Real Marks speed system at IARU HST High Speed Telegraphy Championships (HSTC) – Morse code (CW) speed calculation

Most of the links on this webpage are dead by now (2023), but you can probably use WebArchive etc to reanimate them. /// Comments, at the bottom of the webpage. Tnx. /// HTML code cleaned, UTF-8ed and updated Nov 2023.

Originally written in August 2012. Various updates added since. New findings and review of CODEX, other 'average word' standards and the similarities with Real Marks added throughout the text - in the Introduction, Correlation of speeds and Conclusions chapters - in January 2015. I had no time to rewrite the article, so it might look a bit heterogeneous, possibly slightly divergent in places.

By Iulian Petheu YO3FCA ( MØIPU ) M0IPU Petheu Iulian Iulian Petheu

Note: A new HST website has emerged (2016/17), with very good info and updates: http://www.highspeedtelegraphy.com

Introduction - Why PARIS?

I could not find an official or unofficial explanation of the “Real Marks” system used in High Speed Telegraphy Championship receiving and transmitting tests. Only few unanswered questions scattered across Internet forum posts.

We all guide by the omnipresent WPM – Words Per Minute (standard / étalon PARIS, whether you were aware of it or not) in our day to day HF/VHF CW operation. CW computer programs for hams, professional keyers, CW readers, built in keyers etc conform to WPM PARIS or simply WPM. And it seems quite normal. As the characters we use in morse code are not equal in length (duration) we can never determine the speed just by counting the number of them in a given unit of time (we cannot establish a speed system based on this criteria unless we deal with carefully crafted radiograms, like the “real marks” radiograms – the subject of this article). The étalon PARIS speed is in a direct correlation to the duration of one dot (dit) – explained below - which in today’s morse code is the basic unit of time/speed. Obviously we cannot say we receive/transmit morse code at a dot duration ‘t’ of 40 milliseconds or 30 milliseconds, so the word PARIS, which is made of 50 dots can give us as a measurement unit, a standard. It’s like the clock if you would like. We have seconds as the base unit, but then we have minutes and hours. We cannot say the time is 155362 seconds. It’s a convention.

The above explanation is more or less a simplified one, a present perspective. The origin of étalon PARIS tells us a slightly different story, which, however, doesn’t alter the today’s perspective. I am not sure whether the PARIS standard was developed independently or it was part of a larger, eclectic system containing the CODEX and other standards. The PARIS standard prevailed in the ham world and perhaps other domains (all morse equipment is calibrated to PARIS nowadays), civil, navy, army etc, most probably as a simplified, unified system. At least, this is how I perceive the facts. It now covers the whole spectrum of characters used in morse code. Given the variety of applications, languages etc morse code is used across, it is easier to adopt a standard based on ‘t’ (or character speed), even though that standard was initially built for a particular purpose (see below). It is not a scientific method, but it is very practical.

- PARIS standard, 50 dots (see next chapter). The word itself resembles the number of the dots/time units in the ‘average word’ of plain English language, coded in morse, of course. It was developed to measure the speed of plain English text transmissions. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is now ‘enforced’, used as a 't' standard over the whole morse code range. (I’m not quite sure how the average word is determined here, whether the words frequency and other aspects are considered, like words length etc. Or maybe a more simplistic approach is used, by counting the total number of dots (see the PARIS chapter) in a common text, the longer, the better, then dividing it by the number of characters in the text, standard gaps being added at the end.)

- CODEX standard, 60 dots, which seems to resemble the number of dots found in the average word formed of five random characters, using the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet. Including the gaps. The sum of dots (‘t’) of each of the 26 morse code letters, a total of 214, divided by 26, times 5, then adding the 3 * 4 + 7 = 19 dots for gaps. It takes us very, very close to 60 dots. This was used in five characters word radiograms (plain text encryption); predominantly used in the army.

- It seems there were other standards too, for ex 12345 or 67890, which were used when receiving or transmitting numbers only. I have no info on those, but they would give 84 and 94 dots standards, if we calculate according to their names. Again, this étalon was most mostly used in the military.

