Should FIDE offer non-classical titles?

And I don't mean the Arena titles - I mean OTB titles which would be achievable through playing games only within time formats that are shorter than classical. Rapid would be a good place to start, blitz could possibly follow, not sure about bullet.

I'm asking because I feel there should be such an option for those who don't have the time and energy to spend on longer games. Sure, the quality of play would be lower all across the board(s), but there are dedicated rapid and blitz championships and rating lists already, so why not respect those fornats enough so that people could earn titles through them as well? Why not have something like RCM/RFM/RIM/RGM and BCM/BFM/BIM/BGM (as well as woman's versions for all of them), with the titles for longer time controls replacing the ones with shorter time controls as one earns them?

P. S. If anyone here has a FIDE Arena title, I just wanna say that I don't disrespect it in the slightest. It's just that it seems to me that Arena titles are so unrecognised that no one would care for any of them when it comes to self-promotion purposes.

I mean, I sure hope so!

Yes, i think they should since bullet blitz and rapid are completly difrent.

It is like an hole other game.

There are rather too many than too few titles now.
GM IM FM CM WGM WIM WFM WCM
What would be the point of expanding from 8 to 32 titles?
The only title that really matters is GM.
Skills transfer from the slower to the faster time control.

That seems to me like a reason NOT to give those people a title. "Oh, I don't have the time & energy to spend on longer games, but I can get a title for the amount of time I do choose to spend on it - yay!"

Based on what?

Blitz has always been the most popular form of chess (at least since chess clocks are commercially available to the public, which was many many many decades ago).

And that's inadequate... how? I mean, I don't see anything inherently wrong with chess games going faster. Sure, there might be a net loss in overall game quality, but I see no sense in arguing that it makes faster chess inferior to slower chess. It's not that it takes less skill, it's that it takes different skill to manage different time controls. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have players who are noticeably better at some time controls than they are at others.

Also, I really don't think that the amount of time and effort spent on the game should ultimately be meritable in chess. Some people progress faster, others progress slower. It's normal. Choosing to play under faster time controls (to an extent) should not be seen as rushing a skill. You can't rush a skill, you can only apply it to a different timeframe in practice. There are certainly ways of making it as fair as possible in that respect, which is what FIDE Arena titles already demonstrate by having a different number of games played as a requisite depending on the time format.

Okay, but what about rapid, though?

Also, I feel compelled to address two of your most speculative points:

1) If a blitz/bullet-only titled player would be akin to a math teacher who is only good at calculation, then I guess what you're implying both of them lack is understanding, right? Well, in chess, you have to acquire said understanding by learning in a patient and disciplined manner, but why would that have to mean that you would also need to apply it at a slower game pace as well? Perhaps because figuring it out over the board is necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but you can certainly play slower casual games to build a part of your skill for the faster professional games, if that's what you really need.

2) Do you mean to say that "real chess" is about perfection, about minimising your own mistakes? I agree, but there's no reason why you couldn't maximise your opponent's mistakes while you're at it!
However, I think that the search for chess perfection ain't what it used to be. Back in the day, a human could've had a dream of getting to know Caissa's vast and unending oceans better than anyone else, with the ultimate chess truth still being elusive, unknown and worthy of pursuit; then the neural network-based chess engines came along, showed us the entire horizon and disappeared beyond it, leaving us with but a single message: "You'll never beat us again."
Therefore, while I still consider the pursuit of chess truth to be a valiant effort, I wonder how valuable personal inventiveness can be in an OTB setting in which your opponent can just arrive prepped to the teeth with dank Stockfish lines and blow you off the board without even thinking until they're already winning. Doesn't seem like "real chess" to me.

I would get rid of titles altogether. We have ratings, rating is a pretty good measure of one's strength.

I mean, sure, we could have the exact same amount of titles that we do now, but have them be somehow earnable through games with faster time controls as well. Doesn't matter to me what we call them exactly, as long as they do symbolise a certain honour that goes hand in hand with achieving certain levels of playing strength.

