PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

eclectic
30-05-2007, 11:24 PM
Actually,

When I looked at the FIDE site the title application pro forma contained provisions only for applying for the GM IM WGM WIM.

http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=B0106

see I and 2

Perhaps they don't need to apply but will automatically receive their titles once the paperwork for the zonal is duly processed subject to any necessary remuneration due to FIDE.

Someone is sure to clarify the matter for me.

;)

Bill Gletsos
30-05-2007, 11:35 PM
The key word there is over,which implies more than ten years.;)Nice try. ;)
So tell when when they introduced it.
I'll give you an hour.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2007, 12:23 AM
Firstly,even if Rogers current rating was 2555 rather than than 2513 he would still be ranked 296th in the world.

Yes, but Ian was 2594 in late 2004. I'm not sure if that would have put him in the top 128 at the time but it would be thereabouts.


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.

If you have a world championship based on zones then disparity of strength between them is an occupational hazard.

I am not sure how else they should best do it though as basing it solely on ratings makes rating manipulation to qualify possible, while having global qualifiers would increase travelling expenses for potential players.


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.

Probably Oceania is a soft inclusion, although I've argued that at times it deserves to be there.

Of course a reform of the zone structure would eliminate both issues.


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:

It's a comment about his view of playing skill not about them as people. Anyone is entitled to the view that players who get the FM title for sub-2200 performances will embarrass Australian chess if they accept it. I don't personally think this is true though; I think the system simply embarrasses FIDE (or would if they had any shame).

The players have earned the titles under the rules as they exist and should go right ahead and apply for them if they wish to do so.

Aaron Guthrie
31-05-2007, 12:33 AM
The players have earned the titles under the rules as they exist and should go right ahead and apply for them if they wish to do so.I have seen comments about applying and paying for the titles a few times.

For the record, I neither applied nor payed for my title! I made an inquiry about the situation, but beyond that never officially applied. No one ever sent me a bill either.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2007, 12:36 AM
For the record, I neither applied nor payed for my title! I made an inquiry about the situation, but beyond that never officially applied. No one ever sent me a bill either.

Yes, I believe we automatically apply for those gained in zonals and the like, although if they explicitly refused to accept them I'm sure we'd take that into account. Maybe we don't apply for those based on rating - for instance Nick Speck has been eligible on rating but has never bothered getting the title.

Aaron Guthrie
31-05-2007, 12:41 AM
Yes, I believe we automatically apply for those gained in zonals and the like, Doesn't this make all the talk of player x applying or not applying quite misleading then?

Also I am not really convinced anyone ever applied as such for my title. As I understand it the situation (me being the third highest non-FM behind Igor Bjelobrk) was just noted in the tournament report. From this it seems to me that the application procedure is simply the tournament report. So it seems to me that all the talk of applying or not is very misleading.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2007, 12:54 AM
Doesn't this make all the talk of player x applying or not applying quite misleading then?

I suspect you're right and it is a red herring on AR's part (and others who have suggested the players should not apply.)

However, my memory of what happens was only triggered when you mentioned what had (or hadn't happened in your case.)

I know the ACF often has to chase up titles and norms to ensure that FIDE has processed them correctly, and that there are often processing fees involved.

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2007, 12:56 AM
Doesn't this make all the talk of player x applying or not applying quite misleading then?With regards zonal titles when Kevin says "we" I believe he is referring to either the organiser or the Zonal President and not the ACF.

The ACF gets involved with zonal titles when it is eventually billed for them.

MichaelBaron
31-05-2007, 01:32 AM
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:

I do not want to speak for Jono or Arosar or someone else for this matter so let me speak for myself.

Gene and James will bring no embarassement to the Australian chess. Lets wish them good luck with their chess careers that i am sure are going to be long and successful.

Lets not use the kids to "cover up" for the ridiculous situation that makes Australia equal with Mozambique and Lybia in terms of "title accessibility". I am sure that everyone (including Jono) is wishing them well!

An FM without a Fide rating is nonsense! A WIM who is rated 1800-1900 is also nonsense! So lets try to make sure that we learn from our mistakes by the time the next Zonal comes around!

Zonal is effectively WCC qualification tournament! There has to be some standard (e.g. 2100-2200 Fide rating) for entering the event in the first place!

African countries have got quite a few titled players recently. But have the titles "triggered" rapid development of chess in the region? Women's World Team Championship has just ended in Ekaterinoburg, Russia. Botswana's Women's team (African continental champion) could not score a single 0.5points despite having some "titled" players. On a rest day, girls from Botswana travelled to a chess club in some local village (it was not even a city chess club) where they played against a team of local children...and lost :D. 10 yo Russian kids (B Grade club players) had no trouble beating their titled opponents!

Obviously development of chess in a region/country is not about the titles.

Being an FM is not much of an achievement (again pls do not see this statement in a negative way. I would never dare to make a statement like this would I not be an FM (and a REAL one!) myself! Myself, Jono, Canfell, Levi, Sales - WE ARE ALL PATZERS. Do not know about others, I certainly have little if any understanding of chess the way it is played at the top level.

Our titles simply mean that we got "some skill in chess". This is probably the only achievement an FM title can highlight!

And a closing remark: One Old Russian Grandmaster used to say: "When i am Playing an opponent that I have never played before, I always regard him is a strong master irrespectively of his rating.....unless he proves me wrong in the course of the game :D ".

So lets regard all of the Fide Masters as Fide Masters and all of the WIMs as Women's Masters;) ...unless they prove us wrong.

eclectic
31-05-2007, 01:41 AM
I do not want to speak for Jono or Arosar or someone else for this matter so let me speak for myself.
[snip - for the sake of brevity]
So lets regard all of the Fide Masters as Fide Masters and all of the WIMs as Women's Masters;) ...unless they prove us wrong.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

arosar
31-05-2007, 08:11 AM
Yes, I believe we automatically apply for those gained in zonals and the like, although if they explicitly refused to accept them I'm sure we'd take that into account.

Look man, nothing has to be automatic. Why is not possible to stop yourselves from applying for these hugely questionable titles?

I'm saying, let's draw a line in the sand now and say, look, let's have none of these Bi Lo titles anymore and from the next time, we'll tighten regulations and that's it.

AR

peter_parr
31-05-2007, 10:36 AM
PS My ICCF rating is 2311 ;)

On the ICCF (Correspondence ratings)
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/RatingList.aspx

By comparison my employee Stephen Kerr (not a FIDE master) is 2580 (173 games), Shane Dibley is 2352 (93 games).

Brian Jones is 2311 (77 games).

Note Shane Dibley has an ACF rating of 1477 (March 2007)

zigzag
31-05-2007, 10:59 AM
On the ICCF (Correspondence ratings)
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/RatingList.aspx

Shane Dibley is 2352 (93 games).

Note Shane Dibley has an ACF rating of 1477 (March 2007)

You should introduce him to Qpawn,they would get on like a house on fire.:P

frogmogdog
31-05-2007, 11:03 AM
yes zigzag, that was a pleasant compliment from peter for brian (no question marks re a second brain).

zigzag
31-05-2007, 11:10 AM
yes zigzag, that was a pleasant compliment from peter for brian (no question marks re a second brain).

Maybe they should play a match so they can settle once and for all who is the strongest chess retailer in Australia.:lol:

I'm sure Peter's ego would be up for it.:whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2007, 12:10 PM
PS My ICCF rating is 2311 ;)
Then I would have no problem if you were awarded the ICFM title if there is such a thing ;)

MichaelBaron
31-05-2007, 12:12 PM
Maybe they should play a match so they can settle once and for all who is the strongest chess retailer in Australia.:lol:

I'm sure Peter's ego would be up for it.:whistle:

As far as I know Peter, he does not require some kind of title to feel good about himself and his chess....:whistle:

Nor he is going to quote his correspondence, bughouse, suiside, atomic etc ratings to convince others he plays well.:whistle:

zigzag
31-05-2007, 12:35 PM
Michael,can I ask why you paid for your FM title?:hmm:
You dont get any free entries and you seem comfortable with your chess strength.
Was it to give you more coaching "cred"?:hmm:

MichaelBaron
31-05-2007, 03:00 PM
Michael,can I ask why you paid for your FM title?:hmm:
You dont get any free entries and you seem comfortable with your chess strength.
Was it to give you more coaching "cred"?:hmm:

Good question, Angelo :hmm: . At the time I was not even thinking about coaching (If i would, it could be my motivation for the title).

May be at the time (I was younger back then) I thought the title does matter. Anyway, would I fulfill the FM criteria this year, I am very sure I would not apply for the title cause by now, it is definitely meaningless (not that it was terribly meaningful 6 years ago :)) I think some strong players (e.g. Drug) see no point in applying for the FM title. If they play well...everybody will recognize them irrespectively of the title. If they do not play well..who cares about their FM or WIM title.

Capablanca-Fan
31-05-2007, 03:23 PM
Maybe they should play a match so they can settle once and for all who is the strongest chess retailer in Australia.:lol:

I'm sure Peter's ego would be up for it.:whistle:

Come off it. Peter made it crystal clear that he didn't want a title that he wasn't strong enough to earn.

zigzag
31-05-2007, 03:41 PM
Come off it. Peter made it crystal clear that he didn't want a title that he wasn't strong enough to earn.

I was talking about his ego being up for a match against Brian.:rolleyes:

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2007, 08:13 PM
Look man, nothing has to be automatic. Why is not possible to stop yourselves from applying for these hugely questionable titles?

I'm saying, let's draw a line in the sand now and say, look, let's have none of these Bi Lo titles anymore and from the next time, we'll tighten regulations and that's it.

As noted by Bill, the ACF isn't doing the applying. The ACF just picks up the tab. I suppose we could always refuse to do so, but I'm suspecting that could lead somewhere quite ugly. :lol:

Phil Bourke
31-05-2007, 09:21 PM
As noted by Bill, the ACF isn't doing the applying. The ACF just picks up the tab. I suppose we could always refuse to do so, but I'm suspecting that could lead somewhere quite ugly. :lol:
Mmmmm....... Could it be that if you haven't applied for the title, that would be equivalent to not ordering the product and therefore you aren't the responsible party for that account. Like you said, may be ugly, but could be interesting :)

ElevatorEscapee
31-05-2007, 11:29 PM
^^ I like that train of thought Phil! Should applying for a FIDE title be like claiming a win on time? ... ie, if you don't realize you have it, then does the tree falling in the forest really care? ;) :P

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2007, 08:35 AM
I do not want to speak for Jono or Arosar or someone else for this matter so let me speak for myself. ...

Being an FM is not much of an achievement (again pls do not see this statement in a negative way. I would never dare to make a statement like this would I not be an FM (and a REAL one!) myself! Myself, Jono, Canfell, Levi, Sales - WE ARE ALL PATZERS. Do not know about others, I certainly have little if any understanding of chess the way it is played at the top level.

Something which FMs are strong enough to realize ;) (my draw with Spassky (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1129514&kpage=1)notwithstanding). Compare the thread discussing how strong Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine were at their peak, and given a chance to study for a year or two (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6216). Some less experienced players thought that these greats of the past would have only about FM-level ability today, but the FMs realized we would be totally outclassed.

antichrist
08-07-2009, 03:19 PM
In Ian's weekly chess column this week he gives IM James Morris full credit for his second in Oceania Zonal and even provides a picture of him playing. As seasoned readers of this forum this a marked difference approach from a few years ago that undeservedly earnt the wrath of a certain parent with bragging rights.

But then Ian goes and ruins it by stating that young Morris picked up a "soft" FM title at the 2007 Zonal. And quoting James' lost game against Smurf he opines that James has some way to go.

Heaven help this guy!

It is in Byron Shire Echo online, page 29, tellém antichrist sent you.

Bereaved
08-07-2009, 04:07 PM
Hello everyone,

This seems to be a direct link

http://www.echo.net.au/archives/pg.php?issues_id=24_05&pg=29&view=gif

if not it should take you to the page prior at least, and then you can click to see the next page

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2009, 04:16 PM
I will be moving all this to the "soft titles" thread shortly as it does not warrant a thread of its own.

IMO Rogers' comments are completely reasonable, within the limits of space available for a newspaper column. Thanks macavity for the link.

Rincewind
08-07-2009, 04:42 PM
Ian's comments are fairly balanced I think. The first half of the article is purely about the zonal system and history of title qualifications, etc. The comments regarding TRD described his performance (accurately) as brilliant and one of the biggest talents in Australian Chess. The 2007 zonal FM was based on a much lower rating performance and so describing it as "soft" connects the first half of the column with the second.

I suppose if Ian really wanted to sing the praises of TRD then choosing one of his wins would have been good but I wouldn't necessarily see losing to Smerdon as anything to be disgraced by. GM Rogers commentary indicates improvements for both sides (Ian chides 3.c3 and also offers 27.Rxg6+ as an improvement for Smerdon) and does not read like any sort of hatchet job. Just an interesting game where James showed his talent in the first 20-odd moves but perhaps went astray and David's experience paid dividends in the next 20.

BTW the online link pointed to by mac is very low quality and the game is in a smaller font which is practically incomprehensible. Much more readable is the PDF version of the entire paper which you can download here (http://www.echo.net.au/archives/full_versions/Echo2405.pdf), but be warned it is 22 MB.

Oepty
08-07-2009, 07:23 PM
The article is wrong in saying Zhao and Smerdon are the only 2 zonal IM's to reach the 2400 mark. Mark Chapman currently has a FIDE rating of 2401 and a highest rating of 2402.
Scott

Denis_Jessop
08-07-2009, 09:08 PM
The article is wrong in saying Zhao and Smerdon are the only 2 zonal IM's to reach the 2400 mark. Mark Chapman currently has a FIDE rating of 2401 and a highest rating of 2402.
Scott

As I read Ian's article. I think he is referring to IMs who gained their title by winning the Oceania Zonal. Now, if you gain an IM title by norms you also must achieve a 2400 rating before the title will be confirmed. I note that Puchen Wang (NZ) who, I think, gained his IM at the previous Zonal is now FIDE 2465. I'm not sure how that fits in to Ian's argument.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2009, 10:33 PM
I do think Ian's comment can be read as intended to be confined to Australia's IMs although the wording is not quite right and there is still the problem of Chapman (who obtained his IM title in a zonal) being over 2400 as spotted by Scott.

The other Australian IMs ex Zonal as well as Zhao and Smerdon are Feldman, Berezina and Rujevic. I see that Feldman has been rated 2399.

Is there an online source that tracks FIDE ratings back before 2000?

Denis_Jessop
08-07-2009, 11:07 PM
I do think Ian's comment can be read as intended to be confined to Australia's IMs although the wording is not quite right and there is still the problem of Chapman (who obtained his IM title in a zonal) being over 2400 as spotted by Scott.

The other Australian IMs ex Zonal as well as Zhao and Smerdon are Feldman, Berezina and Rujevic. I see that Feldman has been rated 2399.

Is there an online source that tracks FIDE ratings back before 2000?

If the argument is that the Oceania Zonal delivers "soft titles" the logic of confining the observations about ratings to Australian IMs is not clear.

DJ

Rincewind
08-07-2009, 11:13 PM
If the argument is that the Oceania Zonal delivers "soft titles" the logic of confining the observations about ratings to Australian IMs is not clear.

I agree but there are two levels of consideration.
1. Was the statement factual?
2. Was the argument logical?

It would be good to establish (1) before addressing (2). Since if the weaker statement regarding Australian IMs is false then (2) is largely moot.

antichrist
09-07-2009, 07:19 PM
But if Geoff Saw coached James couldn't he expect to adance quickly, just like Ian's coaching of Zhao? also if he got more support like NSW players get it may be a different story. That is one thing NSW chess has over Victoria chess. Player of the month is one thing but what does it really provide?

Rincewind
09-07-2009, 09:14 PM
But if Geoff Saw coached James couldn't he expect to adance quickly, just like Ian's coaching of Zhao? also if he got more support like NSW players get it may be a different story. That is one thing NSW chess has over Victoria chess. Player of the month is one thing but what does it really provide?

Have you been drinking? It's just you don't seem to be coherent.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2009, 09:37 PM
Have you been drinking? It's just you don't seem to be coherent.

I'd suspect AC had been drinking if he ever was coherent.

antichrist
10-07-2009, 07:41 PM
I'd suspect AC had been drinking if he ever was coherent.

