I was kind of wondering what people's feelings were with regard to the FIDE Online titles? Apparently, you can be an Arena Candidate Master, Arena Fide Master, Arena IM, and Arena GM, by maintaining certain ratings over a number of rapid, blitz and bullet games.
Personally, I think they are not useful but some people like them and for some, it could be a motivating factor.
Well, ACM (Arena Candidate Master) online FIDE 1100
AFM (Arena Fide master) online FIDE 1400
AIM (Arena International Master) FIDE 1800
AGM (Arena Grand Master) FIDE 2000 (all titles must an X # of games in various categries)
And of course relevant fees paid to FIDE.
So how many people would give any kind regard to an 1100 player (or lower) with the
ACM title??
one should play against Arena 1100 rated player this time to make better clarification. For sure I can tell 1100 at FOA are at least very solid club player strenght...
To be clear are you thinking of OTB competition, or online?? For online one of my clubs did have an Arena FM come and play against a field of US Chess rated players. In three games,
he was 2-1, defeating two U800 players, and losing to a USCF 1400 Online (1500 OTB) player. So a very unlear result in a small field. There is zero question that you are quite correct in that 1100 USCF, or FIDE is a very solid "club" player (and I have been a part of
close to half-dozen clubs. But, "Titled" implies FAR more than "solid club player" does it
not? Unless one uses the useless USCF "Category" titles as comparison?
see my chess.com rating, and at FOA i am 1100-1200. you want to know how much i have on lichess, same tempo blitz-rapid?
the quality of blitz/rapid ratings has long been debated. Personally I have VERY little regard for blitz ratings whatsoever, as that game is marginal chess (at best), bullet a mockery of the game. Rapid, as in FIDE Rapid, G/30 is a very meaningful comparison.
I do not know how Li Chess computes initial ratings, but chess.com's method is beyond
preposterous, with it being set at "how one answers the question-how good are they"
For example, in the two truly MEANINGFUL rating systems, FIDE and USCF one has to
EARN every rating point, they are not gifts based on whim or imagination.
i want to point out that different sites have different rating systems, so we may say arena 1100 is not worth of ACM for example, but arena initial rating is 900, not average or performance from first 6-7 games. chess.com is closest to reality. ok it goes that blitz is not serious chess.
I was kind of wondering what people's feelings were with regard to the FIDE Online titles?
FIDE Online made titles really hard to earn.
In OTB, titled players have a reason to play you. You go to tournaments, they come to tournaments, it all works out.
On FIDE Online, titled players aren't motivated to play you. There's no "endgame" on FIDE Online, once you earn a title, there's no reason to continue to play there. And an untitled player needs to play titled players to get their own title. There are people who definitely deserve to be titled players on there that aren't getting their titles due to lack of titled players to play against.
That said, they don't have the same prestige as an OTB title, but people do list their online FIDE titles at OTB tournaments, so they have some weight.
I was kind of wondering what people's feelings were with regard to the FIDE Online titles? Apparently, you can be an Arena Candidate Master, Arena Fide Master, Arena IM, and Arena GM, by maintaining certain ratings over a number of rapid, blitz and bullet games.