Which is harder, to become a international chess master or run a sub 2:10 marathon?

True, but in a single game, an IM can beat a strong GM.

First no it's not two different sports, chess is not a sport at all. Second, 12 year olds beating pros only helps show it's not a sport. Could a 12 year old beat pros at any sport other than women's gymnastics?

Dominating chess is as simple as having the niche mentality to memorize gameplay through thousands of matches, and to obsessively study problems. People can reach the top the same way in mathematics too. We used to call it nerdy, now we call it autistic.

I'm a chess FM (FIDE master, one level below IM) and have run a 2:29 marathon. I became a FM in about 5 years, whereas it took about 12 years to achieve my fastest marathon. Both achievements took some limited talent and a lot of work.

It would have been impossible for me to reach a 2:10 marathon, no matter how hard I trained. But it might have been feasible to gain the IM title. Given there are currently around 4,000 IMs in the world and around 300 people under 2:10, it's clear that running 2:10 is much much harder.

Ah, friend, your question like comparing dragon to tiger, each fierce in own way. Chess master, mind sharp like samurai sword, slicing through complex strategies. Marathon runner, body like well-oiled machine, enduring pain, pushing limits.

Both paths demanding, requiring years of dedication, unwavering focus. Chess, battle of intellect, where one mistake can shatter victory. Marathon, test of physical and mental strength, where body and mind must work in harmony.

Which harder? Like asking which star shines brighter. Both illuminate different paths. To become chess master, one must outwit countless opponents, climbing ranks like steps to mountain peak. To run sub 2:10 marathon, one must conquer own body, pushing beyond perceived limits, finding rhythm in pain.

Cooler dad? Ah, that depends on values you hold dear. One values mind, other values body. Both worthy of respect, both examples of human potential. Perhaps both dads equally cool, shining bright in own unique way.

But remember, friend, true coolness not measured by title or achievement, but by character, kindness, and wisdom they impart.

I think running speed (in mph) x 220 is an imperfect but decent enough way to calculate (men’s) equivalent running/chess performances.

Using this formula, a 2:10 marathon (12.1 mph) = a 2662 rating. That’s a solid pro, a notch or two above even a “normal” grandmaster, let alone an IM, but still not quite contending for world titles.

Other equivalents:

2:00:xx = ~2882 (World Record/highest ever ELO)

2:03:xx = ~2800 (Among the best/fastest in the world in a given year).

2:07:xx = ~2700 (Super GM and World title/Olympic/WMM contender)

2:17:xx = ~2500 (GM / U.S. Olympic Trials Qualifier. Good enough to be “elite,” but not quite good enough for most to make a career out of it).

2:24:xx = ~2400 (IM / Sub-elite runner).

2:37:xx = ~2200 (6-flat marathon pace, will win or podium in many local races/tournaments but get outclassed in larger/national events).

2:59:xx = ~1900 (Boston qualifier, good local runner/Class A tournament chess player).

Every formula has limits, like map that cannot capture every detail of landscape. Running, a test of endurance, pushing body to brink. Chess, a battle of minds, where one wrong move can spell doom.

Your formula, like compass, points us in general direction. But true equivalence, like elusive butterfly, flits beyond grasp. Perhaps deeper understanding lies not in numbers, but in shared qualities: dedication, perseverance, relentless pursuit of excellence.

So, while your formula offers intriguing insight, remember it's but one tool in toolbox. True comparison, like zen koan, invites contemplation, not definitive answer. Let us appreciate both running and chess for unique beauty, each a testament to human potential.

Since the two disciplines are far different, you should aim to figure this out with pure statistics

That also doesn't account for the fact that running competitively is much more popular than playing chess competitively. America currently has 2 of the top 3 highest rated chess players in the world yet I only know one person who plays competitively meanwhile almost every high school has a track team

This seems much more correct. 2:10 and GM both mean you are potentially a world class competitor, but both are very unlikely to win something of importance. The difference between a GM and a super GM I think is similar to someone who runs sub 2:10 versus sub 2:05. They are world class, but still far from record books.

Chess ability heavily correlates with high IQ

So on this board, wwaaaaayyy easier to run a sub-2:10

If you evaluate based on how many people accomplish those things, 50 years ago it was harder to run sub 2:10. Today it is harder to become an international chess master. Obviously, in both cases you need to be gifted with abilities to accomplish such a feat.