I had the drinking record at my place of employment, one had to keep the grog down and appear coherent - maybe my reverse soberity helped me.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 01:10 AM
Speaking of Soft Titles: I chess student of mine showed me a game he drew against an FM at the Zonal....FMs play was rather strange...(for a master). It turned out...his fide rating is 1962 :)

Axiom
16-07-2009, 01:33 AM
Speaking of Soft Titles: I chess student of mine showed me a game he drew against an FM at the Zonal....FMs play was rather strange...(for a master). It turned out...his fide rating is 1962 :)
That's one of your fellow FM Brothers you're talking about there MB ! :D

Isn't it true about the camaraderie in the FM Brotherhood , how you look out for each other on the tough grind of the tournament circuit ?

I know there are some divisions amongst the brotherhood since these "soft" titles came in , but i think when it comes down to the crunch an FM , a true EFF EMM ie . one sanctioned by Caissa's right hand organ : FIDE , will stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of all adversity , and remember to put the brotherhood , THE FM BROTHERHOOD , first at all times .
I want to return to the days when an FM strode straight backed into the tournament hall, eyes fixed ahead with all the surety of a sage ,and the pride of a lion always standing by and supporting his fellow FM in THE FM BROTHERHOOD.


I invite readers to submit lyrics for the rap song : THE FM BROTHERHOOD

Brian_Jones
16-07-2009, 10:16 AM
Speaking of Soft Titles: I chess student of mine showed me a game he drew against an FM at the Zonal....FMs play was rather strange...(for a master). It turned out...his fide rating is 1962 :)

This FM probably got his title by a good performance at an Olympiad (representing his country!).

Michael, please tell us your expected FIDE rating at age 65.

But I suspect that you will have given up chess by then when you can no longer dominate at allegro!

Basil
16-07-2009, 10:50 AM
But I suspect that you will have given up chess by then when you can no longer dominate at allegro!
Ooh. Ooh. Ref! Hot dog. Mike? Your shot! :D

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 12:10 PM
This FM probably got his title by a good performance at an Olympiad (representing his country!).

Michael, please tell us your expected FIDE rating at age 65.

But I suspect that you will have given up chess by then when you can no longer dominate at allegro!

Brian, If i stay in good physical shape....(and still alive) i expect to be 2300...just like Rujevic...

If not..may be 2250....I do not expect myself to be 2080....

I do not know what that FM got his title for..but my student is 1600....and it was not one of his best games...I think at the age of 65 i will still play better than that!

I do not know any real FM who is under 2100 at any age

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 12:22 PM
Just looking at the Australian Rating list: Levi in the late 50''s still 2230 and beating GMs occasionally. West is over 50 already - still 2340, Rujevic is 63 - 2309 Hamilton - very late 60's and over 2200.

Some overseas players that i am familiar with. Pismenny (one of my coaches back in Russia) was never a player of international standard but is still 2300 fide at the age of 72. Golyak (a friend of my chess student in the US) - 75 years old..still rated about 2260 and he too was not significantly stronger than that when he was young.

Arkhangelsky (also one of the coaches at the Moscow Palace of Pioneers) 78 years of age and still playing 2300

Nick Emodi from Elwood Chess Club - 93 (!) Years of age and still playing 1500-1600 and he was never a strong player even in his young years.

and how about Korchnoi still going strongly at 78? and Averbakh still doing simuls at the age of 87? Liliental still writing chess articles at 98? :)

Basil
16-07-2009, 12:59 PM
But I suspect that you will have given up chess by then when you can no longer dominate at allegro!

Ooh. Ooh. Ref! Hot dog. Mike? Your shot!
I do not expect myself to be 2080

Bravo! Next!

antichrist
16-07-2009, 01:25 PM
Just looking at the Australian Rating list: Levi in the late 50''s still 2230 and beating GMs occasionally. West is over 50 already - still 2340, Rujevic is 63 - 2309 Hamilton - very late 60's and over 2200.

Some overseas players that i am familiar with. Pismenny (one of my coaches back in Russia) was never a player of international standard but is still 2300 fide at the age of 72. Golyak (a friend of my chess student in the US) - 75 years old..still rated about 2260 and he too was not significantly stronger than that when he was young.

Arkhangelsky (also one of the coaches at the Moscow Palace of Pioneers) 78 years of age and still playing 2300

Nick Emodi from Elwood Chess Club - 93 (!) Years of age and still playing 1500-1600 and he was never a strong player even in his young years.

and how about Korchnoi still going strongly at 78? and Averbakh still doing simuls at the age of 87? Liliental still writing chess articles at 98? :)

Mike, you forgot about your mate up here who is pushing 60 and had a big win recently.

ER
16-07-2009, 01:40 PM
Just looking at the Australian Rating list: Levi in the late 50''s still 2230 and beating GMs occasionally. West is over 50 already - still 2340, Rujevic is 63 - 2309 Hamilton - very late 60's and over 2200.

Some overseas players that i am familiar with. Pismenny (one of my coaches back in Russia) was never a player of international standard but is still 2300 fide at the age of 72. Golyak (a friend of my chess student in the US) - 75 years old..still rated about 2260 and he too was not significantly stronger than that when he was young.

Arkhangelsky (also one of the coaches at the Moscow Palace of Pioneers) 78 years of age and still playing 2300

Nick Emodi from Elwood Chess Club - 93 (!) Years of age and still playing 1500-1600 and he was never a strong player even in his young years.

and how about Korchnoi still going strongly at 78? and Averbakh still doing simuls at the age of 87? Liliental still writing chess articles at 98? :)

Hey Michael what about Mark "I still have my music" Taimanov? Not only does he play chess in his 83rd year, he also plays and records music with his much younger wife, and he recently became father of twins!!!:clap: :clap: :clap:

I follow his examples in many aspects but it hasn't helped my ACF chess rating! :P I can't complain about my FIDE one though! :P No IiFIDElity puns thanks! :P

Brian_Jones
16-07-2009, 01:45 PM
Just looking at the Australian Rating list: Levi in the late 50''s still 2230 and beating GMs occasionally. West is over 50 already - still 2340, Rujevic is 63 - 2309 Hamilton - very late 60's and over 2200.

Everybody knows that FIDE is very kind with friendly K factors and no penalties for inactivity. :)

But the Australian rating list is very different. Some would argue that it is more accurate. Eddy Levi is 2168, Fred Flatow is 2162, Jono is 2150, Doug Hamilton is 2112, Haydn Barber is 2092, Phillip Viner is 1911, Dick Voon is 1861. :(

But these all appear some 100 points underrated to me! :confused:

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2009, 01:52 PM
ACF uses a different rating system to FIDE. This system was around for less then a decade (AFAIK), therefore it's a wrong reference point.

FIDE system was around for about 40 years, and Michael's argument was constructed in terms of FIDE rating.

If someone can find historical ratings of players mentioned in the current ACF rating system, then the comparison can be made.

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 02:12 PM
Everybody knows that FIDE is very kind with friendly K factors and no penalties for inactivity. :)

But the Australian rating list is very different. Some would argue that it is more accurate. Eddy Levi is 2168, Fred Flatow is 2162, Jono is 2150, Doug Hamilton is 2112, Haydn Barber is 2092, Phillip Viner is 1911, Dick Voon is 1861. :(

But these all appear some 100 points underrated to me! :confused:

Btw, my main point is not even about how strongly these guys are playing now.

As long as someone was 2300 at some point in time...he should be getting a title :). 1962 fide-rated FMs.....no comment.

Brian_Jones
16-07-2009, 03:00 PM
Btw, my main point is not even about how strongly these guys are playing now. As long as someone was 2300 at some point in time...he should be getting a title :). 1962 fide-rated FMs.....no comment.

I think you were just having a cheap shot at the guy!

So how do you know that this player was not 2300 at some point in time?

Or do you really dispute that some players lose strength as they get older?

It is easy to determine historical ratings as you can look at databases (eg Chessbase Megabase) to see what ratings players were at the time they played a particular game.

For example:

Doug Hamilton is on the way down. His best ELO was 2305 at age 42.

Brian Jones is on the way down. His best ELO was 2290 at age 44 (shortly after he came to Australia)

Michael Baron is on the way up. His best ELO was 2327 in 2007 (age unknown).

So Michael how old are you? What will your rating be at age 65?

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 03:23 PM
I think you were just having a cheap shot at the guy!

So how do you know that this player was not 2300 at some point in time?

Or do you really dispute that some players lose strength as they get older?

It is easy to determine historical ratings as you can look at databases (eg Chessbase Megabase) to see what ratings players were at the time they played a particular game.

For example:

Doug Hamilton is on the way down. His best ELO was 2305 at age 42.

Brian Jones is on the way down. His best ELO was 2290 at age 44 (shortly after he came to Australia)

Michael Baron is on the way up. His best ELO was 2327 in 2007 (age unknown).

So Michael how old are you? What will your rating be at age 65?

I am 33 ..btw My current Fide is 2329 and my best rating was 2331 i think..and i am on the way nowhere :)

Brian Jones's 2290 must be his first fide rating! :)

The guy's name is Rupert Jones...he was never 2300 fide :)! and he is not that old ...he was born in 1961. He has been U2000 fide since the year 2000 (oldest records available at fide.com) after zonal gets rated...his rating will probably go down even more.

P.S. In order to keep the discussion less personal..i decided not to look up fide rating history for FM Lee Jones and WIM Nancy Jones :). I just find it interesting that there are 4 titled players with the same surname (I obviously know that Rupert is not a relative of Brian - just a coo-incidence) all under 2100 ...

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2009, 03:39 PM
Everybody knows that FIDE is very kind with friendly K factors and no penalties for inactivity. :)

No penalty for inactivity in the ACF system either, unless you play below your out-of-date rating when you return to play that is.

Brian_Jones
16-07-2009, 03:51 PM
I am 33 ..btw My current Fide is 2329 and my best rating was 2331 i think..and i am on the way nowhere :) ...
into oblivion? :)


Brian Jones's 2290 must be his first fide rating! :)
Yes, very few players in the North of England obtained FIDE ratings before 1987! :(


The guy's name is Rupert Jones...he was never 2300 fide :)! and he is not that old ...he was born in 1961. He has been U2000 fide since the year 2000 (oldest records available at fide.com) after zonal gets rated...his rating will probably go down even more. ...
So why pick on somebody (FIDE Development Secretary, Yorkshire County Captain, White Rose 4NCL Captain) just because FIDE gave him FM title for getting 50% at an Olympiad? :evil:


P.S. In order to keep the discussion less personal..i decided not to look up fide rating history for FM Lee Jones and WIM Nancy Jones :). I just find it interesting that there are 4 titled players with the same surname (I obviously know that Rupert is not a relative of Brian - just a coo-incidence) all under 2100 ...
FM Lee Jones, WIM Nancy Lane and FM Rupert Jones were awarded their FM titles the hard way - by travelling and playing in tournaments. Michael Baron got his FM title the easy way by not having to leave the comfort of Melbourne. ;)

MichaelBaron
16-07-2009, 04:28 PM
into oblivion? :)


Yes, very few players in the North of England obtained FIDE ratings before 1987! :(


So why pick on somebody (FIDE Development Secretary, Yorkshire County Captain, White Rose 4NCL Captain) just because FIDE gave him FM title for getting 50% at an Olympiad? :evil:


FM Lee Jones, WIM Nancy Lane and FM Rupert Jones were awarded their FM titles the hard way - by travelling and playing in tournaments. Michael Baron got his FM title the easy way by not having to leave the comfort of Melbourne. ;)


May be there should be TGM (Travelling Grandmaster) title, for those who travel and play alot.
And why not follow it up with a DGM (Dancing Grandmaster) for chess players who dance well or SGM (Singing Grandmaster).

I admire all the work R. Jones does as Fide Development Officer. but does it mean he deserves an FM title?

Brian does an excellent job running SIO -is it relevant to chess titles?
Peter Parr is Australia's leading chess bookseller - do we make him an IM?
Arosar runs a great blog, come on guys - give him some credit at least a WIM title :).

My argument is simple....you reach 2300 fide - you are an FM. You reach 2400 fide and score the IM norms required - you are an IM :)

Brian_Jones
17-07-2009, 08:59 AM
I admire all the work R. Jones does as Fide Development Officer. but does it mean he deserves an FM title?

Rupert Jones and many others fulfilled the FIDE requirements for the FM title.

If you do not like some of the qualification criteria then get involved with FIDE and get the criteria changed.

Until then I suggest you stop whinging! :)

Basil
17-07-2009, 09:03 AM
But I suspect that you will have given up chess by then when you can no longer dominate at allegro!

Ooh. Ooh. Ref! Hot dog. Mike? Your shot!
I do not expect myself to be 2080

If you do not like some of the qualification criteria then get involved with FIDE and get the criteria changed. Until then I suggest you stop whinging!

Next!

ER
17-07-2009, 09:24 AM
boys will be boys!!! :) I admire them both regardless, having met them both very recently, (Michael I saw only last week) I can assure everyone that they are in great shape!!!

MichaelBaron
17-07-2009, 10:35 AM
Rupert Jones and many others fulfilled the FIDE requirements for the FM title.

If you do not like some of the qualification criteria then get involved with FIDE and get the criteria changed.

Until then I suggest you stop whinging! :)


Yes....he did fulfill the ''criteria'' but everyone should be aware of the differences between 2300+ players and those who ''fulfill the criteria'' :)

ER
17-07-2009, 11:03 AM
Yes....he did fulfill the ''criteria'' but everyone should be aware of the differences between 2300+ players and those who ''fulfill the criteria'' :)
What's the difference? after all both categories fulfill the criteria!!!! :P

MichaelBaron
17-07-2009, 11:31 AM
What's the difference? after all both categories fulfill the criteria!!!! :P

The difference is .....how they play chess :). :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2009, 04:16 PM
While granting titles at Zonal for a once-off performance is not warranted, it does not mean that the beneficiary of the "soft title regime" should be belittled.

Brian_Jones
17-07-2009, 04:27 PM
What about granting titles from Olympiads, World and other Junior Championships?

Does FIDE want only a small number of titleholders?

No, it does not - it wants to popularise chess all around the world (including Africa and Oceania) and, contrary to the belief of some, it is not just to raise money.

I still agree with this FIDE policy of title incentives (and not for personal reasons).

Chess is for everybody not just for the elite (and we need role models that people can relate to) . :)

Desmond
17-07-2009, 04:40 PM
I wonder how many of the "real FMs" could have equalled TRD's performance. :)

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2009, 05:20 PM
What about granting titles from Olympiads, World and other Junior Championships?


Same as Zonal



Does FIDE want only a small number of titleholders?

No, it does not - it wants to popularise chess all around the world (including Africa and Oceania) and, contrary to the belief of some, it is not just to raise money.


It does not mean that want is right. I doubt that soft title to a player playing below the standard makes chess more popular.



Chess is for everybody not just for the elite (and we need role models that people can relate to) . :)
I fail to understand what does it have to do with soft titles? Does "chess for everybody" mean that everybody deserves a title?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2009, 05:24 PM
I wonder how many of the "real FMs" could have equalled TRD's performance. :)
I assume you mean James Morris at the Zonal? His performance was excellent, but I am sure many 2300+ players have had tournaments where they perform at a similar level.

Axiom
17-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Same as Zonal



It does not mean that want is right. I doubt that soft title to a player playing below the standard makes chess more popular.


I fail to understand what does it have to do with soft titles? Does "chess for everybody" mean that everybody deserves a title?
I agree with you Igor ,i think there should be simple cast iron criteria for titles eg. 2500 GM ,2400 IM , 2300 FM (maintained for a specified period) but apparently there is a geography based argument that says that certain groups of players around the world don't have sufficient opportunity to attain these levels hence an alternate method need be found.
Not an easy problem to solve , but should it be solved at all?

Desmond
18-07-2009, 07:06 AM
I assume you mean James Morris at the Zonal? His performance was excellent, but I am sure many 2300+ players have had tournaments where they perform at a similar level.I'm sure there are more "real FMs" who performed worse.

MichaelBaron
18-07-2009, 09:41 AM
What about granting titles from Olympiads, World and other Junior Championships?

Does FIDE want only a small number of titleholders?

No, it does not - it wants to popularise chess all around the world (including Africa and Oceania) and, contrary to the belief of some, it is not just to raise money.

I still agree with this FIDE policy of title incentives (and not for personal reasons).

Chess is for everybody not just for the elite (and we need role models that people can relate to) . :)


Brian, to be a role model - title is not enough - one also needs to know how to move chess pieces.

