PDA

View Full Version : soft titles (sf Zonal threads, bumped with new posts)



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Rincewind
13-05-2007, 10:57 AM
Baz, That's poor show IMO, given the tenor of Jono's reply and subsequently the context of yours. Perhaps play the ball and not the man, or at least try and do both?

Nah. Jono's post was just written with such an air of pompish twatishness that it had to be said.

There are two discussions going on here. One regarding the general devaluation of FM titles and another regarding the titles awarded at the 2007 Oceania Zonal.

In the first case, over the last 20 years, it has become easier to attain the FM title. So naturally the FM title today is more common now. Ths probably accounts for most of Jono's peevishness on the matter.

However, despite their current low rating, both the winner at the present competition performed very well and probably better than Kevin's performance rating calculation since that used rating from various systems and with various reliability. Therefore I don't believe that the present zonal has lead to an increased decline in the FM title.

Sam
13-05-2007, 11:05 AM
The question that needs to be asked here is ,should any FM titles be awarded in any zonal where the average rating of particpants is below 2250?:hmm:

If the requirement outside of zonals is the 2300 mark then maybe we should be trying to strengthen the FM title by making restictions on zonals that have fields where the average participant is below 2250.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 11:25 AM
Nah. Jono's post was just written with such an air of pompish twatishness that it had to be said.

What nonsense. You're just displaying your total cluelessness and lack of objectivity again.


In the first case, over the last 20 years, it has become easier to attain the FM title. So naturally the FM title today is more common now. Ths probably accounts for most of Jono's peevishness on the matter.

Your cheap psychologizing of my supposed peevishness is of no account. Plenty of non-FMs have likewise lamented the deflation of titles.

Similarly, I mentioned non-GM Arinbjörn Gudmundsson who thinks the same of the deflated GM titles. So did his old Icelandic Olympic team-mate, the late Dr Gudmunde Palmesson, who was second only to GM Fridrik Olafsson, and referred to the "old GMs" v. the "new GMs".


However, despite their current low rating, both the winner at the present competition performed very well and probably better than Kevin's performance rating calculation since that used rating from various systems and with various reliability. Therefore I don't believe that the present zonal has lead to an increased decline in the FM title.

OK, but was Kevin's calculation almost 200 points out?

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 11:36 AM
I do not want to go back to the discussion about validity of zonal-earned FM titles i had with Brian.

At least this time the titles went to 2 promising juniors. I am sure that both of them are more than capable of making it to 2300 in future! In case if James, if he keep working on his chess he should get there in 2-3 years for sure.

However, I must admit the thought of a titled players not having a Fide rating makes me smile. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 11:53 AM
At least this time the titles went to 2 promising juniors. I am sure that both of them are more than capable of making it to 2300 in future! In case if James, if he keep working on his chess he should get there in 2-3 years for sure.
I think you are right. But then, award it when they reach the standard.

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 12:48 PM
I think you are right. But then, award it when they reach the standard.
Lets think positively...the FM title could have gone to Ilic, Da Costa etc...:doh:

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 12:55 PM
A bit cynical Bill.But accurate once they dropped the norm requirements.

FIDE has succesfully popularised chess around the (non-western) world.

For some time now (OK since 1988) they have awarded FM titles to World underage winners as well as Continental underage winners and Arab underage winners.

The money is just peanuts.Not with currenty 4700+ of them.

pax
13-05-2007, 01:34 PM
Magic? Why?
Magic because a 2500 rating is a prerequisite for a GM title earned in the normal way.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2007, 01:45 PM
However, despite their current low rating, both the winner at the present competition performed very well and probably better than Kevin's performance rating calculation since that used rating from various systems and with various reliability.

For Nakauchi there is not that much room for argument since all his opponents were FIDE-rated. James Morris is probably underrated on both FIDE and ACF scales since he was on the rise but his last ratings period included the Australian Junior which is swarming with rapidly improving players. However even if we bump James' FIDE rating up to 2200 for TPR purposes Nakauchi's TPR still does not go above 2200. Indeed even if we assume James' real playing strength is 3000 then Nakauchi's TPR is still only 2249. :lol:

In Morris' case there is more room for argument since four opponents had local ratings, including Nakauchi who actually gained ratings points in the period with the Australian Junior in it. For those Fiji players who have FIDE ratings there is an average difference of 125 between their FIDE rating and their FCF rating, however the sample size is small as there are only 8 FIDE-rated Fijian-players. The performance of the five FCF rated but FIDE-unrated players in the tournament actually showed less average difference than this (85 points even excluding Ong who lost every game) but let's cut James a lot of slack by giving him +125 for Sharma and putting Sikivou at Sikivou's PR against FIDE-rated players for the tournament (1727). Let's also put Nakauchi at his PR for the tournament (2167) and add 100 points to Ogada-Osir. Having done all that James' TPR still comes to 2194.

Of course there is some room for further fiddling (eg one could argue that Sikivou's PR for the tournament was a tad deflated because Morris is underrated by FIDE) but making all realistic positive assumptions and no negative ones doesn't get you much over 2200 for either player - bearing in mind that the normal way to the FM title by rating is 2300 over 30 games not nine.

This confirms my view that CM would have been a good title for these players to win. CM says "you're not a master yet but you're well on the way and deserve recognition as being a likely master of the future" which is exactly what the performances of Nakauchi and Morris in this event indicate. To say they are "masters" already (as indicated by the FM title) is premature. Now that FIDE have the CM title they should use it as a way to remove soft FM titles while still recognising strong performance at Zonals.

If Jule's last two draws (which may have just been cruising) are excluded her TPR rises to 2038. The last draw was indeed very short; the one before that is a bit more complex as her opponent probably had the better of a messy position when the draw was agreed.

pax
13-05-2007, 01:50 PM
The question that needs to be asked here is ,should any FM titles be awarded in any zonal where the average rating of particpants is below 2250?:hmm:

If the requirement outside of zonals is the 2300 mark then maybe we should be trying to strengthen the FM title by making restictions on zonals that have fields where the average participant is below 2250.

It's not a question for "us", it's a question for FIDE. And they addressed it by deciding that only one IM title and two FM titles would be awarded from open zonal tournaments. There is no such restriction on closed zonals.

In my view, the boat floated long ago on understrength FM titles. More than half of the world's 4800 FMs are rated under 2300.

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 02:18 PM
More than half of the world's 4800 FMs are rated under 2300.Yes but how many were under 2300 at the time they were awarded the title.
Of those how many were under 2200, 2100 or even 2000 at that time and have never achieved a rating of 2300.

pax
13-05-2007, 02:49 PM
Yes but how many were under 2300 at the time they were awarded the title.
Of those how many were under 2200, 2100 or even 2000 at that time and have never achieved a rating of 2300.

No idea. I'm just pointing out that 2300 is far from some sort of universal minimum benchmark for the FM title. It may have been once, but it isn't any more..

Bill Gletsos
13-05-2007, 03:06 PM
No idea. I'm just pointing out that 2300 is far from some sort of universal minimum benchmark for the FM title. It may have been once, but it isn't any more..The point is we dont know how many of them may have actually got it by achieving either the norms or a 2300+ rating.
It depends on what percentage actually got it that way in determining whether its been devalued or not. If 90+% got it that way then is it devalued?

Rincewind
13-05-2007, 05:02 PM
Of course there is some room for further fiddling (eg one could argue that Sikivou's PR for the tournament was a tad deflated because Morris is underrated by FIDE) but making all realistic positive assumptions and no negative ones doesn't get you much over 2200 for either player - bearing in mind that the normal way to the FM title by rating is 2300 over 30 games not nine.

Replace "normal" with "old" then your post is correct.

Nowadays most FMs are rated from 2200-2300, confirming my view that if the players are 2200 strength or close enough then the titles are not devalued by the awarding to two promising junior who are nearly at that level despite their current lowish ratings.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 05:43 PM
This confirms my view that CM would have been a good title for these players to win. CM says "you're not a master yet but you're well on the way and deserve recognition as being a likely master of the future" which is exactly what the performances of Nakauchi and Morris in this event indicate. To say they are "masters" already (as indicated by the FM title) is premature. Now that FIDE have the CM title they should use it as a way to remove soft FM titles while still recognising strong performance at Zonals.

That is an excellent idea.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2007, 06:13 PM
Replace "normal" with "old" then your post is correct.

Whoops, I forgot that the 30 games requirement has been removed for those obtaining via rating. It is now just 2300 "at some time or other".


Nowadays most FMs are rated from 2200-2300

This is the actual distribution off the Jan 2007 list:

2600+ 1 (Afromeev)
2500-2599 9 (mostly from Myanmar)
2400-2499 220
2300-2399 2076
2200-2299 2007
2100-2199 317
2000-2099 44
1900-1999 11
1800-1899 2
1700-1799 1

with a median of 2298. But that doesn't mean most of those in the sub-2300 FMs group did not obtain their titles by rating. Doubtless the group includes many who have got above 2300 at some stage, and obtained the title, but are currently somewhere in the 2200s.


, confirming my view that if the players are 2200 strength or close enough then the titles are not devalued by the awarding to two promising junior who are nearly at that level despite their current lowish ratings.

A single performance of 2200-ish standard (at some degree of stretching) does not yet prove a player is nearly at 2200 level, except for very broad values of "nearly". ;)

Also, you seem to be jumping from most FMs being sub-2300, to most FMs being "2200 strength or close enough" and then to comparing that with juniors "who are nearly at that level". But actually the sub-2300 FMs tend to be a bit closer to 2300 than 2200. The median for all sub-2300 FMs is 2257 and only 26.7% of the sub-2300 group (13.6% of total) are below 2225. I'm not sure what Nakauchi's FIDE rating will be but Morris will be in the lowest percentile of all FMs by FIDE rating.

pax is right that as far as the FM title is concerned, its credibility flew south quite a while ago, but I'm a bit concerned about the potential effects of premature over-recognition of emerging talent.

Another issue is that while Nakauchi and Morris will be typical FM strength players within years at their current rate of progress, it's clear that the FM title is potentially available through zonals to any 2000-ish (ACF) hack who finds the costs of entry and has a very good, but not exceptional, tournament by their standards.

So how does one lobby the Titles Commission? :lol: (Obviously players who have earned their titles as formally awarded should keep them, I'm just thinking about how to improve things for the future.)

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 06:37 PM
Also, active FIDE Arbiters such as Stewart Reuben have been fixing swiss pairings for decades in order to gain title norm opportunities for players.

Bill Gletsos informed us that this was now illegal, but the situation was not comparable. Reuben would fix it so people would have a mathematical chance of the title because they would meet the minimum titled players requirement, but they would still need to achieve the performance rating.


As pax says, most players cannot hold the supposed rating level anyway.

Irrelevant. Titles are awarded for life for having achieved a certain level. Note the difference between a "has-been" and a "has-never-been".

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 06:40 PM
I am very happy for Australian players to win FIDE titles. In fact I want more aussies to play chess and win titles. If we had 100,000 players and 100 FIDE Grandmasters then I would be over the moon.

And what happened in the Weimar Republic when everyone became millionaires thanx to runaway inflation?

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 06:42 PM
Peter is very right.Zonal tournaments should not be used for giving away titles .Nick Speck and George Xie are to be congratulated for their efforts to get titles good old fashioned ways.

Very hard to improve on Peter's lucid arguments.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 06:50 PM
FIDE master titles do not come out of cornflakes packets.
They do now, evidently.

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 07:18 PM
1) I think while the FM title has lost its value in Aus (in European countries, USA and some other places it is still an indication of 2300+ level) IM title is still quite valid (even if acquired from Zonal) I believe that all of the Australian IMs (other than Irina Berezina) have been 2350+ at the time of getting the title from a zonal.

2) It is naive to expect anyone to "return" his title to FIDE. In if these FMs are involved in chess coaching..they are using their titles to promote their services as much as possible. I remember TWIC advertising chess clinique in Malaysia with FM Brian Jones.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 07:28 PM
Dwyer 2142 FM
Jones L. 2139 FM
Szuveges 2129 FM
Jones B. 2084 FM
Stawsky 2067 FM
Lane 1967 WIM
Szuveges 1865 WIM

So soft FMs are stronger than soft WIMs.

ER
13-05-2007, 07:30 PM
Which brings me to my old argument: FMs are titled players who deserve to be treated with respect! I understand clubs are giving free entry to GMs and IMs which is logical! Why, however, FMs shouldn't get at least a 50% or ok even a 25% discount in their entry fees?
They are definitely more worthy than concession card holding players who get discounted entry fees and yet they are given full prizes when they win!
I think this is another Centrelink mentality - attitude that we witness prevailing in every aspect of our society!
Cheers and good luck!

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 07:35 PM
As far as common sense is concerned, I find it rather entertaining that our 2 1800 rated WIMs get free entry while George (Xie) and the two Igors (Goldenberg and Bjelbork) have to pay full entry fees.
Because of misguided organizers who subscribe to the patronizing and sexist idea of "affirmative action".

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 07:37 PM
Which brings me to my old argument: FMs are titled players who deserve to be treated with respect! I understand clubs are giving free entry to GMs and IMs which is logical! Why, however, FMs shouldn't get at least a 50% or ok even a 25% discount in their entry fees?
I agree, but then of course I'll be accused of "bias". The soft titles certainly don't help those of us who earned the titled the proper way.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 07:42 PM
When players like Johansen score 5.5/9 and Solomon score 4/9, you know that it was a hard fought tournament, regardless of what the ratings tell you.
This is only relevant for those who played against them. There is little dispute that the IM awards from this were well deserved. But FM awards to people who merely beat club players are a different matter.

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 07:56 PM
Which brings me to my old argument: FMs are titled players who deserve to be treated with respect! I understand clubs are giving free entry to GMs and IMs which is logical! Why, however, FMs shouldn't get at least a 50% or ok even a 25% discount in their entry fees?
They are definitely more worthy than concession card holding players who get discounted entry fees and yet they are given full prizes when they win!
I think this is another Centrelink mentality - attitude that we witness prevailing in every aspect of our society!
Cheers and good luck!

Good point! and this is why validity of the FM title should not have been undermined.

I also like the idea of having a NM title. We can also make a provision that if someone is not even an NM (e.g. 2200 ACF)...ACF is not going to apply for this player to become an FM irrespecitvely of his/her performance in the zonal.

Desmond
13-05-2007, 08:04 PM
Which brings me to my old argument: FMs are titled players who deserve to be treated with respect! I understand clubs are giving free entry to GMs and IMs which is logical! Why, however, FMs shouldn't get at least a 50% or ok even a 25% discount in their entry fees? If all FMs were true 2300+ players, then I would quite happily support a discount on entry fee. I would probably go for 50% rather that 25%. However, with the reality being that certain FMs can at best hover around 2100 on a good day, I would not support the discount to entry.

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2007, 08:13 PM
If all FMs were true 2300+ players, then I would quite happily support a discount on entry fee. I would probably go for 50% rather that 25%. However, with the reality being that certain FMs can at best hover around 2100 on a good day, I would not support the discount to entry.
Some IMs are <2400 too, so should there be a discount for them? Or do we recognize the fact that they once achieved IM standard? If so, then the same for those who achieved FM standard. Or should discounts be rating-based?

DoroPhil
13-05-2007, 08:37 PM
It is naive to expect anyone to "return" his title to FIDE. In if these FMs are involved in chess coaching..they are using their titles to promote their services as much as possible. I remember TWIC advertising chess clinique in Malaysia with FM Brian Jones.

So, you are into ethics now, huh, Michael? According to your profile on uschesslive.org you coached 2 (two) Australian under18 champions! Do you care to substantiate this claim of yours?? Even on this site, you claim to be some sort of ecommerce consultant while in reality you are nearly unemployed!! What then gives you the right to attack Brian for using the title that is rightfully his??

