PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 02:17 AM
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.You are the one claiming more than what the law states. If the requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 were to be applicable only to GM IM, WGM and WIM titles in 1.21 then that should be mentioned. 1.21 makes no mention at all of it.

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2007, 07:38 AM
The ACF pays 100% of GM and WGM titles, and 50% of IM and WIM titles.
There is something grossly wrong there, since the IM title is more meritorious than the WGM. This comes from an objective analysis of their strengths, and is the opinion of those who have earned both (e.g. Susan Polgar).

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 08:49 AM
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.

I think the case is stronger for 1.42 though that is not clear cut either. But at least all of 1.42 could feasible be applied to all games as you say.

However, it is clear the intention of 1.46 is to specify the way to determine average rating strength of opposition. The restriction of unrated player is simply to ensure you don't have too many players getting assigned the FIDE rating floor.

You are implying that 1.46a is intended to ensure a certain strength of opposition however with the FIDE moves to lower the rating floor over the last few years that just doesn't make sense. As ratings are not applicable to FM and CM titles, 1.46-1.49 doesn't apply.

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 08:51 AM
You are the one claiming more than what the law states. If the requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 were to be applicable only to GM IM, WGM and WIM titles in 1.21 then that should be mentioned. 1.21 makes no mention at all of it.

It is unnecessary as 1.4 defines to the scope of all the 1.4x laws and it is clear from 1.46 that it is intended for the calculation of opposition rating.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2007, 10:40 AM
We need thermometer to measure the temperature. That's the only thing it's useful for (silly jokes aside). We have to remember that we do not care about the temperature of the thermometer itself. It it's rigged we throw it away. If it's exposed to direct sunlight, we know that the temperature displayed is not the air temperature, therefore is useless.

Same applies to other "indcators" we use in our lives. They are only good if they carefully measure the information we are intrested in. The moment they are tempered with, they are useless.
Therefore we should remember to ask ourselves:
How reliable is an indicator? Does it really measure what it's suppose to measure? (remember thermometer in direct sunlight?)

It fully applies to any title (be it in science, chess, etc.)

"Doctor of science" title is supposed to indicate that the person holding it has an above average intelligence, reasonably high general level of education and a very high level of education and expertise in a particular area.
We should remember that title only recognises that someone is smart and educated. Having a "doctor of science" tile without properly earning it does not make anyone smarter or better educated.
Therefore, we always ask ourselves, how credible this title (i.e. which institution issued this title), how this particular person become a doctor, etc.
The real "doctor of science" is rightfully upset by proliferation of bogus "doctor of science" title.

Now back to chess

If I play a seventy four year old grandmaster with rating below 2200, I know he used to be a very strong player, but his strength declined with age. I found in FIDE rating list Gurgenidze ( rating 2182, 74yo), Damjanovic(2273, 80yo) and Bisguier(2248, 78yo) who used to be very strong players.

If I play an IM with rating below 2300, I wonder whether he ever played at 2400+ level. Chances still are he probably did, but I am not 100% sure.

If I play a 2000 player, what does his FM title tell me? Nothing. Maybe he used to be 2300+ player (if he is not junior), maybe not. No idea whatsoever.

Conclusion:
What is the use of the title if it does not indicate anything?

peter_parr
23-05-2007, 10:42 AM
FIDE decided at the 1998 Elista Olympiad to create a new Oceania sub-zone consisting of only 3 countries. This reduced the Asian zone to about 22 countries and the sub-zone to 3 countries. Chess Politics(another story!) prevented the zone being equally divided by strength and geography into two equal zones. All zonals before 1998 Australia was allowed to select only the top couple of players to represent Australia at the Asian zonals.

I give the following provisional list of the new 42 FIDE international titles awarded to Australian and New Zealand players from the new sub-zone since 1999. (included recommended 2007 titles)

International Masters - I.Berezina, M.Chapman, V.Feldman, P.Garbett, A.Ker, M.Rujevic, D.Smerdon, P.Wang, Z.Zhao

FIDE Masters -D.Dwyer,P.Green,A.Guthrie,J.Humphrey,B.Jones,L.Jon es,S.Lukey,J.Morris,G.Nakauchi,T.Reeves,G.Saw,N.St awsky,G.Szuveges,B.Tindall,S.Wastney,B.Watson,M.We eks,Z.Zhao,

FIDE Candidate Master M.Illingworth, A.Mendes da Costa

Womens International Master - J.Alexandra, N.Phan-Koshnitsky, N.Lane, L.Moylan, N.Szuveges

Womens FIDE Master - R.Harris, G.Johns Putra, C.Lip, S.Maroroa, S.Oliver, A.Song, N.Szuveges
Womens Candidate Master S.Wu and a 43rd international title to I.Flores PNG.

Smerdon and Zhao later reached 2400 and scored their norms for IM and Tindall reached 2300. Is it correct that none of the other 40 ever had a FIDE rating in accordance with their title ? Many players rated way below par for their title- Soft indeed. Are there more title-holders I may have missed ?

The sub-zone had its own sub-zone president and sub-zonals but dropped the "sub" in 2007 in Oceania. Note the Central American sub-zonal remains a qualifying event for the South American zonal.

I retain the firm view that Australia should have set a good example in its administration by preventing these soft titles - all 43 of them. Beginners are not allowed in the NSW Championship, only the best are allowed in the Australian Championship yet we now allow complete beginners in the world championship qualifier. We should discuss with our continental president the abolition of our sub-zone(now 4 countries) and return to a respectable Asian zone. The chess politics of a bygone era will have been forgotten by new administration in most Asian countries.- Gens una sumus -.


Here is a brief account I wrote of the 1999 Sub-zonal in 1999.

The Easy Road to Chess Mastery Down Under
by 6 times Australian Olympic Captain Peter Parr (International Arbiter)

A minimum FIDE rating of 2400 and 2 or more IM results (over 2450 performance rating) in international events are the basic requirements for the international master title.
A minimum FIDE rating of 2300 after 24 rated games is the standard for FIDE master.
Each country is allocated between one and 5 of its best players (according to number of players above 2600 etc.) to compete in the world championship cycle (Zonals) and in view of the traditional high standard of these events a 67% score in the zonal gains an IM title and a 50% score an FM title.
No weak player ever gained a title in this way simply because only the best players from each nation competed.
The Australian zonal in April 1999 was widely advertised as a completely open event with very low rated players paying a high entry fee and international titles available for everyone.
Australian GM Ian Rogers wrote in the Canberra Times on February 1999 "At present only ten Australians hold the IM title and 4 the women's equivalent. Yet if enough amateurs can find the funds to enter the Oceania Zonal, that number could increase considerably by the end of April and our population of FIDE masters explode.
Of course it is very satisfying for a modest tournament player to pick up a FIDE title, but whether it is a healthy situation for Australia to join Burma as the country with the weakest FIDE masters in the world is another."
14 New International Titles Confirmed
More than one year after the open zonal FIDE has finally confirmed that Australia has 14 new international titles from the 1999 Zonals.
23 of the 26 Australians rated above 1400 ACF (rating scale same as FIDE) who competed in the events are now internationally titled. I find this quite disgraceful.
It is absurd that very weak club players in the men's zonal beat 2 players rated below 1400 and scored 2.5 out of 7 (draws with each other) against players over 1400 and are now internationally titled. A score of 7.5/10 against an average of 1459 gained a Women's IM title or two others 5/10 for the WFM title. Note this is not a mistake 1400 is 900 rating below FM level.
Needless to say none of the ratings of any of the 14 players has ever reached the usual FIDE level for the title and it was impossible for any Australian to score an IM norm in the Zonal.
Many low rated club players simply drew with each other scoring 50% for the FM title. Sadly an international arbiter agrees he prepared his entire last round draw from chessbase with his junior opponent and completed the complicated 23 move draw in 10 minutes. I do not congratulate these new masters.
Another Master from Australia. Another player who had his IM norms approved but was well below 2400 simply played a match against his friend which he won 9-1 (nearly every game without an arbiter) and he was awarded the title. He jokingly told a colleague that he could show him game 11 of the match. The result was sent to FIDE by Australia.
FIDE Ratings and Titles Police Needed Thousands of results are processed yearly and rapidly increasing. The FIDE qualifications commission does a fantastic job in checking hundreds of applications for titles. It does not however check Zonal events which are processed through the FIDE office.
I am ashamed that Australia has claimed all these international titles and has set a very dangerous precedent for the world.
AUSTRALIA IS ALLOWED 3 TOP PLAYERS IN THE MEN'S ZONAL YET ENTERS 23 INCLUDING NUMEROUS BEGINNERS WHO SCORE 50% AGAINST EACH OTHER AND FIDE GIVES THEM ALL INTERNATIONAL TITLES.
If other countries follow Australia's example we could have over a thousand internationally titled players world wide in the next year.
I feel strongly that international titles should be awarded only to players who reach the required standard.
A full report by me (2576 words) on the sub standard sub zonal tournament is on http://WWW.AUSCHESS.ORG.AU/acfb16.htm
The latest zonal finished recently in Auckland. If the claims for new FIDE titles are approved all the players rated above FIDE 2140 in the event will have international titles.

Kind regards
Peter Parr (International Arbiter)
FIDE now accepts IM and FM titles for 9 round completely open zonals. This MUST be stopped. My email to FIDE last year met with silence. Any suggestions?

Basil
23-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Two strong posts. Thankyou.

Desmond
23-05-2007, 11:09 AM
Womens International Master - J.AlexandraShould be A.Jule.

Desmond
23-05-2007, 12:03 PM
Sadly an international arbiter agrees he prepared his entire last round draw from chessbase with his junior opponent and completed the complicated 23 move draw in 10 minutes.Is this the case? If so, can someone please name the players? PM me if preferred.

MichaelBaron
23-05-2007, 12:22 PM
If I play a seventy four year old grandmaster with rating below 2200, I know he used to be a very strong player, but his strength declined with age. I found in FIDE rating list Gurgenidze ( rating 2182, 74yo), Damjanovic(2273, 80yo) and Bisguier(2248, 78yo) who used to be very strong players.

If I play an IM with rating below 2300, I wonder whether he ever played at 2400+ level. Chances still are he probably did, but I am not 100% sure.

If I play a 2000 player, what does his FM title tell me? Nothing. Maybe he used to be 2300+ player (if he is not junior), maybe not. No idea whatsoever.

Conclusion:
What is the use of the title if it does not indicate anything?

Very valid point. Some players simply do not need titles/ratings. In fact the Grandmasters listed above do not have to worry about their rating declining as they grow older.

Gurgenidize was many times (over 10 I believe) Champion of Georgia. He also has a variation in Caro-Kann Defence named after him.
Bisguier was US champion, represented US in chess ollimpiads as well as in the famouse USSR-USA match.

Some players retired from competitive chess early enough to preserve their ratings at respectable level, but still ....Do they need a rating?

Bronstein's last published rating was 2432...
Taimanov's rating is 2393
Larsen around 2460
Gligoric around 2440
Smyslov around 2480
Tal's last rating before he died was 2525....
Reshevsky's last rating - around 2410...
Do these people need/needed a rating or a title? Everybody knows who they are and what they have done for chess.

If i get to play some 2450 rated IM..well its nice but nothing special. However, i would pay anything to get a chance to play against Smyslov or Gligoric or Larsen. In fact no need to play! Just sitting opposite them at the chess board would be an enourmous thrill!

In the late 1980's I saw Botvinnik at Moscow's Central Chess Club. I was really tempted to approach him and ask for an autograph..but i could not! My feet would not move! As a 13 yo boy, i did not have the courage to walk up to him.

In 1990, a GMA tourney was held in Moscow. By the time, I grew more confident (and older) so i did get Reshevsky's autograph. In that tourney, Reshevsky scored 2/9 against an average field of 2400+. But did it really matter to me?

Of course titles are nice. If I buy an IM title, I can probably keep on playing..after all many IMs play around 2300 level (I still do not see any point in such a purchase as it would give me nill satisfaction)

But imagine if I buy a GM title :D . What would I do with it? I would simply be embarassed to walk into a chess club! I would have to go in permanent hiding from the chess community.

There is one guy who used to study chess with me at the Moscow palace of pioneers. he was quite a talented kid and he became a candidate master by the age of 15. After this, he retired from chess to concentrate on his studies. he came back to chess in about 12 years...to become a 2550 rated GM within a year. After this he travelled to Spain to play in a couple of open tournaments where he performed at aprox. 2200 level (his real strength). Obviously, he retired from chess once again:D

Of course FM title is nothing like a GM title. However, those who get it easy way shoud realise: the title brings no real benefits to them, yet instead of recieving recognition from the chess-playing community - they become a laughing stock :D .

P.S. Last time i played my "grandmaster friend" on the Internet i scored 70% against him. Obviously i started teasing him a little bit saying that he should transfer his title to me. My friend (not to be "outsmarted") responded in his usual humourous mannyer by saying "Mishka, do not they pay you enough in Australa? GM title is not that expensive! Stop begging, and start saving for a title of your own":rolleyes:

arosar
23-05-2007, 12:25 PM
Is this the case? If so, can someone please name the players? PM me if preferred.

I think it was actually 26 moves:

[Event "Gold Coast Men's zt"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5 12. h4 h5 13. Bh6 Bxh6 14. Qxh6 Rxc3 15. bxc3 Qc7 16. Kb1 Rc8 17. g4 a5 18. gxh5 a4 19. Bd5 Nxd5 20.
exd5 Qxc3 21. hxg6 fxg6 22. Rhg1 Bf5 23. Nxf5 Qxc2+ 24. Ka1 Qc3+ 25. Kb1 Qc2+ 26. Ka1 1/2-1/2

And here is the original:

[Event "URS-FL56"]
[Site "Simferopol"]
[Date "1988.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Khalifman, Alexander"]
[Black "Savchenko, Stanislav"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B78"]
[WhiteElo "2530"]
[BlackElo "2480"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[EventDate "1988.??.??"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 O-O 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. h4 Ne5 11. Bb3 h5 12. O-O-O Rc8 13. Bh6 Bxh6 14. Qxh6 Rxc3 15. bxc3 Qc7 16. Kb1 Rc8 17. g4 a5 18. gxh5 a4 19. Bd5 Nxd5 20.
exd5 Qxc3 21.hxg6 fxg6 22. Rhg1 Bf5 23. Nxf5 Qxc2+ 1/2-1/2

Source: ACF Bulletin No. 16 - 9 May, 1999

Brian_Jones
23-05-2007, 12:57 PM
Is this the case? If so, can someone please name the players? PM me if preferred.

There is only one IA in the list. Manual Weeks.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 02:30 PM
So as to return to topic may I ask if outside independant expertise has been sought re the validity of the titles "earned?" at this recent Oceania Zonal?

Watto
23-05-2007, 04:13 PM
So as to return to topic ...
Excellent idea.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 04:40 PM
Understood. ;)

Denis_Jessop
23-05-2007, 06:00 PM
You are the one claiming more than what the law states. If the requirements in 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48 and 1.49 were to be applicable only to GM IM, WGM and WIM titles in 1.21 then that should be mentioned. 1.21 makes no mention at all of it.

I am just catching up on this debate. It seems to have been carried on throughout the night - when do you guys sleep? :rolleyes:

I think the whole situation is rather uncertain but I think that it may be analysed as follows.

In approaching the interpretation of Art. 1.2 with regard to the reference to the particular provisions of Art.1.4 one must ask "why is the reference to 1.4 included?"

