's, which is taking an awful lot of article space. I've heard the term "super gm" before, but never saw it defined as being rated over 2700. I wonder if it's sourced anywhere other than some chessbase post. I'd reserve the term for the very top players, which means there shouldn't be 38 of them. Phr 11:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I oppose this notion. Only 39 people have ever achieved the title of Super Grandmaster, considering that there are millions of chess players around the world that is quite an impressive feat and as long as the list remains small I say it belongs in the article. I'm wondering if there should be another classication, how about Elite Grandmaster for those who cross the 2800 barrier? Dionyseus 03:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I edited the page, as the original Super GM rating was 2600 in 1970, this seems to be forgotten knowledge... :)) This rating was considered to be Candidate level back then.

I think the table should be removed. The term is not official, and while the term "super-GM" is often used, the 2700 threshold is not always used with it. In other words, using the 2700 threshold is WP:OR. I think the discussion can stay but the table should be removed. Rocksong 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, move the table to Comparing top chess players throughout history. It would be more relevant there. Rocksong 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The table is interesting but I'm not sure it belongs in Comparing top chess players throughout history either, since it is partly mixing eras. Perhaps it would be simpler to just delete the definition and cut the table to the top 20? --Wfaxon 12:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. I think it is relevant to Comparing top chess players throughout history, because it is one of the measures of Greatest chess player of all time (the old title for that article). In fact, the top Elo ratings of all time is a glaring omission from that article, IMHO. On the other hand, I think such a list is totally irrelevant to this article, because it has nothing to do with the definition of a GM or super-GM. On cutting to the top 20: I don't mind either way. Rocksong 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

After mulling it over I'm still convinced as ever that the table was in the wrong place, so I've moved it. Rocksong 00:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Must say that I disagree on moving the table. I think the Comparing top chess players throughout history page is kinda lame, and very vulnerable to concerns about WP:OR. The grandmasters article is a perfect place for a table of the highest rated players. Contrary to your remarks, the table is perfectly defined: peak FIDE rating >= 2700. 24.177.112.146 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC) -- Apologies, I see that the "unclear" remark was directed to the definition of Super-GM rather than the table. You are of course correct. Super-GM is an informal term which doesn't have a strict definition. 24.177.112.146 03:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So after all that, do you think the table should go back? My opinion is a very strong no, because it has nothing to do with what a grandmaster is. As for Comparing top chess players throughout history, well the name is lame (I opposed the name change), but a lot of WP:OR has been removed from it. The facts (IMHO) are (1) chess players and writers often compare players of different eras, so it deserves a WP page; and (2) Elo rating is one of the ways used to compare, so that article is incomplete without a list of the top Elo players ever (though top 40 is probably excessive). Rocksong 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The artcile currently says In 1972 there were only 88 GM's with 33 being Russian.. Were there really 33 Russians or were they from the former USSR? In the Super-GM list Mikhail Tal is listed as Latvian, despite only playing for the USSR. I just wonder if he (or other 1972 non-Russian, former USSR players are included in the 33). If there was a source for that list of 88 GMs then I would check myself. Nloth 02:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tiviakov is presently listed as having a peak rating of 2700. According to FIDE Sergei Tiviakov's peak rating isn't 2700 but 2699, which in that case means he should be removed from the list of Super Grandmasters.

Good catch. 24.180.187.9 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Someone added him again. Is the FIDE website wrong? Narssarssuaq 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the article it says that to become a GM, an achievement of three 'norms' is required. However, the FIDE says clearly in item 1.50a that two norms are sufficient. So to me it seems that the Wikipedia-article is wrong here. Bob.v.R 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Bob.v.R 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think the confusion comes in due to the second requirement - that those norms come over a minimum of 27 games. Thus, it's nearly always necessary for a player to get 3 norms, as few tournaments (especially for those not already at the highest levels of world chess) are 14+ games, meaning that practically, 3 norms are required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.72.197 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me the naming of the article is a source of confusion. It is called "International Grandmaster" (presumably to disambiguate from non-chess grandmasters) but the article then begins "The title Grandmaster...". Why not move the article to Grandmaster (chess)? Ludraman 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The term "International Grandmaster" was probably used to separate it from the many national grandmaster titles. For instance, Botvinnik was one of the first International Grandmasters (in 1949 or 1950), but he was not made USSR grandmaster until 1955.Athulin (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why does the “Origin and Current Statistics” section only list people’s last names? Are readers expected to recognize them? Is it some kind of “chess-world style” to do that, even on first reference? --Rob Kennedy 04:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's a good question. It is common in chess writing to use only the last names of the most famous players. Most serious chess players (not just professionals, even informed hobbyists) would recognize nearly all the names listed in this article. It would be OK to include the full names instead, but it would make the list longer so it's a tradeoff. Since we can link names in wikipedia there should be no chance of confusion, so I think it actually works better here than it does on paper. I'm not strongly opposed to giving the full names, but in this specific instance I think I like the shorter list better. 24.240.40.145 06:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Judging from some of the comments above (in the sections #Title meaning and #Confusion), some people (including Nigel Short) think this article needs a rename, and I agree. Following Wikipedia convention of using brackets to disambiguate articles, I think it should be "Grandmaster", followed by something in brackets. Also possible is Chess Grandmaster, but I like that less, because it doesn't follow that convention. I think the possibilities are:

• Grandmaster (chess) - gets my vote
• Grandmaster (chess title)
• Chess Grandmaster

Could other people offer thoughts? Rocksong 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Grandmaster (chess) would be correct. Narssarssuaq 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --Wfaxon 11:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, counting Ludraman who made the exact same suggestion back in August 2006, thats 4-0 in favour of Grandmaster (chess). I call that a consensus, so I'll do the move. The process will be:

1. Delete the existing page Grandmaster (chess), which should be uncontroversial since it's simply a redirect to here. (To do that I think I need to nominate it for speedy deletion). 2. Rename this page to Grandmaster (chess).

That way the page history will move with the rename. Rocksong 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but WP documentation is a dog's breakfast and I can't afford to spend any more time at the moment pursuing this. Rocksong 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the page as per the concensus here and the request at RfD. For future reference, redirects don't need to be deleted to allow for page moves. Non-admins can move articles over redirects. Its only if the target of the move has actual content (e.g. is already a disambiguation page) that an admin is needed to delete it before the move can happen. WjBscribe 03:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Radjabov's calls himself an "International Grandmaster" here: [1] Narssarssuaq 16:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Perhaps it's a language thing? I still think we were right to move it, because (a) "Grandmaster" is the more common term, and (b) Nigel Short's observation on his GM certificate (see top of this talk page). Rocksong 23:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

International Grandmaster is simply an older term. It was common in the Fischer era, but is currently out of date. If we could find a good reference for this, it should go in the article. The new title is better. 24.177.112.146 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

IGM is still used in the crosstables of the chess magazine New in Chess. Skarioffszky 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The initial list of grandmasters was reported already from the 1949 FIDE congress (see for instance British Chess Magazine, 1949, p. 266), and the BCM report from the 1950 congress (BCM 1950 p. 246) says that "Sämisch (West Germany) and Kostich (Yugoslavia) were made grandmasters on grounds similar to those on which Bernstein, Duras, and others were granted this title last year." I suspect this question must be resolved by referring to the minutes from the 1949 and 1950 congresses to learn what actually was ratified (and not only proposed) at each event.Athulin (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Every (authoritative) book on the subject that I have read states that FIDE awarded its first official titles in 1950. I will be surprised if you find any concrete evidence to the contrary. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Instead of being bold, I want to open a few ideas up for discussion.

1. Merge some of the very short paragraphs in the lede. I was thinking to merge paras 1 & 2, and 3 & 4, which would make the lede three reasonable length paragraphs long instead of the current five paragraphs, each only one or two sentences.
2. Rename "Origin" section to "History".
3. Remove the "Super-grandmaster" section. I contributed to that section and it is of course a term that is actually used, but it's unreferenced and in any case not precisely defined. Also, the table mentioned in Comparing top chess players throughout history may be trimmed substantially (see that page's talk). If it could be satisfactorily referenced it could be kept.