Another issue is...IMs for instance are entitled to certain benefits such as free board and free entry fee, appearance fees etc. Why should these benefits go to people of lower standard? And once the title is devalued - how much of a benefit will the real IMs get?

Australia has real IMs - so why do we need mock ones? And what about IM Shane Hill? I believe he got his title for winning some Asian Junior event ..and his Fide rating was never even 2300.

I am aware that now there is a new idea to have Oceania U20 championships with the winner automatically gaining an IM title. At the same time U 18,16,14,12,10 and 8 (!) winners will be able to obtain FM and WFM titles.
Can you imagine what is going to happen if Australia will be getting a new U20 IM every year..but not because players are improving so fast..but because of this regulation? What will happen to an IM title in 10 years?

And what about WIM title? Unfortunately not many girls play chess in Oz so after 10 years - every girl will have a title :)

MichaelBaron
18-07-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm sure there are more "real FMs" who performed worse.

Boris, how about players who have 3-5 IM norms but still do not have the title because they never got their rating to 2400.
What about Tim Reilly? He must have had at least 4 IM norms. Igor Bjelbork? Trevor Tao? Greg Canfell? And as for getting 1 IM norm...my friend Domagoi has one! So do: Sam Chow, Jeff Saw, Gareth Oliver, Eddie Levi and even Andrew Brown :). Getting 3 IM norms is far easier than getting Fide to 2400 if you play a lot of chess.

If 2300 + rated player will play 10 IM norms events a year he will perform 2450+ in at least two of them.

Brian_Jones
18-07-2009, 01:34 PM
Brian, to be a role model - title is not enough - one also needs to know how to move chess pieces.

Sorry, I can't agree. :)

There are many good role models in football and some of them can't play! Why should goalkeepers be good strikers? ;)

Kids don't want their role models to be good at everything. For example, some good blitz players lack patience for standard chess. They deserve the FM title for their contribution to blitz alone! :eek:

I suspect David Cordover is a role model in Melbourne and some would argue his contribution to chess is more than that of Michael Baron. :eek:

antichrist
18-07-2009, 05:31 PM
And what about WIM title? Unfortunately not many girls play chess in Oz so after 10 years - every girl will have a title :)

Is there a skirt that fits me? Silicone sister is having chess lessons.

I certainly contribute to the intellectual standards of this board.

MichaelBaron
19-07-2009, 09:42 AM
Sorry, I can't agree. :)

There are many good role models in football and some of them can't play! Why should goalkeepers be good strikers? ;)

Kids don't want their role models to be good at everything. For example, some good blitz players lack patience for standard chess. They deserve the FM title for their contribution to blitz alone! :eek:

I suspect David Cordover is a role model in Melbourne and some would argue his contribution to chess is more than that of Michael Baron. :eek:

Brian, so what's contribution to chess got to do with chess-playing titles? Why not give David a Fide organizer title? And the same title can be given to you! :).

As for blitz..ya you can have separate blitz titles. In fact Fide was talking about introducing blitz and rapid titles some years ago.

Garvinator
19-07-2009, 01:06 PM
Another issue is...IMs for instance are entitled to certain benefits such as free board and free entry fee, appearance fees etc. Why should these benefits go to people of lower standard? And once the title is devalued - how much of a benefit will the real IMs get?
What will most likely happen is that more tournaments will start giving free entries and other benefits based on rating, rather than titles. Which will then make the titles rather meaningless, except as a status symbol.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2009, 01:51 PM
If 2300 + rated player will play 10 IM norms events a year he will perform 2450+ in at least two of them.
And less consistent players will likely score more, since by definition their standard deviation around their rating is higher.

antichrist
19-07-2009, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
Another issue is...IMs for instance are entitled to certain benefits such as free board and free entry fee, appearance fees etc. Why should these benefits go to people of lower standard? And once the title is devalued - how much of a benefit will the real IMs get?

I remember Mischa complaining about lack of such when her boy did not earn them yet. Maybe she will stop complaining now. Remember she used to call for donations to send him off to Timbucktoo.

MichaelBaron
20-07-2009, 01:07 PM
It is amazing how AC and Ax are able to close down any thread with a couple of their meaningless and irrelevant postings! :)

ER
20-07-2009, 01:16 PM
It is amazing how AC and Ax are able to close down any thread with a couple of their meaningless and irrelevant postings! :)

maybe they aren't so meaningless and irrelevant considering how many meaningful and relevant chatters care to respond to them! :P

antichrist
03-08-2009, 03:18 PM
It is amazing how AC and Ax are able to close down any thread with a couple of their meaningless and irrelevant postings! :)

Mike my post 826 above this one was relevant, otherwise it would have been edited out. Maybe it was before your time but this did occur - seeking public donations and whinging about other people receiving them.

Garvinator
11-04-2010, 06:08 PM
He we might be able to get the FM title if he plays in the zonal
Almost anyone could get an FM title by the zonal route, which is why it is referred to as Feeble Master. If he gets it by achieving a 2300 fide rating, then well done :clap: but by getting the title via the zonal route just makes titles even more of a joke.

CameronD
11-04-2010, 10:48 PM
Almost anyone could get an FM title by the zonal route, which is why it is referred to as Feeble Master. If he gets it by achieving a 2300 fide rating, then well done :clap: but by getting the title via the zonal route just makes titles even more of a joke.

I thought FIDE removed that loophole bt restricting the number of titles available at zonals compared to the old 50% rule.

lost
12-04-2010, 01:10 AM
Almost anyone could get an FM title by the zonal route, which is why it is referred to as Feeble Master. If he gets it by achieving a 2300 fide rating, then well done :clap: but by getting the title via the zonal route just makes titles even more of a joke.

You could arguably say the same thing for David Smerdon and Zong-Yuan Zhao who achieved the IM title at the zonal, however they have gone onto becoming GM's, thus I am saying that Anton Smirnov would reach the 2300 rating barrier even if he did receive the FM title at the zonal. He qould prove to be a strong player in the future.

lost

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2010, 01:33 AM
I thought FIDE removed that loophole bt restricting the number of titles available at zonals compared to the old 50% rule.

Reduced but not removed. Depending on the strength of the Oceania Zonal in question it can still be the case that a player or two gains an FM title on the basis of one nine-game performance that is well below 2300 standard. For more gory details see the ongoing soft titles (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=3707) thread.

Congrats to Max if he has indeed bagged the FM title on rating.

Tony Dowden
13-04-2010, 09:41 PM
Almost anyone could get an FM title by the zonal route, which is why it is referred to as Feeble Master ... but by getting the title via the zonal route just makes titles even more of a joke.

What's this about 'Feeble Master'? In decades of tournament play I've never heard that!

And does 'almost anyone' mean about 1% of all registered players in Australia & NZ?

The reality is that players who score a zonal FM need to be at least FIDE 2100, are usually under-rated and, most of all, make significant sacrifices to try and win a title. While I haven't ever played in a zonal myself, I've been in the FIDE 2100-2250 zone for 29 years and I know it would be huge achievement for anyone to win an FM title via this route.

Denis_Jessop
13-04-2010, 09:52 PM
What's this about 'Feeble Master'? In decades of tournament play I've never heard that!

And does 'almost anyone' mean about 1% of all registered players in Australia & NZ?

The reality is that players who score a zonal FM need to be at least FIDE 2100, are usually under-rated and, most of all, make significant sacrifices to try and win a title. While I haven't ever played in a zonal myself, I've been in the FIDE 2100-2250 zone for 29 years and I know it would be huge achievement for anyone to win an FM title via this route.

This argument about FM titles has been thrashed out before on this Forum more than once. Part of the problem about zonal titles is identified by you - you can possibly get one with a 2100 FIDE rating. A "real" FM title needs a 2300 FiDE rating. You don't even get a CM with 2100.

DJ

Tony Dowden
14-04-2010, 09:47 PM
This argument about FM titles has been thrashed out before on this Forum more than once. Part of the problem about zonal titles is identified by you - you can possibly get one with a 2100 FIDE rating. A "real" FM title needs a 2300 FiDE rating. You don't even get a CM with 2100.

DJ

Haven't you been selective about which part of my argument suits you? Nobody will get an FM title with a 2100 rating. They need a much higher perf than 2100 at the Zonal (well, unless it's held on Macquarie Island). Whereas a player could sit in a club and beat lots of weaker players in FIDE-rated club events and, once they get to 2300, score the title (which happens, albeit not that often in our part of the world).

My real point - which appears to have been missed so I need to spell it out - is that I don't like reading highly exaggerated claims that are not only unnecessary but have a mean-spirited whiff about them. For those not necessarily equipped to deconstruct such arm-chair criticism - like several of our very talented juniors - such comments (which are really little more than cheap shots) sound degrading and, for some who just happen to have FIDE titles, they may be hurtful.

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2010, 10:35 PM
Haven't you been selective about which part of my argument suits you? Nobody will get an FM title with a 2100 rating. They need a much higher perf than 2100 at the Zonal (well, unless it's held on Macquarie Island).

Not that much higher unless you think Fiji is equivalent to Macquarie Island.

One of the Australian FM title recipients at the 2007 Zonal in Fiji played a FIDE rated opponent in every round and had a true performance rating of 2167. The other's performance was probably slightly better but not much; it was a bit harder to evaluate since not all his opponents were FIDE-rated. The former was not even FIDE rated at the time (immediately after the event his first FIDE rating was 2020) while the latter had a FIDE rating of 1948. Their performances were excellent but that doesn't mean they should have been given FM titles.

Both the recipients in that case were underrated juniors and one has since gone on to much bigger things (including passing 2300 FIDE) while the other has improved modestly but has yet to break 2150. But performances in the FIDE 2150-2200 range are well within the range of stably-rated adults ACF 1900 and up (or even perhaps lower) who just happen to be having a very good tournament. So there is a real danger of completely undeserving recipients - recipients who will never become deserving - bagging FM titles in Oceania Zonals outside Australia and New Zealand while the current system remains in place.

Garvin's "almost anyone" line is severe hyperbole but I think the Zonal FM titles should instead be awarded at CM level. In terms of things that are bad for juniors, poorly-worded comments about titles that are meant to reflect on FIDE rather than the players may indeed be hurtful but I reckon overhyping players prematurely can be just as damaging to some and that is exactly what the present system does.

arosar
14-04-2010, 10:59 PM
What's this about 'Feeble Master'? In decades of tournament play I've never heard that!

And does 'almost anyone' mean about 1% of all registered players in Australia & NZ?

The reality is that players who score a zonal FM need to be at least FIDE 2100, are usually under-rated and, most of all, make significant sacrifices to try and win a title. While I haven't ever played in a zonal myself, I've been in the FIDE 2100-2250 zone for 29 years and I know it would be huge achievement for anyone to win an FM title via this route.

what you mean you never heard of Feeble Masters? There must be something in the ACF archives about this.

AR

Kevin Bonham
14-04-2010, 11:10 PM
what you mean you never heard of Feeble Masters? There must be something in the ACF archives about this.

The earliest reference I can find on any of these forums is late 2003 but I am pretty sure it had been around a few years earlier - and not with specific reference to Zonals either. From memory Chris Depasquale was one of the first Australian players using it but I am unsure if he coined it or not.

I will be moving all the Zonal FM title discussion on this thread to the "soft titles" thread soon as none of it is remotely relevant to the SIO.

MichaelBaron
15-04-2010, 01:35 AM
How could I possible miss a soft titles discussion? :). The good news is that it looks like in the near future we are going to get more titled players...and these ones will be decent ones! Xie is about to become a GM. Rej, Ikeda Cheng and Ly will become IMs soon. Illingworth will soon be an FM and possibly an IM. More and more young players are coming up in the ranks. Hopefully, this will naturally shift the limelight to the truly titled players.

I can see how zonal-baked IMs can benefit from having a soft title - they get free entry into nearly all of the tournaments. What about FMs...? for most of them it is a case of the title owing them rather than them owing the title. Let them have the titles...as for us - we can have fun laughing at them and their chess.

What I find funny is...when you talk to a real IM...they do not mention their title every second minute...they do not need to really :). Everyone knows they are masters. and you talk to others....they keep reminding everyone of the ''great titles'' they achieved.

Chess is not just about titles. What we need is more strong players....and we are getting them -its just that their titles are yet to come! 5 years from now - Australia will have a couple of new GMs (Xie and Cheng) and many new IMs

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2010, 02:03 AM
How could I possible miss a soft titles discussion? :). The good news is that it looks like in the near future we are going to get more titled players...and these ones will be decent ones! Xie is about to become a GM. Rej, Ikeda Cheng and Ly will become IMs soon. Illingworth will soon be an FM and possibly an IM. More and more young players are coming up in the ranks. Hopefully, this will naturally shift the limelight to the truly titled players.

I don't think your case is all that consistent here since Cheng is an FM-elect (though FIDE are still not showing the title as formally awarded) yet he got that FM title in the 2009 Oceania Zonal.

(By the time FIDE get around to awarding it though he may be FM by the normal method since he is getting very close to 2300 - 2271 with +18.6 for this period to date.)

But yes I too am looking forward to what could be quite a few IM titles gained the normal way for our young players over the next few years.

MichaelBaron
15-04-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think your case is all that consistent here since Cheng is an FM-elect (though FIDE are still not showing the title as formally awarded) yet he got that FM title in the 2009 Oceania Zonal.

(By the time FIDE get around to awarding it though he may be FM by the normal method since he is getting very close to 2300 - 2271 with +18.6 for this period to date.)

But yes I too am looking forward to what could be quite a few IM titles gained the normal way for our young players over the next few years.

Kevin, Cheng will be over 2300 on the next list I guess. Not that he needs the title cause he knows how to play chess! The problem is that there are certain FMs who do not :). Some time ago I was looking at a game that a student of mine (1500-rated) drew against an FM from PNG at the recent zonal...All I can say - FM was very lucky :). I think his level of play is around 1600 ACF.

Also, I have a suggestion: I noticed that 4 of the soft FMs have the same surname (even though I believe not all of them are related). Lets have a new pet name for FM (as an alternative to Feeble Master) lets just call them Jones. This could distinguish between FMs and fms. for example FM Teichman - JN Stawski or FM Rej - JN Stead - this way when looking at pairings we will be able to distinguish who is an FM and who is Jones :)

Adamski
15-04-2010, 02:13 PM
Kevin, Cheng will be over 2300 on the next list I guess. Not that he needs the title cause he knows how to play chess! The problem is that there are certain FMs who do not :). Some time ago I was looking at a game that a student of mine (1500-rated) drew against an FM from PNG at the recent zonal...All I can say - FM was very lucky :). I think his level of play is around 1600 ACF.

Also, I have a suggestion: I noticed that 4 of the soft FMs have the same surname (even though I believe not all of them are related). Lets have a new pet name for FM (as an alternative to Feeble Master) lets just call them Jones. This could distinguish between FMs and fms. for example FM Teichman - JN Stawski or FM Rej - JN Stead - this way when looking at pairings we will be able to distinguish who is an FM and who is Jones :)But please exclude GM Gawain Jones from this new category! :)

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2010, 08:14 PM
While I agree that soft titles are unwarranted and often undeserving, belittling people that got them is a very low act.

lost
15-04-2010, 09:51 PM
While I agree that soft titles are unwarranted and often undeserving, belittling people that got them is a very low act.

Totally agree with you Igor.

lost

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2010, 01:27 AM
You could arguably say the same thing for David Smerdon and Zong-Yuan Zhao who achieved the IM title at the zonal, however they have gone onto becoming GM's,
Yet their IMs were earned with IM-level performances (>2450), as was James Morris'. The problem is those earning a title with a sub-FM performance (<<2300); some of whom have never reached 2300 in their lives.


thus I am saying that Anton Smirnov would reach the 2300 rating barrier even if he did receive the FM title at the zonal. He qould prove to be a strong player in the future.
Almost certainly true. But titles must be awarded for actual not potential achievements.

MichaelBaron
16-04-2010, 02:16 AM
While I agree that soft titles are unwarranted and often undeserving, belittling people that got them is a very low act.

Igor, it was not aimed at people who owe the titles, it was aimed at people who are being owed by the titles :).

MichaelBaron
16-04-2010, 02:18 AM
Actually some IMs have also never reached 2400 (and possibly never will). What about Fel'dman? In Africa, there are many IMs who never reached 2300 but earned their titles by winning some kind of continental competitions.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2010, 09:31 AM
Actually some IMs have also never reached 2400 (and possibly never will). What about Fel'dman? In Africa, there are many IMs who never reached 2300 but earned their titles by winning some kind of continental competitions.
He won strong Zonal outright and his rating picked at 2399 ten years ago (which was harder at that time then 2400 now).