One answer to that question is, were it not there, the persons to whom it applies (prospective GMs, IMs, WGMs & WIMs) could argue that 1.21 applied to the exclusion of 1.4.

There is a strong argument for this as 1.4 starts with the words "The GM, IM, WGM, WIM titles can also be gained ..." and that this implies that those provisions do not apply to 1.2 people. Thus the reference to the parts of 1.4 is in 1.2 to ensure that the persons to whom 1.4 applies must comply with them in a 1.2 situation. If that argument is correct, the nominated 1.4 provisions would not apply to prospective FMs, WFMs, CMs & WCMs.

There would seem to be a real question why FIDE would want to apply the 1.4 provisions to FMs and CMs when those provisions do not normally apply to them whereas it is quite logical for FIDE to apply them to GMs and IMs because they normally do apply to them. Thus 1.21 is ensuring that provisions that normally apply are not avoided by the special provisions of 1.2.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2007, 06:03 PM
Since India Morris replaced a BYE in the draw, I don't think her inclusion is of any issue whatsoever.

Of course it is. It means that a title could have been gained from nine games including one against a beginner. (I am not sure how it is "condescending" to state the truth, or how it could be stated without offending someone, or how to make it clearer that the fault was with the system not with India.)


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.

Then it's obvious: FIDE titles should not be granted for percentages in a totally open tourney, just as Peter Parr said in Post # 506!

eclectic
23-05-2007, 06:22 PM
I read it as meaning that gaining a title or title result under 1.2 is a special case outside the norm provisions of 1.4.

Therefore even the major titles are exempt from most of the usual 1.4 provisions when sought under 1.2 except for those mentioned in 1.21.

Minor titles are exempted from the provisions of 1.3 when sought under 1.2

I don't think there should ever be an exemption from having to play at least 7 rated opponents out of 9 which is what this debate is really about.

However, who knows what loophole or presidential disgression is hidden in the regulations?

Rincewind
23-05-2007, 06:59 PM
There would seem to be a real question why FIDE would want to apply the 1.4 provisions to FMs and CMs when those provisions do not normally apply to them whereas it is quite logical for FIDE to apply them to GMs and IMs because they normally do apply to them. Thus 1.21 is ensuring that provisions that normally apply are not avoided by the special provisions of 1.2.

I agree that it is logical for this to be the reason for inclusion. I fail to see the relevance of 1.46a to FM and CM titles, particularly in the current era of falling FIDE rating floors.

I suspect all of the player in the Open and all but one of the players in the Women's were of a strength no less than the current FIDE floor and their lack of a FIDE rating just speaks of a lack of opportunity to participate in FIDE rated events. Therefore for any of the titles to be denied by pedantic application is 1.46a would also seem to be a miscarriage of the intent of the regulations and penalising Oceania based on a lack of FIDE rated opportunities in the Pacific island nations in particular.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 07:12 PM
Therefore for any of the titles to be denied by pedantic application is 1.46a would also seem to be a miscarriage of the intent of the regulations and penalising Oceania based on a lack of FIDE rated opportunities in the Pacific island nations in particular.

All the more reason for the zone to be abolished and merged with the one containing Indonesia, Vietnam, The Phillipines ... ?

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2007, 07:26 PM
I suspect all of the player in the Open and all but one of the players in the Women's were of a strength no less than the current FIDE floor and their lack of a FIDE rating just speaks of a lack of opportunity to participate in FIDE rated events. Therefore for any of the titles to be denied by pedantic application is 1.46a would also seem to be a miscarriage of the intent of the regulations and penalising Oceania based on a lack of FIDE rated opportunities in the Pacific island nations in particular.If they didnt allow FIDE unrated players in the zonal in the first place then there wouldnt be a problem. :hand:

MichaelBaron
23-05-2007, 07:33 PM
If they didnt allow FIDE unrated players in the zonal in the first place then there wouldnt be a problem. :hand:

From my experiences with tournament organizers, they will let anyone in..as long as entry fees are being paid. I think if the Aus Championship would not have a Reserves tournament running same time as the championship, the very same thing would happen to the championship :).

eclectic
23-05-2007, 07:40 PM
If they didnt allow FIDE unrated players in the zonal in the first place then there wouldnt be a problem. :hand:

True.

Perhaps they need to have "open" redefined to mean "open to all FIDE players with an established rating".

Garvinator
23-05-2007, 08:31 PM
True.

Perhaps they need to have "open" redefined to mean "open to all FIDE players with an established rating".
One problem with this is that you could be denying someone a place in the Zonal field who is actually stronger than some of the entrants in the field who do have fide rating.

This is quite likely in Australia.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 08:52 PM
One problem with this is that you could be denying someone a place in the Zonal field who is actually stronger than some of the entrants in the field who do have fide rating.

This is quite likely in Australia.

If they are too lazy to get themselves a FIDE rating by the time the zonal comes then it's tough ... :hand:

Denis_Jessop
23-05-2007, 08:52 PM
I have been thinking a bit further on the matter considered in my post #516.

I now see that there is an aspect of this matter that doesn't seem to have been fully explored and certainly not by me in #516.

The Fide title regs allow FM and CM titles (and the female equivalents) normally simply by achieving a specified "published rating at some time or other".

But in para 1.2 they have introduced what are, in effect, norm-like qualifications for those titles, for example, 9 games >= 50% for an FM in a Zonal.

Once they mention games there is a need to specify somehow which games are allowed to be considered.

For GM and IM norms this is dealt with in paras 1.42 and 1.46. But nowhere is there an equivalent for FMs and CMs because they do not normally gain their titles by norms.

However in the case of titles gained under para 1.2 such provisions are needed for those titles.

The argument can thus be put that the importation of parts of para 1.4 into para 1.2 applies to all the titles to which 1.2 refers as far as can be. There is a bit of drafting in 1.46 that lends support to this. It relevantly reads as follows:


1.46 Rating of opponents.
For an example of percentage rounding see 1.44.
1.46a Maximum 22% of the opponents shall be unrated.
1.46b The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used.
1.46c For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor) for the opponents shall be as follows:

The use of the words "for the purposes of norms" in 1.46c would be unnecessary if the whole of 1.46 already applied only to norms.

Thus I believe that there is a plausible argument, at least, for the application of 1.46 a and b to 1.2 cases and likewise 1.42 which does not refer specifically to norms.

The net result is that there is a need for clarification of this matter, among others, in relation to the recent Oceania Zonal and in general.

DJ

pax
23-05-2007, 10:27 PM
Of course it is. It means that a title could have been gained from nine games including one against a beginner. (I am not sure how it is "condescending" to state the truth, or how it could be stated without offending someone, or how to make it clearer that the fault was with the system not with India.)

How exactly is that worse than gaining a title from eight games plus a bye?

pax
23-05-2007, 10:39 PM
From my experiences with tournament organizers, they will let anyone in..as long as entry fees are being paid. I think if the Aus Championship would not have a Reserves tournament running same time as the championship, the very same thing would happen to the championship :).

I'm not sure what your point is, Michael. Tournament organisers have to pay the prizes somehow. And generally, yes, they do it by getting people to pay entry fees.

But it's not as if there are no non-open tournaments around. There are numerous divisionalised tournaments around from the Australian Championship and the Doeberl right down to club events.

eclectic
23-05-2007, 10:44 PM
How exactly is that worse than gaining a title from eight games plus a bye?

You can't from 8 games

You have to play 9.

Garvinator
23-05-2007, 11:32 PM
Is all this 'technical' debate possibly leading to the players not getting the titles?

eclectic
23-05-2007, 11:40 PM
Is all this 'technical' debate possibly leading to the players not getting the titles?

Yes.

Alex Jule and James Morris might not be eligible for their titles because of having played too many unrated opponents.

It's not a technical debate. Rules are there to be applied. It seems there are those bending over backwards to find loopholes to help make these already soft titles even softer.

MichaelBaron
23-05-2007, 11:52 PM
Yes.

Alex Jule and James Morris might not be eligible for their titles because of having played too many unrated opponents.

It's not a technical debate. Rules are there to be applied. It seems there are those bending over backwards to find loopholes to help make these already soft titles even softer.

In this case, who will get the titles?:D If they are not eligible some other players of roughly similar standards will get the titles, right? :hmm:

eclectic
23-05-2007, 11:54 PM
In this case, who will get the titles?:D If they are not eligible some other players of roughly similar standards will get the titles, right? :hmm:

I recall Max Illingworth being mentioned.
The girl mentioned escapes my memory presently.

Garvinator
23-05-2007, 11:59 PM
Yes.

Alex Jule and James Morris might not be eligible for their titles because of having played too many unrated opponents.

It's not a technical debate. Rules are there to be applied. It seems there are those bending over backwards to find loopholes to help make these already soft titles even softer.
My use of the word technical was deliberately meant to have a double meaning. The first meaning you have picked up on.

The second meaning is that I would be surprised if the ACF really pursued this matter to have the players 'stripped' of their titles if it is found that they should not receive them. As in actually formally writing to FIDE saying pointing out the regulations and strongly saying that the players should not be awarded the titles.

Hence the word 'technical', meaning that it will be debated and debated forever on here, but nothing meaningful will happen in the 'real world'.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:01 AM
I recall Max Illingworth being mentioned.
The girl mentioned escapes my memory presently.If at least 7 games against FIDE rated opponents is indeed required then none of the women qualify as I mentioned in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=155035&postcount=483

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2007, 12:06 AM
Kevin (and/or Bill)
Where do you get those figures?

I used the searchable FIDE ELO list at http://www.fredwehner.de/schach/fide.html.

Specify a title, search by rating across all federations, check or don't check "show inactive players", as the case may be. Oh, and because I'm lazy, I didn't count to the middle to find the median. Rather I cut and pasted each whole list into an Excel file thus numbering each player in order and making it easy to scroll to the middle. :owned:

eclectic
24-05-2007, 12:10 AM
My use of the word technical was deliberately meant to have a double meaning. The first meaning you have picked up on.

The second meaning is that I would be surprised if the ACF really pursued this matter to have the players 'stripped' of their titles if it is found that they should not receive them. As in actually formally writing to FIDE saying pointing out the regulations and strongly saying that the players should not be awarded the titles.

Hence the word 'technical', meaning that it will be debated and debated forever on here, but nothing meaningful will happen in the 'real world'.

But HAVE they actually been awarded their titles?

Bill?

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:20 AM
But HAVE they actually been awarded their titles?

Bill?I seriously doubt that FIDE has ratified any 2007 Zonal titles at this stage.

Kevin Bonham
24-05-2007, 12:30 AM
Re the unrated beginner situation, I assume the reason that the current regulations allow for nine games including two unrated, but not for eight including one unrated and a bye, is that it would normally be envisaged that an unrated player was merely a strong player who did not have a rating (and was perhaps chasing one). Such a rule then makes it possible for different players to chase ratings and titles in the same event without excessive interference with each other's aims.

What may not have been taken into account is the irregular possibility of players chasing titles in a small round-robin actually playing an unrated player who was exceedingly weak. Ideally the rules should simply not permit this; playing such a player should be no more use to a player's title ambitions. Something like the current 1.42d should apply to swisses as well, as a small swiss is essentially a round-robin in terms of the problems inclusion of a very weak player creates.

Sounds like a moot point anyway if Bill's interpretation of the 1.2/1.4 situation is correct.

Rincewind
24-05-2007, 01:40 AM
The net result is that there is a need for clarification of this matter, among others, in relation to the recent Oceania Zonal and in general.

I agree with this statement but I don't find the argument by analogy to norms all that strong. Firstly because 1.21 states

"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."

The wording is unclear as to whether the final sentence applies to both titles and norm or just norms. In any regard it the FM and CM titles only options are clearly not intended to be considered as norms as they are mentioned separately.

I think the wording of of 1.46c is making it clear that the the minimum ratings is purely for norm calculations. I think this is to exclude some unexpeced argument regarding FIDE rating or some such, rather than an attempt to clarify that 1.46a should be used for FM title qualification. That again would be tortuous logic, if that was their intention an explicit statement would make fair more sense.

The other point that should be considered is the name of rule 1.46
"Rating of opponent". This seems to colour the intention of 1.46 away from applying to exclude titles based on strength of the opponent but rather just describe the process used in the calculation of the rating of opponent. A reading of 1.46 in its entirety seems to bear out this assessment.

As I mentioned earlier as some of the points I make about 1.46 don't apply to 1.42 there is a stronger case for application of 1.42 for all titles. However the abiguity in 1.21 is such that even this is not clear. At least 1.42 is reasonally applicable to all and is titled something like games which not included. There is even a provision for excluding unrated games against weakly scoring opponents. However, this only applies in round-robins so doesn't apply to the Fiji events anyway.

Rincewind
24-05-2007, 01:45 AM
What may not have been taken into account is the irregular possibility of players chasing titles in a small round-robin actually playing an unrated player who was exceedingly weak. Ideally the rules should simply not permit this; playing such a player should be no more use to a player's title ambitions. Something like the current 1.42d should apply to swisses as well, as a small swiss is essentially a round-robin in terms of the problems inclusion of a very weak player creates.

I agree and such a rule would most naturally be included in 1.42 as games not to be included and not in 1.46 as rating of opponent. Note that 1.42d allows the inclusion of these games provided the player is proven to be sufficiently strong enough to not lose all games to rated opposition.


Sounds like a moot point anyway if Bill's interpretation of the 1.2/1.4 situation is correct.

That is a big IF.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 03:33 AM
The Fide title regs allow FM and CM titles (and the female equivalents)

The female equivalent of a FM and CM should be a woman qualifying for a FM or CM by exactly the same performance that a man would need. The softer WFM or WCM are in no way equivalent, even though the misguided ACF treats them that way.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 03:41 AM
One problem with this is that you could be denying someone a place in the Zonal field who is actually stronger than some of the entrants in the field who do have fide rating.
That is a problem, but nearly as big as allowing beginners to play and be counted as opponents for the required percentage.

pax
24-05-2007, 07:22 AM
The second meaning is that I would be surprised if the ACF really pursued this matter to have the players 'stripped' of their titles if it is found that they should not receive them. As in actually formally writing to FIDE saying pointing out the regulations and strongly saying that the players should not be awarded the titles.

Nobody has yet been awarded a title, so nobody would be stripped of anything. In order for titles to be ratified, FIDE would need to confirm that the conditions set out in the regulations have actually been met. If the conditions haven't been met, then a title cannot be awarded. It is up to the ACF whether it wants to claim titles where the conditions have not been met, but if FIDE is doing it's job properly it shouldn't make any difference.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 08:15 AM
if FIDE is doing it's job properly it shouldn't make any difference.

If FIDE were doing its job properly, they wouldn't have awarded Bi-Lo titles in the first place! :hand:

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 08:32 AM
That is a problem, but nearly as big as allowing beginners to play and be counted as opponents for the required percentage.

It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Jono amd Peter Parr are supporters of (1)

I am quite clearly a supporter of (2)

When you see Zhao put in a GM performance (as he did at Canberra) but fail to obtain a GM norm because the field lacked suffiecient titled players you will understand why.

Australia needs as many FIDE-rated and FIDE-titled players as possible so as to reach a critical mass of active players.

We have too many inactive titled players at present.

It is the future of Australian chess (popularity) that is more important than the egos of current and past players.

I hope as many young kids as possible win titles (and keep playing).

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 09:19 AM
It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Jono amd Peter Parr are supporters of (1)

I am quite clearly a supporter of (2)

When you see Zhao put in a GM performance (as he did at Canberra) but fail to obtain a GM norm because the field lacked suffiecient titled players you will understand why.

