Create a title system.
1. To recive a title you apply to a board of others with that title.
2. Candidates would be awarded titles by peer review.
3. Divide the titles by rating distribution.
4. Get rid of the player table system, and have it based on titles.
5. Start title matches.
I think by doing this ratings would become worthless without a title next to it.
Others can add to the feasibility of this style.
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensTitles ? Sounds like a receipe for title-hungry cheaters. Altough for fair players title system would be very nice and motivating.
Create a title system.
1. To recive a title you apply to a board of others with that title.
2. Candidates would be awarded titles by peer review.
3. Divide the titles by rating distribution.
4. Get rid of the player table system, and have it based on titles.
5. Start title matches.
I think by doing this ratings would become worthless without a title next to it.
Others can add to the feasibility of this style.
Originally posted by ivan2908Thats where the peer review comes in. If panel has doubts then no title is awarded. The player isn't banned, but it creates awareness of possible rule infractions.
Titles ? Sounds like a receipe for title-hungry cheaters. Altough for fair players title system would be very nice and motivating.
Originally posted by DawgHausAdd a private forum for each title. If one applys for a title and is turned down they can appeal it there. openly with those the denied stating why.
It sounds appealing. However there is an unavoidable political component. We've had more than a fun amount of that lately. 🙁😕🙁
Add another forum for news, ie who achieved what title, title matches taking place.
If good players are not intersted in titles they don't apply. thus little or no scrutinization. Ratings are devalued and titles gain importance. If you don't want the scrutiny don't apply. Thus no title ,and no fame.
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensand the peer review awards titles on what basis?
Create a title system.
1. To recive a title you apply to a board of others with that title.
2. Candidates would be awarded titles by peer review
.....
The only criteria that matters for assessing chess strength is results. Anything else is just talk.
If these 'peers' are just assessing results what's the difference between that and the rating system?
I appreciate you're trying to fix a dirty system but I don't see your solution working I'm afraid.
It seems to me correspondence chess - by email or post or whatever - is inherently vulnerable to computer engine users. I don't think there's anything that can be done to eliminate that. You can catch a few cheats here and there but that's it I'm afraid.
Originally posted by adramforallIntegrity. I think that at the level of those truly affected a screening of opponents is a welcome must. In answer to the second.
How do you attain a different title?
What if your peers hate you and don't want to award a title?
Diffrent titles could have qualifiers i.e. compete and score against x number in a qualifier tourn.
Or a rateing the has to be at least x. Then apply through a link.
At that point those titled peers at that level would take notice of your game history. And deduce you are credible or "incredible". If they don't like what they found, they can say it in a private forum, or pm you as to why.