( Info on the variety of "exotic" standards, less PARIS, gathered from W1TP’s website, http://w1tp.com/percode.htm and http://www.mechanicalpuzzles.org/codepractice/learning.html )

The above ‘average word’ étalons had been developed as reference points, to reflect the actual number of words, for a particular set of characters, text etc, TXed or RXed, in a given unit of time, normally one minute. Of course, standards can be developed for any particular purpose, a different language from English for example, a different set of characters etc. At least, in theory. Who on Earth would want that?

Before getting to Real Marks, the main subject of the article, let’s have a quick look at the other standards and their correlation.

At a quick glance, the relational equation between PARIS, CODEX or any other ‘standard’ based on ‘t’, time units, (in appearance, not Real Marks) can be written as follows:

1min = 50 * WPM_(PARIS) * t = 60 * WPM_(CODEX) * t = (nr dots of ‘standard’) * WPM_(STANDARD) where t = time unit of a dot.

Therefore,

WPM_(PARIS) = 1.2 * WPM_(CODEX) (remember this one in particular, until we reach the Real Marks - ‘letters’ calculation) or WPM_(CODEX) = 0.833 * WPM_(PARIS)

WPM_(PARIS) = (nr dots of ‘standard’) * WPM_(STANDARD) / 50

Or between any two standards,

WPM_{(STANDARD 1)} = (nr dots ‘standard 2’) * WPM_{(SANDARD 2)} / (nr dots ‘standard 1’)

A graphical representation of PARIS and CODEX can be found here - link or other very few places on the Internet. My own version can be found further down.

Now, let’s go back to our subject, the Real Marks versus PARIS.

The dot duration (PARIS - the character speed)

You can probably find the PARIS system explained in every morse code book or on the Internet (Wikipedia).

Briefly, the word PARIS is made of 50 dots (di, dit, dih). A dot is the base unit, a line is 3 dots, a space between dots and lines (dash, dah) within a character is 1 dot, a space between two characters in a word is 3 dots and the space between two words is 7 dots.

Graphically:

PARIS WPM = 5 PARIS CPM ≡ 50 dots or ‘t’ time units

8+3 dots

3 dots

4+1 dots

3 dots

5+2 dots

3 dots

5 dots

7 dots

One minute of a ‘PARIS’ radiogram is made of 50 (dots per word) times nr words (speed) times ‘t’ (of a dot, in milliseconds).

1min = 50 * WPM * t

As one minute is made of 60s * 1000 = 60000ms, then

60000ms = 50 * WPM * t

t = 1200 / WPM or WPM = 1200 / t

For example, a radiogram of 40 WPM (or 200 CPM – Characters Per Minute - where CPM = 5 * WPM) made of PARIS words has 2000 dots at a t = 30ms. That’s the real speed, the dot speed.

Note: For those not yet sure how PARIS system works; maintaining the same speed on your keyer, let’s say you transmitted one of the following radiograms in exactly 1 minute with the correct spacing between words and characters:

DHJYT ARUIO QPIUY XNLKA LKSJU

HJSYE AKJSY POIWT BSHUY LAKUI

AKJSY POIWT BSHUY LAKUI XNLKA

54632 78965 32156 47865 36524

23651 78564 96532 12365 98562

S4L.L ?6PO0 DF,6E ASFG/ 56YO4

RDW?9 IPU73 RTY9= 96DFG /,.YO

4SVZ, =.EIE

You will notice that you ended up with 15 words for letters, 10 for figures or 12 for mixed. None of those is your WPM speed. Things would get even more complicated when TX/RX text, sentences. There are idioms with longer words and others with much shorter ones, some where a particular set of letters would be used more often than in another. Note: plain text tests are not used in HST contests, because words are easily guessable. At least this is one obvious reason. Furthermore, what language should be used?

Now, transmit the word PARIS repeatedly and see how many fit in 1 minute. That is your WPM speed, 18 WPM. Some advanced keyers like MFJ-464 or MFJ-495 will display the speed on their LCD screen. You will see it is the same with the number of PARIS words you transmitted in 1 minute.