I don't understand why. I can lament just as much as you when players have great performances but miss norms through technicalities. My clubmate Stephen Solomon has had two performances well above the GM norm, but were not eligible. But this is not an argument for reducing standards, but could be one for eliminating technicalities. However, these technicalities are probably there for a reason, and eliminating them might cause more problems.


We have too many inactive titled players at present.

And the way to activate them is to award the same titles by Bi-Lo?


It is the future of Australian chess (popularity) that is more important than the egos of current and past players.

That I agree with. But I dispute that proliferation of titles is the way to do this. Players will value a title more if they have earned it.


I hope as many young kids as possible win titles (and keep playing).

I hope as many young kids as possible earn titles (and keep playing).

pax
24-05-2007, 09:20 AM
If FIDE were doing its job properly, they wouldn't have awarded Bi-Lo titles in the first place! :hand:

Sure, but we're talking about two different things here.

The rules themselves (which you disagree with) are a matter for debate. Following the rules once you have decided what they are is not a matter for debate. Either you follow the rules, or you don't.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 10:11 AM
Sure, but we're talking about two different things here.

The rules themselves (which you disagree with) are a matter for debate. Following the rules once you have decided what they are is not a matter for debate. Either you follow the rules, or you don't.

I think the point of the debate are the rules themselves.
It is evident (now to everyone, 8 years ago to some) that those rules awarded titles that do not serve their original purpose, e.g. show the level of strength once achived.

One of the posts (Peter Parr's, I think) lists people awarded titles from the zonal. Only few of them achived at some point in time a standard ascribed to the relevant title.

Ian Rout
24-05-2007, 10:22 AM
How exactly is that worse than gaining a title from eight games plus a bye?
Do byes count for the percentage or is it % of played games? If the latter then the difference is that to obtain 50% from eight + bye you need 4/8, while from nine you need 3.5/8 plus the point against the substitute.

pax
24-05-2007, 10:23 AM
I think the point of the debate are the rules themselves.
It is evident (now to everyone, 8 years ago to some) that those rules awarded titles that do not serve their original purpose, e.g. show the level of strength once achived.

We're getting sidetracked. I was just responding to Garvo's statement about "stripping" players of titles they haven't received yet. And it is certainly pertinent to the debate that some of the titles in question (for this year's Zonal) may not be awarded due to FIDE's own rules.

pax
24-05-2007, 10:25 AM
Do byes count for the percentage or is it % of played games? If the latter then the difference is that to obtain 50% from eight + bye you need 4/8, while from nine you need 3.5/8 plus the point against the substitute.

A valid point, and an error on my part. From my reading, a minimum of 9 games would be required for any title. Thus any player who had a bye would be automatically disqualified from the title regardless of how good their performance was.

Garvinator
24-05-2007, 10:33 AM
It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Jono amd Peter Parr are supporters of (1)

I am quite clearly a supporter of (2)
I am in camp 1. Dare I say it, but I think you will find that most chess players are in camp 1.

Garvinator
24-05-2007, 10:33 AM
A valid point, and an error on my part. From my reading, a minimum of 9 games would be required for any title. Thus any player who had a bye would be automatically disqualified from the title regardless of how good their performance was.
And this is why India was added to the draw in the first place ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 10:36 AM
Simplified summary of requirement for the titles (from FIDE web site)

Rating based:
1. FM - published rating of 2300+
2. CM - published rating of 2200+
3. WFM - published rating of 2100+
4. WCM - published rating of 2000+

Rating + norm based:
1. GM - rating of 2500 + 3 norms (perf 2600+ against certain mix of opponents)
2. IM - rating of 2400 + 3 norms (perf 2450+ against certain mix of opponents)
3. WGM - rating of 2300 + 3 norms (perf 2400+ against certain mix of opponents)
4. WGM - rating of 2200 + 3 norms (perf 2250+ against certain mix of opponents)

Those requirements are to make sure that certain standard of play was achived by the title holder at certain time.

Those standards are more or less uniform around the world (with the exception of Burma/Myanmar and the like)

However, in some countries like Australia for variety of reasons (including geographical) meeting the required "mix of opponents" is very difficult. That might (to some extent) justify the relaxing of that particular reqiurement.

FM, CM, WFM and WCM only require achiving certaing rating. It is no more difficult in Australia then anywhere else (if you have the strength!)

Could please someone explain why other requirements (apart from the mix of opponents) should be relaxed as well?

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 10:38 AM
(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.


Just deserving is fine

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 10:49 AM
Could please someone explain why other requirements (apart from the mix of opponents) should be relaxed as well?

As has been stated before, FIDE also award these titles for performances in certain events. This is irrespective of ratings!

If the winner of the World Junior Championship is unrated, he/she would still become a GM.

If the winner of the Arab U10 Championship is unrated, he/she would still become an FM.

Do you propose to tell FIDE to stop awarding these titles? :)

Sam
24-05-2007, 10:53 AM
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

That would be funny if it wasnt true. Oh the Curse of Kirsan! :(

arosar
24-05-2007, 10:55 AM
Hey BJ, your understanding of the situation, very surprisingly actually, is quite flawed. You don't need to relax standards just to encourage chess or increase the number of FIDE rated players or even the number of titled players.

AR

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:03 AM
So as to return to topic may I ask if outside independant expertise has been sought re the validity of the titles "earned?" at this recent Oceania Zonal?

They are awarded by FIDE. As are many other FM titles at other international zonals. Their validity is not in question,just their value.

The value of all FM titles has been lowered by FIDE over the last dozen years.
If people are so obsessed with their FM title and its devaluation,well they should play in a few zonals and get an IM title.
Otherwise I would advise them to focus on their FIDE ratings,because at the end of the day thats what most players look at first.

Oepty
24-05-2007, 11:06 AM
It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Jono amd Peter Parr are supporters of (1)

I am quite clearly a supporter of (2)

When you see Zhao put in a GM performance (as he did at Canberra) but fail to obtain a GM norm because the field lacked suffiecient titled players you will understand why.

Australia needs as many FIDE-rated and FIDE-titled players as possible so as to reach a critical mass of active players.

We have too many inactive titled players at present.

It is the future of Australian chess (popularity) that is more important than the egos of current and past players.

I hope as many young kids as possible win titles (and keep playing).

Brian, I am in camp 1. I think the example of Zhao is not a reason to lower the standards of achieving the title, but to encourage more effort to make sure our premier events make title norms available. Such instances should be motivation to adminstrators and organisers to bring enough GMs, IMs to Australia to make norms available to those who deserve them.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 11:10 AM
Simplified summary of requirement for the titles (from FIDE web site)

Rating + norm based:
1. GM - rating of 2500 + 3 norms (perf 2600+ against certain mix of opponents)
2. IM - rating of 2400 + 3 norms (perf 2450+ against certain mix of opponents)
3. WGM - rating of 2300 + 3 norms (perf 2400+ against certain mix of opponents)
4. WGM - rating of 2200 + 3 norms (perf 2250+ against certain mix of opponents)That is incorrect. It is not 3 norms. The FIDE website states that the requirement is 2 of more norms in events covering 27 games.
George Xie obtained his IM tite with ony 2 norms (a 9 game norm and a 9 game norm that counted as a 20 game norm) over 29 games.

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 11:15 AM
You don't need to relax standards just to encourage chess or increase the number of FIDE rated players or even the number of titled players. AR

You don't need to - but it certainly helps, particularly in our FIDE Continent where we have less raw material than Europe, North America, South America, Africa and Asia.

Many years ago I was a player in England when it had 0 (zero) GMs. It now has heaps.

Maybe we should increase the GM rating (back) to 2700 to counteract inflation? :) (where is the tongue-in-cheek icon?)

Ian Rout
24-05-2007, 11:15 AM
It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

I think there is a middle ground. The main reason that titles are awarded for performance in a zonal is that it is a more prestigous event than others. Getting x points/percent in such an event is considered as good as accumulating rating points or norms in low-key tournaments.

I don't see anything wrong with that as a principle, and before the introduction of the norm system it was, in a less formal way, the basis of awarding titles. In fact the original five unofficial grandmasters designated by the Tsar where the finalists from the 1914 St Petersburg tournament. Also as has been noted by others the region is disadvantaged in other mechanisms so there is a bit of evening up.

On the other hand a title containing the word "master" should have some link to mastery, either in the manner of its attainment or the evident ability of the holder (preferably both). If everybody has a title or if they appear to be more or less randomly arranged among the top hundred or so players, with masters routinely trounced by non-masters, then what is the point?

There are various ways "soft" titles could be hardened. For instance, in a zonal a player could be required to score 50% with a PR of say 2200 to get 50%; or a player scoring 50% could become merely an FM-elect or FM-in-waiting with the title only conferred once their rating reaches 2200, in the same manner that IM/GM norms have to be supplemented by a rating. In such ways the reasons for zonal titles are retained while still requiring a master to be masterful.

The problem of course is not with the recipients, who are merely following the rules, but with the rules themselves. Someone unacquainted with the history of this issue might get the idea that some players or organisers have found a sneaky loophole and exploited it, but this is not the case. FIDE is well aware of the rules and the possibilities, and only reviewed the rules a few years ago, so presumably considers them adequate.

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Hey BJ, your understanding of the situation, very surprisingly actually, is quite flawed. You don't need to relax standards just to encourage chess or increase the number of FIDE rated players or even the number of titled players.

AR

You can argue thats it flawed.

But you cant argue that UAE,Kuwait,Bahrain,Thailand,Singapore,Malaysia,Bur ma,Brunei,Sri Lanka,Bangladesh,Pakistan,Japan and South Korea are against such title regulations. Because its countries like these that FIDE changed the regulations for. They are desperate to get greater participation in FIDE events from countries like these. Its these type of countries that promise growth in cash revenue for FIDE,not countries like China,India or the Phillipines. And by having more active members FIDE garners more international credibility.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 11:20 AM
As has been stated before, FIDE also award these titles for performances in certain events. This is irrespective of ratings!
1900 is a performance? Hmmm...



If the winner of the World Junior Championship is unrated, he/she would still become a GM.
Are you serious? How many winners of the World Junior Championship are unrated? How many of them are below 2500?
Given that World Junior Championship is held once a year and could only produce one GM worldwide (who would most likely be a GM already anyway), we can live with it.



If the winner of the Arab U10 Championship is unrated, he/she would still become an FM.

Do you propose to tell FIDE to stop awarding these titles? :)
Yes. At least make them conditional on achieving a certain rating.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 11:22 AM
That is incorrect. It is not 3 norms. The FIDE website states that the requirement is 2 of more norms in events covering 27 games.
George Xie obtained his IM tite with ony 2 norms (a 9 game norm and a 9 game norm that counted as a 20 game norm) over 29 games.

As I said - simplified. Realisticly you usually need 3 norms. One of his norms (as well as mine from the Zonal) is counted as two.

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:24 AM
The female equivalent of a FM and CM should be a woman qualifying for a FM or CM by exactly the same performance that a man would need. The softer WFM or WCM are in no way equivalent, even though the misguided ACF treats them that way.

Have you gone troppo?:hmm:

No federation,including ours,recognises a WFM's title as being the same as an FM title.:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 11:25 AM
You don't need to - but it certainly helps, particularly in our FIDE Continent where we have less raw material than Europe, North America, South America, Africa and Asia.

Any evidence that it actually helps?

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 11:29 AM
As I said - simplified. Realisticly you usually need 3 norms.Yes because of the 27 game requirement most require 3 norms, however it can be done with two as a player could get a norm over 14 games in one event and another norm over 13 games in a second event.

One of his norms (as well as mine from the Zonal) is counted as two.No it isnt counted as two. It is counted as one over 20 games.

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 11:30 AM
I think there is a middle ground. There are various ways "soft" titles could be hardened. For instance, in a zonal a player could be required to score 50% with a PR of say 2200 to get 50%; or a player scoring 50% could become merely an FM-elect or FM-in-waiting with the title only conferred once their rating reaches 2200, in the same manner that IM/GM norms have to be supplemented by a rating. In such ways the reasons for zonal titles are retained while still requiring a master to be masterful.

Yes, a good constructive suggestion.

Now who are our FIDE delegates (and are they reading this BB?)

ingela
24-05-2007, 11:33 AM
How about a poll on this topic?

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 11:34 AM
There are various ways "soft" titles could be hardened. For instance, in a zonal a player could be required to score 50% with a PR of say 2200 to get 50%; or a player scoring 50% could become merely an FM-elect or FM-in-waiting with the title only conferred once their rating reaches 2200, in the same manner that IM/GM norms have to be supplemented by a rating. Dont you mean a PR of 2300 or reaching a rating of 2300, not 2200, as 2200 would still make them "softer" than the usual requirement.

MichaelBaron
24-05-2007, 11:34 AM
If at least 7 games against FIDE rated opponents is indeed required then none of the women qualify as I mentioned in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=155035&postcount=483

So does it mean that noone will get the titles, or does it mean that this rule will be ignored so more cheap titles are produced?:hmm:

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:36 AM
I am in camp 1. Dare I say it, but I think you will find that most chess players are in camp 1.

Do you believe that Chapman,Rujevic,Feldman,etc should hand back their IM titles because they won them in zonals as opposed to 3 norms?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 11:40 AM
So does it mean that noone will get the titles, or does it mean that this rule will be ignored so more cheap titles are produced?:hmm:If 1.46a is applicable then no titles would be awarded in the womens and a different player would get one of the FM titles in the Open Zonal. If 1.46a isnt applicable then those titles as announced would be awarded.

Ian Rout
24-05-2007, 11:42 AM
Dont you mean a PR of 2300 or reaching a rating of 2300, not 2200, as 2200 would still make them "softer" than the usual requirement.
No I meant 2200, partly because so many of the world's FMs are below 2300 that making the level 2300 would be setting the bar higher than for other mechanisms, and partly to recognise that doing it in a zonal is a greater achievement and merits some "softness".

2200 is arbitrary however, similar arguments could be mounted for anything in that area.

Garvinator
24-05-2007, 11:43 AM
Do you believe that Chapman,Rujevic,Feldman,etc should hand back their IM titles because they won them in zonals as opposed to 3 norms?:hmm:
Hand back no. Should not have received them in the first place, ABSOLUTELY.

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Hand back no. Should not have received them in the first place, ABSOLUTELY.

Hmm...if they shouldnt have received them then shouldnt they be handing them back?:hmm:

Or do you think these players are of IM strength but should have got their titles from 3 norms?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 11:51 AM
No I meant 2200, partly because so many of the world's FMs are below 2300 that making the level 2300 would be setting the bar higher than for other mechanisms, and partly to recognise that doing it in a zonal is a greater achievement and merits some "softness".But the question is were so many of them below 2300 when awarded the title.
I'd be surprised if the numbers of those that got the FM title but didnt have a rating of 2300 at the time exceeds 10%.

Garvinator
24-05-2007, 11:51 AM
Hmm...if they shouldnt have received them then shouldnt they be handing them back?:hmm: The difference is- They got the titles under the regulations in effect at the time. It is the regulations that I don't agree with.


Or do you think these players are of IM strength but should have got their titles from 3 norms?:hmm:I think they should have to get the title the 'normal' way- 2/3 norms, 27 games and 2400 published fide rating.

I also maintain that the FM title should be norm and rating based.

Sam
24-05-2007, 11:55 AM
The difference is- They got the titles under the regulations in effect at the time. It is the regulations that I don't agree with.

