|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
| (1) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Monday, Aug 28, 2023 12:55] |
Few ideas to increase the popularity of solving competitions
Let me introduce myself first as I am new to the solving comunity. My name is Robert Włodarczyk I am holding a FIDE Master title in OTB chess and International Master title in correspondence chess. At the beginning of this year I started to participate in solving competitions, too.
I would like to share the following ideas:
1) Removal of the countries participation limits for World and Europe championships.
I can't understand why should we limit the participation of solving enthusiasts in these competitions. There are so few active solvers and we introduce limits? Everybody can participate in European Individual Chess Championship. See 2023 results https://chess-results.com/tnr712575.aspx?lan=3&art=1&rd=11&turdet=YES&flag=30 484 participants of any play level!
In case of solving there is a strange limit of 4 participants from one country. In some countries like in Poland where we have 3 active former World Champions, there is just one place left for all other solvers from the whole country. It does not make any sense that last time in Bratislava few Lithuanian solvers that came to Slovakia could not be listed and could not even get their result calculated into rating. Why do we do this?
2) Introduction of the CM title.
Why not follow the example of OTB chess. People should have a goal to achieve. In the current situation the achievement of even FM title is difficult because of the rating limits. Why not to introduce a title below FM and name it CM (candidate master)?
3) Introduction of the separate rating system for internet competitions.
Of course they should not be calculated into the same rating system but why not introduce a separate one? It might increase the popularity of these competitions.
4) Verification of the current rating system.
I had the bad luck to experience how strange this system is. In my second event I participated in the very tough Championship of Poland. Few former World champions and GMs achieved almost perfect results. I had a mere 20,25 points but my rating performace was calculated for just 1484. For the same 20 points in the recent Czech event (no GMs participation, just two IMs) I would have trating performance of above 1750. Does it make sense?
My problem is that this rating "achievement" was taken as a second for the calculation of my inicial rating. That way I landed below 1700 on the rating list even if all my other results were above 1800 and once almost 2100 in Nottingham. How many years will I spend now to achieve my real rating? I think the system has to be verified by a qualified statistician. It can influence not only the ratings of newcomers but drive down all other solvers' ratings. Knowing how the system can work I might not participate in Championship of Poland in the future in order to avoid heavy ratig losses (just for the comparison 43 points in Prag gives rating of 2121 and in Poland only 1964 - almost 200 rating points less).
My suggestions is the introduction of the growth multiplier like famous K factor in chess ELO rating system to increase the rating gains or losses for solvers who have just started to let them achieve their true level faster. After a number of tournaments it can be reduced and after achieving some rating level not included at all.
I would be happy to get some response to my ideas.
Best regards,
Robert
|
|
| (2) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Aug 29, 2023 10:45] |
The same troubles as 10 years ago. When you start badly, it is impossible for you to reach a normal rating in ten years.
the number of rated tournaments in which you could participate is too small. You can travel around the world looking for tournaments with no restrictions on competitors or participate at ISC and Israel Open Solving (with K=1).
With the increased number of solvers with low ratings, there must have been a significant drop in the average rating in open tournaments.
No development coefficients in rating system.
Solving is a sport and the system adapts to screening the best solvers.
If you are ashamed of your low rating, you can stop solving for the rating and go to the inactive list. You can solve for fun, as a hobbyist.
Or you can continue to train intensively and fight to get through the system to where you belong. Good luck!
Regarding possible changes in the system, it would be nice to hear the opinions of those colleagues who are involved in its creation and monitoring.
|
|
| (3) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Tuesday, Aug 29, 2023 13:08] |
I think the participation limits for World and Europe championships should remain. If there were no restrictions, it would be a problem for organizing countries (especially small countries) to find a hall big enough to accommodate everyone who wants to. Each solver must have a separate table, and even finding a hall and inventory for 100-120 participants is problematic. What if 1000 solvers came? It would also be an unbearable burden for the judges. In addition, it is impossible to organize a championship without knowing in advance how many participants (at least roughly) there will be.
|
|
| (4) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Tuesday, Aug 29, 2023 13:52] |
If we want to grow the interest in solving among chess fans the bigger number of participants should be something we want to get. 1000 solvers is not going to happen and 100 should be no problem. The current conservative approach is intended to stop people to participate and that should not be a goal of people responsible for the development of solving.