PARIS PARIS PARIS PARIS PARIS

PARIS PARIS PARIS

RX/TX tests speed system at IARU High Speed Telegraphy Championships

Nearly twenty years (1993-2013) had passed since I last got involved in HST or, actually, in anything to do with ham radio. In 2012 I started to pay a bit of attention to HST activity via the relevant on-line web-pages. I quickly realised I found myself in a rather alien environment with regards to the TX/RX test morse code speed system, something I could not relate to. I was very intrigued and could not find any information anywhere, not even within the few conversations I had with couple of old HST pals. Nothing officially nor unofficially to be found. I had to find an answer myself

The explanation of how the speed is measured, found in High Speed Telegraphy Championship Rules: “The speed for reception and transmission will be measured in REAL marks”. Nothing else. Not very self explanatory I can say. So, at IARU HSTC they simply count a preset number of characters (letters, figures, mixed) or marks in a 1 minute radiogram. WYSIWYG.

If we only have PARIS words in a 1 minute radiogram then the “Real Marks” or RM speed would obviously be the same with the PARIS speed. What is going to happen if we replace the word PARIS with groups of random letters? Well, the word PARIS is a fairly short one, from the number of dots point of view. If we replace it, let’s say with ZQJXP we’ll end up with 72 dots in that word instead of 50. So, we will have a much larger amount of dots. It’s even ‘worse’ if we replace letters with mixed text or figures which contain even longer characters. We’ll end up with even more dots. So, the ‘length’ of dot will be shortened considerably therefore the equivalent PARIS speed will go up.

With the RM standard, unless we abide by certain rules, we would have different étalon PARIS speeds (dot length) for the same RM speed and set of characters. However, this is not the case in HSTC. The system used in High Speed Telegraphy Championships follows a linear pattern from the dot length point of view.

If you dissect few radiograms for the same speed and character type generated by HST2006, one of the programs they use in HSTC, you will see they all have the same amount of dots, 2406 for 200 RM letters for ex. Therefore we will always have a certain WPM (or CPM) étalon speed correlated to a HSTC RM speed. As I have already mentioned, the speed increase must be linear, in other words, the difference in number of dots between adjacent RM speeds should always be the same for a given set of characters (letter, figures or mixed).

Correlation of WPM and RM

We initially establish the equivalent WPM étalon PARIS speed of a radiogram generated by HST2006 by finding the number of dots in that radiogram.

As a programmer I would imagine one can easily write code which could count the number of dots in a radiogram. Otherwise more rudimentary options are at hand. It first needs to be determined how many dots are in each letter, figure or sign (see annexe) then use an online character frequency counter and finally use a basic excel. Don’t forget to add the gaps between characters and words {nr dots in gaps = 19 times nr of words in a radiogram (3 dots times 4 gaps between characters in a word times nr words plus 7 dots between words times nr words), assuming there is a 7 dots space at the end of the radiogram}.

To calculate the étalon PARIS speed we have to divide the (nr of dots) in a 1 minute radiogram by 50 (number of dots in a PARIS word).

WPM = (nr dots) / 50 or (nr dots) = 50 * WPM

Explained involving the dot duration:

t = 1200 / WPM = 60000 / (nr dots)

Given the fact that the RM (versus nr of dots) speed increase must be linear (see previous chapter) we can then count the number of dots in radiograms of adjacent speeds and then minus them to find the speed increment. We will see that for every 10 RM there is a difference of 120 dots for letters and 178 dots for figures (with one or two exceptions of 2 dots difference). For mixed text, given its complexity, there is a slight variation, but the average is 143 dots. All these can be double checked by calculating the difference in the number of dots between radiograms at speeds far from each other (100 RM and 400 RM for ex) and then dividing it by the number of speed increments.

We can now write a simple equation with the variable (nr dots) and then equal it with the one above.

If for a given RM we have a (nr dots), then for (RM+10) we will have (nr dots) + 120 {for letters}.

