I recently learned of the relatively new norm based “category” titles. I really like the idea…except.
The name.
If I am a superawesome Chess player, I get to call myself a “master”. If I am a pretty decent…but not quite awesome Chess player, I get to call myself “Category 3”.
Yechh.
Howabout something like “Journeyman, 3rd class” or “Initiate” or…anything except “Category 2”?
The norms-based title names were chosen by the Executive Board at their meeting in May of 2008.
You could call it the Class C title…
So have them choose again. They’re boring, boring, boring. (And no, changing them to letters from numbers wouldn’t make it any better.)
For what it’s worth, a lot of people I talk to don’t even know these titles exist. That’s a pity, in my opinion. I think they give people something to shoot for that is a little bit more realistic than any of the “master” titles. As a TD, I’m going to try and go out of my way to recognize anyone achieving a new norm at one of my tournaments, but that might be hard if that information isn’t in the ratings supplements. Perhaps in the future that could be added? Highest title earned? Number of norms at various title levels?
Why wouldn’t changing them to Letters make a difference? Class A, B, C, D have all been in use for as long as anyone I know can remember.
I think you will find that few share your opinion. As I recall, there were some more “colorful” names for these titles on the table as an option before the decision was made. Most of those here in the forums reacted to them with revulsion and/or ridicule, so in the end the more plain names were selected.
– Hal Terrie
The difference is that “Class A” refers to your current rating, as opposed to the norm based title. A Class A player who starts playing poorly becomes a Class D player. A person who earns a Category 1 title stays Category 1. (This is just like getting the GM in front of your name. It doesn’t matter if you forget how to spell GM. You still get to keep the title.) If you used letters for both, it would be hard to tell the difference.
I suspect the people who hated the “colorful” title names were generally people who didn’t think much of the titles in the first place. I’m guessing a lot of players don’t like them. That’s just a guess, based on the fact that I encounter many people who don’t know they exist. I like them. I can look ahead at what I’m capable, and I sure as heck will never earn a “master” title. Meanwhile, I might achieve a high rating at some point, but if I do, it will be a temporary accomplishment. Sooner or later, that too will fall. It’s inevitable. It’s nice to have something “official” that can’t be taken away. I might be able to look ahead and aspire to category 4. Likewise, as a TD, I would like to be able to recognize an individual accomplishment by people other than the top players.
These titles are meaningless unless the plan is to use them for something such as a minimum requirement to play in the certain section of a tournament. For example, make a class-based tournament like the U.S. Class where for instance, only 1st category players can play in the 1st category section, regardless of rating, etc.
The titles also encourage activity.
How much of a project would it be for everyone who earned a norm in any tournament in the previous week to have that accomplishment listed on the USCF website? Maybe there could be a new link set up for "Last Week's Tournament Highlights?" When someone actually got their title, it could be splashed in big, colorful type. And when someone earned their Life Master or Life Senior Master title, it could be on the homepage.
I fail to see how the lower-level titles encourage activity unless there’s something meaningful about achieving one of these, such as entry into a closed section of a tournament, formal recognition such as a certificate and/or medal, or other special perks reserved for players of that level title.
As far as I know, the only formal recognition given is that it appears on the USCF web site along with the players’ tournament history. On the basic information page it will show the highest title achieved, and further clicking will show which events the player earned the norms.
My guess is that it isn’t recognized anywhere else because not everyone is enthusiastic about them. Assuming USCF wanted to make a bigger deal out of the titles, they could do other things.
It could appear on your Chess Life label near your rating. It could appear in the ratings supplement. Those would require little or no expense from USCF. If the names of the titles were a bit more “colorful” they could be used as titles, just like we might say “Grandmaster Gata Kamsky” we could say, “Apprentice Bill Smith”. (Even I, who like the titles, might think that was a bit much.)