Desmond
13-05-2007, 08:38 PM
Some IMs are <2400 too, so should there be a discount for them?Yes. I wasn't talking about players who have earnt the IM title and their rating slips 50 points or so. I was talking about players who usually play about 400 points below FM, and even on their best days cannot play at "real" FM strength.

ER
13-05-2007, 08:45 PM
If all FMs were true 2300+ players, then I would quite happily support a discount on entry fee. I would probably go for 50% rather that 25%. However, with the reality being that certain FMs can at best hover around 2100 on a good day, I would not support the discount to entry.

Boris, how about FMs who are 2300+, why not give them a 50% discount and FMs 2200+ a 25%? And the rest of FMs just a 10%? What I am aiming at is some kind of recognition for the title!
Cheers and good luck!

DoroPhil
13-05-2007, 08:57 PM
Boris, how about FMs who are 2300+, why not give them a 50% discount and FMs 2200+ a 25%? And the rest of FMs just a 10%? What I am aiming at is some kind of recognition for the title!
Cheers and good luck!

Who needs these discounts anyway?? 50% off?? 25% off? 10% off??? Your title worth $20 a weekend - that's some recognition!!

Desmond
13-05-2007, 09:06 PM
Boris, how about FMs who are 2300+, why not give them a 50% discount and FMs 2200+ a 25%? And the rest of FMs just a 10%? What I am aiming at is some kind of recognition for the title!
Cheers and good luck!An interesting idea, and I think perhaps what Jono was alluding to as well. If you're going to do that, you might as well do it whether the player is an FM or not.

Desmond
13-05-2007, 09:08 PM
Who needs these discounts anyway?? 50% off?? 25% off? 10% off??? Your title worth $20 a weekend - that's some recognition!!
Feel free to make an additional $20 donation to the organisers if money is so meaningless to you. Heck, send me a cheque just for fun if you like.

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 09:37 PM
So, you are into ethics now, huh, Michael? According to your profile on uschesslive.org you coached 2 (two) Australian under18 champions! Do you care to substantiate this claim of yours?? Even on this site, you claim to be some sort of ecommerce consultant while in reality you are nearly unemployed!! What then gives you the right to attack Brian for using the title that is rightfully his??

LOL speaking of personal attacks :D . By the way, I do know who DoroPhil is :). Next time I see him..we will have a talk ;)

DoroPhil
13-05-2007, 09:47 PM
LOL speaking of personal attacks :D . By the way, I do know who DoroPhil is :). Next time I see him..we will have a talk ;)

Cool! Feel free to send me a PM to arrange a meeting, Michael.

In the meantime,

According to your profile on uschesslive.org you coached 2 (two) Australian under18 champions! Do you care to substantiate this claim of yours?? Even on this site, you claim to be some sort of ecommerce consultant while in reality you are nearly unemployed!!

Vlad
13-05-2007, 10:05 PM
Everybody knows who dorophil is. DP as called by fg7 or more specifically

2065! 0 Partsi, Dimitry.

He is brave now, hiding under an anonymous nickname.
Did not you claim that you put in ur cv that u are a former under-18 australian champion? Do you care to substantiate this claim of yours??

Basil
13-05-2007, 10:58 PM
... while in reality you are nearly unemployed!!

I object very strongly to this style of commentary. It either:

* requires time and energy to substantiate/ defend (often requiring further personal disclosure)
* or if ignored, it festers and can damage a reputation,
* or if true, is a cheap shot and unnecessary information.

It's been posted twice, and I feel falls foul of harassment and possibly other forum rules. I request the mods consider taking ongoing action against this style of posting. Even better to build into the board rules and punish on the spot. A malicious poster will know that once stated, the cat cannot be put back in the bag.

Please note I have taken this stand before and has nothing whatsoever to do with the individuals involved.

Basil
13-05-2007, 11:31 PM
Who needs these discounts anyway?? 50% off?? 25% off? 10% off??? Your title worth $20 a weekend - that's some recognition!!
What do you mean by recognition? I suppose you realise that many books have been written on the subject. C'mon - think before you post, man! :rolleyes: :owned:

MichaelBaron
13-05-2007, 11:45 PM
I object very strongly to this style of commentary. It either:

* requires time and energy to substantiate/ defend (often requiring further personal disclosure)
* or if ignored, it festers and can damage a reputation,
* or if true, is a cheap shot and unnecessary information.

It's been posted twice, and I feel falls foul of harassment and possibly other forum rules. I request the mods consider taking ongoing action against this style of posting. Even better to build into the board rules and punish on the spot. A malicious poster will know that once stated, the cat cannot be put back in the bag.

Please note I have taken this stand before and has nothing whatsoever to do with the individuals involved.

I would certainly support banning of Dorofil (or Banging Partsi :) ). But I would rather ignore him...

Incidently I can recall him asking me a couple of years ago if there were some tutoring vacancies for him at my workplace LOL.

Anyway, pity that the discussion got carried away from FM Titles.

Garvinator
14-05-2007, 12:01 AM
I object very strongly to this style of commentary. It either:

* requires time and energy to substantiate/ defend (often requiring further personal disclosure)
* or if ignored, it festers and can damage a reputation,
* or if true, is a cheap shot and unnecessary information.

It's been posted twice, and I feel falls foul of harassment and possibly other forum rules. I request the mods consider taking ongoing action against this style of posting. Even better to build into the board rules and punish on the spot. A malicious poster will know that once stated, the cat cannot be put back in the bag.

Please note I have taken this stand before and has nothing whatsoever to do with the individuals involved.I support this. Especially as personal attacks is Dorophil's MO.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2007, 04:29 PM
I can see two benefits of the title:

1. Free or a discounted entry to a tournament
2. Feeling of satisfaction from having one's achivements recognised.

The usual practice in australia is a free entry to GM/IMs. However, it's up to organizers. Even before FM title got devalued, I do not remember organisers giving free entries to FMs. Sometimes (not often though) organisers do not give free entries to IMs (or even GMs!).
When organising Elwood Bendigo championship I was asked whether we give free entry to WIM. I was reluctant to give free entry because of the low rating of WIMs.

Nowadays I cannot envisage organisers giving free entry to FMs for an obvious reason mentioned many times.

Brian Jones was very smart charging entries to SIO according to the rating. Maybe free/discounted entry to titled players conditioned on their rating is a good compromise?

Say, free entry to 2300+ IM and discounted entry to 2200+ FM? Or even a scale based on a combination of title and rating?

But what you do about a senior players who earned their IM title in an old fashioned way (especially few decades ago when it was much more difficult then now), but due to the age slipped below 2300? My guess is that organisers should use common sense and discretion and allow him to play for free.


The second benefit is a feeling of achivements. It's an individual thing, but I do not understand how having a title without ever achiving (or at least approaching) the level of play correspondent to this title can feel satisfactory.

Would I feel proud or satisfied getting for whatever reason a GM title with my current standard of play? Definetely no.
Would I have enough inner strength to resist a temptation to grab it given the opportunity? Not sure, probably not.

Capablanca-Fan
14-05-2007, 05:04 PM
The usual practice in australia is a free entry to GM/IMs. However, it's up to organizers. Even before FM title got devalued, I do not remember organisers giving free entries to FMs. Sometimes (not often though) organisers do not give free entries to IMs (or even GMs!).

That is their right but also their mistake.


When organising Elwood Bendigo championship I was asked whether we give free entry to WIM. I was reluctant to give free entry because of the low rating of WIMs.

Good for you. Free entry to WIMs is patronizing nonsense. Might be a different matter for girls'/women's tournaments if the powers-that-be insist on them.


Say, free entry to 2300+ IM and discounted entry to 2200+ FM? Or even a scale based on a combination of title and rating?

Very good idea.


The second benefit is a feeling of achivements. It's an individual thing, but I do not understand how having a title without ever achiving (or at least approaching) the level of play correspondent to this title can feel satisfactory.

I agree.

MichaelBaron
14-05-2007, 07:03 PM
I think giving free entries to WIMs is exercise in political correctness rather than in making the event stronger :hmm: I like the idea of giving discounted entries for female players (same way some organisers give discounted entries to juniors) with a hope of boosting female participation in chess tournaments though!

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2007, 06:52 PM
I think giving free entries to WIMs is exercise in political correctness rather than in making the event stronger :hmm:
It's our anniversary soon, so I was thinking of getting my wife a WIM title — from Bi-Lo.:lol:

MichaelBaron
15-05-2007, 08:30 PM
It's our anniversary soon, so I was thinking of getting my wife a WIM title — from Bi-Lo.:lol:

Sigh...now i know why women always complain that the presents men give to them are often useless ;)

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2007, 11:37 PM
Interesting to note that on his blog (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2007/05/soft-titles.html), Shaun Press notes that FIDE may be in the process of retro-ratifying FM titles for players who scored 66%+ at Olympiads before 2004 (in which case Shaun himself might get one).

Also interesting to note from the same blog, that on his way to an FM title one of our newly crowned FMs, instead of resigning an exceedingly dodo position, permitted David Smerdon to bishop four pawns (which, of course, the latter did!)

MichaelBaron
16-05-2007, 12:58 AM
Interesting to note that on his blog (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2007/05/soft-titles.html), Shaun Press notes that FIDE may be in the process of retro-ratifying FM titles for players who scored 66%+ at Olympiads before 2004 (in which case Shaun himself might get one).

Also interesting to note from the same blog, that on his way to an FM title one of our newly crowned FMs, instead of resigning an exceedingly dodo position, permitted David Smerdon to bishop four pawns (which, of course, the latter did!)

LOL...why not just put FM next to the names of all fide-rated players other than GMs and IMs...and make the new title holders to pay a compulsory fee to Fide;)

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2007, 01:10 AM
I see where Shaun in his blog states:

Way back when (prior to the late 70's), the FM title was a norm based title, earned in the same way as the IM and GM title. But in the late 70's FIDE decided to change the way titles were earned, in part due to the perception that it was too easy to get an IM or GM title. So they increased the performance ratings required for IM and GM norms. But at the same time they changed the rules for an FM title to make it a ratings based, rather than performance based, title.As far as I can determine there are a number of factual errors in there.

Firstly the FM title was not introduced by FIDE until 1978. At its inception in 1978 it was a norm based title.
Also GM and IM norms based on ratings did not even start until after the FIDE Rating list was introduced in 1970.

Also although the GM norm performance rating increased from 2550 to 2600, I believe the IM norm performance rating was always 2450 from its inception.

Capablanca-Fan
16-05-2007, 08:30 AM
Interesting to note that on his blog (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2007/05/soft-titles.html), Shaun Press notes that FIDE may be in the process of retro-ratifying FM titles for players who scored 66%+ at Olympiads before 2004 (in which case Shaun himself might get one).
Would this apply to people like Arinbjörn Gudmundsson who would have won a silver or bronze medal (if they had been giving medals) for one of his 1960s Olympiad performances in the 1960s for Iceland? It would have been an IM norm these days considering the strong opposition. Even in his late 60s, we were about level in playing strength at the Logan club.


Also interesting to note from the same blog, that on his way to an FM title one of our newly crowned FMs, instead of resigning an exceedingly dodo position, permitted David Smerdon to bishop four pawns (which, of course, the latter did!)
Heh. Wouldn't it be easier to buy the FM from Bi-Lo nowadays?

Ian Rout
16-05-2007, 09:05 AM
Would this apply to people like Arinbj&#246;rn Gudmundsson who would have won a silver or bronze medal (if they had been giving medals) for one of his 1960s Olympiad performances in the 1960s for Iceland? It would have been an IM norm these days considering the strong opposition. Even in his late 60s, we were about level in playing strength at the Logan club.
Shaun says that the retrospective FMs would only be back to 1976, in which case the answer to the above question would be No.

Brian_Jones
16-05-2007, 09:48 AM
It's our anniversary soon, so I was thinking of getting my wife a WIM title — from Bi-Lo.:lol:

Jono. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go apologise to Alexandra Jule, who fulfilled FIDE requirements and fully deserves her title.

MichaelBaron
16-05-2007, 10:28 AM
I see where Shaun in his blog states:
As far as I can determine there are a number of factual errors in there.

Firstly the FM title was not introduced by FIDE until 1978. At its inception in 1978 it was a norm based title.
Also GM and IM norms based on ratings did not even start until after the FIDE Rating list was introduced in 1970.

Also although the GM norm performance rating increased from 2550 to 2600, I believe the IM norm performance rating was always 2450 from its inception.

In the past (1970's and 1980's), I believe 2350 fide rating was sufficient for becoming an IM subject to obtaining 2 IM norms.
I am not sure what year Fide changed this rule though.

zigzag
16-05-2007, 10:52 AM
Jono. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go apologise to Alexandra Jule, who fulfilled FIDE requirements and fully deserves her title.

When it comes to this topic Jono doesnt exactly look like he's in the apologising mood. I dont think he realises that you can make a valid point without the snide remarks.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2007, 11:08 AM
In the past (1970's and 1980's), I believe 2350 fide rating was sufficient for becoming an IM subject to obtaining 2 IM norms.
I was talking about IM norm performance rating requirements.
What you say is correct in that you only needed to achieve a rating of 2350, however the norm requirment was a performance rating of 2450.
At that time the GM title norm requirement was a performance rating of 2550 and a FIDE rating of 2500.

When I have the time I'll look out the full details.

Capablanca-Fan
17-05-2007, 06:45 PM
When it comes to this topic Jono doesnt exactly look like he's in the apologising mood. I dont think he realises that you can make a valid point without the snide remarks.
And one can criticise a particular title (awarded for a ~1900 performance) without denying that someone is a talented player and a nice kid etc.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-05-2007, 09:44 AM
And one can criticise a particular title (awarded for a ~1900 performance) without denying that someone is a talented player and a nice kid etc.

I agree. Smerdon and Zhao proved they deserved their titles some time after they got it. Some players who got FM or WIM titles still haven't proved they deserved it.

As for Jules, Morris and Nakaushi - they all talented and may in the future prove they deserve it.

Should the Zonal title be subject to reaching some rating at least resembling the tilte requirement (say 2300-2350 for IM and 2100-2200 for FM)?

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 10:58 AM
FIDE does not have this concept of "deserve".

You either meet the requirements or you don't.

It is a fact that FIDE award more FM titles to recognise achievements (such as continental underage champions) rather than to recognise playing strength.

The titles of FM, CM, WFM and WCM are no longer awarded solely on playing strength.

If you don't like the regulations then get them changed.

If you won an FM title the old way then live with it!

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 11:15 AM
FIDE does not have this concept of "deserve".

You either meet the requirements or you don't.

And the whole point of my "snide" remark that you whinged about was that the requirements are now little more than Bi-Lo.


It is a fact that FIDE award more FM titles to recognise achievements (such as continental underage champions) rather than to recognise playing strength.

The titles of FM, CM, WFM and WCM are no longer awarded solely on playing strength.

And WIM it seems. Makes a mockery of the titles.


If you don't like the regulations then get them changed.

And one way to get them changed is non-recognition of Bi-Lo titles.


If you won an FM title the old way then live with it!

I plan to. And I plan to continue denouncing Bi-Lo titles, so live with it!:hand:

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 11:18 AM
I agree. Smerdon and Zhao proved they deserved their titles some time after they got it.

As well, their performances in the Zonal concerned were of the standard of the title, i.e. >2450.


Should the Zonal title be subject to reaching some rating at least resembling the tilte requirement (say 2300-2350 for IM and 2100-2200 for FM)?

Sounds very reasonable, which is why FIDE probably won't adopt it :(. They make too much money from the inflation of titles.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 11:22 AM
... Alexandra Jule, who fulfilled FIDE requirements and fully deserves her title.

...

FIDE does not have this concept of "deserve".