Also, it's not necessarily even just about getting tournament freebies as titled players, it's also about getting recognition in the chess entertainment industry! I would like to attain a CM/FM title in my lifetime if possible, so that I could promote my chess stream better! Sure, one part of any chess streamer's appeal is being entertaining, but I'd argue that the other part of it is the affirmative answer to the following question in the audience's mind: "Is this player good enough to know what they're talking about? Can they teach me how to play better? I wanna see them pwn others so that I can live vicariously through their successes; can they do that?" You'll have a harder time meeting those demands if you're a (relatively) weak player.

This take is also not something I necessarily disagree with, it's just that it'd help to have some kind of a chess skill marker which could tell one how good a given player is in terms of being able to convey their chess knowledge and skill.

For example, there are many non-obscure endgames and middlegames (and openings!) that I couldn't teach anyone, because I don't know how to play them myself! Maybe someone stronger would know most of everything but still falter here and there when it comes to conveying said knowledge to a pupil or implementing it in actual play. And I'm pretty sure that an FM would already know how to explain at least the basics of everything well enough for almost anyone weaker than themselves. You can see such differences between some of the most popular chess content creators in the world, too: there's a long way from Antonio to Levy and from Levy to Hikaru.

So instead of traveling 3 hours to play a long tournament I can travel 3 days to play a 4 hour tournament. What great use of my time!

But seriously. If you don't have the "time and energy" to spend on the game, why would you deserve a title anyways? You get a title, or recognition of being good at a certain field, for devoting such time and energy. If you don't, there is no reason you should be awarded anything. 

I wouldn't see it being any more recognized than the online arena titles.

Generally speaking, you can make do with less chess knowledge in fast chess compared to slow chess. If I wanted to know if this player knows what they're talking about, I would prefer that I can have a way to know that they can apply the knowledge they learned in practice, against opposition that can take the time and try to figure out the weakness of their play.

We can look at it this way: Would you rather take lessons from a 2700 online bullet player or a 2700 otb player? Assuming they are mutually exclusive. Unless you really want to get a really high bullet rating I'd wager you would select the latter.

Of course, an extreme example, but it's just for demonstration purposes.

It's impractical to hope that the rules of title-giving will be changed just to accomodate players who have not demonstrated the necessary skill yet to be awarded the title. Perhaps you could just start working on your chess skills.

I get that you're joking in your first paragraph, but... what do you mean, a 3-day travel and a 4hr-long tournament? Have you seen how rapid tournaments are paced nowadays? Sure, the initial (and sometimes the only) phase might last only up to 3-4 days, but that's noticeably more than 4 hours! And if we have to travel *anywhere* for 3 days in this day and age, I feel like we've already lost. xD

As for your second paragraph, have I not addressed it in comment #12 already?

Oh I mistyped. I meant 3 hours, I was a bit out of it at the time. My bad 

I agree about the bullet thing, but I keep wondering if there is such a humongous difference between classical and rapid that it wouldn't justify the rapid format being eligible for titles as well. Of course, not all rapid time controls are created equal, so maybe it'd be best to start with longer rapid controls, like 25+10 or 30+10 instead of 15+10?

Also, who decides what constitutes "necessary skill" to acquire a title, and why? I'm not saying that the current system shouldn't be valid, I'm saying that the scope of the titles should be widened because chess, too, is evolving as a sport. Maybe you'd need a higher rating to become even a CM in rapid games, maybe you'd need to play more games, whatever - I just wished they made it into norms, so that people would have something more tangible to strive towards in non-classical time formats. You can hypothetically learn to slay in rapid & shorter meta, and unless you garner a strong online presence somehow, no one's gonna bat an eye, because you don't have any title to your name.

I'm gonna go back to my original point: I'd like to acquire one of the lower FIDE titles someday, so that it would be an additional incentive for others to watch my chess streams. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to put at least a few years aside in order to be able to work on my chess properly, and that would be so time-consuming that I wouldn't be able to have a job that would help me pay those expenses in the first place! Just like in classical music, the industry's geared towards helping early bloomers, so when they see a guy like me at the tender age of almost 30, they're not NOT gonna expect me to pay the bills and stuff!

All in all, I wish I had a better a way to incentivise my own progress as a chess player without having to deal with the ludicrous time & cost inflexibilities at every step of the way. I could say that I wanna hit 2200 on Lichess or something, but once I do - what's the real plan there? How am I gonna make it an active part of my life? Will I be able to form some kind of a community or do something that I couldn't when I was rated lower, other than just play chess better?