&w=3840&q=100)
Explained: How Divya Deshmukh became Grandmaster without fulfilling all FIDE norms and rating requirements
19-year-old Divya Deshmukh created history on Monday, 28 July by winning the FIDE Women's World Cup 2025 in Batumi, Georgia, becoming the first-ever Indian to win the title. She defeated her senior and one of India's most respected players, Grandmaster Koneru Humpy, in a tense final that went down to the wire.
With this win, Divya also earned the prestigious Grandmaster (GM) title, something very few players in the world have achieved. She became the 88th Grandmaster from India and only the fourth Indian woman to reach that level after Humpy, Harika Dronavalli, and R Vaishali.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Also Read: Divya Deshmukh fights back tears, shares emotional hug with mother after FIDE Women's World Cup win; watch video
How did Divya become a GM without fulfilling the usual rules?
Becoming a Grandmaster in chess is not easy. A player must earn three GM norms in official FIDE-rated tournaments and cross a rating of 2500 at some point in their career. Divya entered the World Cup without a GM norm and her rating was below 2500. So, she didn't meet these requirements.
However, there's a special rule in chess that made her achievement possible. It is known as the Direct Title rule.
What is a Direct Title?
The International Chess Federation, also known as FIDE, allows certain achievements to automatically grant a player the GM title. These are called Direct Titles. Winning tournaments like the Chess World Cup, Continental Championships and the Women's World Cup can directly qualify a player for the GM title without needing to complete norms or rating.
So, by winning the FIDE Women's World Cup, Divya earned an automatic Grandmaster title. That's why she doesn't need to wait for two more norms or to cross 2500 anymore.
How the final went down
The final against Humpy was anything but easy. Both classical games ended in a draw. In the first rapid tiebreak game, Divya had the white pieces but couldn't make the most of it, and it ended in a draw after 81 moves.
But in the second rapid game, Humpy made a few blunders under time pressure after 75 moves, and Divya was able to seal the win and with it the grand prize. With it came the cherry on top - the GM title.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
28 minutes ago
- India.com
IND vs ENG: Joe Root Overtakes Sachin Tendulkar In Major Test Batting Record
England's star batter Joe Root continued his remarkable Test form by surpassing the iconic Sachin Tendulkar to reach a significant milestone in the format. In the previous match in Manchester, Root had already become the second-highest run-scorer in Test cricket history. During the ongoing fifth and final Test of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy at The Oval, he added yet another accolade to his name. Root has now gone past Tendulkar in the list of most runs scored by a player in Test matches played on home soil. He entered the Oval Test needing just 22 runs to overtake Tendulkar's total of 7,216 runs at home. The landmark moment came in the second session on Day 2, when Root struck a boundary off Mohammed Siraj in the 33rd over. Joe Root came in to bat at No. 4 for England in the first innings of the ongoing fifth Test at The Oval and contributed 29 runs off 45 deliveries, striking six elegant boundaries. Despite the modest score, Root etched his name into the record books once again. The right hand batter has scored 432 runs in 5 matches with one innings left at an impressive average of 61.71. With this, Root now occupies the second spot on the all-time list of most Test runs scored in a player's home country. The only player ahead of him is former Australian captain Ricky Ponting, who has 7,578 runs in Australia from 92 matches. Most Test Runs at Home: 1. Ricky Ponting – 7,578 runs in 92 Tests 2. Joe Root – 7,229 runs in 84 Tests\* 3. Sachin Tendulkar – 7,216 runs in 94 Tests 4. Mahela Jayawardene – 7,167 runs in 81 Tests 5. Jacques Kallis – 7,035 runs in 88 Tests On-Field Incident at The Oval Tensions rose during the same match when Joe Root was involved in a verbal exchange with Indian pacer Prasidh Krishna. After hitting a boundary, Root appeared displeased with something said by Krishna and walked toward him in protest. The situation escalated, prompting intervention from on-field umpires Ahsan Raza and Kumar Dharmasena. KL Rahul later stepped in to defend his teammate, which led to a heated exchange with Dharmasena, adding more drama to Day 2 of the final Test.
