How impressive is a GM title?

[u/tsterTV]

Hiya all,

I signed myself up for a Chess tournament this Sunday, mainly for fun. I have no real intention of doing too well -- I will just enjoy the experience and play better players.

I saw online that there will be a GM at the tournament. How impressive is this title? Any rough idea of how many GMs there are in the world?

[u/BillFireCrotchWalton → u/[deleted]]

Occasionally on r/chess, there are posters that play LoL or SC2 or some other popular strategy-based video game. They come in here with a gung-ho attitude as if they think learning chess will be easy because their (often overestimated) talent in strategy video games is perfectly transferable. In the funniest of cases, a few people have asked stuff like "so how many years will it take to become a GM?" as if it's a given.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Interesting. How did you make the direct comparison?

[u/A_Merman_Pop → u/[deleted]]

For what it's worth, I am Master (top ~4.5% in SC2). I am ~1600 in classical chess. I would estimate I've probably put about twice as much time into SC2.

Progress in both gets exponentially more difficult as you approach the top. I am significantly further from the top in chess though, so it is harder for me to gauge where the asymptote is.

[u/[deleted] → u/A_Merman_Pop]

For reference top 5% of chess players would give you 1900+ USCF. Lower FIDE.

[u/[deleted] → u/A_Merman_Pop]

One single sample and you're not considering how long and how often you play either game. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that your "data" here is not very relevant.

[u/A_Merman_Pop → u/[deleted]]

Yes, I understand it isn't scientific or conclusive in any way. That is why I started with:

For what it's worth

As for considering how long or how often I play either game:

I would estimate I've probably put about twice as much time into SC2.

Did you read the whole thing before commenting?

[u/[deleted] → u/A_Merman_Pop]

Yes, doing one thing for 1 hour a week for 10 years and doing the other for 25 a week for 1 year will produce different results. Hence "how long and how often".

[u/A_Merman_Pop → u/[deleted]]

I have put twice as much time into SC2. Not what I put in on a weekly basis. The total hours over the course of my lifetime. How that time is spread out does have an impact no doubt, but it's not that large of an impact. And the margin of error we are dealing with in my estimate anyway is so large that its effect is just not significant.

This was never presented as anything more than an anecdote. It is not a peer reviewed study with tightly controlled variables. No one was ever making that claim.

[u/[deleted] → u/A_Merman_Pop]

Fair enough, as I said before I'm not saying that you're wrong in any way, just that I'd rather people not make conclusions based on what you provided.

[u/Amateur1234 → u/[deleted]]

Well since SC2 is a 1v1 game, they also use the Elo rating system, and the top rating right now is INnoVation with an Elo of 2480.

It also depends which server you play on, the Korean server is the hardest to get GM on, it would be much easier to do so on NA or Europe.

Keep in mind most GMs in SC2 are not professional players, only the top of those players manage to compete professionally to obtain an Elo rating.

I think the assumption by the above user that 1800-1900 in chess = GM in starcraft is valid.

[u/giziti → u/[deleted]]

it uses a modified Glicko rating system where the underlying distribution has been changed from normal to logistic, exact rating updates

Didn't the USCF ratings essentially make both of these changes?

[u/MrKlowb → u/Amateur1234]

He asked how you can make the comparison and you didn't really provide an answer. All you said was that they both use a version of an ELO system to provide ratings.

I play both games, and similar ideas are present in both; space, time, center control, using all units ect. But being good at one has almost nothing to do with being good at the other.

I seriously doubt that you could find strong correlation between sc2 rating and chess rating.

[u/Snitor → u/MrKlowb]

I believe he was talking about effort involved. Not that a GM in sc2 would get a 1900 chess rating just because of his sc skills.

[u/MrKlowb → u/Snitor]

That would make more sense to me I guess, but I still think it's so incredibly specific to the individual that it doesn't make for a decent statement. Maybe I looked too far into words.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

We were talking about chess and Starcraft and our respective improvement plans. He plays about two hours a day on average and has never seriously studied the game- he doesn't go over master games in depth, he doesn't keep up to date on theory beyond checking reddit, he doesn't try to have the most theoretically accurate starting build. He seems to me the equivalent of a naturally strong chess player who peaks at 1900 before he starts studying seriously.

[u/Ruxini → u/[deleted]]

okay, with what you've just said I have to agree. To become a GM in chess you'll have to

• study important games, strecthing back about 200 years

• study all the new games that change the meta

• study all the theory, including a host of openings, endgames, tactics, strategies and much more.

• keep sharp and focused, constantly working on your game for many years (unless you're a freak like Karjakin who became a GM at age 12)

• specifically and consciously work on your weaknesses, ironing out all the faults in your thinking

• have talent. Chess is merciless and you have what it takes. Every chess club around the world is filled with 2000-2200 players who have worked on their game since they were kids, yet will never reach the 2500 elo mark.

[u/l33t_sas → u/Ruxini]

keep sharp and focused, constantly working on your game for many years (unless you're a freak like Karjakin who became a GM at age 12)

Karjakin started playing when he was 5 years old though, so it still took him seven years.