For years I’ve been saying chess games are being made up and some
competitions and players simply do not exist.

It all started with a tongue in cheek letter to BCM in the late 70’s
stating it was publishers trying to rip us off with openings books by filling
their pages with games by non-existent players to make the opening look
good or books on fake tournaments that never happened.

I claimed due to political reason the Kaprov and Korchnoi 1978 match
was not actually taking place, the games were figments of somone's.
fertile imagination.

Everynow and then I would resurrect this piece of nonsense for a laugh.

Alas....

It has come to light that a competition in Russian in 2010 has been rigged
to allow players to get norms. 3 players got a GM norm, 3 got an IM norm.

“Been going for years.” I’ve hear you say but this effort has plumbed new depths.
They could not even be bothered to make up the games as they went along
and lifted some games from the 2008 World Computer Chess Championship.

It is that unbelievable you could not make it up.

You can get the 2010 Azov games here:

http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=49234

and the 2008 Computers games from here.

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/tournament.php?id=178

Six games from each event match up 100% move for move. Here are just two.

D. Yamnov - V.Eryomenko, Don Cup, Azov, Russia 2010

and…

Mobile Chess - Sjeng, 16th World Computer Chess Championship Beijing, 2008

The final position with White hanging on letting Black get two Queens to mate him
is clear computer play. A human at that level would resign.
They should have used a different game or tampered with the ending.

Some of the players who "took part" in this tournament appear to be FIDE coaches / trainers and don't seem to play serious chess anymore. I assume they needed higher ratings or titles in order to get their jobs. I hope they are sacked from wherever they have found employment or are sued by pupils who have paid them for lessons.

In the introduction to "Dynamic Chess Strategy" by Mihai Suba he tells of a student tournament in 1967 where he was the only person to turn up, as they'd entered for CV points, or at least the equivalent under Romanian communism, but some exams were looming and they found they couldn't spare the time. Suba needed a norm to become a second category player. He goes on to explain that the arbiter gave him the names of some of the other entrants and told him to produce some plausible games. So he copied some games out of a book about Alekhine and came second, in a race where he was the only runner.

In Suba's case it wasn't premeditated, he'd at least intended to play the games, it wasn't his fault no one else turned up, and he didn't try to fake a tournament win. I think that was semi-standard practice in the Warsaw pact back in the day - Tal talks about helping people to get IM norms (by giving them an easy draw) in his autobiography - the regime at least ensured the players were worth the titles they were getting. This lot seem to have conspired to fake an entire tournament; which is a bit stupid in the days of databases which are going to notice duplicate games - they don't deserve the titles on those grounds alone.

The idea of awarding titles by norms is open to abuse.
It's been going on for years and years.
Some are obvious but this is so blatant.

Still reckon you should only get a GM title if you qualify for the World Candidates.
Then you really are a good player and fixing it to get into that group needs
too many players and different Chess federations involved.

Here are all the real GM's who have qualified for the candidates since
Alekhine died in 1946 and FIDE took over the running of the World Championship.

There are 97 of them.

Adams
Adorján
Akopian
Anand
Aronian
Averbakh
Bacrot
Bareev
Beliavsky
Benko
Boleslavsky
Botvinnik
Bronstein
Byrne
Carlsen
Chernin
Dolmatov
Dominguez
Dreev
Euwe
Filip
Fine (never played but invited to the first one- that counts.)
Fischer
Flohr
Gelfand
Geller
Gligoric
Grischuk
Gulko
Gurevich
Hjartarson
Hort
Hübner
Ivanchuk
Ivkov
Kamsky
Karpov
Kasimdzhanov
Kasparov
Keres
Khalifman
Kharlov
Korchnoi
Kotov
Kramnik
Larsen
Lautier
Leko
Lilienthal
Lutz
Malakhov
Mecking
Morozevich
Movsesian
Najdorf
Nikolic
Nisipeanu
Nogueiras
Olafsson
Panno
Petrosian
Pilnik
Polgar (Judit, only women)
Polugaevsky
Ponomariov
Portisch
Radjabov
Reshevsky
Ribli
Romanishin
Rublevsky
Salov
Sax
Seirawan
Shirov
Short
Smyslov
Sokolov
Spassky
Speelman
Spraggett
Ståhlberg
Stein
Svidler
Szabo
Taimanov
Tal
Timman
Tiviakov
Tkachiev
Topalov
Torre
Uhlmann
Vaganian
Van der Sterren
Yudasin
Yusupov

The current number of GM's on the FIDE list is 1,300.
Are you going to tell me all of them are in the same class as that list of 97.

-------

"Dynamic Chess Strategy" some good stuff in there, recall something
about Capa's opponents just rolling over.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The idea of awarding titles by norms is open to abuse.
It's been going on for years and years.
Some are obvious but this is so blatant.

Still reckon you should only get a GM title if you qualify for the World Candidates.
Then you really are a good player and fixing it to get into that group needs
too many players and different Chess federations in ...[text shortened]... egy" some good stuff in there, recall something
about Capa's opponents just rolling over.

Hi Deepthought.

No Nunn, Miles or Rowson... and a host of other players who one thinks
should be there. But if Candidates only was the criteria then maybe
players would not sit back and say "I've done it, I'm a GM." and stop improving.
(resting on their laurels.)

The Candiates only rule would have given them a target to aim for, the GM titlle
would carry a lot more weight and the term 'Weak Grandmaster' would
never have been invented.

I thought the Tsar awarded just five GM titles in 1914 to:
Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Marshall and Tarrasch.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The idea of awarding titles by norms is open to abuse.
It's been going on for years and years.
Some are obvious but this is so blatant.