All of the problems can be solved.
People can register in advance, more judges can be employed etc.
Organizers can at least introduce overall limit of participants above the 4 per country.
Above everything former World/Europe Champions and grandmasters can't be included into the country limit.
Best regards
Robert
|
|
| (5) Posted by Joost de Heer [Tuesday, Aug 29, 2023 13:57] |
Do you want to participate in solving competitions to get a high rating or do you want to participate because you have fun solving?
|
|
| (6) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Tuesday, Aug 29, 2023 14:06] |
People like to achieve some goals compare their achievements with others, get titles. That is how it works in any sport activity. I can solve chess problems just for fun when sitting at home. Solving competitions are also about fight with other solvers. There are prizes, titles related to rating level achieved. The result matters too. Not just fun from solving.
|
|
| (7) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Aug 30, 2023 22:28] |
Thanks for your suggestions, Robert!
Perhaps (co)authors of Solving Rating took in consideration the growth multiplier and gave it up,
but they are the only ones to know it and to explain it better.
What I particularly like among your thoughts about improvements is the CM category, and not only in solving.
|
|
| (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 03:45] |
@Marjan,
I'm no fan of composing titles (nor any titles given to an artist, whereas I completely appreciate them in sporting contests -- including Solving Competitions, Correspondence Chess, and OTB Chess), but I do believe composers should be acknowledged for their numerous contributions.
Anyway, I will live with that difference of opinion.
You both make excellent points.
1) It is a very good idea to add the CM title for solvers, and
2) If FIDE is going to offer that title for solvers, they should offer that title to composers.
I don't agree with titles for composers, but your reasoning is flawless, if we accept your position (if composers deserve full parity in titles, they should have full parity).
But, even if we accept your position, this raises some very difficult issues:
1) The obvious question: how many points to make CM composer?
2) Also, the parity argument has a snag: if you want full parity with FIDE's sporting titles, you'll incur a number of troubling issues:
a) FIDE must offer WFM, WIM, or WGM titles for composers (do these exist?).
b) FIDE must establish some arbitrary criteria for who is eligible for these titles (there's no objective rating system to achieve parity).
c) FIDE must decide whether (and how?) to test composers for drug use.
d) I can go on, but I'll stop there...
Then, there's the elephant not yet fully in the room...
What happens to these composing titles when AI composers demonstrate a capacity to dominate the awards?
It will happen.
I'm not talking about a tool that aids you in testing a problem, nor even a tool that helps you in searching for some specific event on the ply horizon...
I'm suggesting that FIDE must consider that eventuality of an AI composer.
How will FIDE arbitrate the fine line between cheating with an AI and working with a mere solving tool?
Here's one scenario: maybe human titles can only be awarded on the basis of problems which computers can't fully solve!?
Even those prospects are likely to diminish substantially.
For these reasons, and many others, I don't believe composing titles are sustainable.
I might be wrong. Maybe somebody can make a good case for them. In my view, they serve only to create a distance between composing colleagues.
I understand the desire for titles. Titles were intended to acknowledge composers who have made numerous high-quality contributions, and great composers are deserving of appreciation on par with the great chess players. No denying that.
But, parity is an illusion when there is no capacity for an objective acknowledgment.
FIDE tracks objective game results of the OTB player. FIDE tracks the objective scores of solvers. FIDE doesn't track your problem contributions.
FIDE doesn't have a live rating for composers, which scores each new problem you publish.
Instead, FIDE undermines any acknowledgement your contributions deserve, by compelling you to submit your work for their consideration.
The title edifice for composers is a burden (costing judges valuable time weighing tiny matters), and it encourages title-seeking composers to work in areas which are highly likely to win points (this is counter-productive an artform, which should encourage innovation and originality).
