Roger,Roger de Coverly wrote: in the UK, a lot of chess is played at time limits where the whole game is scheduled to take place in a period longer than two hours and less than four hours
If you check long established national systems, such as the USCF, ECF/BCF and KNSB, they never had a problem with the idea that you had one list which spanned all forms of chess that were not rapidplay or Blitz. So you include both the National championships and junior tournaments, subject to status, on the same list. Historically FIDE has wanted to keep its rating system elitist, and perhaps still does.NickFaulks wrote: The first question is whether you would like G/61 to be rated in the same list as full six hour games ( some think they are very different ) or would introduce a new section.
Comparing G/90'+30" increment with G/105, I'm not even sure which I would expect to be better. However, we're talking about time controls down to G/60 or even G/30'+30". Would you like to see those in the standard list? It's not a trick question and I don't know what answer to expect.Roger de Coverly wrote: If they wanted to draw a line in the sand, the missing link could be entitled club and Congress rating, but the distinction in quality of play between 90 30 and move rates based on a three hour or three and half hour session is not, in my view, that great.
I don't need you to speculate on what FIDE would like. I want to know what you would like.Would FIDE be content to see CM and FM titles awarded solely on the basis of evening league play?
If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents, the compromise is that titles become available. Alternatively have two rating lists, "amateur" and "professional". The dividing line would be that the "amateur" list didn't qualify for titles above, say, the male CM level of 2200 and the 90 30 rate no longer qualified as a "professional" rate for Norms. That might be a step too far of course.NickFaulks wrote: However, we're talking about time controls down to G/60 or even G/30'+30". Would you like to see those in the standard list? It's not a trick question and I don't know what answer to expect.
If FIDE decided to have two rating lists for move rates slower than quick play, an event would qualify for one or the another. If players take part in events which have qualified for different sections, they will appear in both lists. The really top players won't appear in the "fast" list unless they play special events like Zurich.Mike Gunn wrote:There is a difficulty with having two rating lists: what do you do when you have an event where amateurs play professionals (e.g. large opens, league competitions)? (How do you rate the game.)
But do you want that? Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?Roger de Coverly wrote: If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents
It isn't my decision. The ECF throws it all into the same pot and no-one has objected. There aren't any meaningful titles at stake with the ECF domestic system, so that's an angle that applies to FIDE and not to the ECF.NickFaulks wrote:Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?
First, Roger, it would be down to G60. G60 is just too slow for rapidplay.NickFaulks wrote:But do you want that? Forget titles, would you like to see two hour games and seven hour games thrown into the same pot for rating?Roger de Coverly wrote: If you want to have one rating list covering everything down to G/61 or equivalents
It's not that radical, in fact I've suggested it. The problem, once you manage to get people to admit it, is that nobody is actually very interested in their rapid rating. They're only interested in what they regard as the prestige rating - even if it can be obtained in three hour hacking contests.Brian Towers wrote: Nick, here's a radical suggestion for you. Extend the rapidplay definition to games where each player has more than 10 minutes but less than 90.
Well, then. You, me and Joey are agreed. Passed "nem con"!NickFaulks wrote:It's not that radical, in fact I've suggested it.
I have to admit I don't understand this. My FIDE rating is exclusively made up of games where I had, at least nominally, 2 hours to make all my moves. I'm quite happy for my games played at quicker rates to have a lower prestige value, whatever that means. In fact, in my mind they already do.NickFaulks wrote:The problem, once you manage to get people to admit it, is that nobody is actually very interested in their rapid rating. They're only interested in what they regard as the prestige rating - even if it can be obtained in three hour hacking contests.