Supporters of Bi-Lo titles have problems in their logic :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

zigzag
18-05-2007, 11:22 AM
And one can criticise a particular title (awarded for a ~1900 performance) without denying that someone is a talented player and a nice kid etc.

You dont seem to be criticising the title,if it had have been won by a player who was 2100-2200 you wouldnt have had a problem. You seem to be criticising the players,Gene and James.

Its as though you seem offended that they even dared to go to the zonal.
There are plenty of australian players who are rated over 2100 who dont have a FM title,you cant blame Gene and James for the fact that they didnt go to Fiji to contest the FM title that was on offer.

The same goes for Alexandra,you cant blame her for the fact that other strong australian female players didnt go the zonal.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 11:36 AM
You dont seem to be criticising the title,if it had have been won by a player who was 2100-2200 you wouldnt have had a problem. You seem to be criticising the players,Gene and James.

You are wrong. The only issue is award of Bi-Lo titles. If the FM title was awarded from a zonal for a 2300+ performance, there would be no problem. I've not had any problem with the current crop of zonal IM titles precisely because the players performed to IM standard in the tournament. This is unlike the current FM awardees who performed almost 200 points below the usual FM standard.

[Rest of cheap psychologizing of my motives ignored]

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 11:37 AM
Alexandra Jule deserves the WIM title in my opinion.

FIDE will award the WIM title because she fulfilled the requirements.

Better try and get an IM title now Jono as your FM title is now not worth as much as you thought it was! :)

But don't insult others with the bi-lo comment.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 11:48 AM
Alexandra Jule deserves the WIM title in my opinion.

Which has no basis other than fulfilling arbitrarily lower requirements.


Better try and get an IM title now Jono as your FM title is now not worth as much as you thought it was! :)

Modern economies try to stop inflation because it results in our money being worth less than it was (among other reasons). FIDE is the opposite, aided by the self-interest of those awarded Bi-Lo titles :hand:


But don't insult others with the bi-lo comment.

It's a statement of fact. And the insult is directed at the lowered standards not necessarily those who were awarded these titles (those who awarded them and then pretend they deserve them is another matter).

Watto
18-05-2007, 12:20 PM
I agree with Jono and Igor on this issue I have to admit. Fortunately the ratings more or less sort things out even if the titles don’t. I don’t think the players or their friends/family should feel especially indignant if people are criticising soft titles. No one is arguing about whether they met the FIDE requirements and most would agree that they’re talented players. They have nothing to apologise for. We’re just pointing out that the system isn’t satisfactory. Nothing personal about it.

MichaelBaron
18-05-2007, 01:07 PM
Better try and get an IM title now Jono as your FM title is now not worth as much as you thought it was! :)

But don't insult others with the bi-lo comment.

Coming from a person...with 3 Bi-LO titles in the same family :clap: must've been quite a shopping spree :rolleyes:


I think it is not about individuals getting the titles, it is more about FIDE putting up its titles "for sale". So the problem should be addressed from the FIDE end

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 01:08 PM
Nothing personal about it.

Actually, I am not taking anything personally.

I am on record as being a supporter of changes made by Kirsan and his team at FIDE.

I like the achievement awards and the new titles and their criteria.

The aim is to make chess a popularist game played by the masses not just an elitist game played by a select few (the intelligensia?).

I would be happy to see Australia follow the way of chess administration in Turkey!

PS I am currently playing correspondance chess against half a dozen turkish players!

Vlad
18-05-2007, 01:20 PM
Modern economies try to stop inflation because it results in our money being worth less than it was (among other reasons).


Sorry, but this statement is just plainly wrong. Governments do not fight inflation per se. They actually like inflation due to seniorage.

Basil
18-05-2007, 02:34 PM
OK, this is getting silly. And I'm clearly an expert on what is silly ;)

This (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154392&postcount=309
) nailed it. Good one.
So did this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154396&postcount=310
). Good one.

This (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154400&postcount=313
) is rubbish. Although logical, denies the intent that Brian meant 'deserved' on the aforementioned merits.

And the first line of this (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154411&postcount=318) is a troll. Brian does well to ignore it.

OK, everybody carry on. I have a fresh batch of kippers when you've finished with that lot.

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 02:44 PM
I have a fresh batch of kippers when you've finished with that lot.

Sorry gave up smoking many years ago! :lol:

Watto
18-05-2007, 02:58 PM
...I like the achievement awards and the new titles and their criteria.

The aim is to make chess a popularist game played by the masses not just an elitist game played by a select few (the intelligensia?).

...
Okay, fair enough but then make new titles and awards with different requirements- I’d be happy with that. I might even be keen to aim for something myself sometime in the future!

But I’m not comfortable with the devaluing of higher titles; it’s just a question of standards. At least some should remain difficult to attain. It’s like my old fascination with Westerns when I was a kid … I wasn’t interested in having any old crim take part in the shoot out. It was far more interesting when the ‘fastest gun in the West’ was involved and you knew he was up against someone almost as good, maybe even better! Maintaining high standards will keep the titles interesting; they’ll continue to grab our attention and imagination and have meaning. That’s my feeling.

arosar
18-05-2007, 03:20 PM
I also agree with Jono on this one. These so-called Bi Lo titles are a bit embarassing.

Juniors or not, those kids who won titles in Fiji should ready themselves for international attention. Gloves are off!

AR

Brian_Jones
18-05-2007, 03:21 PM
Okay, fair enough but then make new titles and awards with different requirements- I’d be happy with that. I might even be keen to aim for something myself sometime in the future!

The old FM and WFM titles were not really very successful. They were only applied for by a small (select) group of players who got stuck in the 2300-2399 range and could not make the higher grade.

So FIDE thought they could just use these titles for another purpose (achievement awards). More recently, FIDE brought out the new CM and WCM titles. Maybe they should have done this from the outset but the milk was spilt and could not be poured back into the pan. :)



But I’m not comfortable with the devaluing of higher titles; it’s just a question of standards.

I agree with you about GM, IM, WGM and WIM titles.

But FIDE make the rules and Australia should get more actively involved with FIDE. (Note that Campo, Abundo, Leong and other Asians have been actively involved for years!)

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 03:43 PM
Sorry, but this statement is just plainly wrong. Governments do not fight inflation per se. They actually like inflation due to seniorage.
Is that seigniorage? And bracket creep is another thing they like. All the same, there is an official policy to limit inflation, because it really is bad for the country. Similarly, lowering standards is bad for chess. FIDE is becoming like the American degree mills.

arosar
18-05-2007, 03:51 PM
FIDE is becoming like the American degree mills.

You don't need to worry about American degree mills. We have plenty of them here in Australia mate. We got so many bloody Asians here who can't read or write English but are passing with Masters in everything under the friggin' sun!!

It's a complete joke!

AR

MichaelBaron
18-05-2007, 03:51 PM
The old FM and WFM titles were not really very successful. They were only applied for by a small (select) group of players who got stuck in the 2300-2399 range and could not make the higher grade.


Yes, they were hopelessly weak and could not make it to higher grade..surely 2000 rated players can:hmm: where is the logic?:hmm:

MichaelBaron
18-05-2007, 03:53 PM
But FIDE make the rules and Australia should get more actively involved with FIDE. (Note that Campo, Abundo, Leong and other Asians have been actively involved for years!)

So does active involvement require more "cheap" titles?:hmm:

Sam
18-05-2007, 04:40 PM
I also agree with Jono on this one. These so-called Bi Lo titles are a bit embarassing.
AR

http://www.fide.com/ratings/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=PHI

Im interested to know whether you are embarrassed by some of the titled players on this list,namely Molina,Lomibao,Mendoza and Mariano.

Their titles look a little soft.:whistle:

arosar
18-05-2007, 04:45 PM
This is not a question that fills me with dilemma. If the titles were "softly" acquired, then yes, of course! Even more so insofar as RP is concerned as we're talking here about a civilisation with a richer chess culture than this here Aussie mate.

Get this: the issue has nothing to do with nationalistic emotions matey. Alright?

AR

Sam
18-05-2007, 04:59 PM
This is not a question that fills me with dilemma. If the titles were "softly" acquired, then yes, of course! Even more so insofar as RP is concerned as we're talking here about a civilisation with a richer chess culture than this here Aussie mate.

Get this: the issue has nothing to do with nationalistic emotions matey. Alright?

AR

Well I dont see you harping on about their soft titles,which they have had for a number of years. And I would be willing to bet they got their titles either via an asian zonal or asian championship.

The point I was trying to make was that this is hardly unique to Australia.
And if you are going to bag australian players who have gotten soft titles then you must be prepared to bag players from the Phillipines who have acquired them the same way.:hand:

arosar
18-05-2007, 05:14 PM
Oh FMD! Well, hello, exactly! The've had them for a number of years, as you say, and I'm simply taking your word for it to make you happy. I don't know that for a fact myself but let me put in some word to some connections and we'll see.

In any case, this Aussie thing is the story of the moment and so therefore that's what people are talking about. I tell you something up front. I sincerely hope that these two Aussie kids will restrain themselves from applying for the FMs as that's really humiliating for our chess. We'll be like the laughing stock all over again.

AR

Basil
18-05-2007, 05:22 PM
Sam, I think you fairly (but possibly unnecessarily) questioned a double standard with specific regard to national bias. That has clearly been asked and answered (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154447&postcount=331).

The second emerging issue which you amplified in your follow-up goes deeper than the original question and probes Amiel's championing of title issue with its application solely to Australia, and not other countries.

As a neutral, I would offer that this is both an unfair and irrelevant probe. I say this for two reasons:

1) While not specifically constrained to an Australian application, this thread is largely concerned with its Australian application. And that is the basis on which I, for instance, have been partaking. I think you now unfairly seek to apply an extra weighting to Amiel's comments solely on his heritage.

Hypothetically, would you have challenged similar comments from me had I not also included an admonition of the English system?

2) You yourself have seen fit to clarify your first post. It is clear that on its [the first post's] reading, Amiel genuinely, promptly and transparently addressed your question.

In your reply, I think it would have been more genuine for you to acknowledge that first, and then proceded with your follow-up, which as I have said, required amplification because of your error in communication, not is.

Sam
18-05-2007, 05:36 PM
Howard,would you care to show a post by Amiel where he says he is embarrassed by filipino players with soft titles before I asked him the question?:hmm:

Secondly this thread is about soft titles acquired through zonals.
You cant look at the oceania zonal in a vacuum. It exists in the wider world of FIDE. No one disputes that FIDE has devalued the FM title,but for some people to carry on as though oceania has been one of the prime culprits in this is laughable. The devaluing of the FM title was done primarily for the benefit of africa and parts of asia. The idea being that if more of their players had titles then their national federations would be more inclined to stay within FIDE and thus contribute more money for FIDE.

MichaelBaron
18-05-2007, 05:39 PM
The problem of soft titles is not unique to Australia of Phill. It is typical for all countries with poor chess standards in the region. In Africa, problems are very much the same..there are a lot of lowerly rated IMs and FMs.

Bill Gletsos
18-05-2007, 05:41 PM
http://www.fide.com/ratings/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=PHI

Im interested to know whether you are embarrassed by some of the titled players on this list,namely Molina,Lomibao,Mendoza and Mariano.

Their titles look a little soft.:whistle:FM Molina had a 2300+ rating back in 2001.
WFM Lomibao has had a 2100+ rating since 2005.
Therefore these meet the rating requirements.

WIM Mendoza does look soft apparently having never had a rating above 2166.
WIM Mariano also looks soft apparently having not had a rating over 2096.

I havent had the time nor the inclination to determine in which rating period their titles appeared.

MichaelBaron
18-05-2007, 05:41 PM
The devaluing of the FM title was done primarily for the benefit of africa and parts of asia. The idea being that if more of their players had titles then their national federations would be more inclined to stay within FIDE and thus contribute more money for FIDE.

This is precisely the point i was making! But how does it help chess in those countries? There are african countries that are full of titled players, yet any strong player can give a simul to their olympic teams.

Basil
18-05-2007, 05:54 PM
Howard,would you care to show a post by Amiel where he says he is embarrassed by filipino players with soft titles before I asked him the question?:hmm:
I can't. I'm not sure such a post exists. I'm not sure why you're asking me as I think it is irrelevant.

I think I made my point [by clear extension, if not outright] that the issue of Arosar's belief on soft titles with respect to other countries is an unfair pressing of him. Once the question of bias (as originally asked by you) was addressed; then the issue of whether any of us commenting in the thread had issues with any country would have been more salient.

So in answer to your question, apart from not being able to show such a statement from Arosar, I don't think it was incumbent on him to make one.


Secondly this thread is about soft titles acquired through zonals...
Indeed. And as such, the issue at hand when explored with its broadest parameters, could and should encompass this.

Again, my objective was to highlight that you double-ganged Amiel when a solus probe of him was OTT and didn't appear genuine. Especially so, after he had made an unequivocal statement to that effect.

As a result of his statement, your challenge shifted from what his assessment of soft-titles elsewhere was, to why he hadn't put an initial caveat in place regarding The Phillpines - which as I have said, neither he nor any other ex-pat is obliged to do.

Bereaved
18-05-2007, 06:06 PM
Oh FMD! Well, hello, exactly! The've had them for a number of years, as you say, and I'm simply taking your word for it to make you happy. I don't know that for a fact myself but let me put in some word to some connections and we'll see.

In any case, this Aussie thing is the story of the moment and so therefore that's what people are talking about. I tell you something up front. I sincerely hope that these two Aussie kids will restrain themselves from applying for the FMs as that's really humiliating for our chess. We'll be like the laughing stock all over again. ( my emphasis )

AR


Hi Arosar,

please avoid speaking for anyone other than yourself. When you use expressions such as we, and our chess, you indicate that your opinion is a universally held one.

I am not ashamed of these two young men, nor should you be. You should also realise that it is none of your business whether they apply for the titles or not.

Generally your approach to posting is fine, but this one really was below your usual standard,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

arosar
18-05-2007, 06:16 PM
Generally your approach to posting is fine, but this one really was below your usual standard,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity


Excuse me? My friend, it is your attitude that is below standard. We need to be tough mate. We need to set the bar high. Understand? We can't have kids playing mickey mouse games (see Nakauchi v Smerdon) and then say like, "Now there's an FM! What a talented kid. Whoaaa...wow!"

Oh God, arosar, you heartless pr*ck!!

I want this country to be effing taking seriously as a chess power. When we continue to slip and slide, and effectively kow-towing to FIDE's money-grabbing policy btw, that ain't gonna bloody happen.

1900 FMs! Yeah right. I say that again, 19-hundred-effing-FIDE MASTERS! Mate, you wanna talk to me about FMs, talk to me about the Goldenbergs, the Georgian maestro Gede (now retired), Vladimir Smirnov, Canfell, Jono himself, Jesse Sales. These guys know about chess mate. FMD!! Some of youse are just so friggin' thick in the heads, igno-effing-rani!

On that note, have a good weekend youse. I'm off to Spanish Club and teach some blokes how to play chess. I love youse all anyhow.

AR

Vlad
18-05-2007, 07:11 PM
Is that seigniorage?

There are like 5 different ways how you can spell this word. The fact that you can use wikipedia does not make you... Well, to know all of them:)

Aaron Guthrie
18-05-2007, 07:57 PM
Modern economies try to stop inflation because it results in our money being worth less than it was (among other reasons).Target range of the RBA is 2-3% p.a.

Vlad
18-05-2007, 08:34 PM
Anyway, I was not like against what you were saying. I just did
not like the example you used, that is all.:)

In general, I have mixed feelings. Partly I agree with points raised by Jono and Arosar. Partly I also understand what Brian is saying. It is a complicated issue.

In general, I really appreciate the fact that all the people who got titles are juniors. Like Smerdon and Zhao they will eventually play at the standards of the titles that they received.

