Originally Posted by
Stephen Wright
The term master has meant different things in different eras, and the criteria for obtaining such a title have changed. I think we have to go by the usage of the time - over 2200 or 2300 for the modern/ratings era, but something different for earlier periods. I'm not aware of much use of the term master in early Canadian literature, and there doesn't seem to have been any formal means of winning the title (assuming it was recognized). [In Germany there were the Hauptturnier - according to Edo when Lasker and Tarrasch won the master title in 1889 and 1883 respectively their ratings at the time were 2645 and 2557, just a tad above our baseline 2200.] I just glanced through Yanofsky's 100 Years of Chess in Canada, published in 1967, and despite the fact ratings were certainly being used by then I find it very revealing how Yanofsky uses the terms "master" and "expert" - nearly always in a generalized sense, and certainly not with the connotation of over 2200 or over 2000.
For pre-1954 I think it is sufficient to indicate the leading players of the day, rather than trying to equate them with the modern term "master" (no one calls Morphy or Blackburne a GM, although that's obviously what they were in our usage). So is it OK to present a list of "Leading Historical Players," based on acknowledged accomplishments (e.g., placing in the Canadian Championship multiple times), rather than using the term "masters" for these players?