I think they should have to get the title the 'normal' way- 2/3 norms, 27 games and 2400 published fide rating.

I also maintain that the FM title should be norm and rating based.

Does either Puchen or Igor have 3 IM norms?:hmm:
How are norms awarded for the FM title?:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:01 PM
The difference is- They got the titles under the regulations in effect at the time. It is the regulations that I don't agree with.

I think they should have to get the title the 'normal' way- 2/3 norms, 27 games and 2400 published fide rating.I assume you are aware that getting a title for an individual result without getting a norm had been the pratice going back to the original regulations.
Fischer got his GM title by qualifying for the Candidates Matches in 58.
Even when FIDE introduced rating based norms in the 70's titles could still be obtained for individual results in specific tournaments.

As such those methods could still be described as "normal".

The softening of titles problem was the adding of certain events to the list of events where titles could be obtained by a single result without having any other requirements.


I also maintain that the FM title should be norm and rating based.I see no need for there to be norms, however where a title is to be obtained from a single event then a performance component should be added.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 12:04 PM
Does either Puchen or Igor have 3 IM norms?:hmm:
How are norms awarded for the FM title?:hmm:
Puchen had a norm from Olympiad (counted as 20games) and from the Zonal (which is not relevant as he got the title)
I got my first norm in this Zonal

There is no norm requirement for the FM title (just the rating)

Ian Rout
24-05-2007, 12:06 PM
But the question is were so many of them below 2300 when awarded the title.
I'd be surprised if the numbers of those that got the FM title but didnt have a rating of 2300 at the time exceeds 10%.
It can be argued back and forth I suppose. I feel that making titles at zonals "softer" than accumulating rating points at minor events is justified, but others would disagree.

The point I was more concerned about was that the two extremes are too extreme. There is good reason for awarding titles for zonal performances (and let us remember there are weaknesses in other title mechanisms too) but I don't agree with the approach of complete open slather where meeting a percentage, however unmeritorious, could generate a title.

Sam
24-05-2007, 12:07 PM
But the question is were so many of them below 2300 when awarded the title.
I'd be surprised if the numbers of those that got the FM title but didnt have a rating of 2300 at the time exceeds 10%.

I would imagine that FIDE has awarded probably close to 800 FM titles in the last 17 years through zonals,continental championships,continental youth championships ,the world junior,and the womens continental and world championship cycles.

Our zonal plays a tiny role in the FM saga compared to europe,asia,africa,north america,central america and south america.

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 12:12 PM
I see no need for there to be norms, however where a title is to be obtained from a single event then a performance component should be added.

Yes, I agree. But what if the majority are FIDE-unrated?

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 12:20 PM
I think there is a middle ground. The main reason that titles are awarded for performance in a zonal is that it is a more prestigous event than others. Getting x points/percent in such an event is considered as good as accumulating rating points or norms in low-key tournaments.

I think that the award of a title from one tourney, a zonal, is a middle ground. And I have no objection if the performance matched what would be required in a norm. That's why I haven't objected to Smerdon's and Zhao's IM titles because they really did perform at 2450. Same with Goldenberg and Wang in this zonal.

With FM titles, I agree with Bill Gletsos, because 2300 not 2200 was the standard for FMs for most of its history. So if a player performed at 2300 in a zonal, I have no problem with awarding an FM title. BG rightly points out that sustaining a rating of 2300 is easier than achieving one 9-game 2300 performance, so awarding them from this way is a middle ground. The problem has always been titles awarded for performances of 2100 or even much less.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 12:24 PM
Puchen had a norm from Olympiad (counted as 20games) and from the Zonal (which is not relevant as he got the title)
I got my first norm in this Zonal

His performance in the zonal was >2450, and he won the NZ Championship convincingly, ahead of active IMs Dive and Ker. So I think his title is not soft (and with your >2450 performance, if you had got the title it would have been deserved too IMO). This is very different from FM titles awarded to club players with performances <<2300.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:28 PM
It can be argued back and forth I suppose. I feel that making titles at zonals "softer" than accumulating rating points at minor events is justified, but others would disagree.

The point I was more concerned about was that the two extremes are too extreme. There is good reason for awarding titles for zonal performances (and let us remember there are weaknesses in other title mechanisms too) but I don't agree with the approach of complete open slather where meeting a percentage, however unmeritorious, could generate a title.Yes but getting a performance rating of 2300 in zonal with a 50% score is much easier than getting continual 2300+ performances to build ones rating up to 2300.
A performance rating of only 2200 in a zonal makes it significantly easier and therefore much softer rather than just a little softer. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 12:31 PM
Have you gone troppo?:hmm:

No federation,including ours,recognises a WFM's title as being the same as an FM title.:lol:

All the same, see earlier this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=155065&postcount=502):



The ACF pays 100% of GM and WGM titles, and 50% of IM and WIM titles.

That to me signifies that the ACF equally treats the real titles equivalently to the women's version of the same title, at least in terms of financial assistance in obtaining them. What's more, some misguided organizers misguidedly give free entries to both IMs and WIMs, but not to FMs although FM is a higher title than WIM in terms of performance required.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:41 PM
I would imagine that FIDE has awarded probably close to 800 FM titles in the last 17 years through zonals,continental championships,continental youth championships ,the world junior,and the womens continental and world championship cycles.Firstly you cannot get an FM title from any Womens event even the Womens continental.

However more importantly, even if the numbers are 800 as you suggest that is still under 20% of the total number of FM title holders.
So if your <20% got them through a result in a single event, that means that the others all got them via 2300+ ratings or under the old norm requirements.
Theerefore even if all of your <20% are "soft" (and that would not be the case) the vast majority of the FM's are of the traditional 2300+ standard.


Our zonal plays a tiny role in the FM saga compared to europe,asia,africa,north america,central america and south america.Care to back up how many soft titles have been obtained in those regions with any actual figures and by that I mean those who got a title when their rating was not 2300+, not those that were and have since dropped below 2300.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 12:52 PM
Yes, I agree. But what if the majority are FIDE-unrated?Then they dont get them as they havent performed at the necessary standard.

pax
24-05-2007, 01:26 PM
If 1.46a is applicable then no titles would be awarded in the womens and a different player would get one of the FM titles in the Open Zonal. If 1.46a isnt applicable then those titles as announced would be awarded.

Isn't the question over whether 1.46a applies to FM and WFM titles? It seems clear to me that it should at least apply to the WIM title, and therefore Alex Jule is unlikely to be awarded the WIM title. If 1.46a does not apply to WFM, then Alex would receive the WFM title and one of the others would miss out.

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 01:29 PM
Then they dont get them as they havent performed at the necessary standard.

Then the players can't take the risk and don't enter. No good turning up if the strength of the entry (FIDE ratings) can't be guaranteed. :)

Who would be a chess organiser in those circumstances?:eek:

pax
24-05-2007, 01:30 PM
What's more, some misguided organizers misguidedly give free entries to both IMs and WIMs, but not to FMs although FM is a higher title than WIM in terms of performance required.

What's misguided about that? Having a broad cross-section of players, especially leading female players is good for the public profile of an event. After all, would you rather have Arianne Caoili or Brian Jones playing in your tournament? :owned: :owned:

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 01:40 PM
What's misguided about that? Having a broad cross-section of players, especially leading female players is good for the public profile of an event. After all, would you rather have Arianne Caoili or Brian Jones playing in your tournament? :owned: :owned:

Brian Jones :)

Sam
24-05-2007, 01:41 PM
Firstly you cannot get an FM title from any Womens event even the Womens continental.


Why is that?:hmm:
If a woman performs at a 2200 level in a womens only event outside of a zonal would she be eligible for a WIM or a WFM?:hmm:

Sam
24-05-2007, 01:42 PM
Brian Jones :)

I would rather have Arianne playing and Brian as the organiser.:D

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 01:53 PM
What's misguided about that?

As explained above, there should not be women's titles at all. E.g. an IM title should be awarded for a player of either sex who achieves the standard. There should not be a soft option for one sex. Nor should a higher standard be rewarded as much as a lower one, e.g. IM is a considerably higher standard than WIM (indeed, even FM > WIM), so should have higher rewards.


Having a broad cross-section of players, especially leading female players is good for the public profile of an event. After all, would you rather have Arianne Caoili or Brian Jones playing in your tournament? :owned: :owned:

I would rather have female players there because of skill rather than tokenism.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 02:06 PM
Isn't the question over whether 1.46a applies to FM and WFM titles? It seems clear to me that it should at least apply to the WIM title, and therefore Alex Jule is unlikely to be awarded the WIM title. If 1.46a does not apply to WFM, then Alex would receive the WFM title and one of the others would miss out.The point is that 1.42 clearly applies to all titles where number of games count. As 1.42 is mentioned along with 1.46 etc in 1.21 there is no reason that 1.46a should also not be applicable if 1.42 is.

If 1.42 is applicable and 1.46a isnt then 1.21 is porrly worded.

MichaelBaron
24-05-2007, 02:06 PM
All the same, see earlier this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=155065&postcount=502):


What's more, some misguided organizers misguidedly give free entries to both IMs and WIMs, but not to FMs although FM is a higher title than WIM in terms of performance required.

I think I have mentioned it before back in the Zonal thread. It is not about organizers being misguided. We are living in "politically" correct society where WIM title has to be regarded as highly as IM title due to the reasons other than its real value.

Ian Rout
24-05-2007, 02:07 PM
Yes but getting a performance rating of 2300 in zonal with a 50% score is much easier than getting continual 2300+ performances to build ones rating up to 2300.
A performance rating of only 2200 in a zonal makes it significantly easier and therefore much softer rather than just a little softer. ;)
One might think so, but as a quick test I looked up the FMs currently rated exactly 2200. Of these, nine are under 50 so we can exclude old age as a major factor affecting their play.

Four of those nine players had been (just) over 2300 around six years ago and another two had peaked in the 2290s. I don't know how many got their title by what mechanism but that isn't important. What it shows is that a player who can't maintain anything close to a 2300 rating for a great length of time can realistically hope, through some combination of motivation, luck, bribery, carefully selecting opponents and tournaments, and being good for a while, to poke their head over 2300 for a brief time. (No inferences should be drawn about which of that list of factors applies to any of those players).

Moreover in a zonal all your opponents are playing at their peak and have spent weeks working on their endgame technique, openings, etc.

2200 is an arbitrary figure based on no data so there may be something better. However 2300 would, I suspect, make a zonal title harder to achieve than one that was rating-based, which would be incompatible with the argument that the two should be of equivalent merit (softness).

MichaelBaron
24-05-2007, 02:08 PM
What's misguided about that? Having a broad cross-section of players, especially leading female players is good for the public profile of an event. After all, would you rather have Arianne Caoili or Brian Jones playing in your tournament? :owned: :owned:

Ok, Arianne aside (not every WIM is that glamourous)..would you rather have Ian Rogers playing in the tournament or some WGM?

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 02:08 PM
Then the players can't take the risk and don't enter. No good turning up if the strength of the entry (FIDE ratings) can't be guaranteed. :) If only players rated at least 2000 FIDE were permitted to play in the zonal then there wouldnt be an issue in knowing now would there. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 02:20 PM
Why is that?:hmm:
If a woman performs at a 2200 level in a womens only event outside of a zonal would she be eligible for a WIM or a WFM?:hmm:Performance levels are immaterial in awarding of FM titles and 2200 isnt even a norm for a WIM title.

However perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other here.

In your post that I was responding to you used the term FM title.

I dont consider when you write FM title that it includes WFM as the requirements for them are quite different, hence my statement that you cannot get an FM title in a Women's event. Naturally one can get a WFM title in a Womens event.

Denis_Jessop
24-05-2007, 02:55 PM
The female equivalent of a FM and CM should be a woman qualifying for a FM or CM by exactly the same performance that a man would need. The softer WFM or WCM are in no way equivalent, even though the misguided ACF treats them that way.

This comment is totally misconceived. All that I meant to do was to refer to the WFM and WCM titles which are the subject of the same provisions as the FM and CM without having to type all the title names each time. You really do need to take a course in clear thinking or English comprehension or, preferably, both.

DJ

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 03:00 PM
If only players rated at least 2000 FIDE were permitted to play in the zonal then there wouldnt be an issue in knowing now would there. :hand:

So again we have an organisational problem. If you limit the tournament to players above FIDE 2000 only, then the financial side fails. I can tell you that from my SIO experience.

Or maybe you want the sponsors to pay for the players who all get free entry? This could be the problem with the 2008 Australian Championship. Nobody wants to bid because the numbers don't stack up unless it is a prestigious open event and everyone (or almost everyone) is paying entry fees!

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 03:01 PM
What it shows is that a player who can't maintain anything close to a 2300 rating for a great length of time can realistically hope, through some combination of motivation, luck, bribery, carefully selecting opponents and tournaments, and being good for a while, to poke their head over 2300 for a brief time.

The FM title used to be awarded for maintaining a rating of 2300 over 30 games. That entails some >2300 performances.

Kevin Bonham showed that the median FM rating is almost exactly 2300. A lot of FMs move onto higher titles of course.

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 03:04 PM
So again we have an organisational problem. If you limit the tournament to players above FIDE 2000 only, then the financial side fails. I can tell you that from my SIO experience.

Or maybe you want the sponsors to pay for the players who all get free entry? This could be the problem with the 2008 Australian Championship. Nobody wants to bid because the numbers don't stack up unless it is a prestigious open event and everyone (or almost everyone) is paying entry fees!We are talking about running a Zonal not some open swiss event and some sort of standard should be maintained.

Denis_Jessop
24-05-2007, 03:07 PM
You don't need to - but it certainly helps, particularly in our FIDE Continent where we have less raw material than Europe, North America, South America, Africa and Asia.

Many years ago I was a player in England when it had 0 (zero) GMs. It now has heaps.

Maybe we should increase the GM rating (back) to 2700 to counteract inflation? :) (where is the tongue-in-cheek icon?)

Your last comment has some validity in that I can remember, as I'm sure can many others, when a GM of 2600+ was regarded as a Super Grandmaster and there were very few of them. Nowadays a GM of "only" 2600 would be killed in the rush.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 03:14 PM
The female equivalent of a FM and CM should be a woman qualifying for a FM or CM by exactly the same performance that a man would need. The softer WFM or WCM are in no way equivalent, even though the misguided ACF treats them that way.


This comment is totally misconceived. All that I meant to do was to refer to the WFM and WCM titles which are the subject of the same provisions as the FM and CM without having to type all the title names each time.

I know what you meant. My point was to encourage re-thinking of the notions of equivalence. The politically correct nonsense of rewarding W(eetbix)IMs and IMs equally needs to end.


You really do need to take a course in clear thinking or English comprehension or, preferably, both.

I doubt that I need lessons in clear thinking (I have taught logic) or English comprehension (I am a best-selling author) from you.

Denis_Jessop
24-05-2007, 03:22 PM
Yes, a good constructive suggestion.

Now who are our FIDE delegates (and are they reading this BB?)

We have (and are allowed) only one, namely Phil Viner. If he isn't reading this board (to that I don't know the answer) there are several ACF Councillors who I am sure are and the point is not lost on any of us I would think. In any event the delegate acts on ACF Council instructions.

In the world of real FIDE politics I'm sure too that we could argue the case against so-called soft titles until we were blue in the face without making any significant impression on FIDE. I feel certain that the present provisions were not made for the benefit of Australia which is a very small fish in the pond. Sam has mentioned many other countries with more clout than us (for example, the Singapore Federation's Ignatius Leong is FIDE General Secretary) but he didn't mention the African and Central American nations that were intended to benefit from these provisions and whose votes are very valuable in a FIDE election.