Hobbes
10-01-2012, 01:56 PM
I am aware that now there is a new idea to have Oceania U20 championships with the winner automatically gaining an IM title. At the same time U 18,16,14,12,10 and 8 (!) winners will be able to obtain FM and WFM titles.


Is this true? Is it something that will happen when Australia joins Oceania, or was it just an idea floated at one time?

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2012, 08:58 PM
Is this true? Is it something that will happen when Australia joins Oceania, or was it just an idea floated at one time?

Australia is already part of the Oceania zone because FIDE put us there. What Australia has not yet joined is the OCC.

An Oceania Youth Championships has been initiated for 2012 and this will go down to under-6 and up to under-18. I don't believe we'll be getting five-year-old FMs as a result. :lol:

Denis_Jessop
10-01-2012, 09:49 PM
Australia is already part of the Oceania zone because FIDE put us there. What Australia has not yet joined is the OCC.

An Oceania Youth Championships has been initiated for 2012 and this will go down to under-6 and up to under-18. I don't believe we'll be getting five-year-old FMs as a result. :lol:

But you can never be sure :doh: :D :D

DJ

Brian_Jones
11-01-2012, 08:48 AM
Australia is already part of the Oceania zone because FIDE put us there.

Correct!


What Australia has not yet joined is the OCC.

Incorrect. Australia is a de facto member of both OCC and the Asian Chess Federation (ACF).



An Oceania Youth Championships has been initiated for 2012 and this will go down to under-6 and up to under-18. I don't believe we'll be getting five-year-old FMs as a result. :lol:

Incorrect. Oceania Junior (U20) Championships are planned for 2012 but no plans as yet for the Oceania Youth Championships or the Oceania Childrens Championships.

But these Championships wil be planned in due course and OCC is determined to increase chess activity throughout the region despite the lack of support and committment from Australia.

See website at www.oceaniachess.com

Hobbes
11-01-2012, 08:56 AM
Oceania Junior (U20) Championships are planned for 2012 but no plans as yet for the Oceania Youth Championships or the Oceania Childrens Championships.

But these Championships wil be planned in due course

OK good, but the part I was interested in was MichaelBaron's mention that the winner of the U20 will get an IM title, and that winners of lower age groups might get lesser titles, is this true?

Brian_Jones
11-01-2012, 11:01 AM
OK good, but the part I was interested in was MichaelBaron's mention that the winner of the U20 will get an IM title, and that winners of lower age groups might get lesser titles, is this true?

Yes, subject to certain conditions - read the FIDE Handbook!

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2012, 06:22 PM
Incorrect. Australia is a de facto member of both OCC and the Asian Chess Federation (ACF).

Not true in the case of the OCC despite my suspicions some time back it might automatically become so. Australia has never agreed to become a member of the OCC and your statutes claiming it to be a member do not make it one. FIDE granting Associate Body status to the OCC in no way makes Australia a member.

Another way of putting it is to look at the definition of an affiliated organisation which includes "organizations which represent the interests of regions, e.g. continents, or other groupings consisting of FIDE affiliated chess federations. " A worker's union is an organisation which (in theory) represents the interests of workers. But that does not automatically mean that every worker whose interests that union claims to represent is a member of a union. At least, not in a free workplace.

We are in fact, at present, no more a de facto member of the OCC at this moment than you would be a de facto member of the Peter Parr Ultimate Fan Club if I started one and declared in its constitution that the members included Brian Jones.


Incorrect. Oceania Junior (U20) Championships are planned for 2012 but no plans as yet for the Oceania Youth Championships or the Oceania Childrens Championships.

Well this is what was said in the minutes of the Asian Continental Meeting (at which we were both present) at http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2011/fide_news/Agenda_and_Annexes_2011/Annex_73.pdf item 4:

"The meeting resolved to create new events starting in 2012: Oceania Youth Championships and West Asian Youth Championship. It was decided to add the under-6 category [..]"

If this is incorrect you need to get those minutes amended!


But these Championships wil be planned in due course and OCC is determined to increase chess activity throughout the region despite the lack of support and committment from Australia.

I think you'll find the ACF will be quite supportive and commited when the OCC fixes up its statutes. I was hoping something would have been sent to you by now indicating what sorts of changes we need, but it's taking longer than I expected - partly since there are so many more problems with what is currently there!

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2012, 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
What Australia has not yet joined is the OCC.

Incorrect. Australia is a de facto member of both OCC and the Asian Chess Federation (ACF).

As far as the OCC is concerned this is just not true. In addition to what Kevin has said, a provision in the OCC Statutes saying that a federation is "taken to be a member" certainly does not have the effect of making it a member as well as being presumptuous. One cannot be made a member of a body by such a provision and, unless the other federations mentioned in the provision have taken some step acknowledging their membership, they are not members either. Finally, Brian, steer clear of this Latin stuff. In no way is the ACF a de facto member. You may have some weird argument that it is de jure a member and, if so, I'd like to hear it.

DJ

Rincewind
16-01-2012, 04:19 PM
Finally, Brian, steer clear of this Latin stuff. In no way is the ACF a de facto member. You may have some weird argument that it is de jure a member and, if so, I'd like to hear it.

I think perhaps Brian was thinking along the lines of ipso facto. As in:

1. ACF is a member of FIDE.
2. FIDE has placed the ACF in the Oceania zone.
3. OCC is an organisation affilated with FIDE.
4. OCC purports to represent the Oceania zone.
5. Therefore the ACF is ipso facto a member of OCC.

However I don't believe the (5) follows from (1)-(4), ipso facto or otherwise.

Denis_Jessop
16-01-2012, 07:25 PM
I think perhaps Brian was thinking along the lines of ipso facto. As in:

1. ACF is a member of FIDE.
2. FIDE has placed the ACF in the Oceania zone.
3. OCC is an organisation affilated with FIDE.
4. OCC purports to represent the Oceania zone.
5. Therefore the ACF is ipso facto a member of OCC.

However I don't believe the (5) follows from (1)-(4), ipso facto or otherwise.

Possibly, hence my warning :) But I think he may also have been relying on the Statutes' provision to which I referred. I agree with your conclusion on the 5 points.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2012, 01:10 AM
OK good, but the part I was interested in was MichaelBaron's mention that the winner of the U20 will get an IM title, and that winners of lower age groups might get lesser titles, is this true?

At the FIDE Congress Brian submitted an application on behalf of the OCC which can be seen here (http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2011/fide_news/Agenda_and_Annexes_2011/Annex_11_-_Application_of_Oceania_CF_to_join_FIDE_as_an_affi liated_international_organisation.pdf).

The application has four parts:
- application to join FIDE as an affiliated organisation
- request for money
- application to join Asian Chess Federation
- request to act as a title mill.

Now I was expecting there could be discussion of each of these items and either a motion for each or a motion clearly covering the lot. Instead what is minuted (and it accurately reflects what happened) was:


3.1.2. Affiliates.
Annex 11 is an application of Oceania Chess Confederation to join FIDE as an
affiliated international organisation.
Mr. Jarrett proposed to accept the application.
The Board approved the affiliation of Oceania Chess Confederation, pending the payment of fees.

I'd wonder if this is really legally adequate to claim the OCC is now a title mill since it seems to only really address the first part (and the minuted description of Annex 11 is incomplete), but there is some very strong support for the OCC project within FIDE, so it may well be that it is even if it isn't. :eek:

Anyway if it is taken that Brian's request has really been approved then the Oceania U20 becomes an IM mill (for up to three equal firsts who will no doubt try terribly hard to avoid tying!). WIM ditto for U20 women's. FM title for lower groups. Brian did initially attempt to make these subject to an OCC rating limit but last I heard that had been withdrawn. A score of 35% is required for a title but depending on the format and strength of the field that might be a formality for the division winner or at least easy. There are also requirements for the number of contestants in an age group.

I suppose the question might be raised whether Brian will try to have the ACF disqualified from participating if we haven't paid what he wrongly believes to be our dues, and whether this would be a bad thing if so!

Kevin Bonham
01-06-2012, 12:39 AM
Did some new figures on Australian differences from world averages using the Jan 2012 FIDE rating list.

Australian IMs are on average rated 20.5 points lower than IMs worldwide
WIMs on average 108 points lower
FMs on average 30.5 points lower
WFMs on average 93.5 points lower

The formula for "average" I used was (median+mean)/2 but in any case median and mean produced similar differences.

These results include inactive players who are still listed on the rating list. It seems that the differences are biggest for WIM and WFM but for these there are not that many active Aus players so the conclusions based on active Aus players are unreliable.

AzureBlue
28-08-2014, 10:08 PM
In the latest handbook, FIDE seems to have tightened the Direct Title Regulations from Zonals (Sub-Continental Individual). (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=173&view=article)

To obtain:
IM/WIM must get =1st in the tournament (I presume this is including the GMs/IMs playing in the tournament) and Silver/Bronze (2nd/3rd) only get IM/WIM norms (as opposed to titles as per the handbook in July 2013).
FM/WFM need 6/9 (up from 4.5/9 a few years ago)
CM/WCM need 4.5/9 (up from 40% a few years ago)
I believe the limit of 1 IM/WIM titles and 2 FM/WFM titles is still in place.

Definitely, the differences are biggest for WIM/WFM. This is likely because of the relatively uncompetitive women's section of the zonal where in recent zonals 1600-1700 perf has usually been enough for a WFM title and a performance in the 1700-1900s has usually been enough for the WIM title. Nowhere near the difficulty of achieving those through norms. In the open section, those who scored IM/FM titles still typically had to perform near the 2400s. Furthermore, if you look up the active women chess players in Australia now (http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?tops=1&ina=1&country=AUS), I believe that apart from Giang's WFM and Heather, Biljana and Arianne's WIM, all the WIM/WFM titles there were achieved through Oceania Zonals by players now rated around the 1700-2000s.

Of course, it is not right to denigrate zonal title holders for their titles - we play by the rules and if there's an easier way to obtain a title, I'm sure the vast majority would go for it! However, I think that the tightening of these regulations has been a good move because the awarding of these titles devalues the titles and is unfair for those people who have put in a large amount of effort to achieve them the harder way of rating + norms.

Furthermore, I also disagree with the awarding of women's titles altogether (but that's another topic for another thread!); in short, I don't see the problem of an FM/IM/GM title being awarded for either gender who has achieved the standard needed (no need for extra women's titles on top of this), and I think it would be unfair that 2300-rated FMs don't get freebies like tournament entry when WIMs (who are usually <2100 in Australia) do. I think the main argument towards women's titles is that the "freebies" are supposed to encourage more women to play chess (the intrinsic enjoyment and intellectual challenge should really be the point!). This is not only inequitable towards perhaps higher-rated males as women would need to achieve a much lower standard for the equivalent rewards but it is also a marker of lower expectations (perhaps degrading to women) which leads to lower goals, less drive to work hard and hence lower results for women. Another argument which tends to be put forward is the fact that it's harder for women to achieve the same strength as men, because they need to raise children, do housework etc. :P, but what's the problem if a female can only achieve, perhaps, a 2000 rating and is stuck on it due to lack of time to work on her chess? There is no need for a separate title for this purpose, and if they reach 2300, there's the FM title. Perhaps the real reason is that FIDE raises money from these titles I guess :lol::lol:

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2014, 10:40 PM
In the latest handbook, FIDE seems to have tightened the Direct Title Regulations from Zonals (Sub-Continental Individual). (http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=173&view=article)

Yes this came in from some proposed reforms brought to the table by Nick Faulks of QC a couple of years ago, to try to make the direct titles system more consistent and logical. I'm pleased to see it especially as there were proposals in our region for still more sources of even softer titles than before.

MichaelBaron
29-08-2014, 01:53 AM
I am a strong supporter of women's titles. I think they are essential for encouraging women's chess and provide extra motivation for female players. As for free entry for WIMs (and some of them any decent FM can beat in a simul) is another story...but then again, WIMs who got their titles by satisfying the norm+rating requirements rather than by a single showing in the zonal are great ambassadors for sport so it could be justified. The very concept of free entry/appearance fees for titled players is being undermined by people getting titles they do not deserve and it makes the organizers wonder whether they need such ''titled'' players or not.
I have been following up online blitz games between a chess student of mine (1500-1600 level blitz player) and one so-called WIM from Africa (would rather not name her) on a chess server last night. My student won the series 7-6 ....what a spirited battle it was. Great achievement by him given that his opponent was about 1800 Fide (probably overrated) and he is not that great with a mouse...but if this is how titled players play...what can I say...

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2014, 03:34 AM
I am a strong supporter of women's titles.
However, I agree with AzureBlue in opposing them.


I think they are essential for encouraging women's chess and provide extra motivation for female players.
However, AB rightly pointed out that they could do the opposite: the tyranny of lower expectations reflected in the lower standards. As Judit Polgár showed, there is no need to lower the requirements and thus the expectations. I can think of some female players who were at least as talented as their male contemporaries, but achieved a lower playing strength, and I partly blame the ease of obtaining women's titles.

However we agree that if there are women's titles, then they should be earned properly, as opposed to the zonal titles. I was thinking of obtaining one of those titles for my wife from WalMart.

MichaelBaron
30-08-2014, 01:00 PM
Interestingly, those ''lucky recipients'' of the soft titles never even tried to argue that their level of play is adequate to the title. When ever such discussions start, they usually stay quiet. The only person who ever tried to justify his title (as far as I remember, I may be wrong) was Bryan Jones who claimed that many year in ago in England he used to be 2300, others have nothing to say (not that there is any evidence of Brian being 2300 :)).
Luckily, many of our soft title recipients have been strong juniors who keep imroving and by now comfortably reached the level required.

antichrist
30-08-2014, 01:12 PM
Interestingly, those ''lucky recipients'' of the soft titles never even tried to argue that their level of play is adequate to the title. When ever such discussions start, they usually stay quiet. The only person who ever tried to justify his title (as far as I remember, I may be wrong) was Bryan Jones who claimed that many year in ago in England he used to be 2300, others have nothing to say (not that there is any evidence of Brian being 2300 :)).
Luckily, many of our soft title recipients have been strong juniors who keep imroving and by now comfortably reached the level required.

Should not that be Bryan Jones IM or Bryan Jones FM or ??

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2014, 03:03 PM
Should not that be Bryan Jones IM or Bryan Jones FM or ??

It should be FM Brian Jones.

By the way the thread at http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14684-Zonal-Titles tracks who has received Zonal titles who has later qualified for the same title via normal means.

AzureBlue
30-08-2014, 03:53 PM
Interestingly, those ''lucky recipients'' of the soft titles never even tried to argue that their level of play is adequate to the title. When ever such discussions start, they usually stay quiet.
Well, that's obvious - it's quite a lost cause to justify this since for most of them, their standard of play was nowhere near the requirements of the title when they obtained it. There is the most substantial difference with the women's titles. For example, ratings for players at the time they obtained the WIM title (actual rating requirement is 2200); Narelle at 1899 (2005 Zonal) Alex at 1887 (2007 Zonal), Sue at 1894 (2009 Zonal), Emma at 1969 (2011 Zonal) and Katherine at 1975 (2013 Zonal). For WFM (rating requirement 2100), recently, Megan at 1627, Nicole at 1675 (2011 Zonal) and Hilda at 1426 and Savithri at 1765 (2013 Zonal). These are all average club player ratings... :hmm:

There are a few people who eventually achieve the standard of play to obtain the title through normal means; like Zhao, Smerdon, Morris, Cheng, Wang etc. and congrats to them :) :clap: but does this mean that they deserved the title before they improved enough to play to the standard to obtain it by normal means?

Again, it is wrong to denigrate these people for their 'soft' titles and they shouldn't have to be obligated to "justify" them. Most may be undeserving but it's not their fault that they won them; I don't think many rational people would choose slogging it out to 2300, or norm-chasing, say, over having a go at an easier title at the Zonal. It's more the fault of the system that awards them and I am glad that they are gradually making these titles harder to obtain through the zonal.