Sam
18-05-2007, 09:21 PM
This is precisely the point i was making! But how does it help chess in those countries?

It doesnt. More importantly the FM title doesnt help chess in any country.
It doesnt bring sponsors,nor does it elicit real chess playing prestige.
If people really want to help chess in Australia then we need more people to organise tournaments like the SIO.

Having another half dozen FM's,even if they are 2300,isnt going to make any significant difference to chess in this country or our international reputation.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 10:49 PM
In general, I really appreciate the fact that all the people who got titles are juniors.

Not Brian Jones. Why do you think he is trying to justify Bi-Lo titles?


Like Smerdon and Zhao they will eventually play at the standards of the titles that they received.

Unlike Smerdon and Zhao, they did NOT play at the standard of the title in the tournament in which they obtained them. They should have been awarded CM titles instead.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2007, 10:53 PM
There are like 5 different ways how you can spell this word. The fact that you can use wikipedia does not make you... Well, to know all of them:)

Wikipedia has been reasonably called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation".:hand:

BTW, is your handle meant to be the English or Russian meaning?

Phil Bourke
19-05-2007, 12:23 AM
Perhaps FIDE needs to introduce a new title, FMIM! (Fide Master In the Making) :)
Seeing as how FIDE is in a current mood to be retroactively instating more FM's, perhaps they could also take the same procedure with the new title (classification). In another thread previously there was mention of an old title, National Master, that was awarded to players of a certain rating etc by their own Federations. Perhaps FIDE needs to investigate the possible use of that level so that we would then have GM > IM > FM > NM. Those awarded FM's since the downgrading of the title requirements would be readjusted to NM, therefore keeping a title, and only those that have subsequently shown to be at the level of FM would be upgraded to that title.
It was a stupid move by FIDE in the first place to lower the qualifications of FM etc, it degraded the efforts of those that had already attained these honours, and set up the scenario of this old FM vs new FM argument. (Has even been mentioned in other threads as old GM's vs new GM's).
From where I stand in the world of chess titles :) Anyone that can add initials behind their name (because of their chess achievements) is to be lauded, so I think NM would fit the bill as an achievement to be proud of.

ER
19-05-2007, 12:41 AM
GM > IM > FM > NM

Does NM stand for NON MASTER?
Cheers and good luck!

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 12:43 AM
Does NM stand for NON MASTER?
Cheers and good luck!
National Master.

ER
19-05-2007, 12:48 AM
National Master.

Thanks Jono! Now that I am thinking about it USACF recognises that title. I remember having seen an endgame book written by an American NM.
Cheers and good luck!

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 01:41 AM
Thanks Jono! Now that I am thinking about it USACF recognises that title. I remember having seen an endgame book written by an American NM.
Cheers and good luck!
NP. IIRC, a USCF NM is 2200 on their rating list, which is highly inflated.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 02:37 AM
It is a fact that FIDE award more FM titles to recognise achievements (such as continental underage champions) rather than to recognise playing strength.

Since you know this is a "fact" I assume you have the relevant stats on how common the different reasons for awards are. I'd be interested to see them.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 02:45 AM
Like Smerdon and Zhao they will eventually play at the standards of the titles that they received.

If they continue they will. I just hope premature overrecognition does not get in the way of that.


Wikipedia has been reasonably called "The Abomination that Causes Misinformation".

You mean like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati)? :lol:

Vlad
19-05-2007, 09:50 AM
BTW, is your handle meant to be the English or Russian meaning?

Russian meaning.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 11:58 AM
If they continue they will. I just hope premature overrecognition does not get in the way of that.

Good point.


You mean like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sarfati)? :lol:

Heh. I haven't seen that for ages, but seems less misinformative than it has been.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 11:59 AM
Does NM stand for NON MASTER?
Cheers and good luck!
I wondered if WIM stood for WeetbixIM.:cool:

Sam
19-05-2007, 12:17 PM
I wondered if WIM stood for WeetbixIM.:cool:

Well this one is higher rated than you.:lol:

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top_files.phtml?id=4180640

I wonder if there is any link between your sexist beliefs and your creationist beliefs.

Brian_Jones
19-05-2007, 12:32 PM
I wonder if there is any link between your sexist beliefs and your creationist beliefs.

Yeah I was thinking the same about Jono but then I realised that he plays better chess when he can't see the board.

Or maybe he just likes being rude to WIMs.

See http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 12:34 PM
Well this one is higher rated than you.:lol:

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top_files.phtml?id=4180640

Wow, lower than my peak rating, and I am merely an FM not an IM. But still, she is a good player who has achieved an FM standard, not someone who has merely achieved a 1900 performance.


I wonder if there is any link between your sexist beliefs and your creationist beliefs.

Is there any link between your belief that you are rearranged pond scum and your absurd misology? E.g. once, demanding special privileges for one sex was called male chauvinism. Now, according to some it's enlightened feminism.

Fact remains, women's titles exclude the half of the human race with Y-chromosomes, so are of a lower standard than the real ones. Long ago, Zsuzsa Polgar said that her (then) IM title meant much more to her than her WGM. And the WIM in question has had a real achievement of beating a real IM, Russell Dive, in the Queenstown Classic. That is what should be encouraged and praised, not achieving Bi-Lo titles.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 12:40 PM
Yeah I was thinking the same about Jono but then I realised that he plays better chess when he can't see the board.

Interesting that I've faced a different member of the NZ Women's Olympiad team at two blindfold simuls in NZ, and was victorious both times.


Or maybe he just likes being rude to WIMs.

See http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3547

Nope, just telling home truths about Women-only titles , which is distinct from being rude about the title holders, as I've pointed out several times. I merely refuse to be cowed by political correctness.

Indeed, my position is actually a compliment to female players. That is, I see no reason why women can't play chess just as well as men, so don't need special women-only titles awarded for far lower performance standards than required for lower open titles.

ER
19-05-2007, 12:49 PM
E.g. once, demanding special privileges for one sex was called male chauvinism. Now, according to some it's enlightened feminism.


This has to be the statement of the year! Well said!:clap:
Cheers and good luck

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 01:16 PM
This has to be the statement of the year! Well said!:clap:
Cheers and good luck
Thanx!:D

arosar
19-05-2007, 02:05 PM
'Morning Jono. I'm kinda curious. Where have you been the past coupla years? Or did you just know about Chess Chat?

AR

Denis_Jessop
19-05-2007, 02:33 PM
Perhaps FIDE needs to introduce a new title, FMIM! (Fide Master In the Making) :)
Seeing as how FIDE is in a current mood to be retroactively instating more FM's, perhaps they could also take the same procedure with the new title (classification). In another thread previously there was mention of an old title, National Master, that was awarded to players of a certain rating etc by their own Federations. Perhaps FIDE needs to investigate the possible use of that level so that we would then have GM > IM > FM > NM. Those awarded FM's since the downgrading of the title requirements would be readjusted to NM, therefore keeping a title, and only those that have subsequently shown to be at the level of FM would be upgraded to that title.
It was a stupid move by FIDE in the first place to lower the qualifications of FM etc, it degraded the efforts of those that had already attained these honours, and set up the scenario of this old FM vs new FM argument. (Has even been mentioned in other threads as old GM's vs new GM's).
From where I stand in the world of chess titles :) Anyone that can add initials behind their name (because of their chess achievements) is to be lauded, so I think NM would fit the bill as an achievement to be proud of.

They already have. It's called Candidate Master.

We used to have an Australian Master title but it was dropped just about when the Elo ratings came in.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
19-05-2007, 02:37 PM
It doesnt. More importantly the FM title doesnt help chess in any country.
It doesnt bring sponsors,nor does it elicit real chess playing prestige.
If people really want to help chess in Australia then we need more people to organise tournaments like the SIO.

Having another half dozen FM's,even if they are 2300,isnt going to make any significant difference to chess in this country or our international reputation.

But having another half dozen 2300-rated players would be a good thing wouldn't it; title or not? So why begrudge them an FM title?

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 02:45 PM
'Morning Jono. I'm kinda curious. Where have you been the past coupla years? Or did you just know about Chess Chat?

AR
G'day Arosar. I knew that it existed but never logged on. Not sure how much time I can spend on it this year because I have several overseas conferences (I'm in the USA now), and write two books (mostly finished the first).

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 02:48 PM
But having another half dozen 2300-rated players would be a good thing wouldn't it; title or not?

One would think so.


So why begrudge them an FM title?

Or at least a real-FM title as opposed to a Bi-Lo FM :lol:

Sam
19-05-2007, 02:50 PM
Fact remains, women's titles exclude the half of the human race with Y-chromosomes, so are of a lower standard than the real ones.

FIDE considers a WIM title to be on par with an FM title.
Most of the worlds WIM's are of the same standard as your average FM holder today,that is to say 2150-2200.

As for your peak rating,well that was many moons ago. In fact you havnt played a FIDE rated game in 6 years. You need to stop living in the eighties Mr Sarfati and realise that the standard of womens chess at an international level has risen considerably.:hand:

Sam
19-05-2007, 02:54 PM
But having another half dozen 2300-rated players would be a good thing wouldn't it; title or not? So why begrudge them an FM title?

DJ

It would ge a good thing Denis,and I dont begrudge them.
I just dont think having those FM titles will help more tournaments like the SIO to be held in Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2007, 03:02 PM
FIDE considers a WIM title to be on par with an FM title.

They can think that all they like, but where is the evidence? The evidence from this zonal was that the Bi-Lo FM title, while almost 200 points below FM standard, was still ~200 above the Bi-Lo WIM title.


Most of the worlds WIM's are of the same standard as your average FM holder today,that is to say 2150-2200.

Any more evidence?


As for your peak rating,well that was many moons ago.

Fact remains, this was the highest WIM you could find, and this was not as high as the highest FM.


In fact you havnt played a FIDE rated game in 6 years.

Mea culpa, so chess is not my profession.


You need to stop living in the eighties [Jono] and realise that the standard of womens chess at an international level has risen considerably.:hand:

And who is denying this? That was exactly my point, women are playing better, so there is even less point to women's titles.

Denis_Jessop
19-05-2007, 03:30 PM
It would ge a good thing Denis,and I dont begrudge them.
I just dont think having those FM titles will help more tournaments like the SIO to be held in Australia.

Fair enough. I wouldn't think so either.

But is the purpose of titles to do this?

I assumed it is to recognise achievement. FIDE does this on the one hand with norms for GMs and IMs and with achievement of prescribed rating levels for FMs and CMs (and the same for the women's titles) . On the other it awards titles direct for what it sets as significant performance levels in a few major events, including zonals. This leads to so-called soft titles where the zonal is relatively weak as is the Oceania Zonal. So the real issue for FIDE is does it allow weak zones to continue or does it combine them with stronger ones. The latter course would mean that players from the weaker zone would not only not get "soft titles" but that many of them would not play in the zonal tournament at all. That would surely be counter-productive for chess development in the weak zones. I might add, with no reflection intended on any individual, that in a weak zone, the IM title gained in a zonal tournament might, at least in some cases, be described as "soft", if one adopts that term.

DJ

Sam
19-05-2007, 03:33 PM
They can think that all they like, but where is the evidence? The evidence from this zonal was that the Bi-Lo FM title, while almost 200 points below FM standard, was still ~200 above the Bi-Lo WIM title.

You still cant get past the point that the ocenia zonal isnt representative of whats happening in the real world of tournament chess.
How many FIDE rated games do most of australia's top players actually play in an average year? 30? 40?

In europe and asia most players are playing twice as many FIDE rated games in a year as we are. If James Morris was playing 50 FIDE rated games in a year I have no doubt he would be have a FIDE rating above 2100,which would be on par with your average FM today.

Sam
19-05-2007, 03:41 PM
Fair enough. I wouldn't think so either.

But is the purpose of titles to do this?

I assumed it is to recognise achievement.
DJ

Exactly. Titles are awarded for achievement.

I dont know if ocenia was to merge with another zone that we would get less ocenia players playing. We might get a different type of field due to the overall depth being stronger.
Hypothetically speaking,if ocenia was to merge with another zone what zone would that likely to be?:hmm:

And if other ocenia countries didnt want to merge could Australia apply to join another zone?:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 03:48 PM
FIDE considers a WIM title to be on par with an FM title.
Most of the worlds WIM's are of the same standard as your average FM holder today,that is to say 2150-2200.

Actually the average FM is more like 2250-2350 (see post 266) with a median of 2298. The median for WIM is 2194, showing that whatever FIDE says (EDIT: or doesn't say - see Bill's post below) about it being on par with FM, it is in fact a weaker title.

The same problem occurs with WGM (median 2301.5) vs IM (median 2394), and what Jono says about strong female players preferring IM to WGM is absolutely true as far as I'm aware.

The median for WFM, for anyone who cares, is 2110, and the median for GM is 2520.


Fact remains, this was the highest WIM you could find, and this was not as high as the highest FM.

I don't think the highest in any title is much of an argument. The highest-rated FM is Afromeev who is widely suspected of ratings manipulation and the next five highest FMs are from Myanmar (where the ratings pool drift issue perhaps still isn't totally fixed). Looks like there are some legitimate FMs in the high 2400s - low 2500s however.

The highest WIM is actually Qian Huang (2400) (http://www.fide.com/ratings/id.phtml?event=8602689) from China.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 03:51 PM
In europe and asia most players are playing twice as many FIDE rated games in a year as we are. If James Morris was playing 50 FIDE rated games in a year I have no doubt he would be have a FIDE rating above 2100,which would be on par with your average FM today.

He's not far short of that - in the July 06, October 06, Jan 07 and April 07 ratings periods combined he played 44 FIDE rated games. And, once again, the average FM is more like 2300 than 2100.

Sam
19-05-2007, 04:15 PM
He's not far short of that - in the July 06, October 06, Jan 07 and April 07 ratings periods combined he played 44 FIDE rated games. And, once again, the average FM is more like 2300 than 2100.

I indicated I thought the average FM was 2150-2200.:)
And in my opinion I dont think James is really that far off in strength from someone who is 2150. I havnt seen Gene play so I cant talk about his strength.

There are a number of mid 1800 club players in Australia who have a FIDE rating above 2000. A 2150 FIDE rating isnt as strong as it used to be.

If you add up all the people who have been awarded the FM title the average might be 2300. But if you look at the people who are actually active players then I doubt it would be 2300. There have been many players in asia/africa/central america who have been awarded the FM title who have never even been 2200 let alone 2300. And when you look at inactive FM's like Mr Sarfati ,who hasnt played any FIDE rated games in 6 years,well its pretty obvious that they would struggle to perform at the level of their last rating.
If Sarfati was to play a 10 game match against Arianne Caoili,I think her rating would be the one going up.

pax
19-05-2007, 04:54 PM
There are a number of mid 1800 club players in Australia who have a FIDE rating above 2000. A 2150 FIDE rating isnt as strong as it used to be.


This is just wrong. A 2150 has never been as strong as an ACF 2150, but if anything, 2150 now is stronger than it used to be.

When the FIDE rating floor was 2200 (and later 2000), many players close to the cutoff were drastically overrated because previous sub-2200 (or 2000) performances didn't count. Also, the relatively few FIDE rated tournaments and players meant that low FIDE ratings tended to be very unreliable.

Now that the floor has dropped well below 2000, and there are more FIDE rated players and FIDE rated tournaments, the ratings around 2150 are much more reliable than they used to be.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 05:00 PM
There are a number of mid 1800 club players in Australia who have a FIDE rating above 2000. A 2150 FIDE rating isnt as strong as it used to be.

Actually the parity between ACF and FIDE ratings is better than it used to be, not worse. Based on those players rated from 2125 to 2175 FIDE, 2150 FIDE = 2046 ACF (on average - for some players there is little difference, for others hundreds of points.) There is a gap, but it's not massive. For some reason James is one of those whose current FIDE rating is not much higher than his ACF. Possibly a higher than normal percentage of his games have been against juniors.