Thoughts? Quale (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

All OK with me. The "super-grandmasters" section could be merged with "title inflation", since its part of the same issue. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with #1 and 2. I'm not so sure about #3. I think I've seen that used in print, but I don't know where. I'm on the fence about that one. Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A couple of uses of super grandmaster [2] and [3]. Bubba73 (talk), 00:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd probably keep "Super-grandmasters" and broaden it slightly to say that the term is commonly used to describe players of 2600+ ELO (original usage - and demonstrated by Bubba's [2]) or 2700+ ELO (more recent). How long before it refers to 2800+ players I wonder? It may be worth saying that the term's usage reflects the desire of many enthusiasts for an overhaul of the title system - something I've seen argued in magazines, maybe just on "letters" or editorial pages though. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely with the comment about the original usage being 2600+. If we can find a good cite or two, we can use this. Quale (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added the 1965 GM requirements, but they are different now. I don't know when they changed. Bubba73 (talk), 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for this expansion. I thought the article should explain the changes in the FIDE rules, and your work puts us at least 75% of the way there. All we need are the 1957 requirements. I'll look at Harkness, as he may have something we can use on the requirements before 1965. Fischer earned his GM title simply by qualifying for the 1958 Candidates tournament, so that gives an indication of part of the earlier rules. Quale (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 1957 requirements are not in Sunnuck - probably have to find a source from that era, and Harkness is a likely candidate. Bubba73 (talk), 05:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Candidate's Tournament must have been a way, since that is how the 1950 ones were awarded, except for the great players past their prime. Bubba73 (talk), 05:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It would be interesting to know who/when the last one to make GM on the basis of being a Candidate. Probably everyone for the last X number of years has been a GM before a Candidate. Bubba73 (talk), 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that the 1950 Candidates were made GMs strictly because they were Candidates. The process was political then, and I'm not sure that all Candidates were automatically in. I suspect each GM title award was subject to a vote. This made the process political, as with the Soviets blocking Bogoljubov until 1951. Certainly the 1957 rules gave all Candidates the GM title, but they were designed to be a formula that could be applied automatically without allowing political interference.

The question about GMs who earned their titles at the Candidates is interesting. If the new rules came into effect sometime during 1957 or 1958, then the first Interzonal to use the new rule (Portoroz 1958) produced a bumper crop of GMs: Fischer, Olafsson, and Benko. All the Candidates at Curaçao 1962 were GMs. In 1965 the format had been changed to matches and all participants were GMs. It looks like Portisch had earned his title the most recently, in 1961. The 1968 matches featured all long time GMs. Huebner earned his GM title in 1971, and I don't know if that was before or as a result of his Candidates match with Petrosian. He resigned the match after 7 games, down 3–4 (+0−1=6), and if I understand the 40% score requirement, if Huebner had lost the eigth game he wouldn't heave been eligible to receive the GM title from the match. Since I don't know if he was already a GM I don't know if this mattered. All players in the 1974 Candidates matches were GMs, with Mecking (1972) and Karpov (1970) having the least tenure. All GMs in the 1977, 1980, and 1983 Candidates. In 1985 FIDE changed the championship format again and held a Candidates Tournament as well as matches, so I didn't examine it or the later Candidates. Quale (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

One thing that would be interesting (but probably no source for) is: "who has earned the most GM norms?" My first guess was Karpov or Tal, but there could very well be some lesser GM who has played and has the most norms. But probably no one keeps up with that. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was reading in Tal's book. He sais that he got the BM title in 1957 as a result of winning the USSR championship. However, since that wasn't an international tournament, it didn't meet the requirements and Evans and Bisguier, who had just missed norms, were given GM titles too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another interesting thing is that when Tal won that USSR championship, he didn't even have the IM title. Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The requirements section in this article seems ro directly contradict the information in the FIDE titles lemma. That lemma mentions a requirement of three norms while this section mentions two.

Also the Swiss tournament requirement seems bolted on after the fact, becaus above the bulleted list ut says GMs need to meet both requirements while there is a list of three.

It might be a good idea to align bith articles and maybe only maintain the requirements in one of them. Titusn (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the typos, wet hands on a phone... Titusn (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this out. FIDE now requires only norms over 27 eligible games and no longer specifies the number of norms required. There are notable exceptions where only one norm is required for results obtained in particular tournaments, but the FIDE titles article is correct to say the usual way is three norms. (Three norms is usual because most norms can only be earned in tournaments of 9 rounds or longer.) We will have to update the claims in the article. Quale (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is Alexander C.H.O'D Alexander? Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• That's good attention to detail, and the answer is I don't know, I wish I did. The exact quote from Harkness is "It was called the FAV system in view of the work performed by Messrs. Ferrantes, Alexander, and Dal Verme in connection with its elaboration." Earlier he refers to Ferrantes as "Italian Professor Giovanni Ferrantes" and it's easy to find Giancarlo dal Verme in Gaige. (Ferrantes is also in Gaige, he was made IA (then called International Judge, I think) in 1952.) Alexander is tougher, since there is more than one Alexander alive at the time in question (Gaige lists two, C.H.O'D. and Frederick Forrest Laurie 1879–1965 of England) and there's no guarantee that the correct Alexander will be listed by Gaige anyway. Harkness writes like he expects that the reader would know who he's referring to, or maybe he didn't know Alexander's first name either. It should be possible to figure this out as the Alexander in question should have been a BCF official in the mid-1950s. I may have access to some chess magazines around that time in a nearby university library. Unfortunately BCM might be the most helpful, and the university only has BCM issues from 1881 to 1915. Quale (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it is much more likely to be C.H.O'D. - more famous, and (IMO) likely to do that sort of thing. But we probably shouldn't assume that for the article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

CHO'D would be about 48 at the time; the other Alexander would be about 78. I think it is unlikely to be the older one. I put in that it is probably CHO'D, because usually when you give the last name only, you are referring to the most famouse one. For example, "Lasker" is Emanual by default, and "Petrosian" and even "Tigran Petrosian" is the 1960s world champ by default. Bubba73 (talk), 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I had mentally done the math on the other Alexander and come up with an age of mid-60s which seemed possible but not necessarily likely. Of course I made an error—about 78 is right, which very strongly suggests C.H.O'D. Quale (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me get this straight, Aron Nimzowitsch is not a GM because that would be POV despite sources saying he was a Grandmaster. Yet, Tzar Nicholas announced five Grandmasters 1914 and that was somehow acceptable 'Original Grandmasters', when Philidor who was Grandmaster in the 1838 issue of Bell's Life according to 'The Oxford Companion to Chess' and this was somehow dismissed? It all seems illogical!

Are not Grandmasters prior to 1950 'none FIDE' Grandmasters if they are sourced as such? And the 'Original Grandmaster' was Philidor? ChessCreator (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've added in below the discussion from the Aron Nimzowitsch talk page so people will understand the context of the above. Krakatoa (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although ChessCreator has revised the article to refer to Nimzowitsch as a grandmaster, he was never awarded that title in any formal way. Frank Marshall wrote that at St. Petersburg 1914, "the Tsar of Russia conferred on each of the five finalists the title 'Grandmaster of Chess.'" Frank J. Marshall's Best Games of Chess, p. 21. (Then again, Marshall also claimed that after he played 23...Qg3!! against Lewitzky the spectators showered his board with gold pieces. Id. at 138.) The five finalists were Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall. Nimzowitsch played in that tournament but did not qualify for the finals, scoring 1 win, 6 draws, 3 losses, and 2 unplayed games. The Grand International Masters Chess Tournament at St. Petersburg 1914, p. 2. FIDE first awarded the "International Grandmaster" title in 1950. Nathan Divinsky, The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia, p. 77. It did not award it posthumously, and thus Nimzovich, who had died in 1935, did not receive it. However, Divinsky also defines "Grandmaster" as "[a] loose term used in the early 1900s to describe the world top 5 or 10 players." Id. at 76. Hooper and Whyld in The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984), p. 132 also reference this looser definition. They say of the word, "an over-the-board player of the highest class, a description commonly used before 1950 . . . . G. Walker and others referred to Philidor as a grandmaster, and a few other players were so entitled. The word gained greater currency in the early 20th century when tournaments were sometimes designated grandmaster events, e.g. Ostend 1907, San Sebastian 1912." FWIW, Anne Sunnucks in The Encyclopaedia of Chess, p. 321 refers to Nimzowitsch as an "International Grandmaster." To my mind, that is clearly incorrect, since that term refers solely to the FIDE-awarded title.

