What are titles used for?

Titles are a sign of official recognition of a person’s playing strength at a certain period. Once you earn one, you get to keep it for the rest of your life. The main functions of titles are as follows:

• Bragging rights. Some players are particularly proud of their titles, and hang the diploma on the wall next to a PhD certificate or other prestigious awards. As the general public associate proficiency in chess with a high IQ and other valuable personal qualities, the title-holders believe that it will improve their image. Spoiler: each title-holder gets a cute diploma and a badge, but wearing the badges is widely considered to be goofy and old-fashioned. Now you know why there are no pics available of pros with GM/IM badges.
• Creating a hierarchy among players. Generally speaking, at first you fight for a rating/grade. Then titles come into play. Having a title is beneficial in terms of getting special conditions from organizers, becoming a more recognized coach or author, finding sponsors or receiving stipends from certain institutions, free memberships from top chess websites, etc. Afterwards, when you surpass the grandmaster mark, it’s about rating, achievements (like winning national, continental, international championships and super tournaments) and popularity. The top players are known by last names or nicknames (Kaspy, Topa, Chucky, Moro, etc.), so adding a title next to their names is somewhat belittling. As a fellow GM pointed out, “When you say GM Kasparov, you probably mean Sergey Kasparov from Belarus, otherwise it’s simply Kasparov”.  
• Source of money for FIDE. To apply for an international title, one normally has to pay a fee to both FIDE and the national federation. For example, to become a GM-elect, one has to provide about $500. If your application is declined (e.g. due to some mistake in the papers), you don’t get the title and lose the money, having to re-apply. All this hassle (collecting tournament reports, contacting your federation, waiting for a few months for the decision) and expenses are the reason why many people don’t apply for every title they are eligible for. All this results in non-titled players rated 2300-2500.

FIDE and local titles

The official titles recognized by FIDE as of today and most typical ways of earning them are:

Candidate Master/Women’s Candidate Master – reach a published FIDE rating of 2200/2000

FIDE Master/Women’s FIDE Master – reach a published rating of 2300/2100

International Master/Women’s International Master – reach a published rating of 2400/2200 and earn three norms

International Grandmaster/Women’s International Grandmaster – reach a published rating of 2500/2300 and earn three norms

In case you are interested, you can check out the FIDE handbook for some additional special ways of earning a title.

The professional chess community is rather snobbish, so, due to historical reasons and cultural stereotypes, the candidate master titles are widely frowned upon by adults and rarely applied for. FIDE Master (aka “fee master” among some venomous pros) is a semi-professional title that can be earned, for instance, via winning the Amateur World Chess Championship. IM/WIM and GM/WGM are professional titles also known as “master” and “grandmaster”.

While many countries have their own local titles, those are not as widespread as the international ones granted by FIDE. As Chess.com is most popular among US players, I guess there is no need to elaborate on the American system of titles. Russia also has its own classification of grades (4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, candidate master) and titles (master of Russia, grandmaster of Russia). Naturally, as a way of showing off, the requirements for becoming a Master of Russia /Grandmaster of Russia greatly surpass those for IM/GM, so very few players have them.

How hard is it to earn a title?

Depending on how easy or challenging it was for a certain individual to reach his current chess level, the estimates differ. Seasoned club players tend to believe that special talents are called for to become FM or above. Elite grandmasters like Aronian or Grischuk will tell you that mediocre studies and lack of talent may still take you up to 2500. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I would also like to emphasize that one should be playing chess only if he loves the game, not for the sake of earning the title. This approach will both help save nerves and ensure you are not wasting time in case something does not work out. I would also like to abstain from giving any numbers in terms of how many years are required: this is highly individual, and depends on how productively you study and play. Just one remark for day-dreamers: even the world’s best chess prodigies have to dedicate from 8 to 10 years of persistent work to become GMs. For most grandmasters it takes much longer. Nonetheless, I regularly get messages from beginners and club players along the lines of “Hi, I like chess and want to become a GM in a year or two. Any advice?”

Rating inflation and new titles

There are always some past-oriented people who will be telling you that “2500 in 1980 is worth 2700 in 2011” and generally implying that the old masters were better than the current ones, as well as making claims about “rating and title inflation”. This statement is only partially true: when the GM title was officially introduced by FIDE in 1950, it was awarded to 27 world class players, potential or past WC challengers. Nowadays there are over 1300 GMs in the world, and the difference in skill is huge: an old and rusty grandmaster may be rated 2300, while Carlsen, Anand and Aronian are hovering above 2800.