If you add up all the people who have been awarded the FM title the average might be 2300. But if you look at the people who are actually active players then I doubt it would be 2300.

It makes little difference - with the FM title being relatively recent in origin most of the titleholders are "active" as defined by FIDE. The median for "active" FMs is 2296.


And when you look at inactive FM's like Mr[sic] Sarfati ,who hasnt played any FIDE rated games in 6 years,well its pretty obvious that they would struggle to perform at the level of their last rating.

Well, that varies too. Igor Goldenberg had a long break and came back stronger! FIDE-inactive doesn't necessarily mean inactive full-stop, either.


If Sarfati was to play a 10 game match against Arianne Caoili,I think her rating would be the one going up.

I think that would depend on how seriously she was taking it. :lol:

Sam
19-05-2007, 05:47 PM
This is just wrong. A 2150 has never been as strong as an ACF 2150, but if anything, 2150 now is stronger than it used to be.


I never said a 2150 ACF player was the same as a 2150 FIDE.:hand:
And if 2150 ACF rated players were playing more tournaments like the SIO then they would have FIDE ratings above 2200.
I'm actually trying to argue that australian players below 2300 FIDE have low FIDE ratings compared to their international counterparts because they play so few FIDE rated games.

When the foreign players rated between 2100-2300 FIDE came here for the SIO they didnt exactly blow the locals out of the water,did they?
Was that because the locals got lucky or because they are underated FIDE players?:hmm:

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 06:26 PM
When the foreign players rated between 2100-2300 FIDE came here for the SIO they didnt exactly blow the locals out of the water,did they?
Was that because the locals got lucky or because they are underated FIDE players?:hmm:

Rather hard to say from such a small sample. There were only nine foreign players in that rating range. I haven't calculated PRs for them but some of them (eg Chokshi) did well, a few others were disappointing, most scored about as would be expected. Looking at the average ratings for the brackets they were rated in shows they tended to finish in brackets with a slightly lower rating than their own - but only by 30 points or so on average, and with such a small sample size that means nothing.

Even if the locals did tend to do better, that could be down to home ground (or board!) advantage.

Vlad
19-05-2007, 08:05 PM
As one of the foreign players who played in the SIO and who also talked to a few other foreign players, I have to admit that the impression was that the Australian pool is underrated.

However, it does not necessarily mean that the Australians are better players than what their ratings predict. There is a very strong specialization of Australian players with respect to the tournaments like SIO. 2 games a day is not a very common format in Europe, where the norm is that only one game per day is played and usually in the evenings. I believe most foreign players were affected by unusual format. They were affected to a different degree though. Sergey Shipov was probably an extreme case.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2007, 08:15 PM
FIDE considers a WIM title to be on par with an FM title.No they dont.

To get a FM title by rating you need a rating of at least 2300.

To get a WIM title you only need to get norms with a perfomrance rating of 2250+ and a rating of at least 2200.

Perhaps you meant the WGM title where norms with performance ratings of 2400 and a rating of 2300 are required.

Even then that overlooks the totally dubious rating uplift FIDE applied to womens ratings in 1988.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2007, 08:23 PM
FIDE in 1988 increased all womens ratings by 100 points with the exception of Suasn Polgar's rating. This had no statistical basis but was purely political.

By increasing all womens ratings by 100 points it meant they had to change the performance requirments for all titles.

Back just prior to the uplift in 1988 a FM title still required a 2300 rating based on at least 24 games.
A WGM required 2 or more norms on 24 games and a rating of 2200. A WGM norm was a 2300+ performance.
A WIM required 2 or more norms on 24 games and a rating of 2100. A WIM norm was a 2150+ performance.

After the 100 point uplift the womans norms and required ratings increased by 100 points.

Kevin Bonham
19-05-2007, 08:32 PM
FIDE in 1988 increased all womens ratings by 100 points with the exception of Suasn Polgar's rating. This had no statistical basis but was purely political.

Hopefully by now most of the impacts of that have been lost in the general ratings pool.

Bill Gletsos
19-05-2007, 08:39 PM
Hopefully by now most of the impacts of that have been lost in the general ratings pool.The question would be how many of the women on the list have played a substantial number of games against men or against women who have played a substantial number of games against men.

pax
19-05-2007, 09:48 PM
I never said a 2150 ACF player was the same as a 2150 FIDE.:hand:

I never said you did.



And if 2150 ACF rated players were playing more tournaments like the SIO then they would have FIDE ratings above 2200.
I'm actually trying to argue that australian players below 2300 FIDE have low FIDE ratings compared to their international counterparts because they play so few FIDE rated games.


They play a hell of a lot more than they used to. Not that long ago (15 years maybe) you were lucky if there were half a dozen FIDE rated tournaments a year in Australia. Nowadays there are many tournaments in all states which are FIDE rated, including many club-level events. There are still issues of the isolation of the rating pool, but the number of FIDE rated events has massively improved.



When the foreign players rated between 2100-2300 FIDE came here for the SIO they didnt exactly blow the locals out of the water,did they?
Was that because the locals got lucky or because they are underated FIDE players?:hmm:

Could be, I don't know. The culprits of many of the upsets were juniors (or recent ex-juniors), who may well have been underrated wherever they played. There was also the X-factor of Gareth's completely out of the box performance which could never have been predicted by any kind of rating..

Denis_Jessop
19-05-2007, 10:55 PM
Exactly. Titles are awarded for achievement.

I dont know if ocenia was to merge with another zone that we would get less ocenia players playing. We might get a different type of field due to the overall depth being stronger.
Hypothetically speaking,if ocenia was to merge with another zone what zone would that likely to be?:hmm:

And if other ocenia countries didnt want to merge could Australia apply to join another zone?:hmm:

I'm not sure of the precise details of this but my understanding is that if there were a merger, the Oceania Zone would be merged with one of the Asian Zones and that if there were not a merger it would be open to Australia to ask to be placed in another zone. That suggestion was made to me when I was ACF President but it seems to me that, if Australia were to seek to leave the Oceania Zone, there would be little left and so FIDE would probably not allow it even assuming Australia wanted to do it.

Dj

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2007, 12:01 AM
A note on upset caused by "underrated" juniors.
IMHO, juniors are not in general underrated. it's just their rating is not as indicative of their strength as for adult for two reasons:
1. Some of them are in the process of qualitive jump (Dusan Stojic rating increased about 300 point in one year).
2. Their level of play can vary dramatically from game to game, much more then for adults. Therefore 2000 player can play one game (or part of it) as 2400, another as 1600.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 03:29 AM
If you add up all the people who have been awarded the FM title the average might be 2300. But if you look at the people who are actually active players then I doubt it would be 2300.

Then also look up what their ratings were when they were awarded the title. Titles after all are awarded for life, and thus differentiate has-beens from has-never-beens.


There have been many players in asia/africa/central america who have been awarded the FM title who have never even been 2200 let alone 2300.

That is also wrong.


And when you look at inactive FM's like [Jono],who hasnt played any FIDE rated games in 6 years,well its pretty obvious that they would struggle to perform at the level of their last rating.

Not necessarily, because there is plenty of good chess outside FIDE rated games, although I am relatively inactive. I have performed quite well in the QLD teams champs over the last few years (a top score on Board 1, 2nd Board 1 behind GM Schmalz undefeated, top score Board 2 after IM Solomon joined our team, currently leading Board 2 ...), as well as successful blindfold simuls.

In any case, my inactivity or drop in playing strength is irrelevant, because the FIDE title reflects having achieved a certain standard. It is of no importance that the standard may drop later. But it's no wonder you focus on irrelevancies when your supposed facts about norms and median ratings are so far off.


If [Jono] was to play a 10 game match against Arianne Caoili,I think her rating would be the one going up.

She was a player of real FM strength, I think, but has also been relatively inactive. FWIW our only game Jonathan D Sarfati vs Arianne Caoili
Australian op 1999 (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1390279) and my FIDE rating is higher according to Chessgames.com.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 03:39 AM
No they dont.

To get a FM title by rating you need a rating of at least 2300.

To get a WIM title you only need to get norms with a perfomrance rating of 2250+ and a rating of at least 2200.

Perhaps you meant the WGM title where norms with performance ratings of 2400 and a rating of 2300 are required.

Even then that overlooks the totally dubious rating uplift FIDE applied to womens ratings in 1988.

And the current Oceania Zonal WIM was awarded for a performance about 250 points lower than the norm. Some would call that a soft title.

The WGM standard is also lower than the IM, so no wonder women like Zsuzsa Polgar preferred the latter (esp. as she was the one woman at the time whose rating was not inflated for political purposes).

Garvinator
20-05-2007, 07:33 AM
And the current Oceania Zonal WIM was awarded for a performance about 250 points lower than the norm. Some would call that a soft title.
I am having a real case of deja vu here for myself. I feel like I made comments like this previously :uhoh: ;) I of course would go further than saying 'would', as in do :)

Sam
20-05-2007, 11:07 AM
That is also wrong.


The FIDE title used to reflect someones achievements.
But with so many players being awarded the FM title through zonals,youth championships,continental championships etc,it now reflects performances rather than total achievement.

Lets take a look at the UAE.
http://www.fide.com/ratings/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=UAE

Here is a country with over a dozen FM titles. Some of those players got their title the old fashioned way,being 2300. But at least 5 of them got their titles through one off tournaments. These people were never 2300 strength players.

The african championships are coming up soon. Keep an eye on that tournament and see what kind of players are awarded the FM title.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 11:09 AM
The FIDE title used to reflect someones achievements.
But with so many players being awarded the FM title through zonals,youth championships,continental championships etc,it now reflects performances rather than total achievement.

And this proliferation of Bi-Lo titles is a good thing? Surely not, whether in UAE, Africa or Oceania.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 11:34 AM
I of course would go further than saying 'would', as in do :)

OK, Weetbix-IM it is then ;)

Sam
20-05-2007, 11:41 AM
And this proliferation of Bi-Lo titles is a good thing? Surely not, whether in UAE, Africa or Oceania.

I never said this was a great thing. But I am trying to get you to acknowledge that FIDE's valuation of the FM title has severely changed since you got your FM title,and not just in oceania. This has been going on for about 10 years and is hardly a new phenomenon.

James and Gene were allowed to enter the zonal. From there they were awarded their FM titles fairly. Lets not forget that there was at least 3 non titled players who have ACF ratings higher than James and Gene. Based on rating alone they were not necessarily the players who people thought were going to get the points required for the FM title. If you allow them to enter the zonal,then you must accept they have the right to win the FM title.
The fact that a number of stronger australian players without titles like Tomek Rej didnt enter isnt James or Gene's fault . They can only play the field that is in front of them.

Let me give you an analogy John. Imagine there was a queensland state championship where Solomon and Moulton were not playing. If you won the tournament would you still have the right to call yourself a state champion even though there were clearly stronger players who were eligible to play but didnt? Of course you would. And the same is true for Gene and James.

FIDE has set the rules. James and Gene played by the rules. And that should be the end of the story. If you have a problem with the way FIDE currently sets its rules then you should be complaining about FIDE,and not James and Gene.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 12:00 PM
I never said this was a great thing. But I am trying to get you to acknowledge that FIDE's valuation of the FM title has severely changed since you got your FM title,and not just in oceania.

No need to get me to acknowledge something that I've been saying all thread! FIDE has devalued titles by allowing Bi-Lo awards, possibly because of the money.


James and Gene were allowed to enter the zonal.

There should be a minimum rating for entry into such a tournament if titles are awarded for a percentage. Or else there should be a minimum performance rating for a title award.


From there they were awarded their FM titles fairly.

This doesn't follow that their titles are not Bi-Lo ones.


Let me give you an analogy [Jono]. Imagine there was a queensland state championship where Solomon and Moulton were not playing. If you won the tournament would you still have the right to call yourself a state champion even though there were clearly stronger players who were eligible to play but didnt? Of course you would.

Indeed, I won the QLD lightning champs by a big margin a few years ago before Ly's time where Solo, Wohl, Smerdon were not playing. I didn't go around calling myself QLD's best lightning player though. Conversely, I won the NZ title by a big margin even before that, and that time it was against the strongest opposition, so I probably was NZ's best lightning player at the time.

The analogy is entirely specious though. There was no permanent lifetime title awarded for a far lower performance.


FIDE has set the rules. James and Gene played by the rules. And that should be the end of the story. If you have a problem with the way FIDE currently sets its rules then you should be complaining about FIDE,and not James and Gene.

I have always been complaining about FIDE's new Bi-Lo titles, not the Bi-Lo title awardees personally. And my point remains that Bi-Lo chess titles should be treated the same way as P.O. Box degrees.

Rincewind
20-05-2007, 12:09 PM
I have always been complaining about FIDE's new Bi-Lo titles, not the Bi-Lo title awardees personally.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


And my point remains that Bi-Lo chess titles should be treated the same way as P.O. Box degrees.

Hardly the same thing. P.O. Box Degrees are awarded by non-uniiversities. All FM titles are awarded by the same body, FIDE. Your FM title is of exactly the same value as any other. The fact that you believe yours is worth more is purely subjective (and a more than a little egotistical).

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 12:46 PM
Hardly the same thing. P.O. Box Degrees are awarded by non-uniiversities.

Still as worthless. OK, try honorary doctorates from real universities and the analogy is stronger.


All FM titles are awarded by the same body, FIDE. Your FM title is of exactly the same value as any other.

Depends on the valuer.


The fact that you believe yours is worth more is purely subjective (and a more than a little egotistical).

No, it is objective, based entirely on the Elo performances which achieved the titles. Plenty of non-FMs agree with me about Bi-Lo titles v real ones, so your accusation of egotism is without foundation.

Rincewind
20-05-2007, 01:10 PM
Still as worthless. OK, try honorary doctorates from real universities and the analogy is stronger.

No because again the university makes it clear the degree is honorary and generally the conferee only uses the title in formal contexts at the institution which granted the degree.

The point is that the confering institution (in this case FIDE) has one title FM which you can qualify for by a varity of methods. It makes no subsequent distinction between conferees.

The fact that certain title holders feel miffed and wish to introduce a distinction or hierarchy in the FM title is patently self-serving and certainly has no support in the FIDE regulations.


Depends on the valuer.

Well you were talking about the value of a title based on the conferring institution being a P.O.Box institution. In the case of the FM title, they only come from the one institution, FIDE, so therefore the valuer must find them of the same value based on that criterion.


No, it is objective, based entirely on the Elo performances which achieved the titles.

That would be of interest is Elo performance was the only way of qualifying for the FM title. Nowadays there are multiple paths to the FM title and once awarded, FIDE makes no distinction between them. You just have to learn to live with the regulating body's decision on this.


Plenty of non-FMs agree with me about Bi-Lo titles v real ones, so your accusation of egotism is without foundation.

I fail to see how the assertation before the comma (even if true) supports the statement after. People have various motivation for their beliefs. Based on your arguments here and my assessment of your personality from various interactions I believe your primary motivation is one of egotism.

Garvinator
20-05-2007, 01:23 PM
Depends on the valuer.
And depends on each tournament organiser ;)

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 01:37 PM
The FIDE title used to reflect someones achievements.
But with so many players being awarded the FM title through zonals,youth championships,continental championships etc,it now reflects performances rather than total achievement.There is however a difference.

In continental, ASEAN and Arab age championships it is awarded to 1st.

In the Olympiad, World or Continental Team Ch. and Zonals it is based on scoring percentage.

Now given that placings in swiss events is nothing more than a lottery then in events like open zonals where anyone, no matter how weak is permitted to enter then it becomes pot luck as to who gets the FM titles.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 02:25 PM
No because again the university makes it clear the degree is honorary and generally the conferee only uses the title in formal contexts at the institution which granted the degree.

