user806: Go to any online chess server, there are thousands playing and trying their best. These days there are even online coaches and titled players and people are ready to shed huge bucks for getting couple of hours sessions.
But given all this, I sometimes think: Why do people want to become a chess grandmaster or a titled player? What do I really get out of that? A high paid job? NO. A green card to the US? NO. Free sponsorship? PROBABLY NOT. A lot of money? NO (because once you become GM you have to compete with others similar to you).
Then why? Why is there a craze to become a chess grandmaster, or a titled player?
If anyone has a good answer and a accurate ones, please reply with good points.

user394: It's the cachet of a title, and what it represents. You see it in many different ways, each with their own implications and desires. In every case, it gives an implication of elitism and exclusivity.
I have a black belt rank, and it is much the same, in that people see it as a pinnacle of achievement, only attained by a select few. Most of the time if it comes up, I hear "Oh, I took {insert art here} when I was a kid". This is designed to imply that they too, belong to "the club".
For every person that makes to a desired position, there are 1000 or more that started and gave up.

user-1: Ram Narasimhan wrote correctly: "A GM title (...) serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained."
I'd like to add that this reputation also entails some "hard" benefits. 

In most Opens titled players pay no entry fees. I think I've also seen free accomodation for titled players (or only GMs) advertised. So a GM title at least reduces the cost of purusing your hobby.
A GM title surely increases your chances of being invited to invitational tournaments with an attractive prize fund. This also creates the opportunity of playing against stronger opponents, thereby improving yourself.
Maybe most grandmasters can't make a living from playing chess alone. But many can from other chess-related activities such as giving lessons or assisting a stronger player. A GM title translates into higher rates and opens up opportunities.


user7657: Isn't there a lot of ego involved in this, the desire for prestige and to show others that you're their superior?  It can't be for the money, since even now with the big reward tournaments only a small percentage can live well on their earnings.  The others will also have to teach or publish, and for the time, effort and expense one has to put into reaching that level, assuming they have sufficient talent to do so, the tangible rewards hardly seem worth the effort.  
I had the desire to become really good when I started playing, but it became hard work and took all of the joy out of it. I ultimately decided it wasn't worth it, so now I just play for fun with less stress and probably just as good results.  But I no longer agonize over possibly losing.  It is after all just a game.

user6963: Just to expand Ram's point a little bit, and speculate as to why there is such a craze now as opposed to the past.
I suspect the modern craze is in part a result of Elo ratings, and pseudo Elo ratings online.
Modern computer game design is very carefully constructed to ensure that:

At any point the game is challenging, but not too hard
The player gets instant feedback on their success and progress

Such ideas are now spreading into other areas, and it is often referred to as "gamification", such as on stack exchange getting immediate feedback from votes etc.
Chess is already a game, but the Elo system makes learning chess a game in itself.  You can always play someone very close to you in ability, and you can always see the tiny steps of progress towards grand master.
I suspect many who make GM did not set out to become GM, but simply to become better chess players, to reach the next rung and see how good they can get...  If a learning curve is pitched just right it can be extremely addictive.

user7010: The answer has to do with our human psychology. There is a book written by Daniel Pink, titled "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us", where he finds that people are NOT motivated by these things:

Rewards
Avoiding punishments

And he concludes that people ARE motivated by these things:

Autonomy - Being able to do what you want
Mastery - Getting better at stuff, it's satisfying!
Purpose - Making a difference in the world

He says the research shows that for physical tasks, rewards and punishments can be effective. However, for tasks that require even a small amount of mental effort, bigger rewards actually lead to worse results.
The reason people spend huge amounts of time studying chess, and huge amounts of money on chess, with no hope of ever making any money from chess, is the same reason that people play musical instruments for fun: Because mastery is satisfying. That's it.
Here is a 10-minute video of the author's explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

user109: I think it has to do with just having the title "Grand Master".  Would I like to be a Grand Master? YES, but it probably would never happen in a million years.  Unless you are probably in the top 10, you probably won't make a living out of it.  I would suspect that those who don't make a living out of it, but still highly rated and play in international tournaments might have secondary jobs, but in the end, it is not about the money, it is about having fun.

user764: Napoleon put it succinctly: 
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. 
Just a couple of points:
It is the same reason that students love getting "gold stars," and why there are so many badges on StackExchange itself. There have been volumes written on the power of peer recognition.
In particular, chess titles (for the most part) are a direct result of chess achievement. FM, IM and GM titles are all well-earned. No matter how much we might not care for a person, we know that if they have a chess title, they earned it. A GM title is the highest formal title, and it serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained.