Therefore, (nr dots) = 12 * RM {for letters}

As we have already established few paragraphs above that (nr dots) = 50 * WPM, the speed correlation equations will look like this:

For letters: WPM = 120 * RM / 500 or CPM = 1.20 * RM (this matches exactly the CODEX standard which was purposely built for this set of characters and transmission)

For figures: WPM = 178 * RM / 500 or CPM = 1.78 * RM (this is exactly half way between the 12345 (1.68) and 67890 (1.88) standards. It makes sense as it resembles the average five figures word)

For mixed: WPM = 143 * RM / 500 or CPM = 1.43 * RM (I guess a standard defined by the ‘average word’ should apply here too. Let’s check it. Summing up the number of dots in all letters of the alphabet, figures and symbols [total 431] dividing it by the total number of them, 41, times 5, then adding the gaps, 4*3 + 7, should give us a 71.5 dots standard. Dividing this by 50 [PARIS] gives us 1.43. You can even find a familiar name for it, formed of 5 characters that sum up 51 or 52 dots. What abt 88MIX or 143SN?)

	RM/CPM/WPM correlation
	Speed
Real Marks	PARIS
RM	WPM			CPM=5*WPM
RM	Letters 0.24*RM	Figures 0.356*RM	Mixed 0.286*RM	Letters 1.20 * RM	Figures 1.78*RM	Mixed 1.43*RM
100	24	35.6	28.6	120	178	143
110	26.4	39.16	31.46	132	195.8	157.3
120	28.8	42.72	34.32	144	213.6	171.6
130	31.2	46.28	37.18	156	231.4	185.9
140	33.6	49.84	40.04	168	249.2	200.2
150	36	53.4	42.9	180	267	214.5
160	38.4	56.96	45.76	192	284.8	228.8
170	40.8	60.52	48.62	204	302.6	243.1
180	43.2	64.08	51.48	216	320.4	257.4
190	45.6	67.64	54.34	228	338.2	271.7
200	48	71.2	57.2	240	356	286
210	50.4	74.76	60.06	252	373.8	300.3
220	52.8	78.32	62.92	264	391.6	314.6
230	55.2	81.88	65.78	276	409.4	328.9
240	57.6	85.44	68.64	288	427.2	343.2
250	60	89	71.5	300	445	357.5
260	62.4	92.56	74.36	312	462.8	371.8
270	64.8	96.12	77.22	324	480.6	386.1
280	67.2	99.68	80.08	336	498.4	400.4
290	69.6	103.24	82.94	348	516.2	414.7
300	72	106.8	85.8	360	534	429
310	74.4	110.36	88.66	372	551.8	443.3
320	76.8	113.92	91.52	384	569.6	457.6
330	79.2	117.48	94.38	396	587.4	471.9
340	81.6	121.04	97.24	408	605.2	486.2
350	84	124.6	100.1	420	623	500.5
Letters: A to Z Figures: 0 to 9 Mixed: letters plus figures plus signs .,?/=
By YO3FCA aka MØIPU © 2013

PDF version of this table

Plotting the equations onto a ‘fancy’ graphic table:

The question “What is the WPM or CPM equivalent to the RM in those HST results or world records?” has finally been nailed.

You can also establish the étalon WPM PARIS speed correspondent to RM empirically. If you fire up HST2006 and hook up a CW reader like MFJ-464 keyer/reader to front/line out on your PC, you will see the PARIS speed displayed on your MFJ (don’t forget to match the tone freq on both). You should probably also be able to pick up the output from HST2006 with another program on the same PC like CW Get via the soundcard, internally.

Note: This is actually the way I first figured out the equivalent of RM to WPM, by connecting one of my MFJ keyers to the PC. The second penny dropped shortly after when I was reading the Wikipedia article on morse code and realised that once one knows the number of dots in a radiogram or text in a given unit of time then the exact PARIS speed can be determined with a simple mathematical equation WPM = (nr dots) / 50. The rest is all clerical work. Of course, had I had a very good knowledge of the average word standards from the very beginning (not before 2015) I would have been able to fathom Real Marks only looking by looking at how RM radiograms were constructed, each containing an approximately equal amount of each character. However, a mathematical approach would have been compulsory in any case, for the sake of accuracy. I had actually briefly read about CODEX etc couple of years ago, but I didn't pay too much attention.