On the other hand, the statement about rating inflation is neither confirmed by my professional experience, nor by logic or by recent studies. Computer technologies have revolutionized the game and greatly enhanced the speed of mastering chess. Nowadays you don’t have to live in the USSR to get access to recent games, useful educational materials, top coaching, and regular tournament practice. The Internet and software have made it possible for anyone to reach a great level of mastery previously available only to a select few. Therefore, as pointed out in a recent scientific paper quoted by Forbes, there is no rating inflation (and maybe even a slight deflation) going on. It’s just that more and more people are becoming proficient at chess and earning the GM title. Btw, the requirements for obtaining it are also not static: earlier one had to perform at 2500+ level to gain a norm; now the requirement is 2600+. That does make a difference for many people.

As to introducing new titles: I don’t think it is that necessary. The rating and person’s name pretty much speak for themselves. Of course, FIDE could establish the super GM title (for 2700+, 2750+, being in the top-10-20-50-whatever). However, I am not sure it would change much as of now, as most people rated over 2700 are still young and well-known: there isn’t much difference in saying “Nakamura” and “super GM Nakamura”, is there? In the future, however, this might become a reasonable step towards acknowledging some veterans’ achievements.

Personal touch

As I get LOTS of questions regarding my title, here’s a recap:

2001 – I became Woman FIDE Master

2002 – Woman International Master and Master of Russia

2004 – Woman Grand Master (and at about that time met all the requirements for IM)

2006 – Grandmaster of Russia (#101 in the history of the country!)

While I have met the rating requirement for the GM title (2500+), I still need to play more in men’s events to earn enough norms. In fact, the only benefits of earning this title will be a) that few women have it – only 25 in the history of the game b) people will stop bugging me with the question “why WGM, not GM?”. Guess it’s worth the effort.

Back to chess

Today’s annotated game will be round 9 of the Polugaevsky Memorial against FM Artur Dimukhametov.

Be first to comment this article

Comments (14)

Be first to comment this article

Your chess partner should be of about the same level as yourself. Living nearby and having the opportunity to meet each other regularly is a clear advantage. It is also important to get along with each other well in order to maintain a positive atmosphere during the training sessions. The process goes like this: you get together and, via self-diagnosis, a brain storm or following a coach’s advice, pinpoint your weaknesses. Then you come to an agreement about the schedule of your training sessions that can be held “in real life” or via Skype, and get going.
 

The most popular option is playing training games or critical positions followed by analyzing them together. By comparing your judgments and emotions with those of your opponent and then verifying them using a chess engine, you improve your understanding of chess and get to see the game from a different perspective. This approach is especially beneficial if your chess styles are of different nature: one would be willing to attack, while the other will be considering pawn weaknesses, etc. The truth will be somewhere in the golden middle.
 

So, the main pros of training with a partner are:

1)      Increased motivation. Competition between you will help both improve in chess. It is important to choose a partner not only with a similar level, but with a more or less similar potential. Otherwise, if one of you quickly gets ahead by 100-200 rating points, your partnership may become less mutually beneficial, too one-sided.

2)      Consistency. One of the critical problems that many chess players face is lack of consistency. A short period of desire for playing and studying chess is followed by laziness and lack of interest. A partner will remind you about the goals and schedule and won’t let you skip a chess “workout”. Or, on another occasion, you will come to his rescue in a similar fashion.

3)      Saving money. Many people can’t afford hiring a top-notch chess coach. When you cooperate with a partner, you don’t have to pay anything, but the effect is quite positive.

4)      Synergy. The stronger both of you are and the larger the difference in your styles, the more you will help each other in terms of becoming more well-rounded players. Starting from exchanging opinions on certain lines and up to general evaluation of positions.
 

Of course, nothing in the world is perfect, so there are also some caveats:
 

1)      A partner is not a coach. While an experienced and highly qualified coach should be able to diagnose your weaknesses and offer solutions for mitigating them, your partner will hardly be able to ensure that. He won’t be teaching you, rather, you will both be learning by doing.

2)      Finding a good partner is not an easy task. As far as I know, there are no dating agencies for chess players. If your friends don’t play chess, have a nasty character, or are not used to studying chess as much/little as yourself, you may have trouble finding a worthy candidate.

3)      You  save  money, but. Yes, you don't have to pay a partner, but you won't be able to demand anything from him either. For example, let’s say you need to play a few training games to gain some experience in a new opening. If you have booked in advance a lesson with a chess coach, this shouldn’t be a problem. However, your partner might be happier spending the weekend with his family in the countryside instead of polishing your King’s Gambit. You will either have to find a replacement, or guilt-trip him.
 