Nimzowitsch thus never formally became a "grandmaster." Undoubtedly he was one of "the world top 5 or 10 players" circa 1927, and thus was a "grandmaster" in that looser sense of the term. My understanding is that at Wikipedia we have hitherto reserved the term "grandmaster" for persons to whom FIDE awards that title, plus the St. Petersburg five. So should we continue to adhere to the strict definition, or switch to the looser one (which risks running afoul of NPOV, although I know people have given retroactive estimated Elo ratings, so use of those ratings might be a way to deal with that problem). Krakatoa (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Arpad Elo on p. 66 of his book The Rating of Chessplayers Past & Present notes that, "Death came too soon for some of the strongest chessplayers in history, who remain unrecognized by the international titles carried by other players, often weaker . . . ." He lists 24 "great players . . . who surely would carry GM titles had the current regulations been effective during their careers." Nimzowitsch is one of them, of course. The others are Steinitz, Charousek, Walbrodt, Mason, Pillsbury, Chigorin, Schlechter, Marco, Blackburne, Burn, Teichmann, Janowski, Reti, Gunsberg, Tarrasch, Lasker, Capablanca, Rabinovitch, Spielmann, Marshall, Vladimir Petrov, Alekhine, and Sultan Khan. Krakatoa (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This question has come up before—see the edit history of this article in Sept and Oct 2006. Most categories need pretty objective inclusion criteria to be useful, and the criteria we use for Category:chess grandmasters is pretty simple. In addition to the players awarded the title by FIDE, only the "original five" are grandfathered in, as discussed at Grandmaster. There is some question over whether the Tsar really did name those players as grandmasters at St. Petersburg, but opening up the category to any early player possibly of GM strength would be trouble. Clearly Nimzovitch would belong, but what would you do with a player like Staunton? (I'd say not GM strength, but the point is very debatable.) It's also interesting that Elo's list doesn't include Morphy, although that's probably because Morphy's career was so short. (His fame is based on fewer than 200 games, many of them at odds or not played under tournament conditions.) These straightforward criteria mean that GM-strength players before 1950 won't be in the GM category, but that's the way it goes. We used to have an article Grandmasters without the title (now a redirect, but you can look at the talk page and the edit history of the redirect page to see what it once looked like), but it's hard to make that subject NPOV and verifiable. I have sometimes wondered if the category shouldn't be renamed FIDE Grandmasters to avoid these questions, but that's a phrase that is rarely used and seems unnecessarily awkward. Quale (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

My ellipsis left out information that answers Quale's above question about Morphy. Elo referred to the 24 players he listed as being "contemporaries of those on the first GM roster." I gather that Steinitz makes the (time) cut because he played Mieses at Hastings 1895, at the outset of the latter's career, and Mieses lived into his eighties, long enough to be designated a grandmaster on the original 1950 FIDE list. Similarly, Capablanca, Alekhine, etc. were "contemporaries" of Rubinstein, as well as Mieses. Elo's comments elsewhere in his book make very clear that if he were to award retroactive GM titles, Morphy would receive one. Indeed, at page 95 Elo raises the question "of whether Morphy, given comparable activity and opposition, could have equalled Fischer's performance levels."

I would strongly disagree with Quale about Staunton, whom I believe plainly should be a grandmaster if that title were awarded retroactively. (Of course, my disagreement tends to support Quale's point about the subjectivity of opening up the GM designation to persons beyond FIDE GM's and the St. Petersburg five.) Elo on page 55 of his book gives a "crosstable" of results by the leading players against each other in the period 1842-1866. Morphy easily wins that "tournament," having scored 72.6% against the other leading lights of the day. Staunton was second at 59.1%, Harrwitz third at 54.2%, and Anderssen fourth at 51.3%. Recall too that Fischer in the early 60's ranked Staunton as one of the ten greatest players of all time. Morphy's comments are interesting: he wrote that Staunton's "knowledge of the theory of the game was no doubt complete; his powers as an analyst were of the very highest order; his coup d'oeil and judgment of position and his general experience of the chess board great . . . ." Morphy nonetheless did not consider Steinitz a "player of genius" because he lacked "imagination and . . . a certain inventive or creative power, which conceives position[s] and brings them about." D.N.L. Levy, Howard Staunton, p. 121. (Fred Reinfeld did not bother to include a single game of Staunton's in his A Treasury of British Chess Masterpieces, explaining at page v, "it takes too much time to find a game by him which one can enjoy.") Of course, Morphy's statements must be placed in context: he was embittered by Staunton's evasion of a match with him. There was a reason, of course, why Morphy felt that way: he had proven himself superior to all the other leading players of the day, and wanted to add Staunton to the list to resolve any doubt that Morphy, not Staunton, was the world's strongest player. Were Staunton not of (strong) grandmaster strength, Morphy would have no reason to be so vexed.

I don't have a strong opinion as to how we should resolve the "grandmaster" conundrum. As I recall, in an earlier edit I had changed the Nimzowitsch article to refer to him as a "grandmaster," but dropped that after Quale informed me of the "FIDE + St. Petersburg five" convention. (Elo at pages 191-96 of his book has a table, "Untitled Chessmasters" with his estimates of the "Best 5-year average" Elo rating of each. Some examples: Capablanca 2725, Lasker 2720, Alekhine 2690, Morphy 2690, Nimzowitsch 2615, Staunton 2520. In the cases of Morphy and Staunton, he adds an asterisk: "Data covers period of active play.") ChessCreator is right that even inclusion of the St. Petersburg five is somewhat arbitrary. But as Elo says (p. 170), "If this indeed was the first recognized class of Grandmasters, it was a remarkably appropriate selection: Capablanca, Lasker, Alekhine, Tarrasch, and Marshall!" Krakatoa (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should say "... of grandmaster strength according to Elo (or whoever), but did not have the official title" for those players. Bubba73 (talk), 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am thinking along the same lines. You posted the above shortly before me, resulting in an edit conflict. I wrote the following: I think my present inclination would be to call someone like Nimzowitsch, and the rest of Elo's list of 24, as being "clearly of grandmaster strength" and would explain in the body of the article that since Nimzo was dead by the time FIDE awarded the first official titles in 1950, he didn't receive the title, but reference Elo's list of 24 to support the proposition that he was "clearly of grandmaster strength." (Since Elo created the Elo rating system, considered an objective criterion for measuring relative chess strength, and uses (retroactive) ratings in concluding that his list of 24 were of grandmaster strength, I give his comments a lot of weight.) As for older players like Staunton, I would probably evade the "grandmaster" question by simply stating that he was considered one of the world's strongest players in such-and-such a time period. But I'd give Morphy a "clearly of grandmaster strength" designation. Your mileage may vary. Krakatoa (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bubba73's formulation is better than mine, since it avoids POV objections. Krakatoa (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that will work if we have a reference such as Elo. But the best thing would be if FIDE would award some titles posthoumously. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, although since FIDE didn't do that in 1950, or any of the 58 years since, I doubt they'll do it now. They must have considered that, but probably didn't want to get into arguments as to who was or wasn't of GM strength back in 1920 or whatever. And I daresay that FIDE gives no consideration whatsoever to the desires of Wikipedia editors when they make such decisions. Krakatoa (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I don't understand here is the convention of using FIDE + Tsar Nicholas five as Grandmasters here on wikipedia, is that something FIDE agreed? used by someone else? (Who?) or it is a point of view choosen by wiki members? If not FIDE then it seems to me there are 'Fide Grandmaster' and 'Non Fide Grandmasters'(perhaps 'Unoffical Grandmaster' is a better term) and the 'Unoffical Grandmaster' groups should include anyone that is suitable sourced as being called a Grandmaster but does not have FIDE official recognition for it. ChessCreator (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