India.com
28 minutes ago
- India.com
WATCH: Sai Sudarshan turns back to give a shutting reply to Ben Duckett after getting dismissed, video going viral
WATCH: Sai Sudarshan turns back to give a shutting reply to Ben Duckett after getting dismissed, video going viral New Delhi: The end of the second day of the fifth and final Test of the Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy being played at the Oval was quite dramatic. India's young batsman Sai Sudharsan and England's Ben Duckett got into an argument when Sudharsan was given out LBW off Gus Atkinson. After the decision of on-field umpire Ahsan Raza, Sudharsan discussed with non-striker Yashasvi Jaiswal and decided to take DRS. Three reds made the decision clear All three parameters were seen as red in the replay, and Sai Sudharsan had to return to the pavilion on 11 runs. The ball was on good length, which was coming towards the middle and leg stump. The ball remained low, and Sudharsan could not bring the bat down in time. Sai Sudharsan clashed with Ben Duckett After watching the replay, Sudharsan returned but went to the field and started talking to Ben Duckett. It is believed that Duckett provoked him, which increased the controversy. After this, Harry Brook came to intervene and separated the two players. Intervention of Ollie Pope and other players England's acting captain Ollie Pope also immediately reached the field and separated Duckett and Sudharsan. This incident has further fueled the fierce competition going on between India and England. Earlier in the day, a heated argument was also seen between Joe Root and Prasidh Krishna, while KL Rahul also had to hear a strong reprimand from umpire Kumar Dharmasena. Some Heated words exchange with Ben Ducket and Sai Sudarshan, c'mon Sai perform and then speak.#INDvsENG #Saisudarshan #BenDuckett — Pawan Mathur (@ImMathur03) August 1, 2025 Score of the second day and match status By the end of the second day's play, India had scored 75 runs for two wickets. The team is now 52 runs ahead. Yashasvi Jaiswal is at the crease with 51 runs and Akash Deep with 4 runs. England's first innings and the brilliance of Indian bowlers Earlier, England's team was all out for 245 runs in the first innings. Mohammed Siraj and Prasidh Krishna took four wickets each for India. Zak Crawley and Harry Brook scored half-centuries for England and gave the team a lead of 23 runs. India's first innings and Atkinson's sharp bowling After winning the toss and bowling first, England bowled out India for 224 runs in the first innings. Karun Nair scored his first Test half-century for India, while Gus Atkinson performed brilliantly for England by taking five wickets. England is currently leading the series 2-1.
The Wire
28 minutes ago
- The Wire
Is India Going Through a Humour Crisis?
Culture Rahul Bedi Light-hearted joviality in offices is now policed for tone and political correctness, while in schools and colleges, humour amongst peers is more guarded and cautious, lest it be misconstrued. Chandigarh: Once known for its earthy wit, street-smart repartee, irreverence and instinctive ability to laugh at itself, Indian society today seems trapped in a growing humour deficit in its daily life. What was once casual banter till India's mid-adulthood, when humour was taken for granted, is now forensically dissected for imagined slights; witticisms and jokes risk being misconstrued as insults, provocations or veiled political statements, banter triggers offence, and satire is increasingly being labelled as sedition. Once a pressure valve for public frustration in drawing rooms, WhatsApp groups, comedy clubs or editorial cartoons, humour is now a potential trigger for outrage. Telling jokes at chai stalls, in drawing rooms and at addas across urban India, leg-pulling among friends, witty retorts in crowded buses, even irreverent mocking of netas and babus were markers of a society that did not take itself too seriously and was capable, in ample measure, of laughing at itself. Sadly, that's history. Light-hearted joviality in offices is now policed for tone and political correctness, while in schools and colleges, humour amongst peers is more guarded and cautious, lest it be misconstrued. Even in the privacy of homes, it often fails to even register, as elders and youngsters no longer share cultural references or tolerance levels, and the fear of saying the 'wrong thing' outweighs the unadulterated joy of shared spontaneous laughter. 'They (the authorities) have criminalised being funny,' stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra declared in an interview with The Wire in 2020, whilst the late celebrated cartoonist R.K. Laxman earlier declared that his 'Common Man' was silent and no longer amused. He was afraid to laugh in case someone got offended, he declared in the early 2000s. Stand-up comic Vir Das put it a little more starkly, following a severe backlash to his droll 'Two Indias' monologue at the Kennedy Centre in Washington in 2021. He tweeted that Indians were not losing their sense of humour, but that it was being taken from them (by officialdom), one complaint at a time. Other pro-establishment celebrities, however, argued that limits were both necessary and justified. Actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, for instance, has frequently asserted that comedy should not be centred on criticising the country or its culture. That's not humour, she has said, but mockery under the guise of liberalism. Similarly, television anchor Sudhir Chaudhary contends that some comedians today used freedom of expression to promote ideological agendas. 