DJ

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 03:28 PM
We are talking about running a Zonal not some open swiss event and some sort of standard should be maintained.

So how is a Zonal financed?

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 03:32 PM
So how is a Zonal financed?Certainly not by letting anyone enter who is prepared to pay an entry fee. They need to maintain some sort of standard.

eclectic
24-05-2007, 03:33 PM
So how is a Zonal financed?

... perhaps via satellite tournaments like poker now is ...

:whistle:

Denis_Jessop
24-05-2007, 03:44 PM
I doubt that I need lessons in clear thinking (I have taught logic) or English comprehension (I am a best-selling author) from you.

I wouldn't give them to you if you paid me. You are obviously a very slow learner and need specialised remedial teaching.

If you claim expertise in these areas why don't you use it in practice instead of inflicting on us a stream of arrant and illogical nonsense spiced with anti- female bias.

DJ

pax
24-05-2007, 03:47 PM
Ok, Arianne aside (not every WIM is that glamourous)..would you rather have Ian Rogers playing in the tournament or some WGM?

That's not a fair comparison (the original argument was FM vs WIM). I'm just pointing out that having top female players is a good thing, and that offering free entry to a WIM and not to a FM is entirely reasonable (and up to the organiser).

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 03:48 PM
Certainly not by letting anyone enter who is prepared to pay an entry fee. They need to maintain some sort of standard.

Another bloody elitist. :evil:

You would probably refuse entry to the next Bobby Fischer (an internet player no doubt) if he didn't have an OTB FIDE rating.

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 03:50 PM
I'm just pointing out that having top female players is a good thing, and that offering free entry to a WIM and not to a FM is entirely reasonable (and up to the organiser).

I agree!

Bill Gletsos
24-05-2007, 04:01 PM
Another bloody elitist. :evil:If believeing in maintaing a high set of standards is elitist then it looks like I'm in with the majority in Watto's poll.


It looks to me that there are two schools of thought:

(1) Those that want the standards to be maintained high so that only the most deserving players obtain titles.

(2) Those that want as many Australians as possible to obtain titles (almost at any cost.)

Jono amd Peter Parr are supporters of (1)

I am quite clearly a supporter of (2).Yes you are such a clear supporter you didnt even vote for that option in Watto's poll. :owned:

You would probably refuse entry to the next Bobby Fischer (an internet player no doubt) if he didn't have an OTB FIDE rating.Everyone is searching for the next Bobby Fischer. Let us all know when you find him. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 04:04 PM
I'm just pointing out that having top female players is a good thing, and that offering free entry to a WIM and not to a FM is entirely reasonable (and up to the organiser).
No it's not. Entry should be based on merit, not sexual discrimination. Women-only titles merely perpetuate the sexist idea that women are inherently less capable at chess than men, so need special titles.

Garvinator
24-05-2007, 04:05 PM
No it's not. Entry should be based on merit, not sexual discrimination. Women-only titles merely perpetuate the sexist idea that women are inherently less capable at chess than men, so need special titles.
Nods in agreement :uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 04:10 PM
If believeing in maintaing a high set of standards is elitist then it looks like I'm in with the majority in Watto's poll.

And with GM Ian Rogers and IA Peter Parr ...


Yes you are such a clear supporter you didnt even vote for that option in Watto's poll. :owned:

In fact, no one has owned up to that option yet!:hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
24-05-2007, 04:23 PM
That's not a fair comparison (the original argument was FM vs WIM). I'm just pointing out that having top female players is a good thing, and that offering free entry to a WIM and not to a FM is entirely reasonable (and up to the organiser).

Tournament conditions are indeed up to organisers (unless they run an event on behalf of ACF or state association). They can still give a free entry to IM/GM, reserving a discretion to give discounted/free entry to any individual participant (it covers the case of high profile player, etc.)

Brian_Jones
24-05-2007, 04:25 PM
Everyone is searching for the next Bobby Fischer. Let us all know when you find him. :hand:

I found him a few years back. He was a 5 yo and could play rook endings by instinct. But he gave up chess for football (soccer) as he could make more money. :)

If he had kept going a few more months I would have entered him in the Zonal!

eclectic
24-05-2007, 04:27 PM
I found him a few years back. He was a 5 yo and could play rook endings by instinct. But he gave up chess for football (soccer) as he could make more money. :)

What! You mean he didn't end up a Texas Hold 'Em addict?

:owned: :owned: :owned:

pax
24-05-2007, 05:26 PM
No it's not. Entry should be based on merit, not sexual discrimination. Women-only titles merely perpetuate the sexist idea that women are inherently less capable at chess than men, so need special titles.

Talk to some female chess players some time. Ask them what it was like the first time they walked into a tournament hall and were confronted with row upon row upon row of smelly blokes. Chess is a blokes club, and it's often not very inviting to women, especially young women. It is very tough for women to succeed in chess, simply because that first step is very hard.

I have no problem at all with any methods which can encourage female particpation. This includes titles for women, women's and girl's competitions, prizes for women, free entry for WIMs.

Do you think it's a problem that female participation in chess is around the 2% mark? If so, how would you encourage an improvement?

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2007, 05:55 PM
Talk to some female chess players some time. Ask them what it was like the first time they walked into a tournament hall and were confronted with row upon row upon row of smelly blokes. Chess is a blokes club, and it's often not very inviting to women, especially young women. It is very tough for women to succeed in chess, simply because that first step is very hard.

I have no problem at all with any methods which can encourage female particpation. This includes titles for women, women's and girl's competitions, prizes for women, free entry for WIMs.

I fail to see how a handful of Bi-Lo titles will help if they are bothered by the large preponderance of men. But surely they will be more encouraged by the fact that they have just as much chance to reach a high standard as men, than by the existence of women-only titles that perpetuate the idea that they have intrinsically less chess ability.

Basil
24-05-2007, 05:58 PM
Certainly not by letting anyone enter who is prepared to pay an entry fee. They need to maintain some sort of standard.Another bloody elitist. You would probably refuse entry to the next Bobby Fischer (an internet player no doubt) if he didn't have an OTB FIDE rating.Everyone is searching for the next Bobby Fischer. Let us all know when you find him.I found him a few years back... But he gave up chess for football ... If he had kept going a few more months I would have entered him in the Zonal!
Brian, Bill is making the point of maintaining performance standards. He has made that clear. It is also clear that that is a majority wish in this particular closed-circuit forum.

With regard to general concepts of standards and professional best practice ideals, you are known to be an ardent supporter.

Given that you respect standards generally, are clear that Bill is seeking to maintain them, and that it is evident that 'the next Bobby Fischer' could have qualified readily by achieving a suitable OTB rating, I have to ask ...

... why are you perpetuating a transparently flawed attack on Bill's position as well as accusing him of being an elitist?

Basil
24-05-2007, 06:35 PM
My point was to encourage re-thinking of the notions of equivalence. The politically correct nonsense of rewarding W(eetbix)IMs and IMs equally needs to end.You really do need to take a course in clear thinking or English comprehension or, preferably, both.


... instead of inflicting on us a stream of arrant and illogical nonsense spiced with anti- female bias.

Jon, I disagree with your position against women's standards being determined against women's performances. I'm happy to discuss this notion or otherwise. The issue seems largely a philosophical one, the arbitarily determined outcome of which has neither impact nor import because the standard of the player is determined by the rating anyway.

It is also clear that the title is recognition within the realms of achievement against other females. Nothing more, nothing less. I reject your notion that the current structure is borne of PC influences.

In summary, I don't object to your notion, rather that it is of no consequence. This is because the meaning of the title (both its recognition benefit and achievement constraint) are self-evident in broader contexts.

Equally, your right to puport your ideal and its logic is fine. Which brings me to my next point:

Denis, your insult {comprehension, clear thinking} of Jono was unwarranted IMO. It was not his lack of comprehension in interpreting your statement {perhaps it was your lack of comprehension in determining his!}, that was the issue. It was simply a different ideology regarding parameters for setting title benchmarks.

That you have now asserted that he is anti-female is both unwarranted (for the tenor of the discussion) as well as being unsubstantiated (on its facts).

MichaelBaron
24-05-2007, 07:13 PM
Talk to some female chess players some time. Ask them what it was like the first time they walked into a tournament hall and were confronted with row upon row upon row of smelly blokes. Chess is a blokes club, and it's often not very inviting to women, especially young women. It is very tough for women to succeed in chess, simply because that first step is very hard.

I have no problem at all with any methods which can encourage female particpation. This includes titles for women, women's and girl's competitions, prizes for women, free entry for WIMs.

Do you think it's a problem that female participation in chess is around the 2% mark? If so, how would you encourage an improvement?

I agree with Pax, the problem is certainly there. However, i am not sure how providing female participants with a title each, will make the blokes less smelly. :hmm:

Attracting numbers of female participants requires a cultural change!

eclectic
24-05-2007, 07:24 PM
I agree with Pax, the problem is certainly there. However, i am not sure how providing female participants with a title each, will make the blokes less smelly. :hmm:

Attracting numbers of female participants requires a cultural change!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Rincewind
24-05-2007, 09:32 PM
The point is that 1.42 clearly applies to all titles where number of games count. As 1.42 is mentioned along with 1.46 etc in 1.21 there is no reason that 1.46a should also not be applicable if 1.42 is.

If 1.42 is applicable and 1.46a isnt then 1.21 is porrly worded.

I think there is a stronger case for 1.42 to apply but a much weaker case for applying 1.46-1.49 for non-norms since the purpose of those laws are for determining the opposition and performance ratings for that purpose. Using 1.46a to discount games for a purpose other than for norm calculation is a perversion of the regulation.

A more detailed explanation is contained here http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=155210&postcount=540

eclectic
24-05-2007, 10:23 PM
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.

Isn't the FM a title?

Isn't the means of achieving it under such circumstances mentioned in the table provided?

Doesn't it say that the requirements 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48, 1.49 have to be applied?

As I see it trying to argue that such FM results ought to be exempt from such requirements because they were full title results as opposed to (partial) norm results is ludicrously paradoxical!

The FM is a title usually obtained by obtaining a certain rating as opposed to being a achieved by norms as is the case in higher titles.

When it is being sought under the conditions listed in table provided in 1.21 a dispensation from needing that rating requirement is given.

However by insisting that 1.42, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48, 1.49 are applied FIDE is maintaining some minimum conditions.

Maybe I need to undertake some course in formal logic?

Has FIDE been consulted yet so that we can all be put out of our misery? :wall:

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2007, 12:16 AM
Has FIDE been consulted yet so that we can all be put out of our misery? :wall:

FIDE have been advised that some of the titles "won" are under this cloud. I am not aware of any reply thus far.

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 12:19 AM
I think it is a "must" for all the participants in this thread to have a look at the Watto's poll on soft titles. This poll is a very good indication where people stand!

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2007, 12:25 AM
I think there is a stronger case for 1.42 to apply but a much weaker case for applying 1.46-1.49 for non-norms since the purpose of those laws are for determining the opposition and performance ratings for that purpose. Using 1.42a to discount games for a purpose other than for norm calculation is a perversion of the regulation.I assume you mean 1.46a not 1.42a.

Basil
25-05-2007, 12:31 AM
I assume you mean 1.46a not 1.42a.

http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6412

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 04:14 AM
If you claim expertise in these areas why don't you use it in practice instead of inflicting on us a stream of arrant and illogical nonsense spiced with anti- female bias.
You really have a lack of comprehension yourself. My posts are pro-equality; I said before, once demanding special privileges for one sex made one a male chauvinist pig; now it makes one an enlightened feminist.

I think having Women's titles is patronizing and thus really anti-female, because it implies that women are incapable of getting the proper titles on equal terms with men. (NB: I'm not suggesting that all or even most supporters of women's titles are anti-female; they may not see this implication).

pax
25-05-2007, 07:58 AM
I think having Women's titles is patronizing and thus really anti-female, because it implies that women are incapable of getting the proper titles on equal terms with men. (NB: I'm not suggesting that all or even most supporters of women's titles are anti-female; they may not see this implication).

And if you had your way, no Australian woman would have any title whatsoever....

Mischa
25-05-2007, 08:15 AM
FIDE have been advised that some of the titles "won" are under this cloud. I am not aware of any reply thus far.


Who "advised" them????

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 08:26 AM
And if you had your way, no Australian woman would have any title whatsoever....

Berezina-Feldman, Caoili, Eriksson etc. would still have the titles ..since they are worthy of them and qualified for them fairly.

I do not see how Australian women's chess would be disadvantaged if Szuveges and Lane would not have their WIM titles :hmm:

Rincewind
25-05-2007, 09:07 AM
I assume you mean 1.46a not 1.42a.

Yes. Corrected in the original.

Brian_Jones
25-05-2007, 09:15 AM
Brian, Bill is making the point of maintaining performance standards. He has made that clear. It is also clear that that is a majority wish in this particular closed-circuit forum.

This is chess not athletics. There is no accepted measurable performance standard in chess.

So I am entitled to my opinion on FIDE titles and how they are awarded.

Even if I am in the minority. :)


it is evident that 'the next Bobby Fischer' could have qualified readily by achieving a suitable OTB rating

Not if he hasn't played sufficient OTB rated games. It is difficult to do that if you are youngster and only play on the internet!:owned:

Chess tournaments are for everybody not just the elite. The Australian Championship is closed and no one wants to organise it. If we make the Zonals closed they will collapse. Every chess tournament should be open!

Desmond
25-05-2007, 09:24 AM
Not if he hasn't played sufficient OTB rated games. It is difficult to do that if you are youngster and only play on the internet!:owned:
Nowhere near as difficult as playing like Bobby Fischer with 0 OTB experience. :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 09:25 AM
Chipening WIM title means WIM title-holders are less likely now to receive free entry to the tournaments. Is it fair to WIM who earned it the hard way?

US Chess Live server gives a free membership to FM. How long are they going to keep it for with the explosion of FM?

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 09:27 AM
This is chess not athletics. There is no accepted measurable performance standard in chess.

It is. It's called ELO rating.

Rincewind
25-05-2007, 09:28 AM
Maybe I need to undertake some course in formal logic?

It wouldn't hurt.

The wording of 1.21 is far from clear but to argue as you do that because FM is a "title" then the 1.46 must apply is without any grammatical or logical basis.

The first sentence of 1.21 talks about obtaining titles OR norms. The second sentence just says that 1.42 1.46-1.49 have to be applied.

As 1.4 in its entirety applies only to norms for xIM and xGM titles, there is a strong case to argue that the provision of the second sentence to 1.21 applies only to norms obtainable under those provisions.

However, even if this is not the case and you believe 1.42 should be applied. (Which is sensibly could). Then 1.46-1.49 relate specifically to the calculation of ratings of opposion and performance ratings which are irrelevent to the allocation of xFM and xCM titles. So there is no case whatsoever to applying these rules.

1.46 talks about various fiddling with ratings to take place for the purpose of calculating a average rating for norm purposes. For example, 1.46c talks about adjusting rating up to a minimum floor rating. 1.46d talks about giving unrated players the rating floor level. And 1.46a is in place to limit the application of 1.46d, not to disqualify games from being included in title minimum number of games played.

If this was the purpose of 1.46a then it would not be included in rule 1.46 it would be included in 1.42.

There is more to formal logic that taking three sentences out of the regulations and applying them without context.


