Chess.com Should Recognize ICCF Titles

nicejojo12

I hope you guys are having a nice day!

 

So first off, what is the ICCF? It's the International Correspondence Chess Federation which works closely with FIDE (Correspondence games are similar to daily games on chess.com.) The ICCF gives titles to their top players in a similar fashion FIDE does (using norms, ratings, etc.) and those titles given by the ICCF are recognized by FIDE, but not chess.com.

 

Yes, yes, I understand that a couple of players don't think that getting an ICCF title is an achievement because it is an engine/database dominated platform, but keep in mind this advantage applies to everyone. Only the players with the most thorough and deep analysis can get titles, and using an engine won't do that if everyone can use an engine. As a user of chess.com (I am not a titled ICCF player, by the way,) I would love to see games being analyzed by masters from ICCF because even though they themselves might not be good at chess, they have proven themselves to be good at analyzing a chess game, probably even better than FIDE Grandmasters.

 

There can even be a separate title for them like CGM for Correspondence Grandmaster (or they can just be GM.) And I admit, there may be some Correspondence Masters with an extremely low rating at standard chess, but titled players get perks like having their analyses of games appear more trustworthy, and, to quote chess.com, "any content you contribute (in forums, articles, etc.) gets special emphasis." This is a great way players that are good at analysis (Correspondence players) can share their analysis on games between other masters, their analytical skill (with the help of an engine/database) might have caught something that other masters did not see.

 

So, thank you for reading this post, I am only writing this because I think this is a great way to help players improve their chess, by looking at trustworthy analysis and commentary.

 

Note: In no way am I saying that Correspondence masters are better than regular masters at chess, I am only saying that they would probably provide better analysis and commentary in a position (using an engine) because that's what they are masters for. I do not support using computer analysis for anything against the rules, I just think that having these brilliant analytical masters with titles can help people get better commentary on games

CoachTortoise
(Crackle crunch) I am surprised this post has gone unnoticed. Bumping for the logical points made in favor of giving correspondence chess masters official recognition on chess.com.
jdcannon

I will take this up with our product team, but I am not sure it'll fly. 

PawnstormPossie

While I like ICCF, I don't think the sacrifices are the same as someone who actually travels to play and acheive the norms.

How many ICCF titled players are there?

How many don't have an OTB (traditional) title also?

Of those that don't have traditional titles, what's the benefit of having them analyze games? What's to stop them from doing it now?

I don't really see a need for "recognition".