[CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?

Thu Jun 4 22:10:19 EDT 2020

I think a more reasonable option would be to utilize certain overlay
categories - something that already exists in CQWW (i.e., "Classic").

73 Rich NN3W

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:19 PM Randy Thompson <k5zd at outlook.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> What I am hearing you ask for is that the definition of single operator be
> changed to only allow one radio.  Then take everyone else and put them in a
> separate "assisted" category?
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com at contesting.com> On
> Behalf Of Jeff Clarke
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 1:45 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?
>
> Dick,
>
> I don't think they ought to ban 2BSIQ or SO2R. Just make it a separate
> class like SOA. All the guys that are the elite operators do 2BSIQ anyway
> so they will be still competing against each other. There will still be a
> lot of very good operators that would compete in a single-operator category
> who just don't want to mess with a SO2R setup.
> Remember the days when you had to decide what band to be on to maximize
> your score? That's all gone out the window with SO2R. It would be nice to
> introduce some operating strategy back into contesting.
>
> I wish CQ would expand on the Classic category and take away the time
> limitation but keep it one radio. It would also be nice if ARRL would add
> this category to their contests as well.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 6/4/2020 01:13 PM, wc1m73 at gmail.com wrote:
> > I agree with Kevin. I say this even though 2BSIQ has put a dent in my
> prospects for winning SOAB HP USA in CQ WPX CW. I've managed to stay close
> to the top with my middling station and skills since 2002, but in the last
> three years 2BSIQ has pushed the score gap into the multimillions. Yeah,
> super stations, some operated remotely, have played a part in that, but
> I've always been up against better hardware and like the challenge of
> pitting my skills against it. In addition to making it harder for me to
> win, 2BSIQ also has the potential to significantly increase the scores of
> good ops with lesser stations, which will increase the number of
> competitors with a chance to land in the top 5 or 10, leaving ops who don't
> learn 2BSIQ out in the cold. As Kevin says, 2BSIQ is a skill, and that's
> the arena in which I want to compete. So it's on me to learn it or get left
> behind.
> >
> > IMHO, any op who puts in the time and effort to get good at 2BSIQ
> deserves to reap the rewards. If we try to limit use of innovations like
> 2BSIQ, or push them into separate categories, we're hurting ourselves.
> Contesting stagnates, pandering to those who are only comfortable with the
> way it's always been. We have way too much of that attitude in ham radio as
> it is. Ops should be rewarded for finding new ways to win, for developing
> new techniques and for improving their skills.
> >
> > I expect the next controversy will come when someone develops AI code to
> make 2BSIQ easier -- i.e., the computer figures out what's going on (fill
> requests, slow CW, etc.) and helps optimize switching and responses. The
> argument against this is similar to using a local CW Skimmer -- no help
> from other ops, but you don't have to tune and listen. Most of us felt that
> was a big enough difference to push local Skimmers into the Assisted
> category, but I'm not sure that opinion will persist. As AI and personal
> assistants proliferate in every part of our lives, I suspect the next
> generation of contesters will be much more open to using computer
> assistance. That won't kill contesting. In fact, it might save contesting.
> >
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Stockton <aluminumtubing at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:12 AM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com; ku8e at ku8e.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] What's your Opinion on 2BSIQ ?
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > 2BSIQ may currently be the only fair aspect of contesting.  The
> development of that skill can occur anywhere so long as the individual has
> a computer, headphones, and the necessary desire to push hard towards
> achievement of a goal.  It's not talent.  It's only a skill.  It's just
> > practice.    It's time consuming. It's hard.  It's only a skill.
> >
> > Success with the development of 2BSIQ isn't determined by proximity to
> Europe, massive stacks, or operating from a 3 point location.  For those
> that sufficiently develop the skill, it opens up a world of possibilities
> to access stations from around the world.  It's the budding contesters
> golden ticket to some truly amazing experiences.
> >
> > However, you are completely right with your premise.  Operators using
> 2BSIQ and SO2R have a massive advantage over one radio operators.  The
> advent of 2BSIQ has shown the potential for amassing staggering scores.
> Using those operating strategies fit into the current single operator
> definition but like other rules in contesting they are archaic and do not
> address the current realities.
> >
> > There are other just as glaring rule problems with our sport that must
> be addressed.  Perhaps at some point, the handful of people that control
> contesting will acknowledge our current state and make a genuine effort to
> address this and other problems.
> >
> > 73,
> > Kevin, N5DX
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>