Since this matter seems to have gone to FIDE and formal vedicts and possibly appeals to the same might subsequently follow, I suggest the mods partition off the regulatory component of this thread and at least lock it for the time being.

eclectic
25-05-2007, 09:56 AM
Since this matter seems to have gone to FIDE and formal vedicts and possibly appeals to the same might subsequently follow, I suggest the mods partition off the regulatory component of this thread and at least lock it for the time being.

By the time such a process was through chances are certain FM candidates will have become bona fide FMs via reaching the required rating and thus be spared veiled aspersions concerning their title's validity.

Why not lock all of it?

Both sides have stated their cases and the original topic is most likely exhausted.

Rincewind
25-05-2007, 10:22 AM
Both sides have stated their cases and the original topic is most likely exhausted.

That is probably the best argument FOR locking it. ;)

Anyway, this is the last I'll say on the matter, I'll leave it in the hands of the mods to make up their mind on the value of my suggestion of locking.

Brian_Jones
25-05-2007, 11:08 AM
Berezina-Feldman, Caoili, Eriksson etc. would still have the titles ..since they are worthy of them and qualified for them fairly.

I do not see how Australian women's chess would be disadvantaged if Szuveges and Lane would not have their WIM titles :hmm:

Michael, have you any idea what you are talking about? :evil:

pax
25-05-2007, 11:15 AM
Berezina-Feldman, Caoili, Eriksson etc. would still have the titles ..since they are worthy of them and qualified for them fairly.

I do not see how Australian women's chess would be disadvantaged if Szuveges and Lane would not have their WIM titles :hmm:

Wake up Michael, Jono wants to abolish all female titles: WGM, WIM, WFM.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 11:17 AM
Wake up Michael, Jono wants to abolish all female titles: WGM, WIM, WFM.
That is true. What of it? You evidently think that most females are incapable of qualifying for the real titles.

pax
25-05-2007, 11:20 AM
That is true. What of it? You evidently think that most females are incapable of qualifying for the real titles.

True or false: if you had your way, there would be no titled female chess players in Australia?

pax
25-05-2007, 11:33 AM
When I was in year 6 at school, one day my (male) teacher took aside the boys in the class (about 7 out of the class of 30). He asked if any of us played chess, and would we be interested in forming a team in the interschool competition. It turned out that my Dad had offered to run and coach a school chess club. The teacher had decided for himself that only boys played were interested in or good at chess, and didn't bother asking the girls if they wanted to play too.

The girls found out about the chess club, and some of them decided they wanted to play too. Fortunately, they were not prevented from doing so. It actually turned out that the second best player in the school was one of the girls, and she won many games for us on board two. She also beat me for the school championship, but that is another story :)

This kind of prejudice prevents many girls from even taking up the game, and causes others to give up in disgust. Say what you like, Jono, it is not a level playing field.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 01:00 PM
True or false: if you had your way, there would be no titled female chess players in Australia?

Don't you think female chessplayers could qualify as real masters? Don't project your sexism onto me.

Sam
25-05-2007, 01:08 PM
Berezina-Feldman, Caoili, Eriksson etc. would still have the titles ..since they are worthy of them and qualified for them fairly.

I do not see how Australian women's chess would be disadvantaged if Szuveges and Lane would not have their WIM titles :hmm:

What title does Ingela Erikkson have?:hmm:

And you forgot about Sorokina,Michael.

pax
25-05-2007, 01:09 PM
Don't you think female chessplayers could qualify as real masters? Don't project your sexism onto me.

I'm not being sexist. It's a fact. If you take away the female titles today, Australia would have precisely one female title holder. Would that be good for women's chess in Australia?

Sam
25-05-2007, 01:10 PM
Don't you think female chessplayers could qualify as real masters? Don't project your sexism onto me.

There are WIM's who are stronger then you ever were.
Would you prefer them to be called FM's?

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 01:43 PM
Wake up Michael, Jono wants to abolish all female titles: WGM, WIM, WFM.

I have never supported abolishment of female titles! All I support is tightening the standards (along with tightening the standards for male titles that is)

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 01:44 PM
Michael, have you any idea what you are talking about? :evil:

I do :evil:

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 01:47 PM
There are WIM's who are stronger then you ever were.
Would you prefer them to be called FM's?

The WIMs who are stronger than Jono ever was are indeed qualified for male FM titles. In fact most of female players who are stronger than Jono ever was are WGMs!

The more strong female players we get, the better it is for chess!

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 02:04 PM
Don't you think female chessplayers could qualify as real masters? Don't project your sexism onto me.There are WIM's who are stronger then you ever were.
Would you prefer them to be called FM's?
Not likely. Those that are stronger are probably already WGM or IM or even GM

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 02:14 PM
Some (like Jono) think having female only title is a sexist paternalism, some think it's not.
Irrespectably of whether it's true or not, (would be an intresting topic for a different thread), cheapening of those title is still bad

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2007, 02:34 PM
Since this matter seems to have gone to FIDE and formal vedicts and possibly appeals to the same might subsequently follow, I suggest the mods partition off the regulatory component of this thread and at least lock it for the time being.No formal nor informal request has gone to FIDE that I am aware of.
What Kevin was referring to was simply that the question regarding titles and the number of permitted unrated players was raised with the Zone President.

Gringo
25-05-2007, 02:40 PM
Cheap, Igor it does'nt help by placing spelling mistakes in bold type.
2 points to mention,

1. I'm very pleased to see your recent success
2. I remember you having more Hair......:eek:

arosar
25-05-2007, 02:40 PM
OK, I understand Jono's POV on the female titles. You know, if it's possible for at least one woman to be a full IM (e.g. Paehtz, Sebag, etc) or to be a full GM (e.g. J. Polgar, Chiburdanidze, etc), then it's surely possible for all women chessers to attain those, too. Right?

But I think "marketing-wise", women's titles are useful.You can interpret that in any number of ways. For example, having their own titles could serve as impetus for girls to strive towards the full men's titles in gradual stages. Also women titles look good on promotional brochures especially when selling to an unsavvy audience. Now we all know a "WIM" isn't really that as strong as, say, an "IM" but it's a title and it looks good. Get my drift?

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 02:52 PM
Cheap, Igor it does'nt help by placing spelling mistakes in bold type.
Don't know what you talking about:lol:

I remember you having more Hair......:eek:
Me too. I am just getting boldwith the age

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2007, 02:57 PM
Current women with the GM title.


Judit Polgar 2727
Zsuzsa Polgar 2577
Humpy Koneru 2575
Jun Xie 2573
Pia Cramling 2535
Chen Zhu 2531
Yuhua Xu 2517
Alexandra Kosteniuk 2515
Maia Chiburdanidze 2510
Antoaneta Stefanova 2492
Hoang Thanh Trang 2472
Zhaoqin Peng 2439
Nona Gaprindashvili 2364
Not all of them qualified for the title by meeting norm requirements but by virtue of being the Womens World Champion.
The first to do so by norms was Zsuzsa Polgar followed by her sister Judith and Pia Cramling.

Rincewind
25-05-2007, 03:02 PM
What Kevin was referring to was simply that the question regarding titles and the number of permitted unrated players was raised with the Zone President.

Thanks for the clarification. I did that myself as well.

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 03:03 PM
Current women with the GM title.


Judit Polgar 2727
Zsuzsa Polgar 2577
Humpy Koneru 2575
Jun Xie 2573
Pia Cramling 2535
Chen Zhu 2531
Yuhua Xu 2517
Alexandra Kosteniuk 2515
Maia Chiburdanidze 2510
Antoaneta Stefanova 2492
Hoang Thanh Trang 2472
Zhaoqin Peng 2439
Nona Gaprindashvili 2364
Not all of them qualified for the title by meeting norm requirements but by virtue of being the Womens World Champion.
The first to do so by norms was Zsuzsa Polgar followed by her sister Judith and Pia Cramling.

What about Nona Gaprindashvili and Maya Chiburdanidze? did they get the titles for winning the WC? I was under the impression that both of them had impressive results in male tournaments.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 03:04 PM
Some (like Jono) think having female only title is a sexist paternalism, some think it's not.
Irrespectably of whether it's true or not, (would be an intresting topic for a different thread), cheapening of those title is still bad

Very true. And although I think that female-only titles is paternalistic, I also think that if we must have them, they should be earned properly. Masters of any sort with peak ratings <<2000 degrades the term.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 03:05 PM
There are WIM's who are stronger then you ever were.
Would you prefer them to be called FM's?
That supports my point that they don't need paternalistic female-only titles! :hand:

Igor_Goldenberg
25-05-2007, 03:13 PM
What about Nona Gaprindashvili and Maya Chiburdanidze? did they get the titles for winning the WC? I was under the impression that both of them had impressive results in male tournaments.
I think they first won the WC, were awarded GM title (Gaprindashvili not immediately after becoming world champion), but there results rose to GM level later anyway (Chiburdanidze is still above 2500)

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2007, 03:13 PM
What about Nona Gaprindashvili and Maya Chiburdanidze? did they get the titles for winning the WC? I was under the impression that both of them had impressive results in male tournaments.They both got it for being the Womens world champion. Although Gaprindashvili did have 2 GM norms and Chiburdanidze one they never met the requirements for the title.

Zsuzsa Polgar in 1991 was the first woman to gain the GM title via norm qualification.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2007, 03:18 PM
I think they first won the WC, were awarded GM title (Gaprindashvili not immediately after becoming world champion), but there results rose to GM level later anyway (Chiburdanidze is still above 2500)Only thanks to the 100 point uplift all women with the exception of Zsusza Polgar got in 1988.

Certainly up to 1991 when Zsuzsa Polar gained the GM title, neither Chiburdanidze nor Gaprindashvili had sufficient norms.

Perhaps after 1991 they did achive further GM norms but since they already had the GM title it was not reported.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2007, 03:18 PM
This kind of prejudice prevents many girls from even taking up the game, and causes others to give up in disgust. Say what you like, Jono, it is not a level playing field.

Check out Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Dr Thomas Sowell (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3873.html), a black economist and author. He is talking about race-based rather than sex-based preferences, but many of the points apply. One thing he has documented is how the policies mainly benefit those already well off in the preferred group, while hurting those already worse off in the discriminated-against group. Also, the very principle of affirmative action rewards people of the same group as those who suffered discrimination at one time, whether or not they personally have been discriminated against, and punishes people of the same group who have oppressed, whether or not they have personally oppressed anyone. And this policy dispenses with the just view of equality of opportunity to impose the unjust one of equality of outcomes.

This applies to women's titles: they often benefit women who have already been greatly encouraged in chess, while doing little for the women in Pax' anecdote. Men who can't afford the time or money to buy their place in the zonal can't obtain the privileges of titles although they may be stronger players than the female title-holders.

In the current women's zonal, one possible title awardee has a chessplaying brother. It is very unlikely that she has been treated any worse than her brother, or that her brother is guilty of prejudice. Yet despite their equal opportunities, one might obtain an easy title while the other would have to achieve a much higher standard to obtain one.

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 03:49 PM
I think they first won the WC, were awarded GM title (Gaprindashvili not immediately after becoming world champion), but there results rose to GM level later anyway (Chiburdanidze is still above 2500)


From Memory, Garprindashvili finshed second in Dortmund in 1975 and first equal in Lone Pine in 1978.
I got an old Informator at home and it contains a crosstable of 1979 Wejk-An-Zee tournament. Gaprindashvili played in the top section and scored -2 or so.
Some of the participants that played in the tourney (can not remember them all) were Polugoevsky, Miles, Timman, Huebner, Hort, Andersson....
By today's standards' the event could be classified as a "supertournament"

She surey deseves the Title of GM irrespectively of how she got it!

Garvinator
25-05-2007, 04:22 PM
What Kevin was referring to was simply that the question regarding titles and the number of permitted unrated players was raised with the Zone President.
I hope it wasn't done by email ;)

pax
25-05-2007, 05:12 PM
Check out Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study by Dr Thomas Sowell (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3873.html), a black economist and author. He is talking about race-based rather than sex-based preferences, but many of the points apply.

Affirmative action is a big can of worms. There are many reputable studies of affirmative action which conclude in favour, but I don't intend to get into yet another debate on the merits of affirmative action. In any case, there is a crucial difference in the case of female titles - we are not talking about rewarding women at the expense of better qualified or equivalently qualified men. The titles issue is not at all the same as, for example employing a woman in preference to a man simply because she is a woman.

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2007, 06:24 PM
Chess tournaments are for everybody not just the elite. The Australian Championship is closed and no one wants to organise it. If we make the Zonals closed they will collapse. Every chess tournament should be open!

A very weak argument from a single example. Easily disproven by noting that (i) there were no problems finding someone to organise the previous Champs (ii) there were significant problems (solved eventually to varying degrees) finding someone to smoothly organise the last three Opens in a row.

If you made the Zonals too elite an event they might collapse but pruning out the <10% of the field who definitely patently should not be there is not going to affect anything.

eclectic
25-05-2007, 10:20 PM
No formal nor informal request has gone to FIDE that I am aware of.
What Kevin was referring to was simply that the question regarding titles and the number of permitted unrated players was raised with the Zone President.

When I suggested referring the matter to the FIDE I meant seeking some formal ruling from the Qualifications Commission so that those who may be affected would know where they stand.

May I presume that this is what our Zonal President will be doing?

Kevin Bonham
25-05-2007, 10:36 PM
May I presume that this is what our Zonal President will be doing?

I have no idea what he will do about this situation.

eclectic
25-05-2007, 10:38 PM
I have no idea what he will do about this situation.

... keep swimming around in his little pond? :hand:

MichaelBaron
25-05-2007, 11:04 PM
Arh...who cares...let kiddies have their titles :).

However, in 2009, lets recall the lessons from 2007.

Bill Gletsos
26-05-2007, 12:32 AM
From informal communication I have had with an authoritative source it appears there may be a drafting error in the regulations but the intent is that sections 1.4x mentioned in 1.21 only apply to norms in the events specified in 1.2 and not to where a title is awarded directly from events listed in 1.2.

As such that means that the titles as announced would be valid. i.e.

IM to Puchen Wang
FM's to Gene Nakauchi and James Morris
WIM to Alex Jule
WFM's to Sue Maroroa and Rebecca Harris

20 game IM norms to Igor Goldenberg and Robert Smith.

Bill Gletsos
26-05-2007, 12:33 AM
When I suggested referring the matter to the FIDE I meant seeking some formal ruling from the Qualifications Commission so that those who may be affected would know where they stand.

May I presume that this is what our Zonal President will be doing?No idea as I havent heard from him.

Capablanca-Fan
26-05-2007, 12:36 AM
In any case, there is a crucial difference in the case of female titles - we are not talking about rewarding women at the expense of better qualified or equivalently qualified men.

Yes we are. Some misguided PC organizers give free entry to WIMs but not to FMs much higher rated.

pax
26-05-2007, 08:06 AM
Yes we are. Some misguided PC organizers give free entry to WIMs but not to FMs much higher rated.

But that is simply their choice. They can give free entry to FMs if they want to.

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2007, 01:51 PM
Yes we are. Some misguided PC organizers give free entry to WIMs but not to FMs much higher rated.

Is this necessarily PC as such? For instance a motive might be to attempt to improve the social atmosphere of the tournament by encouraging greater female participation, without being overtly discriminatory by (for instance) giving discounts to all females.

Rincewind
26-05-2007, 03:54 PM
From informal communication I have had with an authoritative source it appears there may be a drafting error in the regulations but the intent is that sections 1.4x mentioned in 1.21 only apply to norms in the events specified in 1.2 and not to where a title is awarded directly from events listed in 1.2.