Conclusions

I would assume Real Marks is a tweaked ‘old school’ WYSIWYG morse code speed system (tweaked as explained previously). Or, better said, a (mathematical) resemblance of, if not identical to the other, older, ‘average word’ based speed measurement systems. It could be seen as a collection of older standards, all under one name. At the end of the day, the other, older étalons, were scientifically developed to reflect the actual number of characters, per type, in a radiogram. Or so it seems. I read RM is of Russian descend. Or, the least, this is one of the countries where it is still being used. Was it inspired from the American literature etc? Did they develop it independently and the same results as CODEX etc were achieved? Je ne sais pas. But, at the end of the day, if anyone would want to develop a standard for morse letter transmissions, for example, which should reflect the actual number of trafficked characters, would have most probably reached the same result, the ‘average word’. How else would you do it? If you throw in an equal amount, per radiogram, of each letter, figure or mixed text character in a given unit of time at various speeds you will intrinsically follow the CODEX, numeral or mixed text standard. You can get a confirmation of how RM is built by copying / pasting HST2006 etc radiograms in a character frequency calculator. Real Marks is not at all a system based on a simple count of the number of characters in a text, radiogram etc, as its name would like to make us believe, but rather a façade to a well constructed, esthetical, linear set of radiograms.

It is incredible how history is ignored and forgotten. I have come across Internet forum posts of American radioamateur fellows asking what Real Marks is? My answer would be, “It is your, most probably bygone, collection of morse code standards!”. I didn’t know this either until the very beginning of 2015 when, based on few facts, intuition and some basic mathematical calculations have reached the conclusions in this article. Do you 88 or 99 Real Marks? Now, that we know what it is we might learn to 88 it.

The problem with the RM is that it cannot be taken out of the HSTC context. I don’t know for sure why it was adopted as I have not been involved in high speed telegraphy (in fact in any ham activity) for the past 20 years. Paradoxically the rest of the ham world is left a bit puzzled as it fails to relate to RM. Almost no ham would know what, let’s say, 200 s/min (RM) is (OK, depending on your proficiency, you can, kind of, figure out what the speed is simply by listening to the code). Therefore, it would have been very helpful for the PARIS speed to be added to the HSTC results, speed records etc. I hope that this article will shed some light into the problem.

Why is RM used in HST? I can only speculate on this, so don’t take it for granted! The only plausible explanations might be these.

- An old friend of mine mentioned, back in the ’80s, they used to have spectators at HST contests in the ex-USSR, the country using RM. I would assume a WYSIWYG speed system was a ‘requirement’ in this kind of situations. You might have had non-initiated spectators who would not understand an étalon system from the first. This ‘theory’ can obviously be applied to today’s HST contests and the way morse code speed is perceived by the non-initiated, the outside world. This leads us to the second speculation.

- Difficult to ‘harmonize’ with Guinness World Records on an étalon PARIS basis. They would probably need a WYSISWYG, ‘straightforward’ system to be used. Again, the ‘liaison’ with the outer circles.

- As far as I can recall, there was a problem with the ‘receiving test’ HST radiograms versus ‘WPM (CPM) étalon PARIS’ back in the pre or dawn of the computer era. There were situations when the last word in a radiogram would be truncated in order to fit the radiogram in exactly one minute. Or, in order to avoid truncation, the radiogram would have finished seconds earlier or been prolonged with few seconds in order to have a final 5 character word. However, the programming of applications, like the ones mentioned in the annexe, which would produce an ‘esthetical’, homogenous set of PARIS radiograms, in late 90’s or early ‘00s, would have been a problem? I don’t know.

The main disadvantage with the a WYSIWYG morse code speed system idea, Real Marks or any collection of standards is that no device (not talking about a program generating preset radiograms) can be calibrated in accordance to them. Once you calibrate one for a couple of standards, let’s say, you will be out of bounds for any other type of transmission. You won’t know your ‘speed’ until you have actually finished what you TXed or RXed and will have counted the marks. However, it may reflect better the grade of difficulty of a transmission for the same speed. Now, again, depends how you look at it. You either play with the ‘character speed’ around the same number of ‘real characters’ or play with the number of ‘real characters’ around a fixed ‘character speed’. I think I am developing a head ache right now.

With PARIS, the further you get away from the set of characters it was built for (English text, which predominately uses letters like t, e, i etc, short, morse code wise - see note), the higher the equivalent speed would be, particularly high, of course, for numerals, which are very long from a number of dots point of view.