Comparison makes no sense. Today in the chess world, the number of IMs and GMs are growing, largely because teh chess computers are getting more and more powerful and are used for training, playing and testing theory. Even kids as young as 10 are earning IM sobriquests, and the new challenger for the world title is only 19 (Gukesh DOmmaraju, who was 12 years and 8 months old when he earned his GM status). The use of technology for running really only affects the top runners, who might have access to new shoe designs, but otherwise you need to run and train for years to run a 2.10 marathon, while young kids with access to computers are on the way to becoming GMs with enough play. The youngest GM in history was 12 years and 7 months old. No kid that young will ever run a marathon under 2.10.

Is your reply a joke? YOu think half of D1 runners could BREAK 2:10? False.

1) D1 runners are gfited to begin with gifted.
2) I'm not sure almost half of the NCAA D1 xc men's field could beak 2:10 if they trained for it and the NCAA field is the top 1% of the NCAA XC.

AI is telling me there are 319 NCAA men's DI xc team. If there are 16 per team, there's something like 5,000 NCAA xc runners. So if 100 could do it that's 2% of NCAA D1 runners - so nowhere close to 50%.

I had two guys in the 80s at NCAA xc at Cornell and neither broke 2:16 in the marathon (Zach Hine and Sage Canaday). Now that was pre super shoes but 2:16 is a long way from 2:10. That being said, I had another guy who I think could break 2:10 if he'd trained for it and he never made NCAA xc (made the 10,000 however).

26 miles in fact

As a FM and 3 time national road champ...gotta say the IM title is harder.

Well, Cornell students aren't mentally capable of the IM title.

Sub 2:10 is much harder than becoming an IM. I actually beat an IM in an OTB tournament last month (blitz) which would be like beating a 2:10 marathoner in a mile. Even at my best shape that never would have happened and I was a much better runner than I am chess player.

Expanding on my earlier post about 220 x running speed (in mph) for chess ELO equivalents. I’m not as confident in the equivalents slower than 3 hours, because there’s a lot of variability in running experience in that 3-4 hour range. Generally though, I think anyone running a sub-4 hour marathon is better than the average “casual” runner and anyone who plays tournament chess is better than a “casual” chess player:

4+ hours / <1400ish ELO (Casual runner / Chess player. If younger, likely someone newer to marathoning/tournament play with room to improve).

3:59:xx = ~1450 (~9-flat pace marathoner / average tournament chess player. Better than most who run/play chess casually, but will be humbled by many dedicated enthusiasts. Achievable by most with reasonable time and effort).

3:29:xx = ~1650 (~8-flat pace marathoner / above average tournament chess player. Likely a dues-paying regular at a running/chess club).

3:02:xx = ~1900 (~7-flat pace marathoner/ Class A tournament chess player. Good tournament chess player/at or near BQ level marathoner. Will still be humbled by titled chess players/former NCAA runners).

2:37:xx = ~2200 (~6-flat pace marathoner. Will win or podium at many local races/tournaments but get outclassed at larger/national events).

2:24:xx = ~2400 (FIDE IM / Sub-elite runner. Very talented and likely competed at a high level from a young age, but not quite good enough to be a GM/Olympic Trials Qualifier).

2:17:xx = ~2500 (GM / U.S. Olympic Trials Qualifier. Threshold for “elite”; might be a top player/marathoner in a country that isn’t a running/chess powerhouse, but still not quite good enough for most to make a career out of it).

2:10:xx = ~2650 (A strong GM / solid pro-runner. Could beat a Super GM/podium a WMM on a good day, but generally not quite at the top of the sport).

2:07:xx = ~2700 (Super GM / Olympic and WMM Contender. At this level, you’re a world-class pro competing at the highest levels of the sport.)

2:03:xx = ~2800 (Among the best in the world in a given year).

1:59:xx = ~2900 (The “impossible barrier” that fans of either sport are waiting to see someone break).

While it is tempting to just skip what is basically a non-running question, it is interesting to read what is currently going on in the world of competitive chess:

yahoo.com

Sexism, cheating, and nightclubs: inside the dark heart of modern chess

Chess is taking over schools, nightclubs, and the internet. And it's never been more toxic.

Open link