I don't think it is likely that as many titles will be obtained in the 2015 Zonal; now for the IM title, one needs to come =1st among a field of GMs and IMs; they'll have to overcome players like Zhao, Smerdon, Illingworth, Ly, Cheng, Solomon, Bjelobrk, Smirnov, Morris, Lane etc. so to do so would require a very strong performance. Similarly, one would need to come at least =1st with say, Berezina to obtain the WIM title.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2014, 08:30 AM
Interestingly, those ''lucky recipients'' of the soft titles never even tried to argue that their level of play is adequate to the title. When ever such discussions start, they usually stay quiet. The only person who ever tried to justify his title (as far as I remember, I may be wrong) was Bryan Jones who claimed that many year in ago in England he used to be 2300, others have nothing to say (not that there is any evidence of Brian being 2300 :)).
Luckily, many of our soft title recipients have been strong juniors who keep imroving and by now comfortably reached the level required.
Although when it came to Zonal IM titles, they were often won with performances above the norm, so I don't begrudge them. And a couple of them have become GMs since. It's the other ones you talk about with ample justification, who have never achieved the normal standard either in the Zonal or elsewhere.

Vlad
31-08-2014, 04:06 PM
Although when it came to Zonal IM titles, they were often won with performances above the norm, so I don't begrudge them.

This is because you do not realize how hard it is to get an IM title. One needs to satisfy 4 requirements. One can be lucky in one tournament, but it is much harder and almost impossible to be lucky in 3 tournaments. Coupled with the rating requirement, it ensures that a particular player plays like a real IM. If you look at people who recently become IMs over normal means, getting the 4-th norm for them is usually not an issue at all. For example, Max, Molton, myself, Junta, Anton, etc.

Using your logics, one can make a conclusion that getting a 2600 performance is enough for somebody to think that he/she plays like a GM. Anton just had one performance of 2600 and I can assure you that he does not play like a GM yet.

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2014, 04:52 PM
For example, Max, Molton, myself, Junta, Anton, etc.

Indeed all three IM titles I put in for recently (Junta Ikeda, Anton Smirnov, Rishi Sardana) had four norms by the time the application was assessed by the QC.

AzureBlue
31-08-2014, 05:17 PM
Similarly, there are many (especially in Europe where there are many more strong tournaments and hence chances to obtain norms) who have the required number of norms but have trouble reaching the rating due to inconsistency, where they may perform very well sometimes but also drop tons of points in other tournaments! So satisfying both the 3 norms + rating requirement requires both consistency and also ability to produce excellent performances. In Australia, the norms part is probably harder because there hardly exist any tournaments that are strong enough with overseas players as well - for GM norms, possibly just the Australasian Masters and occasionally the SIO/Doeberl/Aus Open. Indeed, it is an outstanding achievement and very hard to obtain IM/GM the norms + rating way.

MichaelBaron
01-09-2014, 12:18 AM
Achieving 2400 rating is the highest hurdle of all - much harder than getting IM norms. In Europe for instance, all active 2300 + chess players have completed 5+ IM norms by now ...but getting one's rating over 2400 is the real evidence of playing IM level

Tom M
09-07-2015, 06:48 PM
Depending on last round results and on who accepts, there could be a total of 30 or more new titleholders from this event, and while some of these are well-deserved (such as Pengyu Chen who has already secured FM), that number is just ridiculous. Also worth pointing out that in some cases there will be people who qualify for titles when they are hundreds of rating points below the normal threshold, such as Rishi Dutta, who has not performed above his rating so far and only needs a win as white in the last round against Bruce Murray rated 2092 to get an FM title. Surely there should be something in place about all of this.

Altecman
09-07-2015, 07:26 PM
Depending on last round results and on who accepts, there could be a total of 30 or more new titleholders from this event, and while some of these are well-deserved (such as Pengyu Chen who has already secured FM), that number is just ridiculous. Also worth pointing out that in some cases there will be people who qualify for titles when they are hundreds of rating points below the normal threshold, such as Rishi Dutta, who has not performed above his rating so far and only needs a win as white in the last round against Bruce Murray rated 2092 to get an FM title. Surely there should be something in place about all of this.

What doesn't make sense to me is when someone comes on an online forum to publicly criticize someone else's performance, when the main motivation for the criticism is based on jealousy. The players in the zonal who have opportunities of obtaining FIDE titles are simply taking advantage of opportunities given to them by FIDE, and Australian Chess. Surely if the entire process is so simple, you should not complain and take advantage of the opportunities as well.

pax
09-07-2015, 07:34 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is when someone comes on an online forum to publicly criticize someone else's performance, when the main motivation for the criticism is based on jealousy. The players in the zonal who have opportunities of obtaining FIDE titles are simply taking advantage of opportunities given to them by FIDE, and Australian Chess. Surely if the entire process is so simple, you should not complain and take advantage of the opportunities as well.

It's fair to criticise the system. Since 2000 (after the 1999 debacle), an average of two FM titles have been awarded per zonal. It looks like this one is set to award many more than that. The main problem is that Swiss draws are not very good at ranking players outside the top three or four. Awarding titles based on 60% without limit is silly, because a person scoring 6/9 may have actually performed worse than someone scoring 5.5 or 5. The element of luck is just too significant.

Tom M
09-07-2015, 08:36 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is when someone comes on an online forum to publicly criticize someone else's performance, when the main motivation for the criticism is based on jealousy. The players in the zonal who have opportunities of obtaining FIDE titles are simply taking advantage of opportunities given to them by FIDE, and Australian Chess. Surely if the entire process is so simple, you should not complain and take advantage of the opportunities as well.

Why would you assume anything I said was fuelled out of jealousy? That's an extremely unfair assumption. I would be saying the same thing if I were playing in the tournament. As pax pointed out, all I am doing is criticising the system FIDE has in place by providing examples. That is not criticising someone's performance.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2015, 08:50 PM
Depending on last round results and on who accepts, there could be a total of 30 or more new titleholders from this event, and while some of these are well-deserved (such as Pengyu Chen who has already secured FM), that number is just ridiculous.

This is just a personal view - I don't think the number of CM titles matters. CM in many cases is a vanity title: players who are nowhere near master strength pursue it so they can say they have a FIDE title. FIDE doesn't take it all that seriously (not even counting it as a title for the purposes of players chasing other titles) and uses it as a money-spinner. Some strong players who can earn it on merit but can't get FM care about it as a real goal, but not a lot of others do.

But that there is still potential for relatively soft FM titles is a little disappointing. Can't blame the players for chasing them, and indeed some players might just have been aiming for CM but overachieved on the points table. If Dutta wins his TPR will be just 2027.

If anyone has issues with all this they should complain direct to FIDE. FIDE actually did try to improve the system though the most recent reforms were aimed at making standards consistent between different events at the same level, rather than specifically with fixing the soft titles issue.

Tom M
09-07-2015, 09:22 PM
This is just a personal view - I don't think the number of CM titles matters. CM in many cases is a vanity title: players who are nowhere near master strength pursue it so they can say they have a FIDE title. FIDE doesn't take it all that seriously (not even counting it as a title for the purposes of players chasing other titles) and uses it as a money-spinner. Some strong players who can earn it on merit but can't get FM care about it as a real goal, but not a lot of others do.

But that there is still potential for relatively soft FM titles is a little disappointing. Can't blame the players for chasing them, and indeed some players might just have been aiming for CM but overachieved on the points table. If Dutta wins his TPR will be just 2027.

If anyone has issues with all this they should complain direct to FIDE. FIDE actually did try to improve the system though the most recent reforms were aimed at making standards consistent between different events at the same level, rather than specifically with fixing the soft titles issue.

In the interest of not turning this into a political debate, it really speaks volumes about FIDE's leadership if they keep such a "vanity title" for the sole purposes of making money.

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2015, 09:42 PM
In the interest of not turning this into a political debate, it really speaks volumes about FIDE's leadership if they keep such a "vanity title" for the sole purposes of making money.

FIDE do lots of things mainly for that purpose. For instance everyone who transfers from one federation to another is charged at least 250 Euro, about the cost of a passport, for what at FIDE's end is probably about 20 minutes' work (except where they make more work for themselves by not understanding their own transfer regs). In some cases the fee is very much higher.

That said CM does serve legitimate purposes in the FIDE system. It's an especially good title to award in junior tournaments so that the parents and other connections have the motivation that their child is playing for a title, but the value of more serious titles isn't diminished in the process.

In our case it is good that it is available so readily because the flood of CM titles boosts the field size and makes the Zonal much more financially viable.

MichaelBaron
09-07-2015, 09:51 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is when someone comes on an online forum to publicly criticize someone else's performance, when the main motivation for the criticism is based on jealousy. The players in the zonal who have opportunities of obtaining FIDE titles are simply taking advantage of opportunities given to them by FIDE, and Australian Chess. Surely if the entire process is so simple, you should not complain and take advantage of the opportunities as well.

Phil, but do not you think that the value of titles is based on how hard it is to get these titles. You have FMs on this forum like Sarfati (who drew with Spassky etc.) who actually know (at least a little) how to play chess. At MCC, FMs get free entry into all tournaments if they are club members and I believe some other clubs have a likewise policy. On chess servers like Chess.com - they get free membership. In chess-playing countries - they get certain social status. All of this will be gone if literally everyone is going to secure the title. A chess student of mine played one of those FM title contenders (lets see if he gets the FM title or not) a couple of times and I have seen both games and went through the games. The guy is a typical club level player. No positional understanding whatsoever. Just because he is going to get the title, it is not going to make his chess any better.

MichaelBaron
09-07-2015, 09:53 PM
It's fair to criticise the system. Since 2000 (after the 1999 debacle), an average of two FM titles have been awarded per zonal. It looks like this one is set to award many more than that. The main problem is that Swiss draws are not very good at ranking players outside the top three or four. Awarding titles based on 60% without limit is silly, because a person scoring 6/9 may have actually performed worse than someone scoring 5.5 or 5. The element of luck is just too significant.

Good point. And what if in 2 years time say 150 players enter zonal (anyone can as long as they pay) and average rating of the field will be 1400? how many titled players will we get then?

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2015, 01:06 AM
This is because you do not realize how hard it is to get an IM title. One needs to satisfy 4 requirements. One can be lucky in one tournament, but it is much harder and almost impossible to be lucky in 3 tournaments. Coupled with the rating requirement, it ensures that a particular player plays like a real IM. If you look at people who recently become IMs over normal means, getting the 4-th norm for them is usually not an issue at all. For example, Max, Molton, myself, Junta, Anton, etc.
I do realize that it's hard. I've been a consistent critic of soft titles. At least the zonal IMs had IM-level performances, while many of the zonal FMs did not perform at FM-rating in the zonal, and have not even come close to reaching the rating requirement. Also, as KB pointed out years ago (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?3707-soft-titles-(sf-Zonal-threads-bumped-with-new-posts)&p=153498&viewfull=1#post153498):


With the IM title it is different because it is unusually difficult for Australian players to get that and so having one easier path to the IM title is not entirely a bad thing. But for FM since you can get it based on rating I don't see why relatively easy zonal titles are justified.

And I said a little while later (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?3707-soft-titles-(sf-Zonal-threads-bumped-with-new-posts)&p=155301&viewfull=1#post155301):


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.


What doesn't make sense to me is when someone comes on an online forum to publicly criticize someone else's performance, when the main motivation for the criticism is based on jealousy. The players in the zonal who have opportunities of obtaining FIDE titles are simply taking advantage of opportunities given to them by FIDE, and Australian Chess. Surely if the entire process is so simple, you should not complain and take advantage of the opportunities as well.
Cheap psychologizing of opponents' motives do you no credit. And as Pax and Tom have pointed out just above, criticizing a system is not the same as criticising the players (this is also a running theme throughout this long thread). It should be obvious that soft titles devalue the real ones. And this criticism has come from all sides: those with real titles, those with higher titles than the ones in question (such as GM Ian Rogers, who could hardly be jealous of any IM or FM), and those with no pretensions of the titles concerned.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 03:49 AM
And a single performance at 2300 level is not a big deal. Most 2000+ players had at least one event with 2300 performance rating. However, it does not make them 2300. Re CM title: I am curious how many of those who are going to ''earn'' it are going to claim it. I am pretty sure, majority of the 2100+ players will not and those who are 1500-1700 will.

Adamski
10-07-2015, 09:21 AM
I do know that at least one new CM will be claiming his title. I won't say who but I would too if I was in that positon. Soft or not, a title is still an achievement worth claiming, especially if unlikely to get a higher one.

Desmond
10-07-2015, 10:01 AM
All of this will be gone if literally everyone is going to secure the title. Don't think that's going to happen, chicken little.

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2015, 11:21 AM
Re CM title: I am curious how many of those who are going to ''earn'' it are going to claim it. I am pretty sure, majority of the 2100+ players will not and those who are 1500-1700 will.

As I mentioned on the Zonal thread, anyone who is or has been 2200+, since the title was introduced, could have claimed it already.

We can see what happened with CM titles from the previous Zonal here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14124-Oceania-Zonal-2013-Fiji&p=360955&viewfull=1#post360955

Of those AUS players winning CM titles only Lekkas, Zelesco and Safarian did not claim them (Ilic claimed some time later). Of those who claimed, the only one who has since achieved a CM rating was Puccini (who has also since achieved an FM rating).

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 12:57 PM
I do know that at least one new CM will be claiming his title. I won't say who but I would too if I was in that positon. Soft or not, a title is still an achievement worth claiming, especially if unlikely to get a higher one.

Still some people did not claim last time such as Frank Lekkas. Of course, majority will claim though but trust me when these people turn up at their local club, they are subject to a good laugh so its good if they themselves take it with humour. at MCC, we used to tease probably the strongest CM Australia ever had (he is an FM) right now Jack Puccini - and was actually 2100+. Anyway, the CM title provides no benefits so it is not so critical. And I do agree for school kids applying for sport-related scholarships or for getting recognition for their chess skills - such titles are good

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 12:59 PM
As I mentioned on the Zonal thread, anyone who is or has been 2200+, since the title was introduced, could have claimed it already.

We can see what happened with CM titles from the previous Zonal here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14124-Oceania-Zonal-2013-Fiji&p=360955&viewfull=1#post360955

Of those AUS players winning CM titles only Lekkas, Zelesco and Safarian did not claim them (Ilic claimed some time later). Of those who claimed, the only one who has since achieved a CM rating was Puccini (who has also since achieved an FM rating).

Actually, would the title not be available via Zonal - I guess some 2200+ players would claim it but right now - I think few of them do cause they know how funny it looks next to their name and as they are good players, they do not need it :)

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 01:02 PM
Now CM pride is all over Facebook :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/anthony.hain.9?fref=nf

Madoka Kaname
10-07-2015, 03:13 PM
Still some people did not claim last time such as Frank Lekkas. Of course, majority will claim though but trust me when these people turn up at their local club, they are subject to a good laugh so its good if they themselves take it with humour. at MCC, we used to tease probably the strongest CM Australia ever had (he is an FM) right now Jack Puccini - and was actually 2100+. Anyway, the CM title provides no benefits so it is not so critical. And I do agree for school kids applying for sport-related scholarships or for getting recognition for their chess skills - such titles are good

Why would they get teased or subjected to laughing just because of a title?

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 04:00 PM
Why would they get teased or subjected to laughing just because of a title?

Because they are still as weak as other club level players...so those without a title who are 2100+ will giggle when playing them. Btw, check out results from those on 4 points out of 8 in the last round...hillarious...all draws.

For the FM contenders, most of them faltered and its good. Zahary actually won his game against Smith rather than took a draw so well-earned and being a junior I am pretty sure he will be worthy of the title and will get his rating over 2300 very soon. O'Chee - I do not know well so may be he is very underrated but a good player...lets see :). Re CMs...I believe one of those who obtained the CM title is a 24yo playing his very first tournament in Australia who did not have a fide rating :). His performance rating is 1881. Some others have even lower performance rating :)

Adamski
10-07-2015, 05:22 PM
Because they are still as weak as other club level players...so those without a title who are 2100+ will giggle when playing them. Btw, check out results from those on 4 points out of 8 in the last round...hillarious...all draws.

For the FM contenders, most of them faltered and its good. Zahary actually won his game against Smith rather than took a draw so well-earned and being a junior I am pretty sure he will be worthy of the title and will get his rating over 2300 very soon. O'Chee - I do not know well so may be he is very underrated but a good player...lets see :). Re CMs...I believe one of those who obtained the CM title is a 24yo playing his very first tournament in Australia who did not have a fide rating :). His performance rating is 1881. Some others have even lower performance rating :)Last part correct. Anthony Chan, unrated from UNSW in Sydney, played his first ever tournament and got CM title. Previous play on chess.com and at UNSW chess club!!