Benefits? Intrinsically there is only one reference point. We can easily calibrate a device. We know what speed we are going to use.

In both cases we have to mention what characters we traffic, for ex 500 CPM figures, 300 s/m RM letters etc.

Imagine a CW speed world with no étalons, 100 s/m letters, 100 s/m ham CW transmissions, 100 s/m Icelandic etc. Back in the hand key times.

Note: Morse code was built in such a way to trafficking English language text as quickly as possible, predominant letters (t, e, i etc) being the shortest (dots wise). Subsequently, étalon PARIS, is ‘short’ too.

73, Iulian Petheu

Annexe

Acronyms

WPM = Words Per Minute étalon PARIS
CPM = Characters Per Minute étalon PARIS. Sometimes found as SPM, S/M, s/min (signs or symbols per minute) etc. However, read the note / see table below.

CPM = 5 * WPM

RM = Real Marks or rarely called Real Characters.

Note: You may find Real Marks (RM) referred to as CPM (link) (bottom of that page) or s/min (link, pg 19.11 of Radio Communication Handbook 12th edition etc). In these cases you may wish to read Real CPM or Real s/min which, I repeat, are the Real Marks!! A bit confusing... Also, in the official receiving and transmitting test results you may find the speed simply called by its generic name, “Speed” or abbreviations like “S”, “Sp” or “Spd” which in results prior to 2004, the year Real Marks system was adopted (as per article on Wikipedia), is the PARIS speed and from 2004 onwards is the Real Marks speed as per new rules.

Generally, in articles, posts etc on the Internet, if CPM (s/m etc) is mentioned in relation to RuFZ or Morse Runner (see further down) then it is definitely CPM étalon PARIS, as used across this webpage. If CPM (s/m etc) is mentioned (~2004 onwards) in relation to receiving or transmitting test speeds then it is most likely Real CPM, the RM.

Acronyms	CPM SPM s/m s/min S Spd ‘Speed’
Year	2003 inclusive	2004 onwards
TX / RX Tests	PARIS	Real Marks (RM)
Rufz PED MR	PARIS	PARIS
Note: RUFZ and PED were introduced in HST in 1993. PED was replaced by Morse Runner MR in 2005. Speed for RuFZ, PED and MR is only used within the respective programs. HST results would obviously only show the scores/points in this case.

Helpful links as per October 2014

HST contest rules: Older Rules, New Rules 2014 (not much difference between the versions).

HSTC Programs

Alexandria: http://www.stanojoski.com/Solutions.aspx (seems to be a dead link now)

Alexandria help file: PDF (on my site - retrieved from WebArchive)

HST2006 (or RX2006): Download here

IST – Could not find a link for it.

Zeus – no link found. It seems to replacing Alexandria in 2014.

High Speed Telegraphy HST IARU World Championships

(results, info, gallery)

Competition	Rx/Tx Tests speed used
15th 2018 HST World Championship, Astana Kazakhstan	Real Marks
14th 2017 HST World Championship, Esztergom, Hungary	Real Marks
13th 2016, Herceg Novi, Montenegro or link. Note: Oman, http://hst2016.org - cancellation	Real Marks
12th 2015 Ohrid, Macedonia	Real Marks
11th 2013 Borovets, Bulgaria	Real Marks
10th 2012 Beatenberg, Switzerland	Real Marks
9th 2011 Bielefeld, Germany	Real Marks
8th 2009 Obzor, Bulgaria	Real Marks
7th 2007 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia	Real Marks
6th 2005 Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia	Real Marks
5th 2003 Minsk, Belarus	PARIS
4th 2001 Constanta, Romania	PARIS
3rd 1999 Pordenone, Italy	PARIS
2nd 1997 Sofia, Bulgaria (bottom of page)	PARIS
1st 1995 Siófok, Hungary	PARIS
MR (ex PED) and Rufz have always used PARIS

High Speed Telegraphy HST IARU Region 1 (Europe, Africa, N Asia) Championships

(results, info, gallery)

