Chess.com Should Recognize ICCF Titles

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

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

any update?

Let me give all my .02c on the matter. I am gonna be candid, honest and blunt.

I played ICCF for a few years now. ICCF Titles are absolutely MEANINGLESS. Why I say this? Easy. I joined the ICCF to conduct an experiment. The experiment was based on the arguments for and against ICCF use of chess engines. The prevailing argument being that "ICCF players and supporters argue that engine use elevates the competition to a higher level of "human-engine" or "centaur" chess." is a fallacy, a joke and an insult to anyone's intelligence.

I decided I would play a few "norms" title matches and see how the games would go if I would make a variance in the chess engine recommendations. In other words, I'll make my own moves to see how the opponents would react. I would make the "human move" in my engine and keep playing the engine to see the moves. I would record and keep these games. When I made the human move against my opponents, (knowingly I would get a "blunder" or "mistake" or "inaccuracy") Lo and behold! ALL the opponents I faced, followed 100% what the engine recommended them. Not a single player dared to follow thru with a movement of their own. Results? Well, these "players" would end up being recognized as "CCE" "CCM" "IM" etc. (Correspondence Chess Experts, Correspondence Chess Masters, International Masters etc.) Essentially their chess engine was the CCE, CCM IM or whatever. Furthermore, have not been for my "blunder" or "mistake" or "inaccuracy" they would have ended up with all DRAWS. Their only win was...you guessed, against me.

Do I personally feel good with a "tittle" earned like that? No. It's fake! A chess engine did all the work. Its psychological gratification, and I don't need that. Obviously MOST if not ALL these "experts" "masters" etc. feel great about it. In my opinion, its a carton championship title, plastic, fake, rubber, meaningless whatsoever. I even challenged a few of these "experts" "masters" for an OTB game here or in Lichess, I am still waiting for their reply.

Against ICCF title recognition BASED ON MY own EXPERIENCE:

Reduced human creativity and intuition: Players simply choose the top move suggested by a powerful engine like Stockfish, leading to repetitive, "perfect" games that become predictable and boring.

Difficulty in attributing skill: With engines performing the most difficult calculations, it is impossible to know how much of a player's skill is their own versus how much comes from their software. This devalues titles earned in the era of strong engines compared to older ICCF titles.

Risk of total automation: With the incredible strength of modern engines, human input has become completely irrelevant. At this point, and under these circumstances the entire concept of a human correspondence chess champion is meaningless.

Don't come to me with the "correspondence chess is a test of human-machine collaboration and deep theoretical research, the titles represent a mastery of a new and highly technical discipline." BULL! As I mentioned, how come NONE of my opponent deviated from the engine recommendations? I am talking about dozens and dozens of games, if not over one hundred, not a handful.

Stay away from recognizing these obviously flawed and fake titles. Chess deserves better.