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 05:26 PM
last part correct. Anthony chan, unrated from unsw in sydney, played his first ever tournament and got cm title. Previous play on chess.com and at unsw chess club!!

lol :)

Bill Gletsos
10-07-2015, 05:35 PM
Last part correct. Anthony Chan, unrated from UNSW in Sydney, played his first ever tournament and got CM title. Previous play on chess.com and at UNSW chess club!!That is not correct.
He has previously played in junior competitions and in an adult Rapid in May this year.

ER
10-07-2015, 05:35 PM
Congrats to Anthony for achieving his CM! Now for the FM title son! I was there when he beat the GM in Adelaide and in today in Sydney. The scores of likes on Facebook and the handshakes at the Norths today prove that Anthony is popular wherever (and whatever) he plays - he is a champ squash player too! :)

Adamski
10-07-2015, 05:47 PM
2 Anthonys. Hain and Chan. Thx Bill for correction on Chan. I think Elliott referred to Hain. Both are now CMs.

MichaelBaron
10-07-2015, 06:00 PM
Congrats to Anthony for achieving his CM! Now for the FM title son! I was there when he beat the GM in Adelaide and in today in Sydney. The scores of likes on Facebook and the handshakes at the Norths today prove that Anthony is popular wherever (and whatever) he plays - he is a champ squash player too! :)

Your congratulations are even funnier than their titles :)

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2015, 07:26 PM
True performance ratings for those who won titles or norms. And no I am not going to do it for CM/WCMs. All unofficial as titles subject to confirmation.

Brodie McClymont performed at 2607 and won an IM title.
Malcolm Stephens performed at 2507 and won an IM norm. This would not normally have been a norm because of batching effects despite it being a 2500+ strength performance in real terms with 2.5/4 against IMs.
Zachary Loh performed at 2412 and won an FM title.
Pengyu Chen performed at 2373 and won an FM title.
Kevin O'Chee performed at 2296 and won an FM title.
Kristine Quek performed at 1983 (+ one win vs an unrated player) and won a WFM title.

RiverHollow
11-07-2015, 03:17 AM
@MichaelBaron

I don't see how people claiming their titles is a bad thing. Alot of people just want like free membership in sites like chess.com It's just gives more useful tools for them to improve/play/enjoy and get better. I can't possibly see how that could be bad. If they already got the CM title, might as well use it practically to improve their chess. I can see why you oppose to such soft titles, and that's perfectly understandable. But instead of criticizing the people individually, criticize the system.

Are you suggesting the people should decline the chance to get the benefits on those websites and use it to help their chess, so they might actually be "worthy" of their titles at some point in the future? Might as well.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2015, 06:19 AM
True performance ratings for those who won titles or norms. And no I am not going to do it for CM/WCMs. All unofficial as titles subject to confirmation.

Brodie McClymont performed at 2607 and won an IM title.
Malcolm Stephens performed at 2507 and won an IM norm. This would not normally have been a norm because of batching effects despite it being a 2500+ strength performance in real terms with 2.5/4 against IMs.
Zachary Loh performed at 2412 and won an FM title.
Pengyu Chen performed at 2373 and won an FM title.
Kevin O'Chee performed at 2296 and won an FM title.

That is a huge improvement on a few zonals ago where the open titles were awarded for performances ~200 below the normal FM standard (2300). O'Chee was close, and the others over-achieved. I suppose there were technical reasons why Brodie's performance is not a GM norm?

Ian Rout
11-07-2015, 09:31 AM
I suppose there were technical reasons why Brodie's performance is not a GM norm?There weren't any GMs in the field so it could only be a GM norm if the rules specifically specified a certain place or score was a norm, which they don't according to above discussion.

Vlad
11-07-2015, 10:03 AM
There weren't any GMs in the field so it could only be a GM norm if the rules specifically specified a certain place or score was a norm, which they don't according to above discussion.

I would be interested to know - what criteria are satisfied? Just enumerate one single criterion that makes this performance a gm norm... :doh:

Do not get me wrong. Brodie is a worthy recipient of IM title. But GM norm - it is a completely different story...

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2015, 11:05 PM
Apparently free membership on chess.com is a big attraction of getting a CM title in a Zonal. But why do chess.com give CMs free membership? Does anyone know?

MichaelBaron
12-07-2015, 02:11 AM
Apparently free membership on chess.com is a big attraction of getting a CM title in a Zonal. But why do chess.com give CMs free membership? Does anyone know?

I am not sure what the benefits of this free membership are :). I used to play without the title tag then they asked me if I mind having one added to my profile/handle. After they added title to the profile, nothing changed really :)

RiverHollow
12-07-2015, 02:48 AM
1. There's free benefits not just on chess.com but other sites like lichess, (http://www.chess.com/article/view/why-chesscom-for-titled-players-and-coaches)

2. Certificates could be useful for juniors/undergrad, applying for different tertiary education under extra curricular activities or whatever, which is useful

3. More likely to attract live streams view on some sites like twitch (not sure how much more tho)


For 50 euro, seems pretty useful practically. And people don't take Cookie Monsters that seriously anyway, so its not like big problem.


Problem would be with soft FM and IM titles really.

Garrett
12-07-2015, 04:23 AM
Apparently free membership on chess.com is a big attraction of getting a CM title in a Zonal. But why do chess.com give CMs free membership? Does anyone know?

I would imagine other players like to play against a titled player, just as in real life.

Also good to play someone who is not anonymous, therefore probably less likely to use an engine to cheat as their identity is known (although it would be interesting to see some statistics regarding banned titled players....).

Talon
12-07-2015, 11:54 AM
It's well recognized that a system of levels/titles - that is, stratified, enduring formal recognition of achievement - is a great way to engage, motivate and reward people. The chess title system (available to a small fraction of players) and rating system (not enduring, no title) do this poorly, although in my opinion the Candidate Master title is a small step in the right direction. Something like the belt system in the martial arts would be even better.

Also in the martial arts, a culture of respect is encouraged, even to the extent of formalization. It's not common to hear, for example, a brown belt mocking a blue belt. Derision of lower levels of achievement isn't appropriate, nor is it desirable if the goal is to engage and motivate people and build a community.

Food for thought!

MichaelBaron
12-07-2015, 12:52 PM
It's well recognized that a system of levels/titles - that is, stratified, enduring formal recognition of achievement - is a great way to engage, motivate and reward people. The chess title system (available to a small fraction of players) and rating system (not enduring, no title) do this poorly, although in my opinion the Candidate Master title is a small step in the right direction. Something like the belt system in the martial arts would be even better.

Also in the martial arts, a culture of respect is encouraged, even to the extent of formalization. It's not common to hear, for example, a brown belt mocking a blue belt. Derision of lower levels of achievement isn't appropriate, nor is it desirable if the goal is to engage and motivate people and build a community.

Food for thought!

Good example that I can relate to (Got my Black Belt in Karate back in my youth days). In Karate (and I guess it is same in other Martial Arts) Belts are rewarded based on level achieved (just like Chess titles based on rating). You do not get Belts for performing at a particular event in a particular shopping center. There is an identical set of requirements applicable to all karate practitioners that is being followed religiously. I am not sure about others but my point is not about ''mocking'' those with lower-level titles. My point is: If someone is not Fide 2200- at any point in life - should not be a CM and if someone is not Fide 2300 - should not be an FM. Just like in Martial Arts there are old unfit people who are still proudly wearing their black belts, no chess title should be taken away when our chess is no longer at its peak but title should be recognition that a certain level has been achieved!

P.S. As FIDE gives GM titles to continental champions - there is now a GM in Africa who is rated under 2400 and a WGM who is rated 1900

Vlad
12-07-2015, 01:26 PM
P.S. As FIDE gives GM titles to continental champions - there is now a GM in Africa who is rated under 2400 and a WGM who is rated 1900

I guess it is a question for Kevin. Which continent are we part of and which competition give away GM titles?:) Thanks.

triplecheck
12-07-2015, 02:04 PM
Why would they get teased or subjected to laughing just because of a title?


Because they are still as weak as other club level players...so those without a title who are 2100+ will giggle when playing them.

And a real IM will look at the FM next to their opponent's name and, unless they look like a hot young player on the move, will just think "Failed Master".

Although, nowadays "Feeble Master" seems to be getting more popular.

Max Fuller certainly got teased about his FM, but from the opposite direction of strength.

Keong Ang
12-07-2015, 03:19 PM
I guess it is a question for Kevin. Which continent are we part of and which competition give away GM titles?:) Thanks.

We (Oceania federations like AUS, NZL, etc.) belong to the Asian Continent.

Table of direct titles is published by FIDE here:
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=173&view=article

If you're looking for direct GM title Anton is eligible to compete for, the competitions to look for are:
World Junior (World under20 champion receives GM title)
Asian Continental Individual (Asian Champion receives GM title)

These are probably more difficult to achieve than the "usual" way of earning GM title through required norms and rating through "normal" means.

Direct GM norms Anton is eligible to compete for:
Olympiad (9 game GM norm equals 20 game norm, 9 game GM performance equals 13 game norm).
World Junior (1st equal receives 9 game GM norm).
World Youth under18 (Champion receives 9 game GM norm).
Asian Continental Teams (9 game GM norm equals 20 game norm, 9 game GM performance equals 13 game norm).
Asian Continental (1st equal receives 9 game GM norm).

1st equal means up to 3 players on tiebreak. If you happen to be the 4th player with the same top score on tiebreak, tough luck.
These are probably more difficult to win than the "normal" way of earning norms.
I may have missed some of them, refer to the table to check.
To get GM title by other means ("normal" means), player needs GM norm over 27 games (hence the "3 norms" commonly referred to) and 2500 minimum rating.

For Max, by being Oceania Zonal champion, he qualifies to enter the World Cup, and the top 16 place getters would be awarded GM title directly.
I think (but have not checked!) that all the top 16 place getters at the World Cup are usually already GMs.

Vlad
12-07-2015, 06:42 PM
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. Yes, I have seen the handbook, so most of the info is familiar to me. What I am having trouble understanding is the difference between the Asian and the ASEAN championships. Is there a unique continental where the GM title is given? And it is called the Asian championship, right? Are the ASEAN events only for juniors and seniors? Thanks a lot.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2015, 06:49 PM
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. Yes, I have seen the handbook, so most of the info is familiar to me. What I am having trouble understanding is the difference between the Asian and the ASEAN championships. Is there a unique continental where the GM title is given? And it is called the Asian championship, right? Are the ASEAN events only for juniors and seniors? Thanks a lot.

Yes there is an Asian Continental Championships which Australians can play in and which is also a World Cup qualifier, albeit a very strong one. This year's are held in Al Ain from 1-13 August. 2014 results here: http://chess-results.com/tnr131359.aspx

ASEAN is Association Of South East Asian Nations. Australia is not a member. Member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. I don't know anything about the ASEAN events.

Vlad
12-07-2015, 06:55 PM
ASEAN is Association Of South East Asian Nations. Australia is not a member. Member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. I don't know anything about the ASEAN events.

I have read somewhere some time ago that because Australia is relatively weak, ASEAN countries do not mind Australians playing in their events. Do you think there is any way to find this out? Thanks a lot.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2015, 07:45 PM
I have read somewhere some time ago that because Australia is relatively weak, ASEAN countries do not mind Australians playing in their events. Do you think there is any way to find this out? Thanks a lot.

Could try contacting the ASEAN Chess Confederation - their website is at http://aseanchess.org/ and has a Contact Us tab.

Keong Ang
12-07-2015, 07:56 PM
Yes there is an Asian Continental Championships which Australians can play in and which is also a World Cup qualifier, albeit a very strong one. This year's are held in Al Ain from 1-13 August. 2014 results here: http://chess-results.com/tnr131359.aspx

ASEAN is Association Of South East Asian Nations. Australia is not a member. Member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. I don't know anything about the ASEAN events.
ASEAN+ Age Groups was held in Singapore in June (with around 450 players) is an event that federations outside of ASEAN can participate in.
The "+" really means rest of Asian Continent federations although the definition can sometimes be expanded by the ASEAN Chess Confederation.
Age groups are over65, over50, under20, under18, under16, under14, under12, under10, under8. With separate Open and Girls sections. The seniors sections have no direct titles but juniors do.

For Anton who is already an IM, a direct GM norm is possible in the ASEAN+ under20 age group.
The next edition of this event is supposed to be held in Chiang Mai, Thailand in April 2016.
This is an increasingly popular event with NZL juniors winning a title in each of 2014 (CM) and 2015 (WCM).
AUS also had player...

For chess ASEAN Zone is another regional grouping of the Asian Continent. Just like Oceania Zone.
We are trying to make an Oceania Age Groups like the ASEAN with the same direct titles and norms available.
There can be up to 3 such regional groupings per continent so more in the realm of politics and diplomacy at present.
Annually there could potentially be 2IMs, 7FMs, 12CMs; 2WIMs, 7WFMs, 12WCMs. Norms also available, 9 game GM norm for u20 open gold medallist, plus IM norms. Also the equivalent WGM and WIM for the girls sections. Just a quick calculation and may not be accurate. Oceania Seniors over50 and over65 should also be treated equivalently. Hopefully 1IM and 2FM as well.
The idea is to create lots of title opportunities in Oceania. Since titles are obtained by achieving a certain medal placing, there should not be too many soft titles since they don't percolate down (like in past zonals). A couple of already titled players who keep placing in the top 3 would prevent the rest from obtaining direct titles. Of course it is possible that all the titled IMs and FMs would be playing in the under20 and therefore leaving the lower age groups open for new FMs and below. Then again, if the organisers merge the various age groups (like at the Asian Seniors 2014) FIDE could deem an under14 girl champion as winning all the sections she could be eligible for and prevent downward percolation.

If successfully approved, this thread about soft titles may become even more active!! :lol::lol::lol:

Keong Ang
12-07-2015, 08:09 PM
I have read somewhere some time ago that because Australia is relatively weak, ASEAN countries do not mind Australians playing in their events. Do you think there is any way to find this out? Thanks a lot.

Australians have participated in the ASEAN+ Age Groups before. I had seen them in 2014 (Macau) and 2015 (Singapore).
NZCF receives invitations to send NZL players every year.

The main powerful federations are Vietnam and Philippines.
Central Asian federations like Kazakhstan are also present.

It is actually strength rather than weakness of federations that make them welcome. They think they get stronger when stronger opponents participate. Highly rated and titled foreign players also increase "normal" norm chances for ASEAN players who would otherwise find the cost of travelling to tournaments prohibitive. Of course, it is also a place where lots of underrated ASEAN juniors lurk. 1700 are more like 2200 and winning a direct title would probably still cost a junior from AUS or NZL rating points!
Non ASEAN juniors contribute heaps of rating points to ASEAN juniors at the ASEAN+ Age Groups.

Adamski
13-07-2015, 08:52 AM
Vlad, if Anton did go to Al Ain I am sure the organisation would be good. I enjoyed my time there last year for Asian teams champions league.

Madoka Kaname
13-07-2015, 01:02 PM
Still some people did not claim last time such as Frank Lekkas. Of course, majority will claim though but trust me when these people turn up at their local club, they are subject to a good laugh so its good if they themselves take it with humour. at MCC, we used to tease probably the strongest CM Australia ever had (he is an FM) right now Jack Puccini - and was actually 2100+. Anyway, the CM title provides no benefits so it is not so critical. And I do agree for school kids applying for sport-related scholarships or for getting recognition for their chess skills - such titles are good

Did Jack Puccini get his FM title from a zonal and would that be considered soft (subject to more teasing)?

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2015, 01:40 PM
Did Jack Puccini get his FM title from a zonal and would that be considered soft (subject to more teasing)?

Jack got his FM title by rating.

Vlad
13-07-2015, 02:40 PM
Did Jack Puccini get his FM title from a zonal and would that be considered soft (subject to more teasing)?

It is different type of softness. It is called k-factor 40...;)

Madoka Kaname
14-07-2015, 10:54 AM
It is different type of softness. It is called k-factor 40...;)

What is the "k" in K-factor referring to? I don't get it unless you're referring to me... And what's with the 40?

I'm relatively new to chess so I don't know a lot of things. (This also means I ask a lot of questions!)

Kevin Bonham
14-07-2015, 11:26 AM
What is the "k" in K-factor referring to? I don't get it unless you're referring to me... And what's with the 40?

k is just a constant in the Elo ratings formula. The level at which it is set determines how responsive a person's rating is to new results. The higher the k-factor the faster a rating changes. One of the big problems with Elo ratings have been that they are not responsive enough to fast-improving juniors. FIDE decided to "fix" this by increasing the k-factor for juniors from 15 to 40.