FIDE did not give GM titles to the ones called such earlier. They wre all dead before 1950, when FIDE started giving titles. No doubt, though, they would have been included in the first batch if they had been alive. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) Why is the section on the 1914 GMs marked as dubious? It is well documented that these five players were referred to as gransmasters, in the tournament book for instance. Bubba73 (talk), 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correction: Sunnucks quotes Ossip Bernstein as saying that the 1907 tournament in Germany was the first use of the word "grandmaster". In 1914 the Tsar of Russia gave "grandmater" titles to the five players. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think what is dubious is that the 1914 GMs were "official", or that there were any more official than any other people who were called "Grandmaster" before 1950. Perhaps we should take that line (i.e. only recognise post-1950 FIDE Grandmasters), unless we can find a WP:Reliable Source stating that Lasker/Marshall/Tarrasch/Capa/Alekhine were Grandmasters, but Nimzo, Steinitz etc. were not. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The wikipedia convention of St. Petersburg five + FIDE titles isn't written in stone, but it isn't arbitrary either. The 1914 five are different than other people previously called grandmasters, as they are commonly and widely considered the original GMs in the chess literature. As Krakatoa notes this is based on a story of dubious authenticity. We should point this out, but it isn't wikipedia's job to decide whether the story is true—we just say that the story although dubious is commonly and widely repeated. One of the nice features of the 1914 GMs shared with the FIDE titles is that we have precise dates when the titles were (allegedly) awarded. It isn't clear to me when Steinitz could be said to have earned the title Grandmaster, and the same is true for most of the other earlier players of GM strength. If Grandmaster is viewed as a title, then normally a title is awarded or earned at some specific point. FIDE does award honorary or emeritus GM titles which are sort of a lifetime achievement award, but these are awarded as well. If we were to change how we classify GMs I think the only other sensible option would be to stick strictly to FIDE titles. I don't like "unofficial GM", as that's a term I've never seen in the chess literature and would be completely a wikipedia creation. I also don't think "find any reliable source that says a player was a grandmaster and then we call them a GM" is a good approach, as this is entirely arbitrary and sources won't necessarily agree. (For example, I don't know if any sources calling Staunton a GM can be found (Keene might have written something), but it isn't too hard to find rather negative views of his play.) I think it's fine to leave things as they are, and simply say in the articles of the appropriate earlier players that they were of grandmaster strength but played before that title was officially adopted. It would also be appropriate to include the historical Elo rating, but we need some place that can describe how Elo calculated those numbers and what they mean. I don't see any need for a special category for these players. Although we are focusing on early masters who were dead before 1950 there were also a number of Soviet masters who were easily of GM caliber but were not allowed the opportunity to earn the title by Soviet authorities. There are many reasons that an otherwise capable player might not have been awarded the GM title in the past, although at the rate that FIDE is churning them out recently it seems that this is less of an issue today. Quale (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On the peripheral point raised by Quale -- whether Staunton should be deemed a "grandmaster" -- I make another point about Staunton's (considerable) understanding of chess over at the talk page for Howard Staunton. Krakatoa (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know I'm into dead-horse-beating territory here, but Chernev and Reinfeld's The Fireside Book of Chess, originally published in 1949, has a chapter entitled "Beating a Grandmaster" (pp. 227-35) about lesser lights who won tournament games against great players (Caro-Lasker, for instance). Three of the "grandmasters" who lost the games in question lived past 1950, and thus were given the GM title by FIDE after the book was published (Euwe, Tartakower, and Bogolyubov). The other "grandmasters" (Lasker, Pillsbury, Nimzowitsch, and Spielmann) died before 1950, and thus did not receive the title from FIDE. Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why do you say that the 1907 use is "dubious"? We have a reliable source saying that it is - do you have a source saying that it was used earler? Bubba73 (talk), 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The term Grandmaster was applied in 1838 issue of Bell's Life, according to Quale's posts above. So 1907 was NOT the 'first use'. In 1838 none of the 'Tsar Nicholas five' where born so it's dubious they are the original grandmasters also. ChessCreator (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, then add that to the article. What's the problem with the 1914 five being the first GM titles awarded, rather than someone just calling them that? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford Companion to Chess ... says that ... Philidor was called a grandmaster among others. Quale 03:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How can they(Tsar Nicholas five') be called 'Original' if they where proceeded by Philidor? If it means the first 'Original Offical Grandmaster', then has the official part been established? ChessCreator (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Philidor was "called" a grandmaster. The 1914 five were given titles. Anyhow, you should have marked it {{accuracy}} instead of duboius. Bubba73 (talk), 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And the five were given titles according to an objective criteria. Bubba73 (talk), 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have now altered the wording to make sense. 'Tsar Nicholas five' are now 'Original titled Grandmasters' and 'Ostend tournament of 1907' used the term Grandmaster, rather then first used the term. ChessCreator (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

How are the "Tsar Nicholas five" official or formal? Isn't that like George W. Bush pronouncing someone a Grandmaster? As I asked above, are there WP:Reliable Sources saying that Lasker etc. were Grandmasters, but the likes of Nimzovitch and Philidor were not? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think Bubba73 is saying the difference is the 'Tsar Nicholas five' are titled Grandmasters where as Philidor, Steinitz and Nimzowitsch are not. ChessCreator (talk)

We have official world champions well before FIDE started assigning the title about 1948. The 1914 five were given the title by the Tzar, based on objective criteria. Others were simply called "grandmaster", with no title being awarded and no objective criteria. Of course, Philidor and several others were certainly of grandmaster strength, and would have been given the official title had it existed. Bubba73 (talk), 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how a high placing in one tournament is more objective than a high placing in any other tournament. In any case, the real question is what the WP:Reliable Sources say? Do the WP:Reliable Sources say the 1914 titles were widely accepted (as pre-1948 World Champions were), but other titles were not? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Czar Nicholas II story is indeed very dubious, although by now well-entrenched in the literature. Edward Winter (of course) has written a lot about this. As shown below, the earliest relating of that story he has found is in 1940. I do not speak Russian and do not have a copy of the Russian-language tournament book. I do have the English-language book published by David McKay Co. circa 1914 (McKay was very bad about putting dates on its books back then). There is no mention of Czar Nicholas conferring titles on the top five. Winter discusses this in Chess Notes 5144 and 5152. In 5144 he writes:

Books continue to claim, without substantiation, that the title of ‘grandmaster’ was first conferred by Tsar Nicholas II at St Petersburg, 1914. The matter was discussed on pages 315-316 of Kings, Commoners and Knaves and pages 177-178 of A Chess Omnibus, and we have still found no earlier occurrence of the story than in an article by Robert Lewis Taylor in The New Yorker, 15 June 1940.

To pose a broader question: do 1914 sources contain references to Tsar Nicholas II in connection with any aspect of the St Petersburg tournament?

Writing more generally about the early use of the term "grandmaster," Winter writes in 5152:

Little-known nineteenth-century occurrences of the term ‘grandmaster’ are always welcome. Robert John McCrary (Columbia, SC, USA) forwards one from page 324 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1854:

‘Many a player can conduct a game without the board coolly and steadily, but who, save De la Bourdonnais, under such circumstances, invented attacks profound in conception, brilliant in execution, and enduring upon analysis? Who but the Chess Grand-Master could have contested a game without the board against a player like Boncourt, with the remotest chance of success?’

I also looked at Winter's above-cited entries in Kings, Commoners and Knaves (KCaK) and Chess Omnibus (CO). In KCaK (p. 315) he references Nigel Davies' relating of the Czar Nicholas story in Chess magazine, March 1989. Winter writes that "Louis Blair believes that the source of the Tsar story is almost certainly page 21 of Marshall's My 50 Years of Chess, a book in which Fred Reinfeld is known to have played an extensive role." He notes that Blair quotes a passage from the biography Nicholas II that states that the imperial family (including Nicholas) spent April-May 1914 (the time of the tournament) in the Crimea, hundreds of miles away from St. Petersburg. Winter also notes that the Deutsche Schachzeitung and Weiner Schachzeitung were using the term "Grandmaster" (Grossmeister) [actually, Winter uses some German (I assume) letter sort of like a capital B where I have written "ss," so in his book the word looks like GroBmeister] to describe the St. Petersburg 1914 event before the tournament began. [This is not too clear to me -- it seems to suggest that they were referring to it as a "Grossmeister tournament," which would imply that they regarded all of the participants as "Grossmeisters." In writing about the tournament before it began they would not be using the term to refer to the five players who later became finalists and were supposedly designated grandmasters by the Czar.] Winter also notes that the January 1914 issue of the Deutsch Schachzeitung had referred to Capablanca as der kubanische Grossmeister.

In his later CO book, Winter had more. He notes (p. 177) that Eugene Znosko-Borovsky had discussed the use of the term "grandmaster" on pp. 221-22 of the November 1925 L'Echiquier. Z-B thought that the term was overused and that only Capablanca, Alekhine, Lasker, perhaps Marshall, Tarrasch, and Rubinstein should be considered "grandmasters." "All the others should be regarded as plain masters." Winter also writes that in the October 1940 Chess Review, Fred Reinfeld had quoted a passage from an article by Robert Lewis Taylor in the June 15, 1940 The New Yorker. Taylor had written, "[A grandmaster] is a master who has either won, placed, or showed in a major tournament or been named a Grand Master by Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. The Tsar, it seems, was a rather arbitrary chess fan who enjoyed watching matches, and when he saw a player he liked the looks of, he just slapped the title on him." Reinfeld was scathingly critical of Taylor, writing, "Mr. Taylor's style is compounded of breathless inanities smothered in pixillated whimsy. . . . One's irritation is increased by the numerous errors which are liberally strewn over every page." Nonetheless, Winter writes, "Given Reinfeld's involvement in Marshall's autobiography, it may be wondered how the Nicholas II story found its way into the book." On page 178 of CO, Winter writes that Ossip Bernstein, on p. 202 of the July 1955 Chess Review, wrote, after referring to the "grandmaster tourney at St Petersburg" in 1895-96, "The title Grandmaster was as yet unknown, but the idea was widely understood. The title, Grandmaster, was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907 . . . ." On page 144 of CO, Winter quotes a piece from the February 1943 British Chess Magazine referring to young Vassily Smyslov, who "has earned a place among the six chess grandmasters of the Soviet Union." Apparently, however, the BCM was not consistent in its use of the term "grandmaster": on p. 178 of CO Winter quotes an editorial from the June 1946 British Chess Magazine deploring the recent custom of referring to "candidates for mastership, masters and grandmasters."