'That's not freedom – it's propaganda through jokes,' he has stated. Meanwhile, the public space for irreverence, rather than being a means to poke fun at power or question state absurdities and corruption, has become a highly risky business, especially if it strays a little beyond the anodyne in a politically polarised environment. Even feeble attempts at lampooning authority or officialdom runs the risk of being greeted with vicious trolling, First Information Reports (FIRs) or incarcerations and in many instances, all three. The shift in humour from droll to dreary has been further eroded by the omnipotent online culture that provokes and rewards anger. In this tectonic shift, social media has replaced spirited street-corner banter with sanitised, filtered jokes, where 'likes' have become trophies of what passes for humour and mirth. Often, a harmless comment, stripped of context, can trigger a storm, robbing it of its intended spontaneity, mischief, and cordiality. The resultant humour remains cautious, sterilised, and often dull, reduced to safe subjects and recycled tropes, much like German jokes, which 19th century American writer and humourist Mark Twain said were no laughing matter. Real satire – one that poked fun at the powerful, questioned societal hypocrisies and norms, or exposed cultural absurdities – was near extinct and irreverence was no longer celebrated or encouraged, particularly in the formal electronic or print media. Alongside, the language of humour itself across urban India had narrowed, where largely Hinglish 'vegetarian' jokes lacked the knock-out punch of robust Punjabi ones from yesteryears, a wicked Malayali comeback or even a sly Tamil pun. A plethora of hilarious Punjabi jokes from countless impromptu gatherings in my youth – with their earthy punch and saucy irreverence – still linger as iconic, endlessly amusing memories, though now retold sotto voce. These gems were joyfully embellished over the years by generations of wickedly witty Punjabis, each adding their own quirky, risqué and deliciously inventive twists, turning simple jokes into sagas of mischief and social insight. Many carried pleasurably imaginative and bizarre plots, often laced with sharp social commentary reflective of their times. They weren't just jokes – they were mini-performances, a joy to recount, and an even greater pleasure to hear and relish. But, unfortunately, what was once shared freely is now whispered, the laughter tempered but not entirely silenced. These days, some of us greybeards diffidently ask – or are asked in return – 'Heard any genuinely funny new ones lately?' The standard answer is largely a sheepish 'No'. But in apologetic defiance, many of us reach defensively for their cell-phones to read out a recycled joke or to forward one via WhatsApp which has become today's ultimate humour crutch. And though fleetingly mirthful, this form of humour remains impersonal – a dehumanised, utilitarian exercise that misses the tone, tenor, body language, and above all, the theatricality accompanying a well-told, and at times, even the not-so-good joke. Doubtlessly, this WhatsApp substitute robs the moment of its pitch, spectacle, warmth and the vital human connection that only live, personal storytelling can evoke. Impersonally e-mailing jokes or circulating them via social media is the easier, more practical and lazier amusement alternative. Even stand-up comedy emerges like a poor substitute, part of the larger subcontracting syndrome in a world where, at a personal level, we're becoming more dour than droll, more reverential than refreshingly irreverent. Regrettably, our drift into this digital sphere has, for audiences, disappointingly put paid to raucous, thigh-slapping guffaw sessions, accompanied by gleeful shrieks and high fives as delightfully bawdy and lesser-rollicking jokes and irreverent tales surged at riotous gatherings years earlier. As an ageing humourist amusingly put it, these extravagant, albeit involuntary reactions of several generations of now aged Indians, erupted like a shaken soda-water bottle or beer can – sudden, loud and delightfully messy. These sessions were not only therapeutic and salutary, but even years later, hugely memorable. But to make matters worse, even unimpeded laughter, from the belly outwards, is now carefully rationed, considered impolite. In our age of curated seriousness, genuine, unfiltered mirth is decidedly frowned upon in polite company, and from being the accepted and desired norm in yesteryears, such riotous jollity is fast becoming the exception. It's also an indisputable fact that, as a people, most Indians tend to take themselves far too seriously – hobbled by an ancient caution, or perhaps superstition, that gratification in any form, especially laughter, is sinful or somehow licentious. Then there's that age-old statutory warning we've all grown up with: laugh too much, and providence will balance it out by making you cry just as hard. This inherent deterrence, combined with our increasingly overwrought, politically correct, uptight and terminally self-absorbed and politicised society, has brought us to a strange inflection point where most people have wilfully taken to gagging the gag. However, alternately, albeit often overlooked, there exists a seamy and unpleasant layer of humour – the scatological, slapstick and lowbrow strain that relies on bodily functions, sexual innuendo and crass exaggeration to appeal to our most basic instincts. This genre, often dismissed as crude, persists in limited quarters as it triggers instant, unfiltered laughter which appeals directly to raw emotion. And yet, in this growing humourless wasteland, all is not lost. Shades of the Indian sense of humour still endure in pockets: in memes, in regional comedies, in political cartoons that survive despite the risk, and most refreshingly, in rural India. In small towns, roadside dhabas, village squares, and paan -stained tea stalls, wit still remains earthy and spontaneous. Jokes here aren't merely told – they're enacted, lived and passed on like erstwhile oral tradition. Relatively free, for now, from the anxieties of self-censorship and political pressure, rural humour remains uncurated, unselfconscious and to some extent, relatively intrepid. But the everyday casualness with which humour was once exchanged – without fear or consequence – has faded, possibly permanently. Reclaiming that ease will not only necessitate rebuilding societal tolerance for disagreement, but also shedding hypocrisy and acknowledging our foibles and collective public infirmities. This remains essential; for when people fear to laugh in public or edit their witticisms before they speak, that society is not just cheerless, but has lost its soul. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
