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@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 9:12 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; ku8e@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@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|