So where does all of that leave us? To summarize, (1) the term "grandmaster" or a variant thereof was used by various writers, tournament officials, etc. beginning in at least 1838; (2) the term was used in referring to the tournaments at Ostend 1907 and St. Petersburg 1914 (before the tournament); (3) there is no known contemporary support for the claim that Czar Nicholas II conferred the grandmaster title on the five finalists at St. Petersburg 1914; (4) the first time that claim was known to have been made was in a 1940 New Yorker article by Robert Lewis Taylor, whom Reinfeld later derided as an idiot; (5) the next known instance of that claim was in Marshall's autobiography, first published in 1942; (6) despite the dubious support for it, the Czar Nicholas story is well-entrenched in the literature; (7) the first undisputed formal designation of "grandmasters" was FIDE's designation of 27 such players in 1950 (Elo, p. 65); (8) Elo on p. 66 of his book lists 24 great players, contemporaries of those on the 1950 list, who would surely be deemed grandmasters if current regulations were in effect during their careers; and (9) various other people (Anne Sunnucks and doubtless many others) have referred to certain players who died before 1950 as being "grandmasters." So make of all that what you will. Krakatoa (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe the way to go is (1) as to FIDE-designated GM's, say "FIDE awarded X the International Grandmaster title in [year]"; (2) as to the St. Petersburg five, say "legend has it that Czar Nicholas II designated Y and the other four finalists in the St. Petersburg 1914 tournament grandmasters," then add a reference noting the questionable veracity of the legend, and maybe another reference noting that in any event Y was undoubtedly of grandmaster strength according to such-and-such authority; (3) as to strong players who died before 1950, state something like, "'Z' was not formally designated a grandmaster, having died before 1950, when FIDE first awarded that title, but according to [Elo or whoever] he was "undoubtedly of grandmaster strength" (or whatever the source says) -- or just cite a source for the proposition that "Z was one of the top ten players in the world in the 1850's" (or whatever the source says), not getting into the whole grandmaster thing. Krakatoa (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The 1914 Tsar/GM story is supported by Sunnuck's Encyclopedia and Golombek's Encyclopedia. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it true in light of the above. Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I said, the story is unquestionably entrenched in the literature. However, neither Sunnucks (under "International Grandmaster") nor Golombek (under "Marshall, Frank James" -- bizarrely, he has no entry for "Grandmaster" or "International Grandmaster") cites a source for the story or addresses Winter's research questioning it (which, in fairness, I think was published after their books came out -- Sunnucks 1970, Golombek 1977). However, as Quale said earlier (I'm paraphrasing), it is not Wikipedia's role to debunk the story -- if Wikipedia couldn't repeat unsupported factual claims made in the literature, we'd have to pitch the article on the Bible for starters. Here is another pre-1950 use of the term "grandmaster": American Chess Journal (Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992), p. 92 quotes a December 9, 1926 letter from Bogolyubov to Capablanca, in which Bogo wrote, "As far as Niemzowitsch is concerned, you know as well as I do that he, notwithstanding his fairly good results, is hardly a grandmaster, so that I am really surprised that people make such a ridiculous fuss over him of late." Krakatoa (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the article should state what tht two encyclopedias say, with references, and then state that it is disputed, and give a reference to that. Bubba73 (talk), 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I agree that Wikipedia's role is not to debunk, it should accurately report debunking, so long as that debunking is widely accepted. (Which is where the Bible analogy falls down, because nearly every new theory is hotly contested there, so WP should (and generally does) note the differing opinions). All I've read indicates Edward Winter (chess historian) is a reliable source and is widely accepted, so we should have no problem using his research to debunk old myths. In fact he has been used in other places on WP, e.g. I have three 1970s/1980s world championship books which say that David Janowski played two world championship matches against Lasker, but since then Winter has pretty conclusively shown that the 1909 match was not a championship match, so Wikipedia reflects that. Similarly, we should reflect Winter's more recent research on Grandmasters.

Where does that leave us? I think this article should be changed to show that 1914 was just one stage in the development of the Grandmaster title, rather than an official point. And I think we should delete Lasker/Capa/Alekhine/Marshall/Tarrasch from Category:Chess grandmasters, and leave that category for official FIDE GMs only. Because to do anything else would add too much subjectivity to the GM category. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not oppose that (now). But I want to point out again that Steinitz, Lasker, Capa, Alekhine, and Ewue were official world champions before there was an official FIDE world champion. Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that they were universally accepted as world champions. If it can be demonstrated the "1914 five" were widely accepted as Grandmasters but that other leading players were not, then I would reverse my recommendation. So the issue is widespread acceptance, not FIDE pronouncements. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Peter Ballard raised above the question of whether the 1914 five were widely accepted as grandmasters, while other leading players were not. I assume he raises this question in the context of the period between 1914 and 1950. The answer appears to be an emphatic "no." I looked at all the tournament books I have that were originally published between 1914 and 1950 for tournaments that contain one or more members of the 1914 five, as well as other players. The writers of those tournament books variously refer to leading players as "masters," "grandmasters," or "great masters," but in no instance does any writer draw a distinction between the 1914 five and other leading players. To wit: (1) The top section of the London International Chess Congress 1922 included Capablanca, Alekhine, and 14 other players. The tournament book refers to the top section as "the Masters Tournament," drawing no distinction between Capablanca, Alekhine, and the others. W.H. Watts (editor), The Book of the London International Chess Congress 1922, p. xii. (2) The top section of Hastings 1922 included Alekhine, Tarrasch, and four others. Sir George Thomas refers to it as "The Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament, 1922," drawing no distinction between Alekhine, Tarrasch, and the others. W.H. Watts (editor), The Book of the Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament 1922, p. vi. (3) The top four finishers at New York 1924 were all members of the 1914 five (Tarrasch was the only member who did not play). The tournament book refers to all of the participants as "masters." Hermann Helms (editor), The Book of the New York International Chess Tournament 1924, p. 7. (4) Carlsbad 1929 included Capablanca, Marshall, and 21 others. The introduction to the tournament book, apparently written by Nimzowitsch, states, "Every one of the grandmasters with the exception of Alekhine and Lasker was in attendance. Present were Capablanca, Bogolyubov, Nimzovich and Vidmar, all candidates for the world championship; Rubinstein, Spielmann, Tartakover, Maroczy and Euwe, grandmasters known for their fighting qualities; and Marshall, Grunfeld and Samisch, whom we may call 'grandmasters without portfolio.'" Aron Nimzovich, Carlsbad International Chess Tournament 1929, p. xi. Note that Nimzowitsch, (a) in stating that all of the grandmasters except Alekhine and Lasker were present, apparently does not count his bitter rival Tarrasch as a grandmaster, even though he was one of the 1914 five; and (b) apparently ranks the first nine players he lists as "grandmasters" of greater stature than "grandmaster without portfolio" (whatever that means) Marshall, one of the 1914 five. (5) Nottingham 1936 was a super-strong tournament that included Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, and 12 others. A.J. Mackenzie consistently refers to all of the participants as "masters" in the tournament book. Alexander Alekhine, The Book of the Nottingham International Chess Tournament, p. 3 ("Botvinnik's is a real master game. . . ."), 5 (referring to the tournament as "the Masters Tournament.)" (6) The tournament book for A.V.R.O. 1938, which included Alekhine, Capablanca, and four others, states that it is "one of the strongest tournaments every held in which every player is a great master." A.V.R.O. 1938, p. xiii.

In addition to these books, I have two books published between 1914 and 1950 for very strong tournaments that included no members of the 1914 five: (7) The 1941 USSR Absolute Championship included Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Boleslavsky, Lilienthal, and Bondarevsky. In the tournament book, Botvinnik refers to the participants as "the six leading Soviet masters" and also notes that some of them held the title of "Grand Master of the USSR" (it is unclear to me whether any of them did not hold that title). M. Botvinnik, Championship Chess, p. 8. (8) The 1948 World Championship Match-Tournament, held after Alekhine's death, included Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, Reshevsky, and Euwe. Horowitz and Kmoch, in the Foreword (dated March 1, 1949) to their book on the match-tournament, call it "[t]his gathering of grandmasters" and state that, "The prize was the goal of every grandmaster--the chess championship of the world." World Chessmasters in Battle Royal: The First World Championship Tourney, p. vii.

