The Chess Mind

Congratulations! I'm glad that you were rewarded for your redoubled efforts. That's how it should work.

Re-thanks!

CM + DM = FM

Felicitation!

I don't think you rating is inflated at all. It's probably lower than it should be. There's no reason you shouldn't be over 2400 (with an IM title for gravy).

I saw you put it in your profile at Playchess, but FIDE wasn't showing it then. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to be rude.

Congratulations. We shall now properly address you, FM Dennis. :)

Congratulations, FM Dennis Monokroussos! Time for a bit of an insipid question: how would you compare the milestone you've achieved to an academic milestone? In other words, do you feel like you've gotten a Masters degree in chess? PhD? Post-doc position? Assistant professorship? Or is it something that you feel doesn't lend itself well to analogy at all?

Congratulations! Ditto to Alex - surely you are under rated. Good job and good luck on the next letter.

First off, I don't have the Ph.D. Sorry.

There may be some relationship between the two sorts of fields, though I'm not sure it's a very neat one. What does seem to me the case, in both realms, is that there's a distinction to be made between having talent and achieving a degree or title. Being an excellent philosopher takes skill, but just finishing academic degrees doesn't have to indicate a high level of philosophical acumen. I've interacted with professional philosophers who didn't seem especially sharp at their craft, and M.A. students who were unbelievably sharp. Getting the doctorate is an accomplishment, but not a guarantee of philosophical aptitude.

Similarly, there are chess players who know a lot: they're diligent theoretical researchers and have learned everything that can be learned from a book. They know enough notes even to gain a title, but they don't make music. Conversely, there are players who haven't earned any titles, or at least not the most prestigious ones, but who have a beautiful, seemingly innate sense for the game.

My feeling about the comparability of titles is this: an IM title seems to me roughly equivalent to a Ph.D. You either have to have a decent amount of talent or a little talent and a lot of perseverance to achieve it. The GM title seems to me to require a special level of talent, which is why their numbers, inflated as they may be compared to earlier eras, is still miniscule compared with the number of people running around with a doctorate. (Both in sheer numbers and, I'm sure, in terms of percentages.)

Thanks, Mikhail, and everyone else, too!