806: <p>Go to any online chess server, there are thousands playing and trying their best. These days there are even online coaches and titled players and people are ready to shed huge bucks for getting couple of hours sessions.</p>

<p>But given all this, I sometimes think: Why do people want to become a chess grandmaster or a titled player? <strong>What do I really get out of that? A high paid job? NO. A green card to the US? NO. Free sponsorship? PROBABLY NOT. A lot of money? NO (because once you become GM you have to compete with others similar to you).</strong></p>

<p>Then why? Why is there a craze to become a chess grandmaster, or a titled player?</p>

<p>If anyone has a good answer and a accurate ones, please reply with good points.</p>
 394: <p>It's the cachet of a title, and what it represents. You see it in many different ways, each with their own implications and desires. In every case, it gives an implication of elitism and exclusivity.</p>

<p>I have a black belt rank, and it is much the same, in that people see it as a pinnacle of achievement, only attained by a select few. Most of the time if it comes up, I hear "Oh, I took {insert art here} when I was a kid". This is designed to imply that they too, belong to "the club".</p>

<p>For every person that makes to a desired position, there are 1000 or more that started and gave up.</p>
 -1: <p>Ram Narasimhan wrote correctly: "A GM title (...) serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained."</p>

<p>I'd like to add that this reputation also entails some "hard" benefits. </p>

<ul>
<li><p>In most Opens titled players pay no entry fees. I think I've also seen free accomodation for titled players (or only GMs) advertised. So a GM title at least reduces the cost of purusing your hobby.</p></li>
<li><p>A GM title surely increases your chances of being invited to invitational tournaments with an attractive prize fund. This also creates the opportunity of playing against stronger opponents, thereby improving yourself.</p></li>
<li><p>Maybe most grandmasters can't make a living from playing chess alone. But many can from other chess-related activities such as giving lessons or assisting a stronger player. A GM title translates into higher rates and opens up opportunities.</p></li>
</ul>
 7657: <p>Isn't there a lot of ego involved in this, the desire for prestige and to show others that you're their superior?  It can't be for the money, since even now with the big reward tournaments only a small percentage can live well on their earnings.  The others will also have to teach or publish, and for the time, effort and expense one has to put into reaching that level, assuming they have sufficient talent to do so, the tangible rewards hardly seem worth the effort.  </p>

<p>I had the desire to become really good when I started playing, but it became hard work and took all of the joy out of it. I ultimately decided it wasn't worth it, so now I just play for fun with less stress and probably just as good results.  But I no longer agonize over possibly losing.  It is after all just a game.</p>
 6963: <p>Just to expand Ram's point a little bit, and speculate as to why there is such a craze now as opposed to the past.</p>

<p>I suspect the modern craze is in part a result of Elo ratings, and pseudo Elo ratings online.</p>

<p>Modern computer game design is very carefully constructed to ensure that:</p>

<ul>
<li>At any point the game is challenging, but not too hard</li>
<li>The player gets instant feedback on their success and progress</li>
</ul>

<p>Such ideas are now spreading into other areas, and it is often referred to as "gamification", such as on stack exchange getting immediate feedback from votes etc.</p>

<p>Chess is already a game, but the Elo system makes learning chess a game in itself.  You can always play someone very close to you in ability, and you can always see the tiny steps of progress towards grand master.</p>

<p>I suspect many who make GM did not set out to become GM, but simply to become better chess players, to reach the next rung and see how good they can get...  If a learning curve is pitched just right it can be extremely addictive.</p>
 7010: <p>The answer has to do with our human psychology. There is a book written by Daniel Pink, titled <strong><em>"Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us"</em></strong>, where he finds that people are <strong>NOT</strong> motivated by these things:</p>

<ol>
<li>Rewards</li>
<li>Avoiding punishments</li>
</ol>

<p>And he concludes that people <strong>ARE</strong> motivated by these things:</p>

<ol>
<li><strong>Autonomy</strong> - Being able to do what you want</li>
<li><strong>Mastery</strong> - Getting better at stuff, it's satisfying!</li>
<li><strong>Purpose</strong> - Making a difference in the world</li>
</ol>

<p>He says the research shows that for physical tasks, rewards and punishments can be effective. However, for tasks that require even a small amount of mental effort, <strong>bigger rewards actually lead to worse results</strong>.</p>

<p>The reason people spend huge amounts of time studying chess, and huge amounts of money on chess, with no hope of ever making any money from chess, is the same reason that people play musical instruments for fun: Because <strong>mastery is satisfying</strong>. That's it.</p>

<p>Here is a 10-minute video of the author's explanation:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc</a></p>
 109: <p>I think it has to do with just having the title "Grand Master".  Would I like to be a Grand Master? YES, but it probably would never happen in a million years.  Unless you are probably in the top 10, you probably won't make a living out of it.  I would suspect that those who don't make a living out of it, but still highly rated and play in international tournaments might have secondary jobs, but in the end, it is not about the money, it is about having fun.</p>
 764: <p>Napoleon put it succinctly: 
<a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/napoleonbo108401.html">A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.</a> </p>

<p>Just a couple of points:</p>

<p>It is the same reason that students love getting "gold stars," and why there are so many badges on StackExchange itself. There have been volumes written on the power of peer recognition.</p>

<p>In particular, chess titles (for the most part) are a direct result of chess achievement. FM, IM and GM titles are all well-earned. No matter how much we might not care for a person, we know that if they have a chess title, they earned it. A GM title is the highest formal title, and it serves to inform your peers (and often yourself) that a certain level of expertise was attained.</p>