In light of the above, it seems to me beyond dispute that writers before 1950 (1) did not use the term "grandmaster" solely to refer to the 1914 five and (2) accorded no special significance to the 1914 five. Indeed, in none of the books I cited did anyone attach any significance at all to the 1914 five. (As previously noted, the earliest instance Winter found of the "Czar Nicholas anointing the 1914 five as grandmasters" story was 1940.) Krakatoa (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your research is correct concerning what writers before 1950 did, but of course the real question is what do chess writers in 2008 do, since that's the position that those editing Wikipedia's chess articles today find themselves in. Maybe today the St. Petersburg five are often considered the original grandmasters, or maybe they're not—this needs to be determined by sources. Winter would probably draw a clear distinction between the FIDE title and all others including the St. Petersburg GMs, so that's one data point. Quale (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good reasearch, Krakatoa. Bubba73 (talk), 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On page 178 of CO, Winter writes that Ossip Bernstein, on p. 202 of the July 1955 Chess Review, wrote, after referring to the "grandmaster tourney at St Petersburg" in 1895-96, "The title Grandmaster was as yet unknown, but the idea was widely understood. The title, Grandmaster, was introduced in the international tourney at Ostend in 1907 . . . . quote from Krakatoa's post above. That one section make the previous idea that 'Tsar Nicholas five' where the first Gm's unstable. As itbrings into doubt why the five are Gm's, while those Gm's of Ostend 1907(at least including the winner Siegbert Tarrasch) are not. ChessCreator (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984), which Quale has previously called "the closest thing we have to a gold standard in chess," appears to make no reference at all to the Czar Nicholas story, nor does it call pre-1950 players "grandmasters." As to Lasker, it calls him "World Champion 1894-1921." It devotes 11 lines to his brilliant victory at St. Petersburg, but does not mention the Czar Nicholas story. Similarly, Capablanca it simply calls "World Champion 1921-7." It devotes 13 lines to his second-place finish at St. Petersburg, again not mentioning the Czar Nicholas story. It heads its article on Alekhine, somewhat oddly, "the only man to die while holding the world championship." St. Petersburg gets five lines, no mention of the Czar Nicholas story. Tarrasch it calls "one of the best four players in the world for about 20 years"; no mention of St. Petersburg. Marshall it calls "American player who ranked among the world's best ten for about 20 years from 1904"; no mention of St. Petersburg. To reiterate: TOCtC does not call any of these players "grandmasters," and never mentions the Czar Nicholas story.

As to post-1950 players, TOCtC invariably lists the dates on which they obtained FIDE titles, e.g. for Fischer "International Grandmaster (1958), world champion 1972-5." Its definition of "Grandmaster" mentions a number of pre-1950 examples (an 1838 letter to Bell's Life, G. Walker and others so referring to Philidor, "a few other players . . . so entitled," and the Ostend 1907 and San Sebastian 1912 events being designated grandmaster events. Its "Grandmaster" entry does not mention St. Petersburg at all. Krakatoa (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess (1977) treats the Czar Nicholas story in a schizophrenic way, mentioning it only in connection with Marshall (who as you'll recall promulgated the story in his autobiography -- or Reinfeld, who TOCtC says "ghosted" the book, did). GEoC refers to Marshall as "one of the best-remembered grandmasters of the early twentieth century." It says that at St. Petersburg 1914 "he came 5th and was named 'grandmaster of chess' by Tsar Nicholas." GEoC does not mention the Czar Nicholas story in any of its biographies of the rest of the St. Petersburg five, even though the conferring of the grandmaster title surely would have been one of the most important events in all of their lives. Nor does it call any of the others "grandmasters." GEoC calls Lasker "World Champion 1894-1921 . . . the most successful chess-master of all time." It does not call him a "grandmaster," yet applies that appellation to Marshall, decidedly his inferior. St. Petersburg 1914 gets four lines, but the Czar Nicholas story is not mentioned. Capablanca is simply "one of the greatest players (perhaps the greatest natural player) the world has ever seen" -- neither "master" nor "grandmaster." A line and a half about St. Petersburg 1914 with no mention of the Czar Nicholas story. Alekhine is simply "World Champion 1927-35 and 1937-46," not "master" or "grandmaster." There is a paragraph on St. Petersburg 1914; no mention of the Czar Nicholas story. Tarrasch it calls simply "[a] great German master" -- not "grandmaster." No mention of St. Petersburg at all.

GEoC also does not call Nimzowitsch a grandmaster, but simply says that he is "[a]mong those outstanding personalities of chess history who have narrowly failed in their ambition to become World Champion . . . ." GEoC likewise does not give Schlechter or Pillsbury any title at all. Yet somehow Charousek (died 1900) is a "Hungarian grandmaster," Janowski (died 1927) is a "Franco-Polish grandmaster," and Vladimir Petrov (died 1945) is a "Latvian grandmaster."

In sum, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess is all over the place in terms of which pre-1950 players it calls "grandmaster" and which it does not, but only in Marshall's case does it relate the Czar Nicholas story or attach any significance to it. I am coming around to the view that only FIDE-anointed grandmasters should be referred to as "grandmasters." No one besides Wikipedia appears to adhere to the "FIDE Grandmasters + the St. Petersburg five = the set of all grandmasters" approach. Krakatoa (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That does indeed make it seem likely that Marshal's bio was the source of the 1914 story. Bubba73 (talk), 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Encyclopaedia of Chess (Anne Sunnucks, 1970) is also all over the place. Sometimes it slaps "International Grandmaster" on pre-1950 players it deems worthy, with no explanation. Others, equally deserving, are not referred to as such. Thus, Nimzowitsch and Janowski are both "International Grandmaster," no explanation given. Marshall and Tarrasch are both "International Grandmaster"; no explanation given, no mention of St. Petersburg 1914. Schlechter is "one of the leading players of his time," Charousek is "a brilliant young Hungarian Master," and Pillsbury is merely "a famous American chess player." However, in the entry for "International Grandmaster" Sunnucks relates the Czar Nicholas story and says that the St. Petersburg five "are now generally accepted as being the five original Grandmasters." This is the only thing I've seen that would support the current Wikipedia "FIDE + St. Petersburg five" practice, but as noted above Sunnucks' own practice is inconsistent with this.

(unindent) There is a further wrinkle. Sunnucks also has an entry for "Grandmaster of the U.S.S.R." (p. 155) defined thus: "This title is conferred on all U.S.S.R. Champions; players who in the course of three years twice come either second or third in the U.S.S.R. Championship; U.S.S.R. players who achieve a major success in an international tournament; and players who qualify for the title through their results in a qualifying match. Grandmasters must confirm their title by new achievements within five years of the award." This is consistent with what Botvinnik wrote in Championship Chess (pp. 7-8): he wrote that Smyslov, for having come third in both the 1941 Absolute Championship and the 12th USSR Championship (1940) "was awarded the title of Grand Master of the U.S.S.R." Earlier I mentioned a 1943 British Chess Magazine article that referred to Smyslov as being one of the USSR's six grandmasters; presumably this is what they were referring to. There is at least one player, Boris Verlinsky, who became "Grandmaster of the U.S.S.R." but never got the "International Grandmaster" title. FIDE named Verlinsky as one of the original International Masters in 1950, and he died the same year. The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984), p. 370. Verlinsky won the 6th Soviet Championship (1929) and the USSR accordingly gave him the Grandmaster title, "though this was later taken away from him in 1931 when the GM title was abolished." Then in 1935, Verlinsky having been stripped of his title, Botvinnik became "the first" Soviet Grandmaster. Bernard Cafferty and Mark Taimanov, The Soviet Championships, pp. 28-29. Krakatoa (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The plot thickens. I think "GM of the USSR" deserves to be in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Grandmasters and super grandmasters discussed today on |Susan Polgar's blog. Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In view of the long discussion above, did we reach a consensus on who goes into Category:Chess grandmasters? Obviously all the FIDE GMs since 1950, but what about pre 1950? I think we all agreed that "only the St. Petersburg 5" is not satisfactory, so I see two main options:

• No one pre 1950.