And Bi-Lo titles should be treated in the same way.


The fact that certain title holders feel miffed and wish to introduce a distinction or hierarchy in the FM title is patently self-serving and certainly has no support in the FIDE regulations.

The fault is with the regulations, because they make no distinction about the strength of opposition against whom the percentage is obtained. And an organizer is free to make any distinction they like.


You just have to learn to live with the regulating body's decision on this.

You just have to live with the fact that many, and not just real titleholders, will deride Bi-Lo titles.


People have various motivation for their beliefs. Based on your arguments here and my assessment of your personality from various interactions I believe your primary motivation is one of egotism.

Based on your record and arguing style, my assessment is that your primary motivation is envy, which in itself a form of egotism. That is, the envy by a dilettante and underachiever of those who really achieve, and thus seeks to downgrade these achievements by reducing the standard needed.

Rincewind
20-05-2007, 02:47 PM
Based on your record and arguing style, my assessment is that your primary motivation is envy, which in itself a form of egotism. That is, the envy by a dilettante and underachiever of those who really achieve, and thus seeks to downgrade these achievements by reducing the standard needed.

You certainly make a habit out of getting things wrong. My motivation is that pompousness rankles me. I don't feel envy for those who achieve. I feel admiration. However, as you don't fit into that category, towards you I feel mostly nothing. Except when you rankle by blustering on in your pompous fashion.

You are also wrong about me seeking to downgrade your "achievements" by reducing the standard needed. I never seeked any such thing. Just pointed out the fact that there is no dicotomy of FM titles. FIDE grant them, not you and FIDE makes no distinction as to the path by which the title was attained. You just have to stop belly-aching about it, grow up and face reality.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 03:04 PM
You are also wrong about me seeking to downgrade your "achievements" by reducing the standard needed. I never seeked any such thing.

That's what it looks like, coming from an unachiever like you, with far more plausibility than your pathetic accusations of egotism.


Just pointed out the fact that there is no dicotomy of FM titles.

Yes there is, according to many, who have little respect for FIDE's money-seeking granting of Bi-Lo titles.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 03:54 PM
The real question is of the current 4700 odd FM titled players:

1) How many FM's achieved the title via norms and the minimum rating requirement of 2250 in the current rating period. (original regulation). Note an FM norm was a performance of 2350+.
2) How many achieved the title by getting a rating of at least 2300.(regulation replacing 1) above in 1984)
3) How many achieved them as part of the world, continental, Asean or Arab age championships. (expanded from originally being simply the world U17 in original regulations).
4) How many achieved them via a single performance of 2300 in a zonal of at least 13 games (1984 regulation)
5) How many achieved them via 50% in zonals (introduced in 1988 replacing (4) above)

Of 3) and 5) above how many did not achieve a 2300 performance in the event in which the title was awarded.

Rincewind
20-05-2007, 05:10 PM
That's what it looks like, coming from an unachiever like you, with far more plausibility than your pathetic accusations of egotism.

The fact that you immediately presume that my motivation is one of envy towards you is just the icing on the cake. You ar without a doubt the most conceited waste of bandwidth I've encountered in a long time.


Yes there is, according to many, who have little respect for FIDE's money-seeking granting of Bi-Lo titles.

As you and they don't administor the titles, my statement remains true. Perhaps you should hand out the Sarfati-FM title and you can establish a dual hierarchy in those.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2007, 05:42 PM
The fact that you immediately presume that my motivation is one of envy towards you is just the icing on the cake. You ar without a doubt the most contemptuous waste of bandwidth I've encountered in a long time.

Waaah! Happy to dish out insults and cheap psychologization of my motives, but squeal at the slightest counterattack in return. What a whinging underachiever.


As you and they don't administor the titles, my statement remains true. Perhaps you should hand out the [Jono]-FM title and you can establish a dual hierarchy in those.

Were the FIDE "World Champions" like Khalifman, Ponomariov recognized as such as long as Kasparov was so dominant? The same should apply to Bi-Lo titles.

Rincewind
20-05-2007, 05:46 PM
Were the FIDE "World Champions" like Khalifman, Ponomariov recognized as such as long as Kasparov was so dominant? The same should apply to Bi-Lo titles.

They certainly were by FIDE.

Phil Bourke
20-05-2007, 06:09 PM
Were the FIDE "World Champions" like Khalifman, Ponomariov recognized as such as long as Kasparov was so dominant? The same should apply to Bi-Lo titles.
I don't think anyone here is contesting your point Jono. You had made it well, and though some were objectionable to your labelling, your point was still understood. What you seem to be missing is that there is a simple little fact that makes all argument here wasted. That FIDE awarded you a FM under certain criteria, then FIDE lowered the criteria for the same award that you had previously attained. Sorry to say, it may cheapen your title, but it doesn't cheapen subsequent recipients title, as they have satisfied the requirements existing at present, and consequently are recognised as an FM just as you are. All arguments about 'soft' vs 'real' here is a waste of time and effort, because no amount of debate here will get this fact changed.
If you wish to be just having a whinge about this, then you have done it, well, I might add, but it is time to either take it to an arena where it may be rectified to your satisfaction, or give it a rest. You are now entering that dangerous area of engaging in personal retorts, and that will only lessen the impact of your previous good work.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2007, 06:11 PM
They certainly were by FIDE.

Which is the problem right there. The same organisation that gave the chess world a succession of fake world championships also doesn't seem to be too concerned about drift in the meaning and value of its formal titles for chess excellence.

Phil Bourke
20-05-2007, 06:18 PM
Which is the problem right there. The same organisation that gave the chess world a succession of fake world championships also doesn't seem to be too concerned about drift in the meaning and value of its formal titles for chess excellence.
Which raises what questions?
My suggestion is that FIDE is more concerned about financial matters than chess excellence. :)

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 06:39 PM
I don't think anyone here is contesting your point Jono. You had made it well, and though some were objectionable to your labelling, your point was still understood. What you seem to be missing is that there is a simple little fact that makes all argument here wasted. That FIDE awarded you a FM under certain criteria, then FIDE lowered the criteria for the same award that you had previously attained. Sorry to say, it may cheapen your title, but it doesn't cheapen subsequent recipients title, as they have satisfied the requirements existing at present, and consequently are recognised as an FM just as you are. All arguments about 'soft' vs 'real' here is a waste of time and effort, because no amount of debate here will get this fact changed.The problem may well be that the changing of the regulations regarding awarding the FM titles did not necessarily lower the standard but that the permitting of "open zonals" without having a minimum entry criteria permitted people to obtain titles without being close to a similar standard to past recipients of the FM title.
Clearly FIDE were not happy with the open slather regarding open zonals as they changed the regulations in 2000 to restrict the number of FM titles available from unlimited to 2. Pehaps with that change they mistakenly believed the could maintain some sort of standard closer to that of previous FM title holders.
Only time will tell if FIDE decide to again change the regulations to require a minimum standard in open zonals of a particular (2300?) performance.

Phil Bourke
20-05-2007, 08:20 PM
The problem may well be that the changing of the regulations regarding awarding the FM titles did not necessarily lower the standard but that the permitting of "open zonals" without having a minimum entry criteria permitted people to obtain titles without being close to a similar standard to past recipients of the FM title.
Clearly FIDE were not happy with the open slather regarding open zonals as they changed the regulations in 2000 to restrict the number of FM titles available from unlimited to 2. Pehaps with that change they mistakenly believed the could maintain some sort of standard closer to that of previous FM title holders.
Only time will tell if FIDE decide to again change the regulations to require a minimum standard in open zonals of a particular (2300?) performance.
Then it does appear that FIDE has acknowledged that there is a problem and is being awfully slow in fixing it.
Sounds like a lot of other organisations that are too 'proud' to admit that what seemed like a good idea actually turned out to be not as good as they first thought. Get on with it FIDE, go back to the drawing board and come back with another plan that fulfills the merit of the original idea, but doesn't insult any of your previous clients by cheapening the integrity of their hard earned titles.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 08:43 PM
Then it does appear that FIDE has acknowledged that there is a problem and is being awfully slow in fixing it.
Sounds like a lot of other organisations that are too 'proud' to admit that what seemed like a good idea actually turned out to be not as good as they first thought.I suspect FIDE just never considered that any zone would allow unrated (i.e. under 2000 which was the FIDE minimum rating at the time) to play in zonals.

Get on with it FIDE, go back to the drawing board and come back with another plan that fulfills the merit of the original idea, but doesn't insult any of your previous clients by cheapening the integrity of their hard earned titles.They could easily fix the open zonal problem by requiring a minimum performance of 2300 in the zonal.

Mischa
20-05-2007, 08:44 PM
I think James was at the time actually over 2000 FIDE....?

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 09:25 PM
I think James was at the time actually over 2000 FIDE....?A quick check of the FIDE website or the tournament website would have shown that was not the case and that he was only rated 1948.
In fact he has never been over 2000 FIDE.
His current rating of 1948 is his highest to date.

Even if he was 2000 now by allowing those under 2000 into the zonal it makes it much easier for players to make the necessary 50%. In fact 12 of the 30 players were either under 2000 FIDE or FIDE unrated.

However his rating is irrelevant as I was referring to back prior to the year 2000.

Basil
20-05-2007, 09:44 PM
You are now entering that dangerous area of engaging in personal retorts, and that will only lessen the impact of your previous good work.
And just where the bloody hell where you when the CAQ thing was happening? That's exactly what I needed to be told.

Or perhaps I was :doh:

Mischa
20-05-2007, 10:45 PM
Sorry Bill...my mistake... I thought that they used the actual rating as calculated at the time. His last rating was as you say but I was informed that at the time of the tournament it was calculated to date as being 2030? or something like that...anyway.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2007, 10:50 PM
Sorry Bill...my mistake... I thought that they used the actual rating as calculated at the time. His last rating was as you say but I was informed that at the time of the tournament it was calculated to date as being 2030? or something like that...anyway.Dont know who told you that but it isnt correct (or you misunderstood them) as only the rating published in the FIDE rating list prior to the start of the tournament is relevant. In this case that list is the FIDE April 2007 list.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2007, 04:56 AM
I don't think anyone here is contesting your point Jono.

It seemed to me that a number of people were. ;)


You had made it well,

Thanx. It was probably made better by Bill Gletsos and Kevin Bonham with the facts at their fingertips, as well as Peter Parr.


and though some were objectionable to your labelling, your point was still understood. What you seem to be missing is that there is a simple little fact that makes all argument here wasted. That FIDE awarded you a FM under certain criteria, then FIDE lowered the criteria for the same award that you had previously attained.

That is exactly what we are objecting to. It wasn't missed at all.


All arguments about 'soft' vs 'real' here is a waste of time and effort, because no amount of debate here will get this fact changed.

I think it could be. FIDE can proclaim Bi-Lo titles as real ones, but tournament organizers don't have to accept this. Similarly, they didn't have to accept the FIDE world champs as the real deal.


You are now entering that dangerous area of engaging in personal retorts

I appreciate your concern. But you might have missed the fact that the personal abuse first came from the defenders of Bi-Lo titles, e.g. the one word response "twat", or false accusations of sexism and egotism.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2007, 05:04 AM
I suspect FIDE just never considered that any zone would allow unrated (i.e. under 2000 which was the FIDE minimum rating at the time) to play in zonals.
The Women's Zonal allowed participation by players in their 1300s, and the unrated players were even weaker. Yet a WIM was awarded from this.

arosar
21-05-2007, 08:43 AM
Good morning all!

GM Ian Rogers on the soft titles issue. http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

MichaelBaron
21-05-2007, 10:10 AM
I suspect FIDE just never considered that any zone would allow unrated (i.e. under 2000 which was the FIDE minimum rating at the time) to play in zonals.


If this is the case, that may be some of the questions should be thrown at the Oceanian Chess Federations/Zonal organizers rather than at fide.

Why were so many people below the rating cut-off point allowed to enter? Was it purely to collect their entry fees or for some other reason?:hmm:

Garrett
21-05-2007, 10:12 AM
Good morning all!

GM Ian Rogers on the soft titles issue. http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

Hi all

I don't have sound, can anyone please give me a brief run down on what Ian had to say ?

Bill Gletsos
21-05-2007, 11:50 AM
If this is the case, that may be some of the questions should be thrown at the Oceanian Chess Federations/Zonal organizers rather than at fide.

Why were so many people below the rating cut-off point allowed to enter? Was it purely to collect their entry fees or for some other reason?:hmm:That seems to have been the case from the Oceania zonal of 1999 and onwards.

Bill Gletsos
21-05-2007, 11:52 AM
The Women's Zonal allowed participation by players in their 1300s, and the unrated players were even weaker. Yet a WIM was awarded from this.Yes, well the devaluation of Womens WFM titles, including WIM's is even worse than that of FM titles.

Oepty
21-05-2007, 01:10 PM
Hi all

I don't have sound, can anyone please give me a brief run down on what Ian had to say ?

Ian firstly says that a seperate Zonal had been offered to Australia and the rest of the zonals at the time of Olympiads from 1988. This had been rejected until 1998 by the players at the zonal, such as Ian. In 1998 Ian and others boycotted the olympiad and the weaker group of players thought getting titles through a weak zonal was a good idea. He also says that Australia had an eight year option of rejoining the Asian Zonal, but rejected largely because Gary Bekkar enjoys being a big fish in a small pond.

He also talks about the Australian Championship, but doesn't say anything of great depth except he has committed to another tournament because he has not had an offer to play in the Australian championships.

This is an attempt at a summary and if I have misrepresented what Ian said then I am sorry
Scott

Garrett
21-05-2007, 01:30 PM
Thanks very much for that Scott.

Cheers
George.

Bill Gletsos
21-05-2007, 02:43 PM
This had been rejected until 1988 by the players at the zonal, such as Ian.The date there should be 1998.

pax
21-05-2007, 04:56 PM
If this is the case, that may be some of the questions should be thrown at the Oceanian Chess Federations/Zonal organizers rather than at fide.

Why were so many people below the rating cut-off point allowed to enter? Was it purely to collect their entry fees or for some other reason?:hmm:

The reason was, I believe to collect entry fees. The basis being that there was no other percieved way of making the tournament viable at the time (1999).

But in any case, this is absolutely a question for FIDE. It is FIDE, after all that permits open Zonals, and awards titles to performances significantly below the historical par. It is FIDE that has the power to change the rules if it so chooses.

Denis_Jessop
21-05-2007, 08:28 PM
Good morning all!

GM Ian Rogers on the soft titles issue. http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/

AR

A top interview, Amiel. Ian as usual put things very clearly and I think he is right. Perhaps the ACF should think of inviting Indonesia to join the Oceania Zone as Ian suggests. Ian mentioned this problem to me while I was ACF President but I thought then that our re-joining the Asian Zone was the idea. I don't think FIDE would buy that even were it possible as it would leave the Oceania Zone so terribly weak. Nor, at the time did I fully appreciate the ramifications of what he was getting at. Unfortunately we didn't get the chance to pursue it further.

DJ

arosar
21-05-2007, 08:49 PM
Let me just make it clear, as is noted also on the blog, that the interview was done by Goran Urosevic (who initially offered if I had anything to ask Rogers). I had nothing to do with it other than to pose the question.

AR

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2007, 11:30 PM
Good work by all concerned re the interview; Rogers' comments strike me as informed and sensible.

Phil Bourke
22-05-2007, 01:07 AM
I agree, Ian's comments certainly made sense and contained a lot of logic.
I think now there is a clear path for the ACF to pursue.
1) Seek to invite Indonesia into the Oceania Zone.
2) Get the Peformance criteria added to the titles awarded.
Also, a big please to the ACF members, take the intitiative here and don't wait for it to be a formal request etc. There has been a clear problem identified with a sound and logical solution to boot, just catch the ball and run with it.

