FIDE Online Arena

[NickFaulks]

I already had an account, but it now says the details are wrong. However, they have now sent me an email confirming the details are correct.

[Paolo Casaschi]

As I said, that announcement was premature.

It looks like they corrected themselves. From http://home.premiumchess.net/fide-arena

All bullet, blitz and rapid games played between full members of FIDE online arena are for official FIDE online ratings. Currently, official FIDE online ratings are those in blue characters next to a player’s name; soon these will be published on the FIDE ratings page. Single ratings for rapid and blitz games regardless if they are played over the board or on FIDE online arena are planned for the near future.

[NickFaulks]

As I said, that announcement was premature.

It looks like they corrected themselves. From http://home.premiumchess.net/fide-arena

All bullet, blitz and rapid games played between full members of FIDE online arena are for official FIDE online ratings. Currently, official FIDE online ratings are those in blue characters next to a player’s name; soon these will be published on the FIDE ratings page. Single ratings for rapid and blitz games regardless if they are played over the board or on FIDE online arena are planned for the near future.

That's better, at least they now say nothing that is an outright lie, although "it has been approved by national chess federations and FIDE" comes close. Which federations, which body within FIDE? Otherwise, it all depends on what is meant by "the near future".

I'm hoping that FIDE's Anti-Cheating Commission will be able to find out something about FOA's system. Perhaps we shall be told that it's commercially sensitive.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm hoping that FIDE's Anti-Cheating Commission will be able to find out something about FOA's system.

The twenty year plus history of ICC and ICS before it shows the experience of mass on-line play with ratings. Whilst a certain amount of trust is needed for remote play, there's never really been that level of trust to make server chess suitable for serious ratings and consolidation with OTB play. Webcams might help, but if you cannot see your opponent, and no-one else can, you don't know that he or she isn't taking advice, looking at a book etc. That's cheating by OTB rules even before you get round to consulting computer engines whilst playing.

[NickFaulks]

We can all recite the problems with serious online ratings. Personally, I'm looking forward to hearing the solutions discovered by premiumchess which everyone else has missed. I'm not holding my breath.

[Mats Winther]

I've been playing rapid chess for a time now, on Fide Online Arena. It functions fine. A big advantage is that if one loses connection, the software reconnects automatically. There are no lost or adjourned games. However, the level of play is much inferior to FICS and ICC. Many players are over-rated by at least 200 points. It is also difficult to get a Fide-rated game. One must often wait a long time. Standard rated games are more common, but my rating just continues upwards. It is not as fun as playing against good opponents on FICS or ICC. A drawback is that there is no automatic function that stores played games on the hard drive.
/Mats

[Mats Winther]

(There is actually a function which stores games on the hard drive.) It is now possible to subscribe to Fide Arena without having a Fide rating already, and get a rapid Fide rating. The list will be published on Fide's homepage. The rating seems to come down to normal levels now.
/Mats

[NickFaulks]

In case anyone is unsure, this will be a FIDE online rapid rating, which is not the same as a FIDE rapid rating. The FOA people ( not to be confused with FIDE ) are still trying to camouflage that fact.

[Roger de Coverly]

In case anyone is unsure, this will be a FIDE online rapid rating, which is not the same as a FIDE rapid rating.

You may mean not yet the same.

This is what the President had to say

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ially.html

Upon the decision of the FIDE General Assembly at a date to be announced soon, FIDE over-the-board and online ratings for rapid and blitz will be merged into a single rating for each time control and published on the official FIDE website

If it's a proposal by FIDE Management, are the General Assembly really going to veto it? Rapid and Blitz FIDE ratings have no great prestige, so it matters little if FIDE devalue them by including games played by players whose behaviour isn't witnessed.

[NickFaulks]

In case anyone is unsure, this will be a FIDE online rapid rating, which is not the same as a FIDE rapid rating.

You may mean not yet the same.

This is what the President had to say

http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... ially.html

Upon the decision of the FIDE General Assembly at a date to be announced soon, FIDE over-the-board and online ratings for rapid and blitz will be merged into a single rating for each time control and published on the official FIDE website

If it's a proposal by FIDE Management, are the General Assembly really going to veto it? Rapid and Blitz FIDE ratings have no great prestige, so it matters little if FIDE devalue them by including games played by players whose behaviour isn't witnessed.

Yes, of course I saw that announcement, although it is quite likely that the President himself did not.