So, long story short, I understand why you'd like to add a Candidate Master title for composers (same goes for WFM, WIM, and WGM titles), and I don't deny that composers deserve some form of parity for their contributions.
But, an art competition will never have parity with a sporting contest. Why do composers want to maintain this illusion of parity with their OTB chess heroes?
Composing titles are not sustainable, and adding more will only create more busy work for the accountants.
There must be a better way to appreciate our composing heroes.
I'd rather see my name on top of a problem featured on a beginning chess player's video, frankly.
Those are the people we want to be reaching (rather than creating a ridiculous hierarchy amongst ourselves).
We have lost that audience, at a time when more people are playing chess tactics puzzle bots than are playing chess.
Forget about the Anand Wave -- where is the Fischer Wave in chess composition?
This should be the big moment.
Will adding a lesser title encourage younger composers in the short term, or will it burden them to be accountants in the long run?
If your interest is to compete, you are inclined to do so in objective (fair) sporting contests, not some artform.
Problem chess has no fast titles anyway -- it takes years to even get your point results.
Encourage more people to appreciate the beauty of chess problems. Make it more accessible.
Target chess players who have lost interest in memorizing opening lines to win games, and show them how their brilliant problems will endure.
Note: I bet most OTB players eligible for the CM Title don't even want it.
|
|
| (9) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 07:20] |
QUOTE
a) FIDE must offer WFM, WIM, or WGM titles for composers (do these exist?).
Not many, but Julia Vysotska and Odette Vollenweider have composing titles (FM/honorary).
|
|
| (10) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 08:18] |
Quote: "I bet most OTB players eligible for the CM Title don't even want it." I do not agree at all. People are proud to have it.
|
|
| (11) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 09:14] |
As the hecklers say: CM = Cash Master :P
Letting statistics speak, I encountered only *very* few CM in tournaments -
and I'm a frequent player. Much less than FM, in any case. An example which
I could easily count: The HSK, the largest chess club in Hamburg, has
as today 739 rating-listed members, including 2 CMs and 14 FMs, if I
counted correctly. Whether a CM in composing would be more interesting,
I naturally can't say.
|
|
| (12) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 09:42] |
According to 2021 data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles there were about 2000 CMs and a bit more than 8000 FMs. CM title was introduced in 2002 only (FM in 1978) and in natural way some CM after some go up and achieve higher titles.
|
|
| (13) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 10:56] |
... and naturally some FMs go up and achieve IM ... anyway, the question is what is the achievable level or just current level of the whole population. Assuming reasonable distribution of chess skills, and supposing that CM should be far better than average or median chess player (why bother attaining CM otherwise), gives that there should be most probably much more CMs than FMs if everybody/majority eligible applied. Two decades are probably enough time for a new title to catch up - if people were interested. My conclusion would be: people are not so interested, taking into account conditions. Hauke's opening line seems to have some truth in it.
|
|
| (14) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 12:02] |
Some people like it and others don't. Ok, you are against CM title but there are solvers who support this idea.
|
|
| (15) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 12:44] |
I support the idea of a different ranking for retro solvers, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
|
|
| (16) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 13:19] |
Try to be constructive for a moment please and present some meaningful arguments against introduction of CM title in solving if you don't like this idea.
|
|
| (17) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 14:16] |
Are there really arguments pro?
Would a CM title really "increase the popularity of solving competitions"?
Personally I don't think so.
For a long time I solved in competitions without any title and felt very well about it.
|
|
| (18) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 15:53] |
Of course you are not interested as you have FM title already.
|
|
| (19) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 16:21] |
This is not relevant here.
I simply asked for good arguments pro a new title for solvers.
|
|
| (20) Posted by Robert Włodarczyk [Thursday, Aug 31, 2023 16:29] |
The arguments are given in my first post.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net  Forum WFCC Projects Few ideas to increase the popularity of solving competitions |
ISC 2024