Phil Bourke
22-05-2007, 01:11 AM
I appreciate your concern. But you might have missed the fact that the personal abuse first came from the defenders of Bi-Lo titles......
But you might have missed that I said 'engaging' not 'initiating'. :)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2007, 01:14 PM
Kevin (and/or Bill)
Where do you get those figures?


Actually the average FM is more like 2250-2350 (see post 266) with a median of 2298. The median for WIM is 2194, showing that whatever FIDE says (EDIT: or doesn't say - see Bill's post below) about it being on par with FM, it is in fact a weaker title.

The same problem occurs with WGM (median 2301.5) vs IM (median 2394), and what Jono says about strong female players preferring IM to WGM is absolutely true as far as I'm aware.

The median for WFM, for anyone who cares, is 2110, and the median for GM is 2520.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2007, 01:26 PM
Yes, well the devaluation of Womens WFM titles, including WIM's is even worse than that of FM titles.

And it seems that one girl playing lost every game, and according to her own mother (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154639&postcount=170) "does not play chess! She managed to last an hour and a half against one player ... and fought off a check mate (much to her surprise)."

It's nice that she now has an interest in chess. But really, it's doesn't say much for a tournament where titles were awarded for a raw percentage to have a complete beginner as a possible opponent.

eclectic
22-05-2007, 01:56 PM
And it seems that one girl playing lost every game, and according to her own mother (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154639&postcount=170) "does not play chess! She managed to last an hour and a half against one player ... and fought off a check mate (much to her surprise)."

It's nice that she now has an interest in chess. But really, it's doesn't say much for a tournament where titles were awarded for a raw percentage to have a complete beginner as a possible opponent.

Your comment is below the belt.

India Morris only joined the tournament because another player withdrew so that there would be no byes thus ensuring that anyone qualifying for a title or a norm had indeed played 9 games of which 2 are allowed to be against unrated players.

She is to be congratulated for sticking it out and playing all her 9 games.

The tournament was an open one; where was it listed that a minimum rating was required?

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2007, 02:01 PM
Your comment is below the belt.

Rubbish.


India Morris only joined the tournament because another player withdrew so that there would be no byes thus ensuring that anyone qualifying for a title or a norm had indeed played 9 games of which 2 are allowed to be against unrated players.

Once again, I wasn't saying anything against India Morris, but against the pathetically devalued titles that result from allowing people to count points against beginners.


The tournament was an open one; where was it listed that a minimum rating was required?

That's the whole problem: the lack of such a requirement, which is the fault of FIDE and their self-interested supporters of Bi-Lo titles! The opponents of Bi-Lo titles advocate a minimum performance for an award, or if the title is awarded for a percentage, then a minimum rating to enter the tourney.

Oepty
22-05-2007, 02:17 PM
The date there should be 1998.

Bill, you are right, please correct it
Scott

arosar
22-05-2007, 02:19 PM
I'm with you on this one Jono. Your continued onslaught is reasonable. The sad thing here is that there are people involved and what's worse is that they're juniors. But at least to me it's clear that you're not actually having a go at them personally.

Keep it up mate.

AR

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 02:24 PM
And it seems that one girl playing lost every game, and according to her own mother (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154639&postcount=170) "does not play chess! She managed to last an hour and a half against one player ... and fought off a check mate (much to her surprise)."

It's nice that she now has an interest in chess. But really, it's doesn't say much for a tournament where titles were awarded for a raw percentage to have a complete beginner as a possible opponent.

It would not make a difference anyway! Its great to know that India had a good time. As for the tournament, only one participant in the women's Zonal (Berezina) is a player of international standard. All the others were weak-to medium level club players anyway. So does it really matter which one of them gets the title? To me it makes no difference so lets just appreciate the fact that someone had a good time.

I have played a certain WIM in a tournament game...by move 10 she managed to get a completely lost position committing 5 mistakes or so (no blunders, just very weak play) ever since, i have been sceptical about titles acquired from the Zonals.

So lets take it easy....If someone wants an FM title - they can have mine :).
If one day i want it back..i will make a comeback to tournament play..and play another 30 games..and get it again.

Also, i need to start raising money for an IM title. In my case, it will require a trip to Hungary or Ukraine. Or shall i just send money to tournament organizers there and they will send me reports on my qualification norms? I know one guy who has never been to Hungary in his entire life...yet he got his IM title from there :). I wonder how one can manage to win a tournament..without every visiting a country where it was held :hmm:

Anyway, lets just give everyone some kind of title...it will solve the problem all together :)

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 03:40 PM
Bill, you are right, please correct it
ScottDone.

pax
22-05-2007, 03:48 PM
It's nice that she now has an interest in chess. But really, it's doesn't say much for a tournament where titles were awarded for a raw percentage to have a complete beginner as a possible opponent.

Since India Morris replaced a BYE in the draw, I don't think her inclusion is of any issue whatsoever.

Either way, this is an issue for FIDE. Either an Open zonal is ok, or it's not. If the zonal is open, that means complete beginners are free to play whether they make obtaining titles easier or not.

pax
22-05-2007, 03:50 PM
I have played a certain WIM in a tournament game...by move 10 she managed to get a completely lost position committing 5 mistakes or so (no blunders, just very weak play) ever since, i have been sceptical about titles acquired from the Zonals.

Well this happens to even GMs every now and then, so it's not exactly the firmest of evidence. One might look at Shipov's play from the recent SIO and raise an eyebrow or two..

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 03:51 PM
And it seems that one girl playing lost every game, and according to her own mother (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=154639&postcount=170) "does not play chess! She managed to last an hour and a half against one player ... and fought off a check mate (much to her surprise)."

It's nice that she now has an interest in chess. But really, it's doesn't say much for a tournament where titles were awarded for a raw percentage to have a complete beginner as a possible opponent.India apparently replaced Jessica Kinder who is 1697 FIDE and 1536 ACF.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2007, 05:36 PM
It would not make a difference anyway! Its great to know that India had a good time. As for the tournament, only one participant in the women's Zonal (Berezina) is a player of international standard. All the others were weak-to medium level club players anyway. So does it really matter which one of them gets the title? To me it makes no difference so lets just appreciate the fact that someone had a good time.

I have played a certain WIM in a tournament game...by move 10 she managed to get a completely lost position committing 5 mistakes or so (no blunders, just very weak play) ever since, i have been sceptical about titles acquired from the Zonals.

So lets take it easy....If someone wants an FM title - they can have mine :).
If one day i want it back..i will make a comeback to tournament play..and play another 30 games..and get it again.

Also, i need to start raising money for an IM title. In my case, it will require a trip to Hungary or Ukraine. Or shall i just send money to tournament organizers there and they will send me reports on my qualification norms? I know one guy who has never been to Hungary in his entire life...yet he got his IM title from there :). I wonder how one can manage to win a tournament..without every visiting a country where it was held :hmm:

Anyway, lets just give everyone some kind of title...it will solve the problem all together :)

I hope you are not referring to First Saturday tournaments?

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 06:25 PM
I hope you are not referring to First Saturday tournaments?
I am referring to both first saturday and Alushta tournaments among others.

with first saturday ones..some are genuine though (but not all) Alushat ones - are fully rigged. In Russia and Ukraine, I believe every second "invitational" tournament never takes place for real.

In Russia alone, there are some "interesting" GMs like : Grechikhin, Malinin, Vul' Kalugin, Gutov, Seferian (who used to study chess at the palace of pinoneers with me) to name a few...FM Akhromeev who was a first category player..then suddenly got his rating over 2600 playing in local events only!

Basil
22-05-2007, 06:30 PM
.some are genuine though (but not all) Alushat ones - are fully rigged.

HUGE STATEMENT

Care to cite one of the many that was rigged, and then provide some evidence? :eek:

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 07:11 PM
FM Akhromeev who was a first category player..then suddenly got his rating over 2600 playing in local events only!Can you provide any evidence he ever had a FIDE rating of 2600+.

FIDE ratings lists seem to indicate that Igor Akhromeev's highest rating was 2424.
Also FIDE do not show him having the FM title. No doubt although he could qualify on rating he has apparently never applied for it.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 07:25 PM
In Russia alone, there are some "interesting" GMs like : Grechikhin, Malinin, Vul' Kalugin, Gutov, Seferian (who used to study chess at the palace of pinoneers with me) to name a few.I can find no player named Grechikhin who is shown as a GM on the FIDE website nor is there any player named Seferian on the FIDE rating list.

eclectic
22-05-2007, 07:38 PM
I can find no player named Grechikhin who is shown as a GM on the FIDE website nor is there any player named Seferian on the FIDE rating list.

I have found one Narek Seferjan of Armenia on the ChessBase MegaDatabase.

Could Michael have meant him?

brett
22-05-2007, 07:52 PM
I am referring to both first saturday and Alushta tournaments among others.

with first saturday ones..some are genuine though (but not all) Alushat ones - are fully rigged. In Russia and Ukraine, I believe every second "invitational" tournament never takes place for real.


Michael,

I have played in several first saturday tournaments and several other Australians have too Wallace, Allen, Lane to name a few. From my experiences playing in First Saturday Chess Tournaments they all took place and I personally found them to be incredibly strong.

There are other tournaments held in Hungary which I believe have a very dubious reputation (Kesckemet is the most famous)

I am pretty sure if you ask the other Australian players who took part they will tell you how tough the tournaments are and were legit events.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 08:02 PM
I have found one Narek Seferjan of Armenia on the ChessBase MegaDatabase.
I found that GM on the FIDE website.

Could Michael have meant him?I did not want to automatically make that assumption.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-05-2007, 08:34 PM
Can you provide any evidence he ever had a FIDE rating of 2600+.

FIDE ratings lists seem to indicate that Igor Akhromeev's highest rating was 2424.
Also FIDE do not show him having the FM title. No doubt although he could qualify on rating he has apparently never applied for it.
The name is actually Vladimir Afromeev. http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4157770

The jump from 2405 to 2499 in APR 01 list with only 13 games does seem a bit strange (it would require 13/13 against opponents with average rating 2570 or 12/13 against 2645, unless for some reason K=15 was used). Other changes are not that dramatic, but his performance is much higher in his city of Tula then any other tournament.
Does seem a bit dubious, but that's all I know, so I won't make any claims.

As far as First Saturday concern, this is the first time I hear about any "irregularities". Some substantiation of the claims would be appreciated.

Bill Gletsos
22-05-2007, 08:57 PM
The name is actually Vladimir Afromeev. http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4157770Thanks for correcting the name.
It does make checking things difficult when Michael doesn't spell their names correctly. :wall:

The jump from 2405 to 2499 in APR 01 list with only 13 games does seem a bit strange (it would require 13/13 against opponents with average rating 2570 or 12/13 against 2645, unless for some reason K=15 was used).I believe that if he had played less than a total of 30 games prior to the April 01 period then his K would still be 25.

Other changes are not that dramatic, but his performance is much higher in his city of Tula then any other tournament.
Does seem a bit dubious, but that's all I know, so I won't make any claims.Yes it does look strange. ;)

As far as First Saturday concern, this is the first time I hear about any "irregularities". Some substantiation of the claims would be appreciated.Agree.

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 09:45 PM
HUGE STATEMENT

Care to cite one of the many that was rigged, and then provide some evidence? :eek:

I can site many but of course unless fide strips ppl of their titles officially, these charges will not be considered as "proven" however, these things are common knowledge among chess players in Russia :)

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 09:48 PM
I can find no player named Grechikhin who is shown as a GM on the FIDE website nor is there any player named Seferian on the FIDE rating list.

sigh..problems with spelling.

4157770 Afromeev, Vladimir 2628
4121015 Grechihin, Valery g RUS 2304 0 1937 M

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 09:49 PM
I have found one Narek Seferjan of Armenia on the ChessBase MegaDatabase.

Could Michael have meant him?

Yep its him...he must have changed citizenship to Armenian as he was (and to my knowledge is) living in Moscow

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 09:51 PM
The name is actually Vladimir Afromeev. http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4157770

The jump from 2405 to 2499 in APR 01 list with only 13 games does seem a bit strange (it would require 13/13 against opponents with average rating 2570 or 12/13 against 2645, unless for some reason K=15 was used). Other changes are not that dramatic, but his performance is much higher in his city of Tula then any other tournament.
Does seem a bit dubious, but that's all I know, so I won't make any claims.

As far as First Saturday concern, this is the first time I hear about any "irregularities". Some substantiation of the claims would be appreciated.


Igor, Afromeev is the president of chess federation for Tula Region as well as its main sponsor :D

MichaelBaron
22-05-2007, 09:55 PM
Anyway, have a look at the list of Russian GMs rated under 2400. One of them is world-famous GM (Taimanov) whose playing strength reduced due to old age. Another One is a well-known player and coach who is now rated 2200+ due to his drinking and health problems. All the other russian GMs that are rated under 2400....;)

Metro
22-05-2007, 10:08 PM
So lets take it easy....If someone wants an FM title - they can have mine :).
If one day i want it back..i will make a comeback to tournament play..and play another 30 games..and get it again.

Also, i need to start raising money for an IM title. In my case, it will require a trip to Hungary or Ukraine. Or shall i just send money to tournament organizers there and they will send me reports on my qualification norms? I know one guy who has never been to Hungary in his entire life...yet he got his IM title from there :). I wonder how one can manage to win a tournament..without every visiting a country where it was held :hmm:

Anyway, lets just give everyone some kind of title...it will solve the problem all together :)

I like your sense of humour,Michael:lol:

Basil
22-05-2007, 10:11 PM
with first saturday ones..some are genuine though (but not all) Alushat ones - are fully rigged.HUGE STATEMENT. Care to cite one of the many that was rigged, and then provide some evidence?I...these charges will not be considered as "proven" however, these things are common knowledge among chess players in Russia
I think you need a quick visit to the House of Bonham for the purposes of a cranial interface concerning the reality of what constitutes acceptable exposure for this board. I believe two options are available:
1) Intellectual digestion of the rules and retraction, or
2) Metaphysical spell in the cooler,

The problem is that you have inferred the occurrence of a repeated criminal act without any substantiation and compounded the problem by saying the criminal act is a well-known fact! With the crime in play, you've bunged in defo as well. Excellent! It's been a while since I witnessed such a smooth double bung.

My care-factor is incidentally approximately zip. If it were my board, I'd feel somewhat differently.

Mischa
22-05-2007, 10:20 PM
I will never let her play again...how awful for her to be under the scrutiny of such nasty petty little men...you belittle chess and my daughter...she gave her time and her dignity for the good of chess...she benefited not at all, only chess did...to think she got excited about playing chess....another one lost...go guys

Basil
22-05-2007, 10:33 PM
Mischa, no-one is referring to India. They are referring to a principle. I think that clarification has been most clearly illuminated.

Would you feel happier if the point were made using my son instead? It is a valid point. There's no room to take it personally.

Mischa
22-05-2007, 10:37 PM
then why was her name mentioned several times?...by all means go back and replace your sons name with India's...she is 8 years old
lay off

Rincewind
22-05-2007, 10:38 PM
Mischa, no-one is referring to India. They are referring to a principle. I think that clarification has been most clearly illuminated.

Jono did refer to India and he is accurate described by Mischa as a petty little man. His inaccurate and unfair post has been corrected by at least 4 other posters to date.

Mischa
22-05-2007, 10:40 PM
Everyone in the tournament was thrilled and excited and grateful for her participation...who are you to belittle that?

Basil
22-05-2007, 10:53 PM
Everyone in the tournament was thrilled and excited and grateful for her participation...who are you to belittle that?
I have not belittled that. I agree with your sentiment entirely.

Beyond that, I won't comment further as you are prone to lapses in any logical leaps that don't have big letters, coloured numbers and fool-proof instructions.