You mean I was right for once? :cool:


As such that means that the titles as announced would be valid. i.e.

IM to Puchen Wang
FM's to Gene Nakauchi and James Morris
WIM to Alex Jule
WFM's to Sue Maroroa and Rebecca Harris

20 game IM norms to Igor Goldenberg and Robert Smith.

Congratulations to all!!!

eclectic
26-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Let's not pop the champagne corks just yet. Let's wait for an official ruling or until the titles are formally conferred as opposed to relying on an informal opinion even though it is from an authoritative source.

Bill Gletsos
26-05-2007, 05:02 PM
Let's not pop the champagne corks just yet. Let's wait for an official ruling or until the titles are formally conferred as opposed to relying on an informal opinion even though it is from an authoritative source.I seriously doubt there will be an issue.
BTW my source is a member of the Titles & Ratings Committee and the Qualifications Commission.

Kevin Bonham
26-05-2007, 05:03 PM
I also assume there will now be no issue.

frogmogdog
27-05-2007, 12:06 PM
thatís good news the titles are coming through.

both the new FMs are on track to be 2200+ players (provided they don't read this bulletin board and give up chess in disgust).

the new WIM is also a junior with room to improve, and with just one new WIM in all of oceania every two years i'm not surprised FIDE donít care.

re past zonal title recipients, i think the weakest australian zonal FM has a peak fide rating of 2078. i agree that's low for an FM but canít see itís a national disgrace or international scandal.

also, i'm not sure you can think women's titles are patronising without implying the women who accept them are, in some way, stupid people who don't know what's good for them. i'm very happy to listen to counter-arguments on this though. :D

MichaelBaron
27-05-2007, 12:27 PM
I also assume there will now be no issue.

The only issue Fide will ever have...could be the money for the title registration not arriving on time. Otherwise Fide probably can not care less :).

Denis_Jessop
27-05-2007, 10:06 PM
The only issue Fide will ever have...could be the money for the title registration not arriving on time. Otherwise Fide probably can not care less :).

You may well be right as far as the Oceania zone goes but I think there are probably other issues involved where regions like Africa and Central America are concerned. We have no expectation that FIDE would care about Oceania as it is a very small fish in the FIDE pond. Moreover we can't be too critical of FIDE's attempts to find new income streams. But for the myriads of doubloons contributed by Kirsan in recent years, FIDE would have long since been dead, I believe. It is very bad policy to rely on one person/income-source to such an extent as FIDE has done.

DJ

Basil
27-05-2007, 10:12 PM
We have no expectation that FIDE would care about Oceania as it is a very small fish in the FIDE pond.
If ACF finds the airfare, I'll fly over and make them pay attention!

eclectic
27-05-2007, 10:14 PM
If ACF finds the airfare, I'll fly over and make them pay attention!

The ACF struggles as it is with the Biennial Olympiad appeal!! :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2007, 03:14 AM
The ACF struggles as it is with the Biennial Olympiad appeal!! :hand:
But they do better than NZCF used to do ...

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2007, 03:20 AM
thatís good news the titles are coming through.

That's a matter of opinion.


both the new FMs are on track to be 2200+ players

Then they don't need to get the title early. BTW, even 2200 is low for a FM.


(provided they don't read this bulletin board and give up chess in disgust).

Why would they? And if so, too bad; no point restricting honest debate because some people might get offended.


re past zonal title recipients, i think the weakest australian zonal FM has a peak fide rating of 2078. i agree that's low for an FM but canít see itís a national disgrace or international scandal.

Of course it is. Australia should not have FMs >200 lower than the median. It doesn't look good for us.


also, i'm not sure you can think women's titles are patronising without implying the women who accept them are, in some way, stupid people who don't know what's good for them. i'm very happy to listen to counter-arguments on this though. :D

People will accept titles for all sorts of reasons, not least because misguided organizers reward them.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2007, 03:26 AM
Is this necessarily PC as such?

Not necessarily but often. I've heard people justify equal funding to the "Men's" and Women's Olympiad teams because it would be "discriminatory" to do otherwise. Yet the only discrimination going on is the team that bars half the population. It is also presumably the justification for the ACF paying equally for the GM and WGm, and IM and WIM titles.

Free entry to WIMs but not to stronger FMs is again the PC nonsense of rewarding the appointed group rather than individual merit.


For instance a motive might be to attempt to improve the social atmosphere of the tournament by encouraging greater female participation, without being overtly discriminatory by (for instance) giving discounts to all females.

It doesn't seem to work. Like most affirmative action, it benefits people who don't need the benefits, while not improving the participation rate of untitled women.

Rincewind
28-05-2007, 09:24 AM
Why would they? And if so, too bad; no point restricting honest debate because some people might get offended.

People will accept titles for all sorts of reasons, not least because misguided organizers reward them.

Git!

Sam
28-05-2007, 10:37 AM
Of course it is. Australia should not have FMs >200 lower than the median. It doesn't look good for us.


Doesnt look good for us?:hmm: More like doesnt look good for you.:hand:

Australia already had a number of FM's below 2200 before this zonal.
Is two more going to make such a big difference? I seriously doubt it.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2007, 12:09 PM
Doesnt look good for us?:hmm:

That's what Ian Rogers said.


More like doesnt look good for you.:hand:

Yeah, right, check out the poll on the subject. A big majority disapprove of the Bi-Lo titles.


Australia already had a number of FM's below 2200 before this zonal.

Yeah, because of more weak zonals!


Is two more going to make such a big difference? I seriously doubt it.

It perpetuates a problem.

flukey
28-05-2007, 07:46 PM
First, hi Jono ... Steve Lukey from New Zealand here.

My 2 cents worth on the zonal title issue.

The background context is places like New Zealand and Australia and alot of countries in Africa, are far removed from the center of the chess universe. Before the Zonal titles, the only realistic way a New Zealander could make IM or GM was to go to Europe for a year or so and play fulltime (Sarapu being the exception that proves the rule). Of course, the rating requirement is now less problematic than the norm requirement given the recent surge in events FIDE rated in this part of the world. The difficulty in getting norms is shown by people like Bjelobrk and Goldenberg who have been at or just under 2400 but with no norms between them (until recently in Fiji - congrats Igor!).

So absent zonal titles, the Oceania situation is anything but "soft".

So to me it seems clear that the Zonal titles have a place but that it should have some limits even over and above the 1 Im and 2 FM rule.

Calls to limit the field are just plain silly - I witnessed at first hand the success of the last Auckland zonal when hordes of young, enthusiastic Aussies turned up. As well as getting great experience, these players helped pay the tournament bills and prizemoney for the guns.

It has already been suggested but I like the idea that an IM title goes either to the winner (or highest non-IM joint winner) or, the highest non-IM over 66%, in each case with a performance rating over 2450.

And the FM title either goes to every non-FM who scores over 50% with 2350performance rating or, the highest 2 non-FMs as long as their performance ratings are over 2300.

I hope Fiji organises the Zonal again because this one was an absolute cracker at a great 5 star venue ... I echo the comments of others that it was a very friendly, stress free event. I arrived in Fiji still suffering from pneumonia but I was right as rain by the time I left!

Basil
28-05-2007, 08:37 PM
Hi Steve. I was interested by your input.


Before the Zonal titles, the only realistic way a New Zealander could make IM or GM was to go to Europe for a year or so and play fulltime (Sarapu being the exception that proves the rule).
OK, so let's have zonals. We're agreed.


Calls to limit the field are just plain silly
Limit the size or the strength? I'm not sure you've illustrated 'silly'. You do give an example in support of your point, but I'm not certain it's a winner as far as painting field limits as 'silly'.


I witnessed at first hand the success of the last Auckland zonal when hordes of young, enthusiastic Aussies turned up. As well as getting great experience, these players helped pay the tournament bills and prizemoney for the guns.
It sounds great, and certainly they would have helped to pay the bills. A couple of things:
a) Could those youngsters have been enticed to a separate and parallel comp in the same venue?
b) It appears the backbone of your assertion is based upon financial considerations.
c) I'd need to defer to others' knowledge here, but what about legitimate prospects for a title running into a plethora of opponents who would drag their PR down because they lost an early round, for example? Instead of an opportunity for a bounce-back in the ensuing rounds, they spend most of the tournament trying to meet opponents who can give them a crack at the title.

Is that a valid argument for not having the hordes?


It has already been suggested but I like the idea that an IM title goes either to the winner (or highest non-IM joint winner) or, the highest non-IM over 66%, in each case with a performance rating over 2450.
Yup, I'm listening.


And the FM title either goes to every non-FM who scores over 50% with 2350performance rating or, the highest 2 non-FMs as long as their performance ratings are over 2300.
Still listening.

Cheers
Howard

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2007, 12:45 AM
First, hi Jono ... Steve Lukey from New Zealand here.

Hi Steve


The background context is places like New Zealand and Australia and alot of countries in Africa, are far removed from the center of the chess universe. Before the Zonal titles, the only realistic way a New Zealander could make IM or GM was to go to Europe for a year or so and play fulltime (Sarapu being the exception that proves the rule).

He received his IM at a zonal, but that was the leading players from several countries including the Philippines.


So absent zonal titles, the Oceania situation is anything but "soft".

This would depend on the situation. There have been soft titles awarded from the last few.


Calls to limit the field are just plain silly - I witnessed at first hand the success of the last Auckland zonal when hordes of young, enthusiastic Aussies turned up. As well as getting great experience, these players helped pay the tournament bills and prizemoney for the guns.

But if people can receive FM titles for beating a field of 1700 players, there is something wrong, or a WIM when the possible opponents include a beginner?


It has already been suggested but I like the idea that an IM title goes either to the winner (or highest non-IM joint winner) or, the highest non-IM over 66%, in each case with a performance rating over 2450.

And the FM title either goes to every non-FM who scores over 50% with 2350performance rating or, the highest 2 non-FMs as long as their performance ratings are over 2300.

If they score performances as high as that, then I've not had an objection to titles being awarded. I'm on record saying that some IM titles from zonals have been well deserved. The problem is the Bi-Lo FM titles for performances of ~2100, and WIM for ~1900.


I hope Fiji organises the Zonal again because this one was an absolute cracker at a great 5 star venue ... I echo the comments of others that it was a very friendly, stress free event. I arrived in Fiji still suffering from pneumonia but I was right as rain by the time I left!

Glad you've recovered. And I appreciate your rational arguments even if I don't agree entirely.

Denis_Jessop
29-05-2007, 11:34 AM
If ACF finds the airfare, I'll fly over and make them pay attention!

The airlines won't let you take the guns on board :rolleyes:

And where would you fly to? FIDE is multi-tentacled.

DJ

Garvinator
29-05-2007, 11:36 AM
The airlines won't let you take the guns on board :rolleyes:

And where would you fly to? FIDE is multi-tentacled.

DJ
Gunner just wants to go so he can get his sheep :owned:

Basil
29-05-2007, 12:09 PM
The airlines won't let you take the guns on board :rolleyes:

And where would you fly to? FIDE is multi-tentacled.

DJ

No violence. La France, of course. Home base. The eye of the tiger. The lions' den. The big cheese. HQ Central.

It's a presence thing, Denis.

Garrett
29-05-2007, 12:18 PM
And where would you fly to?
DJ

shuushh

(Anywhere will do just fine).

Basil
29-05-2007, 12:19 PM
shuushh

(Anywhere will do just fine).

*LOL*

Basil
29-05-2007, 12:23 PM
Old score to settle with the French on behalf my brother. I've never been to France, but apparently The Parisians were impossibly rude to him (and I'm told other Brits) when he struggled with their language. <I doubt there was much struggling - I just think it's a blood sport for them>.

One memorable moment *not* was when he tried to order a Big Mac. I have a fairly strong grasp of my bro's French and a reasonable guess at how how hard it would be for someone standing behind a McDonald's counter to decipher Le Big Mac.

I think Jono would say the staff reduced the situation to 'reductio ad rude farker'. Ergo, I would like to meet these people and say hello. In fact I'll pay the airfare and bung in the ACF biz for free. I'll let you know how I get on.

MichaelBaron
29-05-2007, 02:47 PM
PS I know a bit about Gene Nakauchi and I assume our Queensland friends do too. Suffice to say that he is a very keen youngster from the Gold coast whose diligence has resulted in great improvement recently. An FM title would be greatly appreciated by him and his family, I am sure.

I am also sure he and his family will appreciate the Title (as all the title recipients and their families obviously do). This is why...may be Fide should start fundraising through a special "buy your Kid a title for birthday" campaign. Lets imagine the revenue raised as well as happy faces of 1000s of the kids!

Mischa
29-05-2007, 08:19 PM
I am also sure he and his family will appreciate the Title (as all the title recipients and their families obviously do). This is why...may be Fide should start fundraising through a special "buy your Kid a title for birthday" campaign. Lets imagine the revenue raised as well as happy faces of 1000s of the kids!

So Michael...who would you have been happy with getting the FM?

Denis_Jessop
29-05-2007, 08:32 PM
I am also sure he and his family will appreciate the Title (as all the title recipients and their families obviously do). This is why...may be Fide should start fundraising through a special "buy your Kid a title for birthday" campaign. Lets imagine the revenue raised as well as happy faces of 1000s of the kids!

Michael

I can assure you that in Gene's case your sarcasm is utterly misplaced and unseemly. I say no more.

DJ

Mischa
29-05-2007, 08:47 PM
in James' case too...

ElevatorEscapee
29-05-2007, 08:52 PM
All I can say about all of this nonsensical furore is that I feel for the kids/people involved in all of this, that may have unintentially contributed to people attaining titles. The people I feel most for, however, are those people who have actually gained these titles under this format, and now find their achievements ridiculed, and their names disgraced in a public forum.

If those complaining have a problem with FIDE rules and laws and what not, which have allowed this to happen, why not focus on attacking those very rules and laws, and leave the kids out of it!?

Yes, the usual arguments have been wheeled out here that "names must be named" and "every infinitesimal detail must be exposed" so that we can all measure the veracity and potency of the argument...

However, I would argue that this does nothing to advance the cause of those who love to play chess... if anything, it sadly, seriously detracts from it. :(

The combined messages of the detractors about this have all made me rather sad :(... I hope that makes all of you rather happy! :P

Mischa
29-05-2007, 09:00 PM
it was fun it was exciting it was wonderful it was an experience worth remembering..we were pleased we were chuffed we were a lot humble. Now we are just deflated and disillusioned...
do you people WANT juniors to continue with chess?

ElevatorEscapee
29-05-2007, 09:03 PM
You and your entire family and friends will most certainly be always be welcomed in Country Vic :D ... not sure about the other guys from other places though... :confused:

Basil
29-05-2007, 09:06 PM
Michael

I can assure you that in Gene's case your sarcasm is utterly misplaced and unseemly. I say no more.

DJ

Denis, please take what follows as entirely genuine as I guarantee it is so. I would urge any and all onlookers not to take a remote meaning from my words that isn't clearly expressed, and from them, create yet another beat-up.

Denis, may I ask why you say that [your quote] with respect to the young man? I know him a little and of his circumstances. My take on Michael's comment was that he, like Jono, was referring exclusively to the standard of qualification. Did you read it like that?

Your considered response would be genuinely appreciated and received.