Your comment about the prestige of the proper rapid and blitz ratings is accurate, and that's a great shame. The players pushed us very hard to produce these rating lists, which took quite a lot of work, and now they are running they're not interested. To the extent that there is any support at all within FIDE for replacing the existing version with online lists, that disappointment is generally the reason.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The players pushed us very hard to produce these rating lists

Out of curiosity, since I suspect most people here do not think FIDE (or the ECF for that matter) ever listen to the actual players, could you explain what do you mean with "players pushed us [FIDE] very hard"?

[Roger de Coverly]

Out of curiosity, since I suspect most people here do not think FIDE (or the ECF for that matter) ever listen to the actual players, could you explain what do you mean with "players pushed us [FIDE] very hard"?

Elite players have a voice with the ACP. Amateur players in larger Federations are totally ignored except to the possible extent that they could reduce FIDE to a rump of small Federations, holding a majority of votes but representing perhaps 1% of players or events.

[NickFaulks]

The players pushed us very hard to produce these rating lists

Out of curiosity, since I suspect most people here do not think FIDE (or the ECF for that matter) ever listen to the actual players, could you explain what do you mean with "players pushed us [FIDE] very hard"?

Yes, I realise that some people here think that, and they are unlikely to be influenced by anything as boring as the facts. To learn the views of amateur players, FIDE relies on their federations. The smaller ones are often quite good - perhaps they should be, because the officials are closer to the ground and amateur players are mostly what they've got. The large federations are generally poor, and some don't even seem to understand the question. Their officials talk to FIDE only to safeguard the interests of their top players. Furthermore, they are typically on the other side of the player / arbiter divide.

I am fortunate in that I am in regular contact with rating officers from a number of large federations, and I find that this is often the official most on the ball when it comes to the general chess playing public. Unfortunately, their voices tend not to be heard at FIDE meetings.

For professional players FIDE has leaned on the ACP. In my opinion, this has not worked very well at all. In Dresden in 2008, there was a general instruction that the ACP must be given whatever it wanted, and the QC allowed itself to be bullied into passing some remarkably silly proposals. Most notably, the k factor at the high end was arbitrarily doubled from 10 to 20, which we were assured was the greatest single wish of the top players. Some months later there had to be a panic measure to rescind this following howls of protest and abuse from... the top players.

Another measure was that norms could be gained only in tournaments which followed one from a list of six acceptable time controls. We were told that professional players were confused by the variety of time controls. I have never met a strong player who claimed to be confused in this way, and would have thought that six different controls ( far more if you throw in increment / delay ) was confusing enough anyway. After four years of chaos and lost norms, this was removed at the first legal opportunity in 2012.

In Olympiad years, I learn a great deal more about the wishes of professional players from discussions in the bar than at any meetings.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The players pushed us very hard to produce these rating lists

Out of curiosity, since I suspect most people here do not think FIDE (or the ECF for that matter) ever listen to the actual players, could you explain what do you mean with "players pushed us [FIDE] very hard"?

Yes, I realise that some people here think that, and they are unlikely to be influenced by anything as boring as the facts. To learn the views of amateur players, FIDE relies on their federations. The smaller ones are often quite good - perhaps they should be, because the officials are closer to the ground and amateur players are mostly what they've got. The large federations are generally poor, and some don't even seem to understand the question. Their officials talk to FIDE only to safeguard the interests of their top players. Furthermore, they are typically on the other side of the player / arbiter divide.

I am fortunate in that I am in regular contact with rating officers from a number of large federations, and I find that this is often the official most on the ball when it comes to the general chess playing public. Unfortunately, their voices tend not to be heard at FIDE meetings.

For professional players FIDE has leaned on the ACP. In my opinion, this has not worked very well at all. In Dresden in 2008, there was a general instruction that the ACP must be given whatever it wanted, and the QC allowed itself to be bullied into passing some remarkably silly proposals. Most notably, the k factor at the high end was arbitrarily doubled from 10 to 20, which we were assured was the greatest single wish of the top players. Some months later there had to be a panic measure to rescind this following howls of protest and abuse from... the top players.

Another measure was that norms could be gained only in tournaments which followed one from a list of six acceptable time controls. We were told that professional players were confused by the variety of time controls. I have never met a strong player who claimed to be confused in this way, and would have thought that six different controls ( far more if you throw in increment / delay ) was confusing enough anyway. After four years of chaos and lost norms, this was removed at the first legal opportunity in 2012.

In Olympiad years, I learn a great deal more about the wishes of professional players from discussions in the bar than at any meetings.

Makes sense. Thanks.