Basil
22-05-2007, 10:55 PM
Jono did refer to India and he is accurate described by Mischa as a petty little man. His inaccurate and unfair post has been corrected by at least 4 other posters to date.
He referred to India in that he identified the existence of an individual to qualify his assertion. As it turns out, it appears his assertion has been debunked by pax and Igor, I believe.

The comment was not germane to India, the individual. C'mon Barry. You know what's at play here. Jono was in no way attacking India, and nor is anyone else.

Rincewind
22-05-2007, 10:58 PM
C'mon Barry. You know what's at play here.

In my opinion it was overtly personal and disparaging. The fact that the "point" he was trying to make was moot anyway is of secondary concern.

Bereaved
22-05-2007, 10:59 PM
I have not belittled that. I agree with your sentiment entirely.

Beyond that, I won't comment further as you are prone to lapses in any logical leaps that don't have big letters, coloured numbers and fool-proof instructions.

This is rude ( in Red ), Howard

You owe yourself better than to post such things

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Mischa
22-05-2007, 11:04 PM
you are right Howard i am sorry... I so did need the big letters et all as I failed to recognise your negative, envious, low browed attempts at putting down children

Mischa
22-05-2007, 11:05 PM
got it now

Basil
22-05-2007, 11:12 PM
In my opinion it was overtly personal and disparaging.
Can you point me to the disparaging comment?


The fact that the "point" he was trying to make was moot anyway is of secondary concern.
Disagree. I think Jono genuinely believed he was correct. His argument required mentioning the existence of India to illustrate the devaluation caused by a poorly rated player. It might have been me, for instance.

That his bona fide and transparent argument wasn't valid, is the moot point.

Rincewind
22-05-2007, 11:21 PM
Can you point me to the disparaging comment?

Pretty much the whole post. I'm not going to go through it line by line, but it was certainly unwarranted commentary for someone who only participated as a favour to avoid the bye.


Disagree. I think Jono genuinely believed he was correct and his argument required that illustrate the devaluation by a poorly rated player. It might have been me, for instance. That his is bona fide and transparent argument wasn't valid is the moot point.

Jono genuinely believes a lot of falsehoods. The sincerity of the belief does not excuse the ill-mannered way it was raised.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2007, 11:23 PM
Mischa, no-one is referring to India. They are referring to a principle. I think that clarification has been most clearly illuminated.

Yes of course. No one was doubting that India was doing the tournament organizers a favour by playing, and did nothing wrong herself, and that she and her mother had their hearts in the right place. The problem was only the system itself, which would allow a WIM title for a percentage which included beating a beginner.

Basil
22-05-2007, 11:30 PM
Beyond that, I won't comment further as you are prone to lapses in any logical leaps that don't have big letters, coloured numbers and fool-proof instructions.This is rude ( in Red ), Howard. You owe yourself better than to post such things

Rude?
Yes it is. We are in agreement there. What's still up for grabs is whether it was pertinent and justified, and secondarily the degree of rudeness.

Pertinent?
Absolutely. I have never met anyone IRL or on a BB so incapable of logical and rational discussion. This BB is littered with instances.

Justified?
I will take that into consideration. I appreciate your comments about owing myself better.

Degree?
C'mon. Hardly heady stuff.

While I take on board your valued counsel. Here's one for you; viz your selective defence of individuals. The last time you defended an individual from one of my assaults, I received a complete and irrevocable retraction from that individual for an entire year's worth of baseless trolling. He then proceeded to admonish himself and acknowledge my valuable contribution. My point is that your evaluations may be slightly clouded.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2007, 11:31 PM
Everyone in the tournament was thrilled and excited and grateful for her participation...

It's not surprising that those going for a title would be delighted that they had a possible free point, making the required percentage that much easier. Even more so, FIDE would be, because they love the money that Bi-Lo titles bring them.


who are you to belittle that?

No one is belittling India; they are belittling the Bi-Lo title factory that encouraged her for its own ends. Any more than I was belittling my beloved wife earlier in this thread, when I joked that I would get her a WIM title from Bi-Lo for our anniversary. Or that President Duggan was belittling his son, if the example was that he was a participant in the Zonal where FM and IM titles were awarded.

Mischa
22-05-2007, 11:35 PM
finally Howard flatters me....that HE thinks I am incapable of rational or logical discussion just proves my intelligence..thank you howard....you honour me

Aaron Guthrie
22-05-2007, 11:38 PM
Even more so, FIDE would be, because they love the money that Bi-Lo titles bring them.How does this occur? Does the ACF have to pay a fee for the titles?

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 12:13 AM
.... so that there would be no byes thus ensuring that anyone qualifying for a title or a norm had indeed played 9 games of which 2 are allowed to be against unrated players.This is an interesting point you raise and one I should have checked earlier.

As stated in FIDE regulations:
1.2 Titles achieved from International Championships:
1.21 As indicated below, a player may gain a title from such an event or, gain a single title result (norm). The requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 have to be applied.

Now part of 1.46 states:
1.46a Maximum 22% of the opponents shall be unrated.

In a 9 tound event that is 1.98 which rounds up to 2.

Alexandra Jule who will supposedly get the WIM title played only 4 FIDE rated players.
Her opponents Frentina Antrea, Rachna Ram, Kieran Lyons, Rebecca Harris and Imelda Flores are all FIDE unrated.

Sue Maroroa who will supposedly get the WFM title played only 5 FIDE rated players.
Her opponents Rebecca Harris, Shirley Wu, Imelda Flores and Kieran Lyons are all FIDE unrated.

Rebecca Harris who will supposedly get the WFM title played only 5 FIDE rated players.
Her opponents Frentina Antrea, Kieran Lyons, Imelda Flores and India Morris are all FIDE unrated.

Vivan smith who supposeddly misses the WFM title on tiebreak played only 5 FIDE rated players.
Her opponents Kieran Lyons, Frentina Antrea, Shirley Wu, Imelda Flores and Rachna Ram are all FIDE unrated.

In fact it appears that no one in the event played 7 FIDE rated players.

As such it would appear that no titles were therefore gained under the relevant regulations in the Womens Zonal.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 12:15 AM
How does this occur? Does the ACF have to pay a fee for the titles?The ACF pays 100% of GM and WGM titles, and 50% of IM and WIM titles.

Aaron Guthrie
23-05-2007, 12:16 AM
The ACF pays 100% of GM and WGM titles, and 50% of IM and WIM titles.And FM titles? I am only asking here about the ones from the zonals.

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 12:49 AM
This is an interesting point you raise and one I should have checked earlier.

As stated in FIDE regulations:
1.2 Titles achieved from International Championships:
1.21 As indicated below, a player may gain a title from such an event or, gain a single title result (norm). The requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 have to be applied.

Now part of 1.46 states:
1.46a Maximum 22% of the opponents shall be unrated.


Perhaps you are right Bill but another interpretation is that 1.46 is only applicable for WIM, WGM, IM and GM titles.

For example 1.4 Prefaces to say the following regulation is only applicable for such titles and the inclusion of 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 is clearly only necessary for those titles.

I believe 1.46 is only included because it is necessary for the application of 1.47 and above and it should not be applied for WCM, WFM, CM and FM titles.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 12:52 AM
Perhaps you are right Bill but another interpretation is that 1.46 is only applicable for WIM, WGM, IM and GM titles.

For example 1.4 Prefaces to say the following regulation is only applicable for such titles and the inclusion of 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 is clearly only necessary for those titles.

I believe 1.46 is only included because it is necessary for the application of 1.47 and above and it should not be applied for WCM, WFM, CM and FM titles.

I read it as meaning it would apply to all titles mentioned in 0.31 though in examples given only the main titles are mentioned.

Phil Bourke
23-05-2007, 12:57 AM
Does this latest exchange between Jono and Mischa and a few other interested parties exemplify the biggest hurdle facing those in opposition to the current system FIDE is using to allocate titles?
That to acknowledge that FIDE needs to address this issue is seen as an insult to their own, or loved ones, chess credibility.
Particularly hard when you are pursuing, or involved with someone, pursuing what is acknowledged as a standard amongst that fraternity, to have that standard questioned amongst peers.
Explains why examples are always dangerous, someone is going to be insulted.
To cite an example from another sphere, I once had a horse entered for heats of a reasonably big event, at least in the local scale of things. During the period leading up to the running of these heats, the local paper ran an article criticising the Authorities for excluding one particular horse from the heats. Even though it was a correct and proper ruling according to the rules of harness racing. The article correctly identified the error, and that it was a shamozzle that should not happen. Unfortunately, the journalist also took the liberty of naming my horse amongst three that should not have been in the heats in preference to the horse that was excluded. Now did that hurt? You bet. I wanted to snot the guy :) However, I bit my tongue, had a quiet word with my horse and we went out and ran an enormous 2nd in the heat to qualify for the final. As we returned to weigh in, the journalist came on track to get his usual info from the connections of the placegetters etc, and when he approached me for my comment, it was in the form of the following, "If you aren't writing an apology, then F off." It didn't get printed :) But I was satisfied.
To wrap up, I agree with Jono on the issue of 'soft' titles, (seem to be in good company too I might add, watch the interview with Ian Rogers).
Without insulting any of the participants that are currently seeking, playing in, or have achieved their titles by the current system that is in place. I do have the following question I would ask of them, how much esteem do they place in their title when it is questioned by players with similar, or better titles? To use another harness racing analogy, an old timer once told me, 'Don't get caught up by someone telling you how quick their horse has run, always ask, "How much money has it won, who has it beat?" That'll give you a far better yardstick.'

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 12:58 AM
Perhaps you are right Bill but another interpretation is that 1.46 is only applicable for WIM, WGM, IM and GM titles.

For example 1.4 Prefaces to say the following regulation is only applicable for such titles and the inclusion of 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 is clearly only necessary for those titles.

I believe 1.46 is only included because it is necessary for the application of 1.47 and above and it should not be applied for WCM, WFM, CM and FM titles.That may well be true however 1.21 makes no mention of 1.4 and only the specific subsections, hence there is no reason to assume that 1.4 applies in this case.

frog
23-05-2007, 01:02 AM
Hi All,

There are always ways to achieve titles in an undeserved manner.

FIDE appears to focus on making money from chess while being "all one family" - how much is driven by cash in the awarding of "soft titles" is debatable.

I have been annoyed that some people seem to be achieving titles with modest results against modest opposition but such is the nature of the rules - once you have a set of rules careful analysis can give you ways to how can one say - condition the rules to suit a particular personal objective.

To single out one particular young person whom did not profit from such "conditioning of the rules" seems most unfortunate especially for the particular young individual concerned , however I dont think anything of ill intent either intentional or otherwise was aimed at the young chessplayer rather people seemed to need "facts and figures" to support a particular argument showing perhaps just how seriously some posters take their submissions to this forum.

I have been coaching children for about 10 years and find that being positive even about silly mistakes is the way to go - if they blunder in important game i say "remember the pain of the blunder - recognise the blunder - learn from the blunder". I feel the young chessplayer concerned may have learnt a lot from her chess experience and it would be an Enormous pity if she stops playing chess as inferred earlier because of some earlier ? posts.

Kindest Regards to ALL

Basil
23-05-2007, 01:03 AM
Big ups to Phil. Great post.

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 01:04 AM
I read it as meaning it would apply to all titles mentioned in 0.31 though in examples given only the main titles are mentioned.

I think there is ambiguity as 1.21 talks about all sorts of titles and says by way of introducing them all that "The requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 have to be applied."

1.4 starts with "The GM, IM, WGM, WIM titles can also be gained by achieving norms in internationally rated tournaments played according to the following regulations."

so it is clear that 1.4 applies to the these 4 titles (which are also covered by 1.21). So whether 1.46 applies to the CM and FM titles of 1.21 is a certainly open to question.

Further, as I mentioned above, 1.46 is required for the application of 1.47 , 1.48 and 1.49. The last three rules don't apply to xCM, xFM titles as far as I can tell.So it appears to me that the application of a subclause of 1.46 is not what is intended by the wording of 1.21.

In fact the ONLY clause of 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 that could possibly apply to xCM and xFM titles is 1.46a. If that was the intention of the wording then they would have been more specific.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 01:20 AM
In fact the ONLY clause of 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 that could possibly apply to xCM and xFM titles is 1.46a.I think you would find that 1.46b would also apply.

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 01:24 AM
I think you would find that 1.46b would also apply.

I think 1.46b only applies for the purposes of calculating performance ratings which is why 1.46-49 are appended to 1.21.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 01:37 AM
Note in the old regulations (2001) 80% of players had to be rated in Title Tournaments however that requirement was explicitly stated as being waivered for zonals. It was not waivered in Continental Championships etc.

It could be considered that perhaps with the new drafting of the regulations that the waiver on zonals was removed to bring zonals in line with other title tournaments. After all if the waiver was meant to still apply why remove the wording.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 01:40 AM
I think 1.46b only applies for the purposes of calculating performance ratings which is why 1.46-49 are appended to 1.21.I think this whole thing is another situation of FIDE regulations leaving a lot to be desired. ;)

After all I have identified 13 Articles that are incorrect on the FIDE website in the html pages of the Laws of Chess.

The correct set of Laws is at http://www.fide.com/official/handbook/E_I_01a.pdf

eclectic
23-05-2007, 01:53 AM
I think this whole thing is another situation of FIDE regulations leaving a lot to be desired. ;)

Not necessairly.

Consider 1.21 as the table which lists all the titles and how they may be achieved.

This comes under 1.2 ie titles gained via international championships

It then states that 1.42 .46 .47. 48 and .49 are necessary preconditions to the conditions given in the table of 1.21.

1.4 refers to to titles gained by norms for which all 1.4x conditions must be fulfilled.

Essentially titles normally earned by achieving a specific rating ie 1.3 still have to satisfy (minimum) conditions 1.42 .46 .47 .48 and .49 when sought under the auspices of 1.2

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 02:01 AM
I think this whole thing is another situation of FIDE regulations leaving a lot to be desired. ;)

They certainly could do with some streamlining and the number of errors with the online rules is also an issue.

However, on current wording I think there is more reason to believe 1.46a does not apply to the lower titles. Certainly if it is meant to apply then a mentioning of 1.46a explicitly or some wording extending the scope of 1.4 to include FM and CM titles seem conspicuously absent.

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 02:10 AM
It then states that 1.42 .46 .47. 48 and .49 are necessary preconditions to the conditions given in the table of 1.21.

1.4 refers to to titles gained by norms for which all 1.4x conditions must be fulfilled.

Essentially titles normally earned by achieving a specific rating ie 1.3 still have to satisfy (minimum) conditions 1.42 .46 .47 .48 and .49 when sought under the auspices of 1.2

You are claiming more than what the law states. All that it says is simply

As indicated below, a player may gain a title from such an event or, gain a single title result (norm). The requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 have to be applied.

Now if the requirements of 1.4 is that it only applies to XIM and xGM titles then that clause in 1.21 does not apply to whole table of titles just those frmo xIM and xGM titles.

As I argue above, it seems overly tortuous to claim that the rule makers would add the requirements of 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 when the only subclause of all those rules that applies to xFM and xCM qualification is 1.46a. If such was their intention then something more explicit (like your wording above) making it clear that their intention is to enforce 1.46a for the lower titles.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 02:11 AM
They certainly could do with some streamlining and the number of errors with the online rules is also an issue.

However, on current wording I think there is more reason to believe 1.46a does not apply to the lower titles. Certainly if it is meant to apply then a mentioning of 1.46a explicitly or some wording extending the scope of 1.4 to include FM and CM titles seem conspicuously absent.I dont think there is any doubt that 1.42 applies to the lower titles with regards games that can be counted even though 1.4 only mentions the higher titles.
As such there is no reason to assume that 1.42a does not apply.

In fact from 1.21 it could be argued that 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 should be applied except where they explicitly mention norm application.