As you have probably inferred yourself by now, training with a partner can be a productive addition to studying on your own or with a coach. After all, the more and the smarter you work on your chess, the higher are the results. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most male grandmasters create duos or even groups when studying chess. Sometimes, when I consult one of my seconds/coaches about a certain line, they phone their friends and provide me with state-of-the-art analysis. Alas, such cooperation is not typical of female top players. This may have to do with the fact that there are less top women than men, so they have to play virtually the same opponents over and over again; availability for studies of more experienced and knowledgeable male grandmasters; lack of “proprietary” analysis, etc.
 

When your brother/sister is also a chess player, searching for a partner is not an issue. Russia has the Kosintseva sisters rated about 2550 and aged 25-26. A younger example is the Baraeva sisters – they are 15 and about 2200. In the following recent game from the Polugaevsky Memorial I was to play against one of the younger sisters.

Comments (4)

Comments (1)

Comments (1)

Episode 1: It has begun!
Episode 2: Epic fail
Episode 3: Moscow IM-norm tournament: analysis
Episode 4: Moscow IM-norm tournament: analysis-2
Episode 5: Moscow IM-norm tournament: analysis-3
Episode 6: World Chess-Poker Championship: analysis-1
Episode 7: World Chess-Poker Championship: analysis-2
Episode 8: Comeback in Saratov-1
Episode 9: Comeback in Saratov-2
Episode 10: Comeback in Saratov-3

Comments (1)

Comments (7)

Of course, you have heard the cliché 'it’s never too late to resign' and 'no one has ever won a game by resigning'. However, one shouldn’t keep playing in totally hopeless positions. This is both disrespectful toward your opponent and a way of squandering your own resources, such as energy and time, which you may need in later rounds. If it’s dead certain that you will lose, why keep suffering instead of going home and spending the evening with your family, relaxing, and preparing for the next game?
 

Now, let’s try to come to an agreement on a critical concept: which positions are dead lost? Of course, we could rely on computer engines’ evaluations, but this is not very good for humans. Indeed, sometimes the machine sees an incredibly sophisticated path to victory, while the players don’t. These very positions can be drawn or lost, not only by you, but by top players, if the player in question does not see that one path to victory.  Let’s try a different approach: if the position is simple and technical, and your opponent has an obvious way to a win without any possible blunders, you may resign.  
 

The “golden rule” can be formulated in the following way: 'you should resign when the weaker of the two opponents understands that the position is winning and knows how to convert the advantage'. If you are stronger than your opponent, you should make sure he also understands what’s going on. Let’s say you are rated 2000, and your opponent is 1600. Somehow you ended up in a king vs king + B+N endgame. Who knows whether your opponent is familiar with this checkmating technique? Why not test and find out?
 

If you are a lower-rated player, don’t resign because your opponent looks formidable or impatient. For example, let’s say you are down a pawn. Ask yourself: would you play this position against someone of equal skill? If the answer is 'yes', i.e. you are still interested in the game, then keep playing even if your opponent is much stronger. This will allow you to avoid premature resignations and, even more importantly, improve in chess. For instance, you might be playing a rook vs rook + pawn endgame and consider your position to be lost. But you are not sure exactly how you would win it if colors were reversed. Even if your opponent is a grandmaster, let him teach you how to win. He may make a mistake; the position may objectively be a draw.  If you play out the game, you will learn by doing, and that is more efficient than trying to grasp the same technique by reading a book.  Your memories and experience will prove extremely helpful in the future.
 

Sometimes top players are so confident about their opponents’ abilities that they resign in drawn or winning positions. Let’s review a few classical examples:

Playing for a team is a different story. Losses affect the mood of your colleagues in a negative way; so one should try to play safely and avoid letting one’s teammates down. Even if you have lost, you should keep playing for moral support because sometimes having a 'shoulder' next to you is very important. For instance, at the recent World Team Chess Championship, Judit Polgar kept walking around the playing hall instead of resigning in a hopeless position against Ian Nepomniatchi. It could have been the result of disappointment, or an attempt to postpone the loss and thus ease the situation for other members of the Hungarian team. As long as the clocks are ticking, the game is still going. Also, sometimes the situation might change: your opponent will relax, start following other boards, and may get shocked or disappointed by what is happening there. This may make him nervous or cause him to play too adventurously. If you have some time left on your clock, don’t hurry. Ponder the situation for some time and either keep playing, or resign.
 

Summing it up, don’t resign too early or too late. Give up only when you are dead certain you have lost and are confident in your opponent’s ability to convert the advantage. Don’t waste both players' time by having your opponent checkmate you with an extra queen (unless you are a complete beginner). Remember, if you find the position unclear, you should always keep playing.
 

Finally, let me show you my most recent loss, which happened at the Polugaevsky Memorial against GM Pavel Maletin.

 

Comments (7)