You are a young man, so you obviously have no idea what it feels like to see your playing strength decline. Let's see what you will be saying when you drop to 2400 yourself and some 20-year old no-name bloke (with no international experience) rated 2550 will be getting better conditions than you. Also more offers to release DVDs & books and so on. Will you still be hanging on to this idea then?

No problem

I don't think there is a problem. There are three ascending levels of recognition (for living players): 
a) title-holders (including GMs) 
b) winners of prestigious international tournaments 
c) players who are distinguished and popular enough to be recognized by their last names. 
 
Carlsen belongs to the third group, so I don't see why he would be concerned about someone from group A having the same chess title as him. It doesn't diminish his status in any way, but it does give you certain benefits in the eyes of the general public ("wow, he's a GM!").

Serious or not?

Thanks a lot for this post. It's a popular discussion topic on any chess message board. A few remarks: 
 
1) There are millions of PhDs and professors in the world. Having such a degree is only an indication of having achieved a certain respectable qualification at one point of one’s life. It has nothing to do with being one of the best scientists in the world.  
 
As the level of play increases, more and more players gain the GM title. However, the ratio of GMs/entire player base is shrinking, so there is nothing menacing about it.  
 
2) Amateurs often define GM as "world championship candidate". Meanwhile, if we forget about that concept and use the term GM in the meaning of "highly proficient chess player", then it works just fine. 
 
3) Re “weak super GM” – agree. Btw, this term exists already. Super GM typically stands for someone rated over 2700. GMs in their low 2700s don’t get invited to the elite round robins. Hence, a new term is being coined – “elite GM”. Kramnik, for example, uses it to refer to people in the top-10 whom he gets to play on a regular basis. I doubt there is any sense in introducing new titles.  
 
4) Ratings (calculated automatically) are easier to falsify than titles (awarded by FIDE title commission). Of course, there were many cases of people purchasing both ratings and titles on the black market, but some of those misdoings got exposed after the guys applied for their titles. If all they wanted was a rating, they probably wouldn’t get caught. Who cares if another 2300/2400/2500 player appears on the rating list? Ok, at least I am talking about Russia. In some less prominent chess countries having a 2400 rating IS a big deal.

http://pogonina.com

LOL

Daniel has a secret affection for Magnus. He mentions him in vritually every post!

http://magnuscarlsen.com

LOL

I think that the title of GM or even IM is important to give honour to the players who contributed to the chess world, even when they are old, weaker and above all even if they haven't played for the world chess championship; Carlsen and Kasparov would have been nobody without millions of chess amateur players

LOL

i don't know much about what happens when you are at the top but for us, the kids.. we don't dream of one day being world champion(I'm 16 so I'm fairly reasonable).. We dream of rising through the ranks step by step and possibly one day to GM. if we become GM, then may be we'll think about increasing our rating to 2600, then 2700 and finally world championship contender.. The titles are what keeps us, the kids, the future of the game motivated! 
Everyone knows Nadal,Federer and the elite but when we look at their opponents in the early rounds, we go like "Dude, that guy's ranked 160!", ignoring the fact how great a personal achievement it is for them to be among a few of the world's finest. Carlsen or Anand vs You we might go as "Ok his rating is substantially low but he's still a GM. May be he will get a draw.." GM is a title and this title gives you respect. Ratings can sometimes be depressing especially when you lose to a lowly rated prodigy or something and your rating slumps. With titles, it gives a sense of stability! 
And in case of aged GMs, I like to make a case that titles do not reflect your instataneous strenght as of now but your achievement and contributions to the game! May be an old legend will not be able to go through a thousand possible lines upto the zillionth move, but considering the ideas, I beleive a 2400 rated veteran is much better a strategist and a tactician than someone with a stable 2500 rating. May be it does not reflect in his games anymore, but it still deserves to be respected!

LOL

i love chess but i have not played a single tournament. i played against program rated 2700 or even 3100 (i want to beat these programs to prove my self but i could not)but not against a human being in a real tournament. i also dream of becoming a grand master not for pride but for simply the love of the game, but most of all to see that i can get my self that far.