I have toyed with the idea of assiging table numbers based on titles, rather than the default which is current standing in the tournament. i.e. highest titled player always sits at board 1. Maybe I could do that in round 1 only, or possibly use current standing in the tournament, but titles to break ties, instead of the default, which is rating. I definitely intend to announce norms earned at the closing ceremony, but without the appearance of the current title level and norm count in the ratings supplement, that would be difficult. I can consider doing it only because I run very small tournaments which will allow me to look up individual players before or during the tournament.
The “meaning” of a title is whatever meaning is given to it on a personal level by the title holder, but that could be influenced by giving more wide recognition to the titles. I, personally, would like that. Not everyone would agree.
As a start, I would like to see title included on the Chess Life label, along with ratings.
???
One US Open had Boris Spassky playing in it. He was on board one until he was nicked. After that he was on board “S”.
WinTD and SwissSys have the capability of assigning a board to a player. It is often used when there is a need to make sure a player can reach a wheelchair accessible board, but it could be used for other purposes. The pairings generated are perfectly normal with the exception of switching the board numbers that the games are actually played at (so you could have a very sick high titled player playing the final round on board one with both players having a 0-4 score).
Are you talking about any norm, or are you talking about a norm for a title that hadn’t yet been earned?
One 19-player tournament had 7 norms earned, and that was out of the 10 players that played the minimum of four games that were required for a norm.
main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joom … 1003046161
Based on that, many open tournament may have 70% or more of their participants earning norms, which could make a very long weekly list unless some filtering is applied to limit it to just the significant norms that would appear on the player’s history look-up.
What I mean is that “board 1” is usually reserved for the “top game”. The players vying for the lead play there. However, what if there are ties? For example, what about in round 1, when everyone is tied? In that case, the standard practice is to put the highest rated player (and his opponent) at board 1.
What I was getting at was, instead of putting the highest rated player at board 1, put the highest ranked player at board 1. i.e. there is a rising star with a 1900 rating, but who has been rising so fast he hasn’t earned five Category 1 norms yet. Meanwhile, there is an old man who once was a darned good player and had achieved a Category 1 rank, but had since fallen to a rating of 1400. If I did what I am talking about, the old man with the 1400 rating would get board 1, ahead of the young hotshot with the 1900 rating, at least at the beginning of the tournament until he was passed in the standings. Pairings would still be based on ratings, but “position”, defined by sitting at the front of the room, would be based on rank.
Good idea? Bad idea? I’m not really sure. It appeals to me, because I like the concept of honoring those who have achieved great things, even if those things were in the past. Maybe especially if those things were in the past. And making the youngsters wait just a bit before they claim the place of honor. For the moment, it would be difficult to achieve with the existing software, but I’ll think about it.
Also, it was asked whether norms would be honored only for ranks not yet achieved. That would have to be yes. Today, the USCF web page for a tournament will show the norm levels achieved, but they are only statistical values of what norm level is accomplished at that particular tourney performance. If a category 1 player plays good enough for a category 4 norm, that’s not worth recognizing, but an untitled player earning his first category 4 norm is worth recognizing.
I doubt players care what # of board they play on as long as the pairings are done according to rating, ala USA Swiss style.
Titles are an objective measure of achievement, and so are useful in setting goals. I have two norms towards my next unachieved category title, the most recent of which was earned in 1996. Earning the next category title will indicate that I have surpassed my previous personal best with this hobby. This is more meaningful to me than the special perks mentioned above. I will be playing in more tournaments in an attempt to earn the remaining three norms, so in my case the category titles encourage tournament participation even without special perks.
Not all tournaments observe the convention of “board 1” being located in a particular place, but some do. It’s a little thing, but it is noticed by some people.
Small, purely symbolic, things, including titles, are irrelevant annoyances to some people, and deeply meaningful to others.
If I were to go ahead with the scheme I described, some would find it utterly silly, and some wouldn’t notice it at all, and a few would be inspired to try and earn a spot higher up the hall.
I disagree with you because, upon looking at your tournament history, you were an extremely active player before these titles were implemented, so the implementation of titles has had no effect on your activity level as you were already playing frequently to begin with.