A result of this has been that more juniors go over 2300 live rating before they are quite 2300 strength, and hence get FM titles by rating earlier than they would have otherwise done so. Hence Vlad's comment.

ER
14-07-2015, 12:38 PM
It is different type of softness. It is called k-factor 40...;)

:lol:


What is the "k" in K-factor referring to? I don't get it unless you're referring to me

:lol: nobody 's safe here son!

ER
14-07-2015, 12:42 PM
FIDE decided to "fix" this by increasing the k-factor for juniors from 15 to 40.

They should apply that to seniors as well! :P :lol:

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2015, 02:14 PM
ACF President Gary Wastell attended the FIDE Congress in UAE at his own expense. He reports back that the QC passed a requirement that players who earn a direct title must reach a published rating within 200 points of the rating level for that title before they can actually get it. This was apparently ratified so should it be put into practice we should see an end to some of the more ridiculous title opportunities through the direct title system.

ER
14-09-2015, 04:26 PM
This was apparently ratified so should it be put into practice we should see an end to some of the more ridiculous title opportunities through the direct title system.

Would then the soft title holders be stripped of their FM (or other) titles?

An idea would be to add an S in front of the FM just to distinguish them from the real FMs! :P :)

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2015, 12:17 AM
Would then the soft title holders be stripped of their FM (or other) titles?

No, previously awarded titles would remain; this would apply to future titles.

MichaelBaron
15-09-2015, 06:57 PM
No, previously awarded titles would remain; this would apply to future titles.

Pity :) :) :)
Or we could have new titles for those stripped of the titles: eg. FCM Former Candidate Master

RiverHollow
21-10-2015, 12:59 AM
ACF President Gary Wastell attended the FIDE Congress in UAE at his own expense. He reports back that the QC passed a requirement that players who earn a direct title must reach a published rating within 200 points of the rating level for that title before they can actually get it. This was apparently ratified so should it be put into practice we should see an end to some of the more ridiculous title opportunities through the direct title system.

Does this apply to the world amateur championship too?

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2015, 06:33 AM
Does this apply to the world amateur championship too?

I think we need to wait until the regulations are changed to know if it will apply to all direct title events.

RiverHollow
21-10-2015, 06:29 PM
I think we need to wait until the regulations are changed to know if it will apply to all direct title events.

That would be 2016 I presume (maybe at July?)

Kevin Bonham
21-10-2015, 08:01 PM
That would be 2016 I presume (maybe at July?)

Actually this is an interesting point. Although the QC can make a decision to change the titles system and have that decision accepted by the Executive Board (as in this case), under the FIDE Statutes, changes to QC regulations need to be approved by the General Assembly. The General Assembly next meets in September 2016 so I would say the changes will not be official until after that, possibly even July 2017.

QC and Rules are the only two commissions this part of the statutes apply to.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2017, 01:32 PM
1) Soft titles for now ...including titles for those who are ....err...lets just say are no experts and it devalues the titles. A chess student of mine played a certain Australian WIM (twice)normally WIM are 2100-2200. This one is 1600-1700!

WIM is not nearly so soft anymore - to get a WIM title direct from an Oceania Zonal you now have to be 1st or =1st in the tournament.

I am still worried about FM being potentially soft because of the vagaries of the draw. We had a near-miss on that last time.

MichaelBaron
16-01-2017, 02:05 PM
WIM is not nearly so soft anymore - to get a WIM title direct from an Oceania Zonal you now have to be 1st or =1st in the tournament.

I am still worried about FM being potentially soft because of the vagaries of the draw. We had a near-miss on that last time.

Part of the problem is...many of the participants got soft titles already :). Looking athe women's crosstable - I can see that there are already many IMs/FMs...so for the remaining 1600+ player without a WFM title - it is significantly easier.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2017, 02:15 PM
Part of the problem is...many of the participants got soft titles already :). Looking athe women's crosstable - I can see that there are already many IMs/FMs...so for the remaining 1600+ player without a WFM title - it is significantly easier.

Not anymore. WFM = 6/9. No limit on numbers anymore, it is just a score requirement.

MichaelBaron
16-01-2017, 02:20 PM
Not anymore. WFM = 6/9. No limit on numbers anymore, it is just a score requirement.

OMG and FM is 6/9 again? sigh sigh sigh...
And as I ponted out in my initial post - softeness of titles is just one of the problems...

MichaelBaron
17-01-2017, 09:27 AM
Hopefully many players will obtain their FM/WFM (6 points up) and CM/WCM titles (4.5 to 5.5 points). It is pleasing to be able to reward players whose participation makes chess events viable.

This is where I agree to disagree because I think this devalues titles by awarding them to those who are to put it in simple terms ''not good enough'', but anyway - this has already been discussed in another thread.

Keong Ang
18-01-2017, 08:40 AM
This is where I agree to disagree because I think this devalues titles by awarding them to those who are to put it in simple terms ''not good enough'', but anyway - this has already been discussed in another thread.
"Soft titles" would not happen if stronger players who are titled played in the tournament and prevented weaker players from obtaining titles. At the end of this Zonal if the top third of players were FM or above, there would be no new FMs, similarly if the top half were CM or above, there would be no new CMs.

If we lived in an active and strong zone, the Zonal would be where the "hardest titles" are earned. Since the "soft FMs" would be earned through rating that could be earned by selectively playing in tournaments where beating other players is easier.
I can observe from this Zonal that the players are generally playing more seriously and are tougher than normal. Earning a FM title here is probably more difficult than playing frequently in a series of weak tournaments to obtain FM title by crossing 2300 rating requirement.

Craig_Hall
18-01-2017, 09:27 AM
I prefer "soft" titles earned over the board in a major tournament to titles earned by eking out a few rating points at a time in tournaments against much lower rated players, as Keong points out above.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 09:55 AM
I prefer "soft" titles earned over the board in a major tournament to titles earned by eking out a few rating points at a time in tournaments against much lower rated players, as Keong points out above.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has concrete examples of an FM by rating who has actually done this. Because the FIDE rating curve actually underestimates the scoring chances of the weaker player slightly, it is not as easy as it sounds.

Craig_Hall
18-01-2017, 10:12 AM
I'd be interested to know if anyone has concrete examples of an FM by rating who has actually done this. Because the FIDE rating curve actually underestimates the scoring chances of the weaker player slightly, it is not as easy as it sounds.
Richard Sutton, although that was only really the last bit.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 10:32 AM
It's too early to judge for the current Zonal titles system but for the pre-2015 systems our tracking (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?14684-Zonal-Titles) has found that only about a third of Zonal title winners eventually met the normal requirements for their title.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2017, 12:36 PM
OMG and FM is 6/9 again? sigh sigh sigh...
And as I ponted out in my initial post - softeness of titles is just one of the problems...

Applies to ordinary FM and WFM? More soft titles on the way, with so many players lowly rated. In the open, there are only 24 out of the 116 over 2100, so we could conceivably get some sub-2100 getting the FM title which normally takes a 2300 rating. WFM is normally ≥2100, but all the participants in the Women's Zonal are below that. WIM norm is ≥ 2250. Layla T. might get that on the way to the automatic title. There is one Bi-Lo WIM in the tourney who is 200 points below the normal WFM rating target.

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2017, 12:40 PM
I prefer "soft" titles earned over the board in a major tournament to titles earned by eking out a few rating points at a time in tournaments against much lower rated players, as Keong points out above.

I would not. If someone can eke out a 2300 rating like that (which KB points out is harder than it appears), then that player is probably at least a consistent 2250 in playing strength. If he can avoid the chance loss or draw that would set his rating back a lot, then he probably is consistent enough even to deserve his 2300 rating. This is far preferable to someone who gets a soft title but has never exceeded 2100.

Desmond
18-01-2017, 01:48 PM
Oh a zonal is on and the usual suspects are moaning about this again - quelle surprise.

MichaelBaron
18-01-2017, 02:09 PM
I would not. If someone can eke out a 2300 rating like that (which KB points out is harder than it appears), then that player is probably at least a consistent 2250 in playing strength. If he can avoid the chance loss or draw that would set his rating back a lot, then he probably is consistent enough even to deserve his 2300 rating. This is far preferable to someone who gets a soft title but has never exceeded 2100.

The only way to deserve a 2300 rating...is to get a 2300 rating. As for titles - as we can see the ways vary... 2100 is certainly not FM level. Even for CM Fide expects (normally that is) 2200.

MichaelBaron
18-01-2017, 02:20 PM
Oh a zonal is on and the usual suspects are moaning about this again - quelle surprise.
Absolutely. And the reason is happens - because the titles remain soft! Btw, there are also other (limited though) ways of getting soft titles..but not many people getting the titles at once. For example the guy who won a fairly weak Asian Senior championship got an IM title while his fide is under 2100.

Vlad
18-01-2017, 02:30 PM
I would not. If someone can eke out a 2300 rating like that (which KB points out is harder than it appears), then that player is probably at least a consistent 2250 in playing strength. If he can avoid the chance loss or draw that would set his rating back a lot, then he probably is consistent enough even to deserve his 2300 rating. This is far preferable to someone who gets a soft title but has never exceeded 2100.

As Kevin correctly mentioned, all the biases are always against the top players. When you play in Europe you have opponents who are both higher or lower rated. If somebody is in a bad form - this effect cancels out as you could be both a victim and a receiver. When you are at the top here in oz or nz - it always goes against you. This is why I believe our top players are underrated by at least 30-50 points. This is why Australia is consistently doing better than you would expect.

The same is with 2300. In my opinion it is much harder to get this rating through weak tournaments. Everything goes against you: if you are in a bad form, you could lose a lot of points. What is your incentive to win 9/9 rather than 8.5/9? It is very hard to push yourself.

I am speaking from my own experience. When I lived in ACT my rating was about 2100. I moved to Sydney and it immediately jumped to 2300. I started playing at the national level and it jumped over 2400. Pity I did not have an opportunity to go back to Europe...:)

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 02:30 PM
Even for CM Fide expects (normally that is) 2200.

CM was intended as a lollipop title and a cash cow for FIDE, so I'm not sure whether there's such a thing as a soft CM title. The strange thing - especially from an Australian perspective where only one player has ever taken CM by rating - is that now there are quite a few CMs by rating who don't like the CM title going to weaker players and are complaining about soft CM titles. I think the best solution to this would be to split the CM title and have one title by rating (say FIDE Expert for 2100+).

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2017, 02:55 PM
The only way to deserve a 2300 rating...is to get a 2300 rating.
I agree. But one of our soft title proponents was questioning the reverse, whether someone who got a 2300 rating deserved it, and I think they do.


As for titles - as we can see the ways vary... 2100 is certainly not FM level. Even for CM Fide expects (normally that is) 2200.
Yes, a title is certainly soft when it is not just below the normal standard for that title, but even below that for a lower title.

Desmond
18-01-2017, 02:55 PM
Absolutely. And the reason is happens - because the titles remain soft! Btw, there are also other (limited though) ways of getting soft titles..but not many people getting the titles at once. For example the guy who won a fairly weak Asian Senior championship got an IM title while his fide is under 2100.

e2ZW_uTlhEQ

Kaitlin
18-01-2017, 05:37 PM
Isn't that sandbagging ?

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 05:46 PM
For example the guy who won a fairly weak Asian Senior championship got an IM title while his fide is under 2100.

Who was this? This nearly happened with a running of a Senior event here some years ago except it was vetoed on the technicality that the Chief Arbiter didn't hold an FA or IA title.

I think that if someone wins a Continental >65 there is a good chance they were genuinely title strength in their younger days, but >50 on the other hand is barely over the hill of average performance! Some players probably reach peak strength past age 50.

Adamski
18-01-2017, 05:52 PM
One of these 2 instance mentioned above sounds like current Rooty Hill webmaster Ton Luchtmeijer playing (and winning) an Asian Seniors at Parramatta. I played in the second of 2 divisions but can't recall the year offhand.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 05:54 PM
One of these 2 instance mentioned above sounds like current Rooty Hill webmaster Ton Lychtmeijer playing and winning) an Asian Seniors at Parramatta. I played in the second of 2 divisions but can't recall the year offhand.

That was the one I had in mind. Not eligible for IM because the Arbiter wasn't titled. Otherwise FIDE would have had to approve it.

Keong Ang
18-01-2017, 06:26 PM
Absolutely. And the reason is happens - because the titles remain soft! Btw, there are also other (limited though) ways of getting soft titles..but not many people getting the titles at once. For example the guy who won a fairly weak Asian Senior championship got an IM title while his fide is under 2100.

It gets better! He also got a GM norm in the process. What's the point in awarding soft title only? That's doing things by halves, award the soft norm for higher title too! Or highest title norm in this case.

Adamski
18-01-2017, 06:36 PM
That was the one I had in mind. Not eligible for IM because the Arbiter wasn't titled. Otherwise FIDE would have had to approve it.

Curious if it was Brian Jones! I will check the year tonight.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 06:38 PM
Curious if it was Brian Jones! I will check the year tonight.

It was. And I think his FA title was being applied for but hadn't been awarded yet, or was close to being applied for, or something like that.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2017, 06:39 PM
Oh a zonal is on and the usual suspects are moaning about this again - quelle surprise.I'm not exactly sure what problems the 'soft titles' are supposed to be causing.

Thebes
18-01-2017, 07:00 PM
I'm not exactly sure what problems the 'soft titles' are supposed to be causing.

Well I don't think the "moaning" is too unjust, if I spent a large amount of time grinding to become consistently 2300-, I'd also be annoyed seeing 1800-2000 players accquire my title, especially when as Kevin points out they often do not become the expected strength of their title

Adamski
18-01-2017, 07:33 PM
It was. And I think his FA title was being applied for but hadn't been awarded yet, or was close to being applied for, or something like that.That Asian Seniors at Parramata, NSW, was June 2012. I think there was either only one division or a division with a low max rating because in round 1 I lost to Hilton Bennett (NZ) who is playing in the current Zonal in Auckland.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 07:45 PM
Interesting re-reading the start of this thread when 4.5/9 (now CM) was FM and 6/9 (now FM) was IM.

Soft titles are an issue when players receive discount entries based on them. Not so much of an issue now that the potential for soft IM-level titles is more or less gone.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2017, 08:00 PM
Well I don't think the "moaning" is too unjust, if I spent a large amount of time grinding to become consistently 2300-, I'd also be annoyed seeing 1800-2000 players accquire my title, especially when as Kevin points out they often do not become the expected strength of their titleBut that person still has their title, and knows that it's a 'hard title'. Having other players with 'soft titles' doesn't reduce the value of their hard-earned title.

Thebes
18-01-2017, 08:18 PM
But that person still has their title, and knows that it's a 'hard title'. Having other players with 'soft titles' doesn't reduce the value of their hard-earned title.

I just simply don't get how you can agure that getting a title where the requirements is 2220 can be achieved by performing 1800 once in your lifetime is not soft, the quality of the "hard title" is reduced by the quantity and I can completely understand why people like Baron and other strong players who have spent most of their young life working hard to excel at the game gets frustrated that you can be 1800 and essentially buy a CM title if you get lucky with pairings

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2017, 08:20 PM
... Soft titles are an issue when players receive discount entries based on them. Not so much of an issue now that the potential for soft IM-level titles is more or less gone.That would be an issue if a much lower-rated player gets free entry based on a 'soft title', while you have to pay. But it's not the 'soft title' causing the problem, but the entry conditions, which should be based on rating. As you imply, all the IMs on the ACF list appear to be at least 2200, with a couple of exceptions.

On the September list, however: "491?? 0 Khamatgaleev, Michael [IM]" - definitely the 'softest' IM title ever :)

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 08:38 PM
On the September list, however: "491?? 0 Khamatgaleev, Michael [IM]" - definitely the 'softest' IM title ever :)

That looks like an error. Khamatgaleev's father is an IM.

Kevin Bonham
18-01-2017, 08:47 PM
That would be an issue if a much lower-rated player gets free entry based on a 'soft title', while you have to pay. But it's not the 'soft title' causing the problem, but the entry conditions, which should be based on rating.