Thanks
Howard

Mischa
29-05-2007, 09:08 PM
You and your entire family and friends will most certainly be always be welcomed in Country Vic :D ... not sure about the other guys from other places though... :confused:

The only place that can beat Fiji for the friendliness and support and general good feel at a chess tournament while remaining competitive is country victoria...:) :clap:

Basil
29-05-2007, 09:10 PM
Right! That does it. I'm off to tell the Fijians that after aaaaaaaaaaaallllll their hard work, they have to put up with that sort of rubbish and back-stabbing! :) [/jest]

eclectic
29-05-2007, 09:18 PM
I do not on principle agree with such soft titles but to be fair they are very much a product of our being part of a somewhat insular sub zone with a player pool which lacks critical mass.

We can't really complain about those who get such titles when at the same time we are not in such a hurry to rejoin the asian zone for instance so that our representatives meet realistic competition commensurate with the titles being sought.

I would hope that in the case of the recipients concerned their being awarded such titles is a precursor to their reaching the rating normally associated with such a title and indeed that they would go on even further.

Basil
29-05-2007, 09:22 PM
We can't really complain about those...
Minor point, and it may not have been your intention, and if it were, well OK :eek:, but it is not 'those' about whom we are raising discussion, but the system. I know Jono and others have been at great pains to be very clear on this matter.

That aside, I thought your post was excellent :clap:

That's two excellent posts in 1/2 an hour. Well done chaps. Just get rid of me (and mod edit) and this board is cookin!

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2007, 11:56 PM
I am also sure he and his family will appreciate the Title (as all the title recipients and their families obviously do). This is why...may be Fide should start fundraising through a special "buy your Kid a title for birthday" campaign. Lets imagine the revenue raised as well as happy faces of 1000s of the kids!

Maybe Bi-Lo will help?

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2007, 11:59 PM
PS I know a bit about Gene Nakauchi and I assume our Queensland friends do too. Suffice to say that he is a very keen youngster from the Gold coast whose diligence has resulted in great improvement recently. An FM title would be greatly appreciated by him and his family, I am sure.

A CM, as suggested by Kevin Bonham, would have been greatly appreciated by him and his family too, and would be a fair reward for his great improvement. An FM title earned the proper way would be appreciated more than one earned the Bi-Lo way.

eclectic
30-05-2007, 12:26 AM
I don't believe we should panda to the bi-lo title mentality any longer!

Those desirous of such titles should at least have a rating somewhere in the vicinity of our esteemed FIDE ratings officer (http://www.chesschat.org/member.php?u=618) although rumour has it he is really an underdone GM!

I understand a vocal minority may well become somewhat shirty about this suggestion.

;)

frogmogdog
30-05-2007, 09:41 AM
i'm struggling with some of this discussion. why does the chess community keep eating itself?

jono, you might think having a few relatively low-rated FMs is a national disgrace but i seriously doubt it.

on the contrary, i suspect most australians would think: "good on you guys!! and great work kids---fantastic performance!! we're really proud of you, and if you keep this up you might be representing us in the olympics in a few years!"

PS. the lowest rated FM in the world is a cuban, fide 1775.

MichaelBaron
30-05-2007, 09:51 AM
i suspect most australians would think: "good on you guys!! and great work kids---fantastic performance!! we're really proud of you, and if you keep this up you might be representing us in the olympics in a few years!"



Frogmogdog, please check out Watto's poll! I think the poll shows what most Australians think of the soft titles :).


I am sure everyone is proud of everyone else (in a true Australian spirit :D ) but lets decide whether titles should be awarded for chess achievements of certain standard or put up for sale so we can congratulate each other on achieving those titles and feel proud of each other.

P.S. Your approach reminds me of the Australian public school system where young kids are often being encouraged to "smile and to have a good time" and who cares about literacy :).

Watto
30-05-2007, 09:59 AM
it was fun it was exciting it was wonderful it was an experience worth remembering..we were pleased we were chuffed we were a lot humble. Now we are just deflated and disillusioned...
do you people WANT juniors to continue with chess?
Hi Mischa. I’m sorry to hear it’s been so hard on the players involved. No one wants them to feel bad or to give up chess. I wrote in an earlier post that they had nothing to apologise for and of course I still think that. From all accounts it sounds like it was a very enjoyable, joyous event and something memorable to be part of. It’s the system that people on chesschat have been critical about. It's a difficult situation- how to be honest about how one feels about the system and the need for improvement whilst not wanting to hurt or discourage individuals. I agree that there have been some comments which have been below the belt but most posts have not been. Of course it would be hard for the players not to take a discussion about 'soft titles' personally even if there had been no snide comments.

The important thing to remember if spirits are deflated is that a lot of the juniors who were over there are clearly talented players and improving rapidly and they performed well. We should be proud of them. That’s all really positive.

I’d like to add that I was actually very impressed by India’s courage during the tournament. It’s not fun to lose game after game… full credit to her that she agreed to play and that she stuck it out. I’m glad to hear she was excited by the experience. If she does want to play again in time, I’ll keep a friendly eye out for her.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-05-2007, 10:03 AM
If those complaining have a problem with FIDE rules and laws and what not, which have allowed this to happen, why not focus on attacking those very rules and laws, and leave the kids out of it!?


If you follow the debate carefully, you'll see that opponents of the soft title mostly discuss FIDE rules and laws that allow it to happen, not the people who benefit from it.

Quite often the proponents of soft titles try to make it look like a personal attack, even though Jono (who argues against soft titles most and put forward the most compelling arguments) clearly stated that he had nothing against the benefitiaries of the FIDE rules.

Gene is a nice (and very talented!) kid, his father also made a very good impression, but it does not validate FIDE regulation that allowed him to become a FM. Nor should defenders of the soft title use him (or anyone else) to try and prove their point of view.

frogmogdog
30-05-2007, 10:06 AM
hi michael
actually, the poll tells us what a few chess obsessives think, and certainly not what most australians do. :)

as it happens, i actually support a FUTURE slight tightening of the rules (i liked the FM-in waiting idea of needing to hit 2200).

my concern is that the angst over the rules is overwhelming the joy that a couple of 12 yrs performed in the mid 2100s in a major tournament. this board should be full of congratulatory messages for them! instead i feel there's sometimes an air of nastiness to the posts.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2007, 01:36 PM
actually, the poll tells us what a few chess obsessives think, and certainly not what most australians do. :)

So where is your proof that most Australians like lowering standards instead of rewarding excellence?


as it happens, i actually support a FUTURE slight tightening of the rules (i liked the FM-in waiting idea of needing to hit 2200).

Should be 2300.


my concern is that the angst over the rules is overwhelming the joy that a couple of 12 yrs performed in the mid 2100s in a major tournament. this board should be full of congratulatory messages for them! instead i feel there's sometimes an air of nastiness to the posts.

And that performance should be praised, and perhaps be rewarded by a CM title. But FM standard it is not.

arosar
30-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Nor should defenders of the soft title use him (or anyone else) to try and prove their point of view.

Exactly! The problem with some of these pro Bi-lo mob is that they're personalising the whole discussion. Take Misha. She keeps asking, "do you want my kids to give up chess....BLAH...BLAH...BLAH?" What's up with that? It's got nothing to do with her kids.

And how about this argument that "x country has soft titled players therefore we shouldn't care"? Too bloody stupid these people I tell ya.

Anyway, I'm sure we're on the enlightened path on this one as we have some heavyweights on our side.

AR

PS: See what happens? Sushi always gets me in the mood. I love eel. Anyone like the slimy texture of eel?

Brian_Jones
30-05-2007, 02:19 PM
PS: See what happens? Sushi always gets me in the mood. I love eel. Anyone like the slimy texture of eel?

Bloody foreigner. :)

Why don't you get some good aussie tucker down yearse? ;)

frogmogdog
30-05-2007, 02:52 PM
hi jono
shortly i shall begone but...

1. i just meant most australians would unconditionally congratulate the kids (and probably find much of the banter here quite silly and needlessly confrontational). but apologies if i was unclear --- my comments had nothing to do with a lowering standards vs excellence debate.

2. sorry, but your comment "should be 2300" seems illogical because you can claim an FM title at 2300 without the zonal performance.

3. they entered the tournament and fulfilled the advertised conditions so i think they should have the full support of the australian chess community and be given the titles.

that said, i am sympathetic to your view expressed: "And that performance should be praised, and perhaps be rewarded by a CM title. But FM standard it is not."

i just don't think it's productive to aussie chess to raise clouds over the conferral of the titles from this now-completed event.

i'm also not convinced it will help australian chess to drastically tighten the requirements. i think the main problem was the 1999 tournament when unlimited numbers of FM titles could be attained (and this was when our only sub-2100 FM achieved his).

addendum: i just checked the FIDE site and see brian jones is also under 2100 now, but he has been as high as 2223.

Brian_Jones
30-05-2007, 03:09 PM
i'm also not convinced it will help australian chess to drastically tighten the requirements. i think the main problem was the 1999 tournament when unlimited numbers of FM titles could be attained (and this was when our only sub-2100 FM achieved his).

I agree with this comment.

When I voted on Watto's poll, I voted for the requirements to be slightly tightened for the future.

Maybe adopt some rating floor eg 2250 (IM), 2150 (FM), 1950 (WIM) and 1850 (WFM).

MichaelBaron
30-05-2007, 03:55 PM
I agree with this comment.

2250 (IM), 2150 (FM), 1950 (WIM) and 1850 (WFM).

Sigh...2250 IM...how strong is he going to be? ...should be at least 2300 for IM and 2200 for FM!

Igor_Goldenberg
30-05-2007, 04:09 PM
Maybe 2400 for IM and 2300 for FM?

Brian_Jones
30-05-2007, 04:50 PM
addendum: i just checked the FIDE site and see brian jones is also under 2100 now, but he has been as high as 2223.

Sigh. Maybe past my best at OTB chess now.

But at least I still play regularly, unlike many players higher than me on the FIDE list, and I have been watching Korchnoi recently and may get my rating back above 2150 very soon! :P

PS My ICCF rating is 2311 ;)

Sam
30-05-2007, 10:14 PM
.
Exactly! The problem with some of these pro Bi-lo mob is that they're personalising the whole discussion.

Geez youre a hypocrite. Lets go back to your quote from post 333.

"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."

Now if thats not a personal attack,then I dont know what is.:hand:

The requirements for a FIDE title dramatically changed over ten years ago by allowing players to receive a title from a one off zonal performance.
The horse has bolted so long ago that its had offspring who are ready to compete in the Melbourne cup for the third time.
Why the title whingers keep crying about this and act as though the sky is falling in is beyond me.
Even if oceania was disbanded by FIDE and we rejoined asia it would still not stop players from getting "soft titles" in other zonals.
Just accept the reality of Kirsan's world chess plan or start lobbying for a new world chess federation.

What I find amazing about the title whingers is that they completely ignore the real purpose of the zonal,which is to qualify for the second phase of the World Championship! I have yet to hear any of them complain about the devaluing of this process,since its always australian players who are the beneficiaries of a weakened world championship cycle.

They are happy to say that Gene and James shouldnt receive an FM title ,yet never say that players like Zhong Zhao should give up their spot in the World Championship cycle even though the field he and all other oceania zonal winners have competed against is significantly weaker than the fields that Rogers was competing against in the 1980's

If you want to apply tough standards to australian players then you have to be consistent,and not just pick on the easy targets.
To be in favour of the weakening of qualification for a World Championship and be against the weakening of the FM title when the two are happening in the same tournament smacks of hypocrisy to me. And to have people who are in Arosar's position making the kind of comment he has about junior participants is nothing short of being vile.:hand:

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2007, 10:31 PM
The requirements for a FIDE title dramatically changed over ten years ago by allowing players to receive a title from a one off zonal performance.Incorrect.
That regulation existed much longer than just 10 years ago.

The horse has bolted so long ago that its had offspring who are ready to compete in the Melbourne cup for the third time.
Why the title whingers keep crying about this and act as though the sky is falling in is beyond me.
Even if oceania was disbanded by FIDE and we rejoined asia it would still not stop players from getting "soft titles" in other zonals.
Just accept the reality of Kirsan's world chess plan or start lobbying for a new world chess federation.

What I find amazing about the title whingers is that they completely ignore the real purpose of the zonal,which is to qualify for the second phase of the World Championship! I have yet to hear any of them complain about the devaluing of this process,since its always australian players who are the beneficiaries of a weakened world championship cycle.

They are happy to say that Gene and James shouldnt receive an FM title ,yet never say that players like Zhong Zhao should give up their spot in the World Championship cycle even though the field he and all other oceania zonal winners have competed against is significantly weaker than the fields that Rogers was competing against in the 1980'sI think you will find there are far more zonal places available world wide into the next stage of the world championship nowadays than there were back in the 1980's when the next stage was the interzonal.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2007, 10:35 PM
."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."

Now if thats not a personal attack,

Actually, it isn't.


then I dont know what is.:hand:

I agree!

We don't even know that the juniors in question were playing in the event to hunt soft FM titles. They may have been over there for the playing experience or the tropical holiday for all we know. They played very well but the debate is about whether FIDE is over-rewarding their performance. This is not a personal attack on the players.


What I find amazing about the title whingers is that they completely ignore the real purpose of the zonal,which is to qualify for the second phase of the World Championship! I have yet to hear any of them complain about the devaluing of this process,since its always australian players who are the beneficiaries of a weakened world championship cycle.

It's not all that unrealistic that Oceania should have a participant. There are 128 participants in the first round of the FIDE world knockouts and Australia's #1 player has often been ranked higher than #128. Although he isn't ranked that highly at present it is likely Australia will have players ranked in the top 128 again before too much longer. It just happens that Rogers has chosen not to participate in these things for largely political reasons, leaving the door open to others to represent Oceania.

Denis_Jessop
30-05-2007, 10:53 PM
Denis, please take what follows as entirely genuine as I guarantee it is so. I would urge any and all onlookers not to take a remote meaning from my words that isn't clearly expressed, and from them, create yet another beat-up.

Denis, may I ask why you say that [your quote] with respect to the young man? I know him a little and of his circumstances. My take on Michael's comment was that he, like Jono, was referring exclusively to the standard of qualification. Did you read it like that?

Your considered response would be genuinely appreciated and received.

Thanks
Howard

Howard

I didn't and don't put the same interpretation on Michael's post as you do. I say nothing about Jono as I despise his whole attitude to this matter which is by now beyond farcical. :hand:

DJ

Rincewind
30-05-2007, 10:56 PM
PS: See what happens? Sushi always gets me in the mood. I love eel. Anyone like the slimy texture of eel?

BBQ Eel Sushi is my fav

Sam
30-05-2007, 11:13 PM
It's not all that unrealistic that Oceania should have a participant. There are 128 participants in the first round of the FIDE world knockouts and Australia's #1 player has often been ranked higher than #128.

Firstly,even if Rogers current rating was 2555 rather than than 2513 he would still be ranked 296th in the world.
If the field of 128 was picked on chess merit alone via strong zonals rather than what he have now you would expect Ian not to qualify based on his form over the last 12 months.
Thus oceania doesnt really deserve a representative in the World Championship knockout,if we were to go by the current playing strength of our players alone.

Secondly,when Arosar implies that Gene and James would bring embarassment to australian chess by applying for their FM title he is clearly making a personal statement about the players in question.:hand:

Sam
30-05-2007, 11:18 PM
Incorrect.
That regulation existed much longer than just 10 years ago.
I think you will find there are far more zonal places available world wide into the next stage of the world championship nowadays than there were back in the 1980's when the next stage was the interzonal.

The key word there is over,which implies more than ten years.;)

There are far more zonal places then the old days when it was the interzonals,that just highlights my point that the qualifying for the second stage of the World Championship is easier and thus weaker.