Still reckon you should only get a GM title if you qualify for the World Candidates.
Then you really are a good player and fixing it to get into that group needs
too many players and different Chess federations in ...[text shortened]... egy" some good stuff in there, recall something
about Capa's opponents just rolling over.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Deepthought.

No Nunn, Miles or Rowson... and a host of other players who one thinks
should be there. But if Candidates only was the criteria then maybe
players would not sit back and say "I've done it, I'm a GM." and stop improving.
(resting on their laurels.)

The Candiates only rule would have given them a target to aim for, the GM titlle
w ...[text shortened]... ded just five GM titles in 1914 to:
Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker, Marshall and Tarrasch.

I agree with Greenpawn. There are far too many Grandmasters nowadays.

When running through that list I could think of a few players not on the list who were / are much stronger than some of the others included in the list (*), but overall I'd rather have those 97 players considered Grandmasters than the crazy situation we have now where there are well over a thousand living players with the Grandmaster title.

(*) I can't resist mentioning Speelman. A very strong player indeed, but Tony Miles was light years ahead of him!

Hi Fat Lady

Both great players.
Actually Speelman holds the plus with 5 wins, 3 losses and 8 draws.
Pity Tony never took one more game from him. Four wins each would be about right.

Miles beats Nunn with 6 wins, 3 losses and 12 draws.
But he shows up bad v Nigel Short - 2 wins, 6 losses and 4 draws.

Norm rigging has gone on for years and years.
Usually a federation brings in some not to scrupulous GM's and and
they lose to a couple of the home players and out pops two new GM's.

FIDE then gets paid by the federation to register the GM's.
It's all one wicked circle but this not even bothering to play the games
is a new one.

Thanks for the stats, Greenpawn. I'm very surprised to learn that Speelman has a plus score against Miles, but perhaps that's just because players of my generation consider Miles to be much stronger than he actually was.

Also Speelman seemed to get a "second wind" when he was well into his chess career and went from being a bog-standard Grandmaster to something a bit more for a little while. Speelman holds the distinction of being the only Grandmaster to have piddled on my shoes.

I had no idea that norm fixing had such a long and distinguished history, no wonder there are so many titled players around! I think there should be a fixed number of Grandmasters and it should be a title that can be lost. Perhaps it should be like Sumo wrestling where the wrestlers with the highest rank have to retire rather than dropping back to the rank below once it is clear that they are no longer able to perform at the elite level.

1300 GMs world wide is hardly a lot..

Hi Fat Lady

"I had no idea that norm fixing had such a long and distinguished history. "

You must have led a sheltered life.

I know of 4 undocumented cases where 'deals' have been done.
What annoys me (well it does not really, I don't give a toss.)
is that it is acceptted that this happens and people look at me like
I'm daft for questioning the ethics.

There was a recent case on the ECF forum where both teams agreed to let a
player play at a lower board in the 4NCL so he could get his IM norm.
Him getting his norm seemed more important than the rules about playing
in grading order.
So they put him down to a lower board so he could play a weaker opponent
and he lost. 🙂

"Speelman holds the distinction of being the only Grandmaster to have piddled on my shoes. "

He stayed a while at the Edinburgh Club.
Best advice I could squeeze out him was to have a good night's sleep
before an important game.

Hi Plopzilla.

Too many I'm thinking. The GM title is for the games elite. (like the 97 listed.)

The GM's in the past were the games elite till they changed the rules.
Soon you will be able to get a GM title on E-Bay.

I'm still thinking you have get into the Candidates (which used to be the rule)
before you are a GM.
It's harder and more honest than collecting norms in rigged games.

And speaking of E-Bay. I put this on for £6.00 (£1.00 p&p)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tarrasch-Best-Games-of-Chess-Chess-Book-/221260711427?pt=UK_Toys_Games_Games&hash=item33842a8603#ht_715wt_958

Here is the blurb:

English Descriptive Notation. (1.PK4)

So you are stuck in a chess playing rut and are scanning the chess books
on E-Bay looking for THAT BOOK!

The Book that will fill all the gaps that is missing from your game.

WELL HERE IS THAT BOOK!

Forget all the guff you have read about Tarrasch.
He was one of the greatest chess players that ever lived and he played to teach.

As he was playing he was writing the notes in his mind that he was going to
publish along with game. He often sought the most instructive way to play
because he was thinking of his readers. This is a Chess teacher.

Take these instructive games and add in Fred Reinfeld, who actually earned his living
teaching - he was a qualified teacher.

Reinfeld’s writing and instructive chess books formed the foundation of many
of the great and good chess players we know today.
(it’s a pity most of them did not pick up skills as a writer as well.)
This book is widely regarded as his best.

You have (or you could have) in your hands the most important book in your
chess development.

So buy it, read it and thoroughly enjoy the games.
Your own game will improve as will your perspective on this great chess player.

The book is in a very good condition, it’s been read, or looked at but it’s OK.
A bargain at £6.00 (plus the £1.00 postage which I am taking a loss on).
I believe in this book.

Don’t let the Notation put you off , Descriptive is easy to learn and opens up a
whole new world as Descriptive Notation books these days sell so cheaply.

At £6.00 this is a steal and I’m doing £1.00 postage (UK only) which will be a loss to me because
I am a fellow chess player and I know how often us guys get ripped off.

The Husband of Jo Jo 34
(a chess player who owes this book a lot.)

One problem is that the rating qualification for making GM remains fixed (2500). I think it should be based on being in the top X percentile of ratings. That way it adjusts with inflation.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
One problem is that the rating qualification for making GM remains fixed (2500). I think it should be based on being in the top X percentile of ratings. That way it adjusts with inflation.