• Anyone called a GM by a WP:Reliable Source. (e.g. a user has added it to Aron Nimzowitsch (with the comment "the title from San Sebastian 1912") and Dawid Janowski (with the comment "term from Ostend 1907").

I don't care which we use, but it'd be good to settle it one way or the other. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image File:Botvinnik M 01.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The 'Super-GM' Section should be deleted I beleive as most of it needs Citation and seems to be more of an opinion than fact. Hawkania (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I shall delete it. The Talk-Page "justification" above provides no concrete evidence as to the benefit of the section.--Canned Soul (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some players have been become Grandmaster Emeritus(GME). I have no idea what the term means. SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It means GM for life. In the USCF a master becomes a master emeritus if they hold the master rating (2200) for 300 games, or something like that. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A GM for life? That's odd. Aren't all FIDE GM's a GM for life? SunCreator (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think so. Where did you see GME? It could be emerius in the sense of "retired". Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Harry Golombek -"He earned the title of International Master in 1950 and was made a GME (Grandmaster Emeritus) in 1985. " And also Jonathan Penrose, Vladimir Alatortsev. SunCreator (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't check the others but in the case of Golombek it looks like an honorary GM title. He was an IM but didn't get to GM by norms, etc. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is that(GME) a title awarded by FIDE then? SunCreator (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know for sure but it must be. An honorary GM title without meeting the regular norms, I'm guessing. I did a google search and it says that Arnold Denker was also one. In the body of his article it says "...in 1981 FIDE made him an honorary Grandmaster." Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rudolf Teschner is an "Honary master" ( See fide card ) which might be a IM or GM equiv. Corry Vreeken ( NL wikipedia rating card ) is a "Woman Honorary Grand Master" . Nobody else was listed differently and a quick search of the ratings site didn't turn any up. - SimonLyall (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Grandmaster Emeritus" is a hokey (to my mind) title that as I understand it recognizes players who have had long and storied careers, but haven't earned the GM title in the standard way(s). See the discussion here. Krakatoa (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The rating list published in the March 5, 1951 issue of Chess Life, reflecting performances through December 31, 1950, has eight rating categories (Grandmaster, Senior Master, Master, Expert, Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. All except the top category are similar, but not identical, to those employed by the USCF today. Senior Master is 2500-2699, Master is 2300-2499, Expert is 2100-2299, Class A is 1900-2099, Class B is 1700 to 1899, Class C is 1500 to 1699, and Class D is below 1500. "Grandmaster" is defined as 2700 and above, a category occupied only by Fine and Reshevsky. Chess Life, March 5, 1951, page 3 (page 19 on "Chess Life 1951" PDF file on "Chess Life 1946-55" CD-ROM). Note, incidentally, that these would have been Harkness ratings rather than Elo ratings. I don't know how long this usage continued; my guess is not long. Krakatoa (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The list published on October 5, 1951 also reflected this definition of "Grandmaster." Chess Life, Oct. 5, 1951, page 3 (page 85 on "Chess Life 1951" PDF file on "Chess Life 1946-55" CD-ROM). Krakatoa (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ditto Chess Life, March 5, 1952, page 3 (page 19 on "Chess Life 1952" PDF file on "Chess Life 1946-55" CD-ROM). Krakatoa (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Of course Reshevsky and Fine were the only FIDE GMs from the US until Nicolas Rossolimo in 1953, so the USCF list is the same as the FIDE list (perhaps by design). FIDE belated added Isaac Kashdan in 1954—he should have been included in the inaugural group in 1950. Quale (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also noticed that about Kashdan and was quite surprised. According to Chessmetrics, he was No. 2 in the world (behind only World Champion Alekhine) briefly in the 1930s. Kashdan was variously ranked as a "Senior Master" and just a "Master" on the USCF rating lists I looked at. But then again, FIDE (inexcusably) never awarded Sultan Khan any title, so I shouldn't be too surprised. Krakatoa (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Liberzon, Kavalek and Pietzsch were all appointed GMs at the FIDE Congress in Havanna in October 1966. Maybe they fulfilled requirements for the title in 1965, but that's not the point. The official approval is the date someone becomes grandmaster, not earlier. SteMicha (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not according to our references. The FIDE Chess Profile for Lubomir Kavalek says his GM title was in 1965, as do Jeremy Gaige in Chess Personalia and Anne Sunnucks in The Encyclopaedia of Chess and Ken Whyld in Chess The Records. Liberzon and Pietzsch are dead, so they don't appear on FIDE's website any longer. They are found in all three of the other references I mentioned, and all have their title years listed as 1965. According to these references, Furman is the only GM who earned the title in 1966. It's possible that these references are in error and it's important to keep in mind that it's likely that some of the references copied each other. Even so, it will require some very strong evidence to conclude that they are all wrong. Quale (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can add the Kazic book too - which was efectively the official FIDE record for the pre-1974 title awards - it also gives 1965 for those players in question. Of course, words like confirmed and ratified sometimes get used in connection with the FIDE Congress resolutions. When you pass an exam, did you pass it on the day you took it, or on the day it was marked? I imagine the player gets a certificate following the Congress and that the title award date is backdated to when they fulfilled the criteria. Anyway, we should probably stick with the credible sources. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I had forgotten about Bozidar M. Kažić (1974), International Championship Chess. As you say it is effectively the official FIDE record through 1973. Quale (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the claim that Nona Gaprindashvili was not "the first woman to qualify for the men's title through achievement in tournament play." A summary of how she earned her title can be found on her Wiki page. The Dorazil rules were already in effect, and evidently they were interpreted in favor of her norms, although I do not know exactly how. In the absence of a reliable source for a counter-claim, I think we have to take her title at face value. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

This section is pretty lightweight for its size. All of it except the references to the Macieja report or the response by Faulks looks like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. I plan to reduce it to a couple of sentences. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

From time to time well-meaning editors will "correct" the GM title requirements in grandmaster (chess)#Current regulations to state that three norms are required. It's easy to find many examples both online and in print that talk about someone having or trying to achieve a third norm in order to earn the GM title. This is so common that it often seems assumed that three norms are required for a GM. In fact the title regulations do not require three norms, although most often three norms are submitted in order to fulfill the requirement for 27 games. FIDE regulations now allow a few competitions to count as extra games for title norms. Here is a recent example of a GM title awarded to Pavel Anisimov with only two norms. His result in the 9-game Individual European Championship counted as 20 games for norm purposes: FIDE GM Title Application: Pavel Anisimov. Quale (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, actually FIDE abolished 20-game norms. Norms scored at continental championships used to count as 20-games norms (I don't know when the FIDE regulations changed in this regard, maybe 2012 or so), as well as those achieved at olympiads (the table for direct titles effective from 1 July 2017 no longer mentions 20-game norms, unlike the previous one). Evidently norms achieved in these competitions still count as over 20 games if achieved when old regulations were in effect (see also Andrey Kvon, whose norm at the 2012 olympiad counted as "double"). Sophia91 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The section seems well enough sourced. I do not understand the request for "stronger or at least more specific claims". The purpose of the section is not to make claims, but to summarize ongoing discussion. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The deleted section says "concern has been expressed". This is unacceptably vague - who exactly is expressing the concern? Note the passive voice of the sentence, an indicator the phrase is throwing shade without any substantiation. And what is the concern - that the title is "not as meaningful now as it was". What does that mean exactly? Hint: According to Macieja, it is difficult to gauge meaningfulness. This is stating the obvious, and the entire section is just low low quality. We're Wikipedia, we don't just pass on grumblings about how "things were better before". Instead of attempting to salvage the section, I simply deleted it. If there's value to be had, I suggest we build up new language from the ground up.

Please note my edit summary did not say "the section is unsourced" or "the sources are not good enough", so I will chalk up your reversion as a good faith action. Based on your stated reason "Sourced section was deleted", a misunderstanding. Yes the section was sourced. Yes it was deleted. But not because it was or wasn't sourced. Instead please read my edit summary for assistance on how to improve the article: "removing weasel language. If you want to reinstate this section you need stronger and much more specific claims". We may or may not need stronger sources, but I'm talking claims, not sources. Hope that helps. CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The articles switches between capitalizing and not capitalizing "grandmaster". Joriki (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can we please have expert comment on this? Spicemix (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree this time, it shouldn't be used as a source despite his high reputation in the chess world. Forum posts are unverifiable. If he wrote about it in his memoirs, that would be different. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is our source for the list of honorary GM titles? What is the source, in particular, for the claim that Penrose's title was honorary?