Competition	Rx/Tx Tests speed used
8th 2014 Bar, Montenegro	Real Marks
7th 2010 Rawa Mazowiecka and Skierniewice, Poland	Real Marks
6th 2008 Pordenone, Italy	Real Marks
5th 2006 Primorsko, Bulgaria	Real Marks
4th 2004 Niš, Republic of Serbia	Real Marks
3rd 1991 Neerpelt, Belgium ***	PARIS
2nd 1989 Hannover, Germany ***	PARIS
1st 1983 Moscow, USSR ***	PARIS RM ?
MR (ex PED) and Rufz have always used PARIS

*** I am not sure whether these contests are recognised as official championships.

Image www.nolinfo.be

(DARC has done a very good job in centralising and publishing these results as most of the homepages of HST championships are all dead links now).

IARU has also got a repository of various docs, results, bulletins etc here.

New, 2015/2016 – results of past HST Championships can now be found on the “History” page @ http://www.hst2015.org or http://www.hst2016.me ~~http://hst2016.org~~. Unfortunately, most of the HST websites in the format www.hst****.org (**** representing the year the championship took place) tend to vanish within few months once the contest is over.

Other HST international competitions; results, homepages etc.

R S Czechoslovakia Championship ‘85 OK SP YO, 1985 Brno Czechoslovakia (PARIS)

R S Czechoslovakia Championship ‘87 OK SP YO, 1987 Praha, Czechoslovakia (PARIS)

International HST Competition Macedonia Open 2002, Ohrid, Macedonia (PARIS)

HST Europe’s Cup of nations 2010, Suceava, Romania (Real Marks)

7th International Tournament in HST “Cup of Nations” 2011, Mogilev, Belarus (Real Marks)

HST European Cup 2012, Skierniewice, Poland (Real Marks)

1st HST World Cup of Nations 2013, Sokobanja, Serbia (Real Marks)

Ulaanbaatar HST Championship 2013, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (Real Marks)

1st Balkan HST Championship 2013, Lovech, Bulgaria (Real Marks) (Only TX, Rufz and MR tests at this contest. No RX test)

2nd Balkan HST Championship 2014, Piatra Neamt, Romania (Real Marks) (Only TX, Rufz and MR tests at this contest. No RX test) – Related Links: Official Page (Romanian), Bulletin

HST European Cup 2014, Skierniewice, Poland (Real Marks) Bulletin, YouTube

3rd Balkan High Speed Telegraphy Championship 2015, Svilajnac, Serbia

8th HST Cup of Nations 2015, Mogilev, Belarus

Mongolian HST Championship 2015, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

1st HST Challenge 2016, Montichiari, Italy, Facebook, Results, Rufz and MR only.

4th Balkan High Speed Telegraphy Championship, 1-5 June 2016, Chisinau, Moldova. /// Teams: Bulgaria, Macedonia, Moldova and Romania. (info QTC FRR YO)

HST 9th European Cup 2016 (concomitantly with the Balkan Championship), 1-5 June 2016, Chisinau, Moldova. /// Teams: Belarus, Bulgaria, Italy, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania and Switzerland. (info QTC FRR YO)

10th HST European Cup 2017 and 5th Balkan High Speed Telegraphy Championship 31 May- 04 June 2017, Dojran, Macedonia, http://z37rsm.org.mk/ (use Google translator)

11th HST Europe Cup 2018 and 6th Balkan High Speed Telegraphy Championship 02-06 May 2018, Bansko, Bulgaria Link

Morse Summit 2020 SHIMA, Japan, http://a1club.net/summit/english.html Link

National Championship YO 1989, RX speed, Link

Can anyone help with the HST World/Eu championships results for 1983, 1989 and 1991? Also results for other HST international competitions like, The Danube Cup, Cup of Nations etc? Contact me via qrz. (starting 2017, see http://www.highspeedtelegraphy.com)

Here is a stamp and a postcard logo issued on the ocasion of the 1st European HST Championship in 1983 ( первый чемпионат радиотелеграфии – Москва, CCCP, 1983 ):

Char type	RM	CPM	WPM
1. Letters	283	340	68
2. Figures	254	452	90.4
3. Mixed	230	359	65.8

Real Marks - WPM CPM RM - IARU High Speed CW HST Telegraphy Championships - High Speed Morse Code