Except that titled players are often more valuable to organisers because titles breed more titles (based on the requirement to play against a certain number of titled players to get a title). Also if discount entries were based on rating, players might be encouraged to try to manipulate their rating to get discounts.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2017, 09:02 PM
That looks like an error. Khamatgaleev's father is an IM.Michael is listed immediately below his father(?), so I assume it's a misprint. Still amusing in the context of this thread.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2017, 09:10 PM
Except that titled players are often more valuable to organisers because titles breed more titles (based on the requirement to play against a certain number of titled players to get a title). ...Good point, although it wouldn't apply to most weekenders.

... Also if discount entries were based on rating, players might be encouraged to try to manipulate their rating to get discounts.Which wouldn't be very easy to do under current regulations.

MichaelBaron
18-01-2017, 10:36 PM
But that person still has their title, and knows that it's a 'hard title'. Having other players with 'soft titles' doesn't reduce the value of their hard-earned title.

Well I see some flows in this logic...
1) It devalues titles...for example when I was a uni student, only few of my lecturers were having a Dr title..and it gave them a special status and recognition...now virtually all of us at Uni are Dr...and it means NOTHING compared to what it used to be..so there is something called depreciation :). If too many become FMs...I am pretty sure it will mean less ..and already means less.
2) What about those chess friends of mine who are 2200+ for years but failed to become FMs and 2300+ who are not IMs....do they not deserve the title? How does it feel for them?

MichaelBaron
18-01-2017, 10:41 PM
I just simply don't get how you can agure that getting a title where the requirements is 2220 can be achieved by performing 1800 once in your lifetime is not soft, the quality of the "hard title" is reduced by the quantity and I can completely understand why people like Baron and other strong players who have spent most of their young life working hard to excel at the game gets frustrated that you can be 1800 and essentially buy a CM title if you get lucky with pairings

Absolutely! As I am more or less retired from chess it is more about entertainment rather than frustration but if at some point ''free entry to FMs who are club members'' will seize existing due to everyone being an FM/CM/AGM etc (too many titles and titled people to list :)) - I will not be smiling about it any more.

Patrick Byrom
19-01-2017, 12:28 AM
Well I see some flows in this logic...
1) It devalues titles...for example when I was a uni student, only few of my lecturers were having a Dr title..and it gave them a special status and recognition...now virtually all of us at Uni are Dr...and it means NOTHING compared to what it used to be..so there is something called depreciation :). If too many become FMs...I am pretty sure it will mean less ..and already means less.But the number of IMs - and GMs - in Australia has increased considerably over the last few decades anyway, even if you ignore the 'soft' titles. For example, I could only find two IMs on the ACF list rated below 2200; and almost all FMs are over 2100. So any depreciation has not been caused by 'soft' titles.


2) What about those chess friends of mine who are 2200+ for years but failed to become FMs and 2300+ who are not IMs....do they not deserve the title? How does it feel for them?Isn't this an argument supporting 'soft' titles? Or at least an argument supporting the retrospective awarding of titles?

MichaelBaron
19-01-2017, 01:04 AM
But the number of IMs - and GMs - in Australia has increased considerably over the last few decades anyway, even if you ignore the 'soft' titles. For example, I could only find two IMs on the ACF list rated below 2200; and almost all FMs are over 2100. So any depreciation has not been caused by 'soft' titles.

Isn't this an argument supporting 'soft' titles? Or at least an argument supporting the retrospective awarding of titles?

FMs should be over 2300 not 2100..at least at the time of obtaining the title. If some have never been to 2200 in their life...it is certainly a different standard. Likewise, IMs who are rated 2250 and never been 2400..are not quite IMs.

The fact that those who are 2200+ can not get FM title is not supporting soft titles but shows that titles actually mean something if they are earned the way they should :)

And what if we do the same outside the chess scene: For example, should I give my University students who score say 55/100 an HD just to encourage them? :)

Adamski
19-01-2017, 07:02 AM
Just curious, Michael - what did your FM title come from? One event, or sustaining a rating for a significant period of time? In Russia or Aus?

Keong Ang
19-01-2017, 08:08 AM
Looks like the obvious solution to soft titles is to make them harder.
Titles should no longer be valid for life. Instead, players need to prove they still meet or exceed the rating requirements annually. The mechanism to implement this immediately already exists in the player licensing system.

Inactive players would have their titles expired.
Retaining FM title would require maintaining active FIDE standard rating of at least 2300, 2400 for IM title and 2500 for GM title.
To lower it's harshness, these rating minimums need only be met once every calendar year. However it must be in a published rating list (so this gives 12 chances per year). Unpublished ratings, including "live" ratings are ignored.
Players who have lost their titles would need to obtain them again the usual way, either through meeting or exceeding rating requirement (eg. FM) and additionally obtaining sufficient norms (eg. IM/GM), or obtain a direct title at an event where they are available.

This would remove any doubt about a title's significance.
Also means all issues about players having soft direct titles would automatically expire themselves annually.

We've already started on this path. Notice that trainers (coach) titles are removed from rating list when their license expires (albeit for different reasons)? Activity towards regular retesting of arbiters is underway. Players would eventually be included.

Problems generally stem from having titles that are awarded from one instance of performance that is valid for life. When there is more than one way to obtain the title, those who obtained titles the hard way are obviously going to resent other fellow title holders who obtained titles through an easier way. When the titles are only valid as long as certain requirements are met, this would automatically solve the problem of multitudes of soft title holders.

Now the question is whether there would be the political will to implement it. Would any delegate dare to advocate for such a thing?
Don't we have a plethora of soft title opportunities because it is popular?

MichaelBaron
19-01-2017, 08:59 AM
Just curious, Michael - what did your FM title come from? One event, or sustaining a rating for a significant period of time? In Russia or Aus?

It came from me getting my fide rating over 2300 so I would not say it was one event. Re sustaining it over period of time, it is currently still over 2300 partially due to the fact that I am inactive :). At my peak I was 2352 (according to chess Db). Got my title around 14 years ago I guess but can not remember now whether this was when it crossed 2300 or earlier. One day, I got email from someone (was Dennis or Norm I think) saying that ACF has applied for my title and I need to send them some moneys. This is what I can recall anyway.

MichaelBaron
19-01-2017, 09:12 AM
Looks like the obvious solution to soft titles is to make them harder.
Titles should no longer be valid for life. Instead, players need to prove they still meet or exceed the rating requirements annually. The mechanism to implement this immediately already exists in the player licensing system.

Inactive players would have their titles expired.
Retaining FM title would require maintaining active FIDE standard rating of at least 2300, 2400 for IM title and 2500 for GM title.
To lower it's harshness, these rating minimums need only be met once every calendar year. However it must be in a published rating list (so this gives 12 chances per year). Unpublished ratings, including "live" ratings are ignored.
Players who have lost their titles would need to obtain them again the usual way, either through meeting or exceeding rating requirement (eg. FM) and additionally obtaining sufficient norms (eg. IM/GM), or obtain a direct title at an event where they are available.

This would remove any doubt about a title's significance.
Also means all issues about players having soft direct titles would automatically expire themselves annually.

We've already started on this path. Notice that trainers (coach) titles are removed from rating list when their license expires (albeit for different reasons)? Activity towards regular retesting of arbiters is underway. Players would eventually be included.

Problems generally stem from having titles that are awarded from one instance of performance that is valid for life. When there is more than one way to obtain the title, those who obtained titles the hard way are obviously going to resent other fellow title holders who obtained titles through an easier way. When the titles are only valid as long as certain requirements are met, this would automatically solve the problem of multitudes of soft title holders.

Now the question is whether there would be the political will to implement it. Would any delegate dare to advocate for such a thing?
Don't we have a plethora of soft title opportunities because it is popular?

You are making lots of valid points. Having titles given for a period of time would recognize current strength. However what about the ''status'' factor as well recognizing chess-achievements of the past.
What about Averbakh who is now 94 years old? Shall we take his GM title away from him? I do not think he still plays his last ''active'' rating of 2445. What about our friend Jammo who is an Australian chess legend (I am not being sarcastic) but by now is an IM of criticizing others (I am probably a GM of this :))? There are GMs such as Lein (86yo), Spiridonov (79yo), Bisguier (88yo) - all rated around 2200. A quick look at the databases of their games shows that they clearly deserved their titles through both results and quality of their play.

Why not just keep it simple and not give titles to those who...do not play well enough to get them instead.

P.S. I have never taken my ''chess career'' very seriously as evident from the events I played - I never played a single Aus Championship, played Aus Masters only twice so in other words, never did anything to make myself deserve an IM title, but what about guys like Canfell and Reilly who have been playing chess for many years, got many IM norms between then (for a 2300+ player who plays alot, getting some 2450+ performances occasionally is normal) but never got the IM title cause they could not get their rating high enough. Their ratings are now down to 2200 or so and while I think they are still young enough to get them back to 2300, somehow it does not appear very likely that they will get to 2400, so they will never become IMs..and there are those who never get to this level - yet get a title. Irina Feldman is IM (Men's title) and I am not even sure if she has every been 2300!

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2017, 11:09 AM
You are making lots of valid points. Having titles given for a period of time would recognize current strength. However what about the ''status'' factor as well recognizing chess-achievements of the past.
What about Averbakh who is now 94 years old? Shall we take his GM title away from him? I do not think he still plays his last ''active'' rating of 2445. What about our friend Jammo who is an Australian chess legend (I am not being sarcastic) but by now is an IM of criticizing others (I am probably a GM of this :))? There are GMs such as Lein (86yo), Spiridonov (79yo), Bisguier (88yo) - all rated around 2200. A quick look at the databases of their games shows that they clearly deserved their titles through both results and quality of their play.

Why not just keep it simple and not give titles to those who...do not play well enough to get them instead.

Yes, absolutely. Titles are meant to be for life to recognize achievement, i.e. differentiate has-beens from has-never-beens. Keong Ang's idea is a non-starter, sorry. We need to stop the Bi-Lo title factories, aka FIDE revenue machine, instead.

jammo
19-01-2017, 11:25 AM
Looks like the obvious solution to soft titles is to make them harder.
Titles should no longer be valid for life. Instead, players need to prove they still meet or exceed the rating requirements annually. The mechanism to implement this immediately already exists in the player licensing system.

Inactive players would have their titles expired.
Retaining FM title would require maintaining active FIDE standard rating of at least 2300, 2400 for IM title and 2500 for GM title.
To lower it's harshness, these rating minimums need only be met once every calendar year. However it must be in a published rating list (so this gives 12 chances per year). Unpublished ratings, including "live" ratings are ignored.
Players who have lost their titles would need to obtain them again the usual way, either through meeting or exceeding rating requirement (eg. FM) and additionally obtaining sufficient norms (eg. IM/GM), or obtain a direct title at an event where they are available.

This would remove any doubt about a title's significance.
Also means all issues about players having soft direct titles would automatically expire themselves annually.

We've already started on this path. Notice that trainers (coach) titles are removed from rating list when their license expires (albeit for different reasons)? Activity towards regular retesting of arbiters is underway. Players would eventually be included.

Problems generally stem from having titles that are awarded from one instance of performance that is valid for life. When there is more than one way to obtain the title, those who obtained titles the hard way are obviously going to resent other fellow title holders who obtained titles through an easier way. When the titles are only valid as long as certain requirements are met, this would automatically solve the problem of multitudes of soft title holders.

Now the question is whether there would be the political will to implement it. Would any delegate dare to advocate for such a thing?
Don't we have a plethora of soft title opportunities because it is popular?

A very silly idea. You are confusing two things. We have ratings to measure current playing standard and we have titles to measure past performance/achievements. Taking titles away because a player's playing standard has declined makes no sense at all.

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2017, 11:49 AM
Methinks Keong is taking the mickey as an attempted reduction to absurdity of the idea that player titles should have something to do with player strength.

Thebes
19-01-2017, 11:53 AM
To everyone trying to come up with a "solution" almost like a compromise, how about instead just not giving away free titles, even my 1800 friends who have it/getting it now know its a joke, but can hardly blame them for abusing a corrupt system.

Keong Ang
19-01-2017, 02:18 PM
Methinks Keong is taking the mickey as an attempted reduction to absurdity of the idea that player titles should have something to do with player strength.

Hit the nail on the head!

Capablanca-Fan
19-01-2017, 03:38 PM
Good to see that one zonal FM this time performed way above the 2300 mark, and one not too far below it. A great improvement on previous 2100-performance FM titles. Will Layla T. reach a 2250 performance that a WIM norm needs, even with a clear-cut tourney win like hers?

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2017, 04:13 PM
Good to see that one zonal FM this time performed way above the 2300 mark, and one not too far below it. A great improvement on previous 2100-performance FM titles.

That said these (plus another just above 2300) are the early-birds who are securing FM in round 8, so let's see the round 9 flock before we get too carried away there. Incidentally in the last Zonal there were only three new FMs despite a similar field strength on paper. I think the difference is that in the Australian Zonal the high-rated players were younger. Many of the mature-age NZ FMs have not performed to rating in this tournament, though this may be because they are playing a lot of underrated opponents.

Note that this is the second Zonal under the new rules. At the last one the soft-title situation was vastly improved but there was nearly one very soft FM title.

Adamski
19-01-2017, 05:33 PM
I can appreciate from personal experience the need for a hard-working arbiter or organiser to occasionally enjoy a joke like Keong's post earlier today.

Desmond
19-01-2017, 06:30 PM
...
1) It devalues titles...for example when I was a uni student, only few of my lecturers were having a Dr title..and it gave them a special status and recognition...now virtually all of us at Uni are Dr...and it means NOTHING compared to what it used to be..so there is something called depreciation :). If too many become FMs...I am pretty sure it will mean less ..and already means less.
...
And there we have it. I got mine, now shut the gate.

MichaelBaron
19-01-2017, 07:07 PM
And there we have it. I got mine, now shut the gate.

I got mine fair and square...now keep it open for others who get it fair and square!

Desmond
19-01-2017, 07:23 PM
I got mine fair and square...now keep it open for others who get it fair and square!

You got yours according to the rules. Anyone who got one at a zonal who didn't also?

Kevin Bonham
19-01-2017, 07:27 PM
I can appreciate from personal experience the need for a hard-working arbiter or organiser to occasionally enjoy a joke like Keong's post earlier today.

Off topic but I don't think anyone will mind. I am a pretty gullible person (though I could tell Keong was taking the mickey in his post above) and I was about 60% suckered. It was nicely done, even being able to change the result on the live board. Without the post above (which somehow suckered others without suckering me) I would have been totally caught out.

Vlad
19-01-2017, 07:35 PM
I got mine fair and square...now keep it open for others who get it fair and square!

Michael, why not get an IM title and look at these pesky FMs making a lot of noise on bulletin boards?:)

MichaelBaron
19-01-2017, 10:03 PM
Michael, why not get an IM title and look at these pesky FMs making a lot of noise on bulletin boards?:)

Easier said than done :). My chess is not good enough for it anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2017, 07:45 AM
You got yours according to the rules. Anyone who got one at a zonal who didn't also?

MB got his according to good rules that demanded an objective standard of play. Most of those who got the same title at a zonal got them with über-slackened rules designed to raise money for FIDE rather than to maintain standards.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2017, 07:54 AM
Note that this is the second Zonal under the new rules. At the last one the soft-title situation was vastly improved but there was nearly one very soft FM title.

This one now has someone who was rated 1908 at the start of the tournament getting a title normally 400 points above that. Unless his performance was really stellar, that is a soft-FM. I don't blame him or his opponent at all for taking the short draw that would give them automatic titles under the rules (the opponent in question has hovered not far below 2300 for decades so is not really a soft-FM).

Desmond
20-01-2017, 08:17 AM
MB got his according to good rules that demanded an objective standard of play. Most of those who got the same title at a zonal got them with über-slackened rules designed to raise money for FIDE rather than to maintain standards.

Sounds like a special pleading to me.

Kevin Bonham
20-01-2017, 08:26 AM
This one now has someone who was rated 1908 at the start of the tournament getting a title normally 400 points above that. Unless his performance was really stellar, that is a soft-FM.

His TPR was 2274 and he drew with a 2300+ junior and beat a high-2200s, both of whom are juniors.

Under the rules to come in from mid-year (subject to final approval) his title would be on ice until he cracked 2100, and ditto for Soo-Burrowes and probably others to come. However those rules are not in force for this Zonal.

Just4Funzies
20-01-2017, 10:19 AM
People with a rating of below 2000 don't really deserve to be FMs, in my opinion. It sort of degrades the title.

MichaelBaron
20-01-2017, 11:26 AM
Question is: are the soft titles happening: a) with support of ACF or b) against ACF wishes or c) irrespectively of the ACF stand or d) ACF does not care?