If it is true that since 2007 FIDE has not treated honorary titles differently from regular titles (I do not see a source for this statement either), does it make sense for Wikipedia to continue listing honorary titles separately? I am aware that some of our articles about the honorary GM's mention that their titles were honorary. So FIDE's change of policy may make things a little awkward for us. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it was copied from the Russian wikipedia. It's not always clear whether these awards are "honorary" or "retrospective". Canal was certainly a very strong player in the 20s and 30s and probably should have been included in the initial batch of GMs in 1950. Ditto Carlos Torre. Paoli, on the other hand, was only ever IM strength. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Russian wiki counterpart of Grandmaster links in its "See Also" section to a List of Honorary Chess Grandmasters, which notes that it was not clear from their sources what would be the official treatment of existing honorary GM titles held by living or dead players. In other words, maybe they're still "honorary".

I agree with your assessment that some of these titles appear "retrospective" while others appear "honorary".

Although it's shaky to cite Barden's comments in the text, might it be OK to cite them in a footnote? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Penrose is an interesting case. Most of my dead tree sources were published before Penrose received the GM title, but Chess International Titleholders, 1950–2016 (Di Felice 2017) says "Penrose, Jonathan (ENG). b. 07 Oct. 1933 Colchester. IM 1961; GM (honorary) 1993. Peak rating 2500 (1969)." There are some interesting points about this. FIDE didn't institute official ratings until 1971. It's possible that the 1969 rating is a calculation that Elo did since he performed some early ratings calculations while FIDE was considering whether to adopt his rating system. But The Rating of Chessplayers Past & Present (Elo 1978) lists Penrose as receiving the IM title in 1961 and having a rating of 2420 with a 5-year-best average rating of 2470, so I don't know where the 1969 rating is from. It's clear that Penrose's award was retrospective, but whether this makes it honorary or not is probably impossible for us to know without more and better sources. Penrose secured the GM for excellent results in the 1962 and 1968 Olympiads, but had to wait until 1993 for the title. I'm sure there's something useful in BCM issues in 1993 that could help here if anyone has access to them.

Early FIDE rating lists did not all include a column for title and in fact rating lists from 1975 through 1998 do not indicate title. Lists around 2000 sometimes indicate honorary titles although these indications are very inconsistent. For example, Rudolf Teschner's title is listed as 'h' in lists from 1999 to 2011 and then 'HM' in lists from 2012 on. Other honorary GMs aren't indicated in the same way so I don't think you can draw any firm conclusions from this, but Penrose's title is shown as either 'g' or 'GM' in those lists. I think the forum posting is usable because of the recognized expert exception, but putting it in a note rather than directly in the text sounds like a good idea. Quale (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a bit of a sneaky way to say "we know this isn't a reliable source but we're citing it anyway". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regarding ratings, the olimpbase.org site has FIDE ratings going back to 1967. Evidently (although I had forgotten this), FIDE published unofficial ratings for several years before calling them "official". Penrose's rating as of 1967 was 2470, but his rating as of 1969 was 2500.

I have not found, on the Russian "List of honorary grandmasters" page, the definitive source that I would need to settle the Penrose question. They aren't explicitly citing Di Felice, that I can see, but they must have gotten their list from somewhere. An ancient list of grandmasters compiled by Sam Sloan is cited; it lists, for example, Teschner as honorary, but Penrose and Bolbochan as regular GM's.

The olimpbase.org rating lists also include titles, and it agrees with whatever Quale is looking at, i.e. in the 1996 list, Teschner is listed "h", while Penrose is listed "g".

Perhaps back issues of Chess, rather than BCM, would be the place to look for these things, since olimpbase.org includes some photocopies of pages of that magazine.

Looking over the series of forum posts of which Barden's is a part, I have to agree that I would be reluctant to cite this. Forums like this are just not citable, even though it is chock full of genuine corrections to the historical record. However, it would be reasonable to point out in a footnote that the FIDE rating lists disagree with Di Felice. It might be a good idea to look for all of the honorary GM's on the list for other disagreements. However some players, such as Paoli, were no longer on the FIDE rating list by the time they were awarded their title, so this indirect method of determining whether the title was "honorary" or "real" won't work for those players. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Although I mentioned how Penrose appears in the rating lists, the lists are inconsistent and don't reliably indicate honorary titles in any way. If the lists indicated Penrose's title was honorary that would be some evidence that it was in fact honorary, but I wouldn't draw any conclusion from the fact that the lists don't and I certainly wouldn't say that the lists contradict Di Felice. I think Penrose's title is reported as honorary in other places (certainly other wikipedias) and it's unlikely that Di Felice was used as a source. (Many places probably reported Penrose as an HGM before Di Felice was published in 2016.) For me the key question is whether we are sure the post is by Leonard Barden. If it is then according to WP:RSSELF, " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Barden meets this standard in spades. Quale (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is this a snag? WP:RSSELF says, "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Bruce leverett (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe. I don't think I could rebut an argument that that prohibition applies here. Quale (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Barden writes in Penrose's Guardian obituary that Fide refused his GM application in 1978, but in 1993 his friend Bob Wade, himself a British champion, was a member of the Fide qualifications committee and successfully renewed the bid. But that still doesn't resolve the question as to whether it was honorary or not! Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This adjective adds little or nothing. Moreover, I am not overwhelmed. It is just MOS:PUFFERY. We were getting along fine without it.

I should mention, while we're in this section, that saying "Since about 2000, most of the top 10 women have held the GM title" doesn't feel right; kind of a mixture of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Besides, who except us even cares about this? We should be sticking to "just the facts." Bruce leverett (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, but simply "majority" could mean 50.01%. How about "a large majority", or "about 98%"? Could also specify that 39 GM titles have been awarded to women as of 2021, but that gives us a maintenance problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

How about "Most grandmasters are men"? Technically this might be the same as "majority", but it is more concise, and may have different connotations.

I am not sure there is any motivation to say anything more than "most". I don't see much in the chess press, or even in forums, about just what the percentage is, so we are somewhat out on a limb, relative to our sources, if we are talking about it. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Right, "most" is the word I was going to recommend as well. I understand that Max's 50.01% concern applies to "most" as well, but the less formal language seems to not require further qualification. Anyone can look at the table and even sort on the M/F column to see how many female GMs there are. I don't think we are trying to make any kind of political statement. Most GMs are men, but some GMs are women. Quale (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

1909 out of 1948 (98.0%) is more than just "most". If you're talking about living only, that's still 1692 out of 1731 (97.7%). I'd be happy if it weren't true, but the figures don't lie. 98% is an "overwhelming" majority and "most" doesn't really reflect that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Would it help if we somehow linked to Women in chess#Gender differences in chess achievement? Now that we have that article, I would like to avoid getting into that debate in every other article, such as this one. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Generally I would say that discussion of the relative proportion of women compared to men needs a source that specifically discusses it to avoid the WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE issues that Bruce mentioned, but I wouldn't object to simply saying that about 2% of GMs are women if we provide a reference. Quale (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article says that to become a chess grandmaster, both criteria must be achieved, then proceeds to list 3 criteria. Does it mean 2 of the three or all three? ^The⬡_Bestagon 08:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest also adding a photo of a female grandmaster? The photos currently included only represent men Grandmasters, and this gives the impression of women Grandmasters missing from the article. Thank you in advance. L'Orfeo^{Son io} 14:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

"At least one norm must be scored at a Swiss tournament with at least 40 participants of average rating of 2000 and above." is not entirely accuate, since there are other tournaments included in the regulations. From the regulations:

• The Chess Olympiad
• Tournaments organised under the aegis of GSC that establish direct qualifiers to the FIDE Candidates Tournament
• Tournaments that establish direct qualifiers to the FIDE World Cup
• Individual Tournaments held under the aegis of EVE (Article 1, General Regulations for FIDE Competitions)
• Final Stage of the National Individual Championship

Would it be acceptable to add "... or other special tournaments defined in the title regulations."? Or is there a better way? Because the current statement is not accurate. Konstantina07 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The rules are constantly being tweaked, maybe it's a little Quixotic to try to keep up with all the changes. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Currently we are citing an article by Chris Bird on the US Chess website, but as you have noticed, Bird is giving a considerable simplification of the FIDE regs. We should be citing the FIDE regs instead. Then, it would be good to use your wording to let the reader know that the cited source has more details than we are presenting in the text.

This is a recent change to the FIDE regs. The rumor I read was that it was added because some organizers, trying to make it easy or make it possible for certain young players to get norms, arranged round-robin norm tournaments with players who were known to be relatively overrated. That "background" is not necessary to present in this article (even if the rumor can be substantiated), but it may make it easier to understand why FIDE has added this peculiar section to the regs. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply