Main
Date: 09 May 2008 09:54:05
From: samsloan
Subject: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted
Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
reprinted today.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277

Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
obtain, has just been reprinted.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 16 May 2008 14:31:53
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo


samsloan wrote:
> On May 16, 8:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > On May 9, 12:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> > > reprinted today.
> >
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
> >
> > > Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> > > obtain, has just been reprinted.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > So, Sam, what about that copyright?
>
> You obviously know nothing about copyright law and I am not here to
> educate you.
>
> Sam Sloan


Perhaps, Sam, but I suspect I know rather more about the subject than
you do. (Not a major achievement, of course.) The book was copyrighted
at one time. The copyright has not expired. Either a) the current
holder of the copyright transferred it to you or gave you permission
to reprint the work, b) some owner of the copyright between now and
1978 explicitly put it in public domain, or c) you pirated the work
and are breaking the law. Which is it? It's a simple question.


 
Date: 16 May 2008 14:11:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 8:15 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 9, 12:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> > reprinted today.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> > Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> > obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> So, Sam, what about that copyright?

You obviously know nothing about copyright law and I am not here to
educate you.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 16 May 2008 06:51:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 8:44 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 16, 8:32 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 8:26 am, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <[email protected]m>,
> > > The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Dan's master
> > > > title, unlike any titles P Innes may claim, was secured over the
> > > > chessboard years before.
>
> > > I also recall Heisman as the one who got a 2200 floor mailed in as some
> > > kind of lifetime achievement award.
>
> > Perhaps. I don't recall the details, since it's been ages since I've
> > seen Dan either as a friend or a student.
>
> Can you tell us where the letter to the New York Times is? I cannot
> find it.
>
> Sam Sloan

I assume that comment is addressed to P Innes. He's the one that
claimed a letter appeared in the NY Times.


 
Date: 16 May 2008 06:44:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 8:32 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 16, 8:26 am, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[email protected]m>,
> > The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Dan's master
> > > title, unlike any titles P Innes may claim, was secured over the
> > > chessboard years before.
>
> > I also recall Heisman as the one who got a 2200 floor mailed in as some
> > kind of lifetime achievement award.
>
> Perhaps. I don't recall the details, since it's been ages since I've
> seen Dan either as a friend or a student.

Can you tell us where the letter to the New York Times is? I cannot
find it.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 16 May 2008 06:32:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 8:26 am, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]m>,
> The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Dan's master
> > title, unlike any titles P Innes may claim, was secured over the
> > chessboard years before.
>
> I also recall Heisman as the one who got a 2200 floor mailed in as some
> kind of lifetime achievement award.

Perhaps. I don't recall the details, since it's been ages since I've
seen Dan either as a friend or a student.


 
Date: 16 May 2008 06:19:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 4:17 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
> > in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
> > was the guy?
>
> Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
> Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
> matter what his floor is.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290
>
> Sam Sloan

Mr. Sloan is confused. Dan Heisman is NOT the fellow P Innes wrote
about when he spewed "...but for the gent writing to in the NY Times
about getting his own award, with no apparent invigilation whatever -
no
questions, no data = master title and rating floor." Dan's master
title, unlike any titles P Innes may claim, was secured over the
chessboard years before.




  
Date: 16 May 2008 06:26:02
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
In article
<[email protected]m >,
The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> Dan's master
> title, unlike any titles P Innes may claim, was secured over the
> chessboard years before.

I also recall Heisman as the one who got a 2200 floor mailed in as some
kind of lifetime achievement award.


 
Date: 16 May 2008 06:15:23
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 12:54=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> reprinted today.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> Sam Sloan

So, Sam, what about that copyright?


 
Date: 16 May 2008 02:17:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
> in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
> was the guy?

Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
matter what his floor is.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290

Sam Sloan



  
Date: 16 May 2008 10:37:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:17:20 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
>> in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
>> was the guy?

>Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
>Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
>matter what his floor is.

>http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290

>Sam Sloan

If the guy Phil referenced was Heisman, then Phil's comment was
slightly misleading. Heisman has a Master Quick Chess rating from the
early 1990s, has published several books, and, ironically, is
referred to as "NM Dan Heisman" at Chessville. So, his award of a
2200 floor may have had some sloppy aspects, but it wasn't as if an
unknown Joe Blow asked for a Master's title and got it.

But, in deference to the point Phil made,, I think the award of a
Master's title *does* matter, even if the person hasn't played for
twenty years.


   
Date: 20 May 2008 09:27:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:17:20 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
>>> in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
>>> was the guy?
>
>>Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
>>Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
>>matter what his floor is.
>
>>http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290
>
>>Sam Sloan
>
> If the guy Phil referenced was Heisman, then Phil's comment was
> slightly misleading. Heisman has a Master Quick Chess rating from the
> early 1990s, has published several books, and, ironically, is
> referred to as "NM Dan Heisman" at Chessville. So, his award of a
> 2200 floor may have had some sloppy aspects, but it wasn't as if an
> unknown Joe Blow asked for a Master's title and got it.

It was not Dan Heisman, who I write with quite often, even chat with on the
phone. It was the person I cited, as well as the URL.

But what do this numbskulls care? What depends on it? All they do is write
shit about people and lie.

My question had to do with USCF's systems; both the quality control of
ratings [which there is apparently none] and the award system, which also -
by these two illustrations, also lack any quality control. If other people
want to address those subjects, let them.

OR

If they want to piss and moan, and whine and distort, they should write with
hate-merchant and stalker Neil Brennen.

Its a choice.

Phil Innes

> But, in deference to the point Phil made,, I think the award of a
> Master's title *does* matter, even if the person hasn't played for
> twenty years.




 
Date: 12 May 2008 11:34:07
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 12, 12:06=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> > [...]
> >> (a) Has Sloan abboragated anyone's copyright
>
> > Of course, Sloan does nothing but abboragate. In fact,
> > he has the hottest abboragator in town.
>
> Pardon me. =A0On my planet we have no word "abboragated." =A0Pray tell, wh=
at
> does it mean and what language is it from?

It is of Andean origin, and it is a portmanteau (to use Lewis
Carroll's delightful term) combining the meanings of "abrogated" and
"corrugated," especially when the two functions are performed by an
abbot. Not to be confused with "aborigated," which means "to be
irrigated by an aborigine."


  
Date: 12 May 2008 12:15:04
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 12, 12:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jürgen R. wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> (a) Has Sloan abboragated anyone's copyright
>>> Of course, Sloan does nothing but abboragate. In fact,
>>> he has the hottest abboragator in town.
>> Pardon me. On my planet we have no word "abboragated." Pray tell, what
>> does it mean and what language is it from?
>
> It is of Andean origin, and it is a portmanteau (to use Lewis
> Carroll's delightful term) combining the meanings of "abrogated" and
> "corrugated," especially when the two functions are performed by an
> abbot. Not to be confused with "aborigated," which means "to be
> irrigated by an aborigine."

LOL
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


 
Date: 10 May 2008 21:16:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
INSCRIBED EDITION

I recall seeing a copy in Larry Evans' extensive chess library.

"To GM Larry Evans with respect & affection." -- Arpad E. Elo

samsloan wrote:
> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> reprinted today.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 May 2008 16:17:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 10, 1:58 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
> > comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
> > well known USCF board member.

"Support" from the nearly-an-IM is, in effect,
precisely the opposite. It's akin to lending
"support" to vegetarianism, by stating that
Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.


> Leaving aside his own well-known claims to being "nearly an IM", of
> course, and his alleged 2450 rating.

Not so fast! Mr. IMnes' actual claim was that
/in Europe/ he was once a nearly-an-IM with a
[presumably FIDE] rating of 2450. That seems
to zap the idea of him claiming to have had such
a USCF rating, since the USCF has not yet
taken over jurisdiction of Europe (one cannot
predict the future, however...).


-- help bot




  
Date: 12 May 2008 10:30:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> On May 10, 1:58 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
>> > comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
>> > well known USCF board member.
>
> "Support" from the nearly-an-IM is, in effect,
> precisely the opposite. It's akin to lending
> "support" to vegetarianism, by stating that
> Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.

**2 geniuses discuss rating systems, completely ignoring looking at what
goes on at USCF. Having done that, what can be more natural [for them] than
to mention Hitler? It hardly matters what any nominal topic is, when you
have ratings-envy. Neither genius can figure out...

> Leaving aside his own well-known claims to being "nearly an IM", of
> course, and his alleged 2450 rating.

Not so fast! Mr. IMnes' actual claim was that
/in Europe/ he was once a nearly-an-IM with a
[presumably FIDE] rating of 2450.

**[I love the presumably <g >] That if I could play a season or two at
2400 -uscf equivalent- after taking 20 years away from chess still manage
2200 OTB, then that is even possible!

That seems
to zap the idea of him claiming to have had such
a USCF rating, since the USCF has not yet
taken over jurisdiction of Europe (one cannot
predict the future, however...).

**Help bitch is sick of strong players! So sick that that like Brennan it
becomes his /only/ topic!

NOW TO THE TOPIC(S)

**Anyone interested in chess ratings could assess 3 things -

(a) Has Sloan abboragated anyone's copyright
(b) do rating ceilings and floors exist withing Elo's system, and
(c) what alternatives to USCF's 'award' system are there? [see Alekhine's
Parrot this week at www.chessville.com for a precis of an alternate system,
as declaimed by its originator]

Phil Innes




-- help bot









   
Date: 12 May 2008 09:52:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:30:28 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>(b) do rating ceilings and floors exist withing Elo's system,

To even ask this question reflects a much deeper lack of
understanding. Hard to see how a rating system can address
deliberate sandbagging (hence the floors add-on) or cherry-picking
opponents or event manipulation (hence the rarer ceilings). This
isn't to say that the various tweaks have come close to solving the
problems.

>and
>(c) what alternatives to USCF's 'award' system are there? [see Alekhine's
>Parrot this week at www.chessville.com for a precis of an alternate system,
>as declaimed by its originator]

If the CXR ratings gained the same level of usage as USCF or FIDE
ratings, you'd have the same problems with sand-bagging and
manipulation.

A number of us have suggested publicizing and perhaps awarding prizes
for some additional metrics that could piggyback on the existing
rating system: highest rated opponent defeated, highest tournament
performance rating, etc. These might well serve as motivators for
participating in rated events.


   
Date: 12 May 2008 17:42:14
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
[...]
> (a) Has Sloan abboragated anyone's copyright

Of course, Sloan does nothing but abboragate. In fact,
he has the hottest abboragator in town.




    
Date: 12 May 2008 09:06:00
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted
Jürgen R. wrote:
> [...]
>> (a) Has Sloan abboragated anyone's copyright
>
> Of course, Sloan does nothing but abboragate. In fact,
> he has the hottest abboragator in town.
>

Pardon me. On my planet we have no word "abboragated." Pray tell, what
does it mean and what language is it from?
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker


 
Date: 10 May 2008 10:58:36
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 10, 11:31 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >... I discovered that Ken Sloan
> >could offer no explanation for the complete absense of quality control at
> >USCF's rating department which permitted the situation, and secondly, that
> >those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't spot the
> >cheat.
>
> Phil confuses quality control with fraud detection. The best guard
> against the latter is free and open public access to rating and event
> history, and an open forum for members' questions and comments about
> what appear to be ratings anomalies (named or otherwise, Phil, heh,
> heh, heh).
>
> Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
> comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
> well known USCF board member.

Leaving aside his own well-known claims to being "nearly an IM", of
course, and his alleged 2450 rating.


  
Date: 15 May 2008 08:38:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 10, 11:31 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >... I discovered that Ken Sloan
>> >could offer no explanation for the complete absense of quality control
>> >at
>> >USCF's rating department which permitted the situation, and secondly,
>> >that
>> >those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't spot
>> >the
>> >cheat.
>>
>> Phil confuses quality control with fraud detection.

'Confuses?'

Doesn't lack of control data quality actually permit fraud? In this
instance, not only was there no quality control whatever, but an award was
made to a politico for what Mike Murray prefers to call 'fraud'.

For the first issue, clearly Tanner is responsible, but USCF's ratings
department is /as/ responsible, since after all, if you keep geting rated by
chess officials, can you be doing anything wrong?

But the 'fraud', as Murray terms it, is the reponsibility of the 'awards'
system. Not only for Tanner, but for the gent writing to in the NY Times
about getting his own award, with no apparent invigilation whatever - no
questions, no data = master title and rating floor.

What Murray wants below is for the public to invigilate the ratings of
others - rather than officials - but hedoes nothing at all to challenge Ken
Sloan or USCF about why it ain't so.

When I suggested that another ratings agency did exactly this, allow public
access to very much broader data on ratings [and much cheaper] - people
cried it down here.

Do even //paid// chess officials have any responsibilty? Apparently not.

Can unpaid chess politicos casually over-rule them and 'overlook' playing
records entirely [as in both examples above], thus deliberately engaging in
what Murray call's 'fraud'? Apparently so.

I remember Randy Bauer using that as his main plank in the election - what
is known elsewhere as competency testing. And what has Bauer done while in
office in terms of ratings? Apparently nothing.

Phil Innes


> The best guard
>> against the latter is free and open public access to rating and event
>> history, and an open forum for members' questions and comments about
>> what appear to be ratings anomalies (named or otherwise, Phil, heh,
>> heh, heh).
>>
>> Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
>> comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
>> well known USCF board member.
>
> Leaving aside his own well-known claims to being "nearly an IM", of
> course, and his alleged 2450 rating.




   
Date: 15 May 2008 19:23:47
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:38:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >... I discovered that Ken Sloancould offer no explanation for the complete
>>> >absense of quality control at USCF's rating department which permitted
>>> > the situation, and secondly, that
>>> >those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't spot
>>> >thecheat.

>>> Phil confuses quality control with fraud detection.

>'Confuses?'

>Doesn't lack of control data quality actually permit fraud? In this
>instance, not only was there no quality control whatever, but an award was
>made to a politico for what Mike Murray prefers to call 'fraud'.

>For the first issue, clearly Tanner is responsible, but USCF's ratings
>department is /as/ responsible, since after all, if you keep geting rated by
>chess officials, can you be doing anything wrong?

The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
play in the event. And the spurious events didn't all come in a
batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space. As I
remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.

>But the 'fraud', as Murray terms it, is the reponsibility of the 'awards'
>system. Not only for Tanner, but for the gent writing to in the NY Times
>about getting his own award, with no apparent invigilation whatever - no
>questions, no data = master title and rating floor.

If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
was the guy?



    
Date: 17 May 2008 08:29:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:38:15 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >... I discovered that Ken Sloancould offer no explanation for the
>>>> >complete
>>>> >absense of quality control at USCF's rating department which
>>>> >permitted
>>>> > the situation, and secondly, that
>>>> >those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't
>>>> >spot
>>>> >thecheat.
>
>>>> Phil confuses quality control with fraud detection.
>
>>'Confuses?'
>
>>Doesn't lack of control data quality actually permit fraud? In this
>>instance, not only was there no quality control whatever, but an award was
>>made to a politico for what Mike Murray prefers to call 'fraud'.
>
>>For the first issue, clearly Tanner is responsible, but USCF's ratings
>>department is /as/ responsible, since after all, if you keep geting rated
>>by
>>chess officials, can you be doing anything wrong?
>
> The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
> the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
> USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
> play in the event.

They can't be expected? But I thought that was the entire point of official
ratings? Some expectation exists of 'officiating'.

> And the spurious events didn't all come in a
> batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space.

But a visual scan of data of ratings would immediately make that clear. That
seemed to be a benefit of the XPR system I wrote about.

> As I
> remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
> out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.

Because the data is recorded as number. As a visual presentation in a
chart - it would be immediately apparent.

But if this is indeed USCF's system of /recording data/ where is any quality
control to occur?

Secondly, on awarding a master rating and rating floor, /still/ no-one
noticed or checked Tanner's record [if indeed, we are to believe that].

>>But the 'fraud', as Murray terms it, is the reponsibility of the 'awards'
>>system. Not only for Tanner, but for the gent writing to in the NY Times
>>about getting his own award, with no apparent invigilation whatever - no
>>questions, no data = master title and rating floor.
>
> If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
> in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
> was the guy?

I forget his name. But it was in a NY Times Gambit blog. Ah - I researched
it, and here are 2 relevant paragraphs:

Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to
1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their
chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess
skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).

Goichberg weakened the title of chess master by claiming that anyone with a
rating over 2200 (for only a few games) can call themselves a master for
life. The original life master title was for 300 games over master. Of
course, who is a life master has apparently been lost when other records
were destroyed. Yet, when I requested a rating floor on the basis of my life
master title it was given to me?? The USCF didn't ask me to send my
certificate or any documentation whatsoever.
- Posted by Todd MIller

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/drive-to-recall-member-of-chess-federations-board-is-under-way/#comment-13299

And there is the URL.



So there you go! Motive, Opportunity, and the Smoking Gun, plus Who Cares
behavior by USCF who do not apologise or even explain this state of affairs.

The paradoxical aspect of this issue is that I would not have looked further
that Sam Sloan's reporting of the cheat if USCF rating's boosters had not
[abstractly] rubbished other ratings services for their 'lack of QC'.

But at the time of Tanner's exposure, it was only Larry Parr and myself in
these newsgroups who restrained themselves from simply blaming Tanner -
since evidently USCF's system encouraged him passively in not vetting his
rating, and then actively by proposing an award. All this took place without
anyone noticing.

My first question to Ken Sloan on these issues was 'how many such examples
are there?' Which he blew off with his normal mono-syllabic dismissal.
Therefore, the unlooked for comment by Todd Miller is a strong indication
that Tanner's situation is not a singular one.

Journalistically, it seemed right to investigate other options for rated
play, both for the player in terms of speed, cost and detail of information,
and in terms of the rating agency, their own procedural activities. After my
interview with Russ Mollot of CXR I stopped short of recommending his
service, but certainly encouraged chess players, TDs and coaches to /look/
at it, then decide for themselves if it fit their own needs, budget, and if
in fact they would lose anything if they switched?

If indeed 'official' ratings have no officiating to them whatever - then I
propose this is another example of decayed USCF infrastructure - and
something of a challenge to their stewardship of American chess ratings. I
have even heard it argued by a delegate that USCF's rating service is
actually a 'brand'.

I think this is an unlikable idea, but by these accounts perhaps not an
untrue or atypical one. A brand now operated by a non-profit in competition
with for profits will be challenged on at least three criteria:

a) If the non-profit brand is at least 3x more than commercial services,
then in what way is this a service to chess players?

b) If management of the non-profit official brand has less quality controls,
especially of such non-Elo factors as awards and rating floors, then should
there be an independent assessment made of the type of service due paying
customers?

c) In terms of value for money, and also speed of service [the reader will
note that official correspondence ratings were 'delayed' at least 6 months
last year] should an independent ombudsman make a determination, not only on
what has gone before but on what suits the future? [which was the
recommendation of the correspondence master]

The minimum change necessary, it seems to me, is to /independently/
investigate these issues, and the system on which they are based, which is
now so far from Elo's original idea on inter-determining ratings by play
that it as to corrupt his very idea by 'awards and floors' all conducted in
the dark of USCF's recesses, and where we are asked to believe no one looks
even at master level ratings to determine if they contain the least
veracity.

Phil Innes






     
Date: 17 May 2008 13:15:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:29:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
>> the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
>> USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
>> play in the event.

>They can't be expected? But I thought that was the entire point of official
>ratings? Some expectation exists of 'officiating'.

When a tournament report is submitted and all the players have valid
membership numbers, I can't see how it would be cost effective for
USCF office staff to (1) make sure a person corresponding to the
membership actually exists, (2) make sure the person corresponding to
the membership number is actually the person playing in the
tournament, etc. This is one case where "Management By Exception" is
probably the right approach.

When to drill down? When some fake wins a prize, qualifies for an
invitational, some guy who we know is a relative fish gets a high
rating from some out-of-town events and the locals get suspicious,
etc. That's when it make sense for the office to start checking --
not ALL the time. And, I agree, when handing out LM titles and giving
rating floors at a level where the prestige of such a floor has
economic value, more thorough checking is in order.

>> And the spurious events didn't all come in a
>> batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space.

>But a visual scan of data of ratings would immediately make that clear. That
>seemed to be a benefit of the XPR system I wrote about.

I'm not following this -- how would it work?

>> As I
>> remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
>> out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.

>Because the data is recorded as number. As a visual presentation in a
>chart - it would be immediately apparent.

Why? Why would he not just appear to be a "streak" player?

>But if this is indeed USCF's system of /recording data/ where is any quality
>control to occur?

>Secondly, on awarding a master rating and rating floor, /still/ no-one
>noticed or checked Tanner's record [if indeed, we are to believe that].

Nobody complained.

>Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to
>1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
>done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their
>chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess
>skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).

As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.



      
Date: 20 May 2008 09:36:05
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:29:00 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
>>> the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
>>> USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
>>> play in the event.
>
>>They can't be expected? But I thought that was the entire point of
>>official
>>ratings? Some expectation exists of 'officiating'.
>
> When a tournament report is submitted and all the players have valid
> membership numbers, I can't see how it would be cost effective for
> USCF office staff to (1) make sure a person corresponding to the
> membership actually exists, (2) make sure the person corresponding to
> the membership number is actually the person playing in the
> tournament, etc. This is one case where "Management By Exception" is
> probably the right approach.

Surely. But I never said for ALL the players ALL the time. I said on gaining
a masters rating plus ratings floor. Which is one-time. Maybe that can be
afforded - otherwise we have to rely on the TD's check of the players - of
course, Tanner was his own TD...

I don't want to turn this into more questions and answers when people are
addressing things I never proposed. This is the 4th time in as many
consecutive posts.

Personally I think that visual display of results would be relatively easy
to review... but that is a detail. My example showed ZERO checking even for
the ONE-TIME MASTER TITLE and RATING FLOOR.

Sorry to 'shout' - but that is the central topic here.

Phil Innes


> When to drill down? When some fake wins a prize, qualifies for an
> invitational, some guy who we know is a relative fish gets a high
> rating from some out-of-town events and the locals get suspicious,
> etc. That's when it make sense for the office to start checking --
> not ALL the time. And, I agree, when handing out LM titles and giving
> rating floors at a level where the prestige of such a floor has
> economic value, more thorough checking is in order.
>
>>> And the spurious events didn't all come in a
>>> batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space.
>
>>But a visual scan of data of ratings would immediately make that clear.
>>That
>>seemed to be a benefit of the XPR system I wrote about.
>
> I'm not following this -- how would it work?
>
>>> As I
>>> remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
>>> out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.
>
>>Because the data is recorded as number. As a visual presentation in a
>>chart - it would be immediately apparent.
>
> Why? Why would he not just appear to be a "streak" player?
>
>>But if this is indeed USCF's system of /recording data/ where is any
>>quality
>>control to occur?
>
>>Secondly, on awarding a master rating and rating floor, /still/ no-one
>>noticed or checked Tanner's record [if indeed, we are to believe that].
>
> Nobody complained.
>
>>Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior
>>to
>>1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
>>done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate
>>their
>>chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior
>>chess
>>skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).
>
> As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
> re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
> introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
> but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
> destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.
>




  
Date: 10 May 2008 12:27:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:58:36 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:


>> Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
>> comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
>> well known USCF board member.

>Leaving aside his own well-known claims to being "nearly an IM", of
>course, and his alleged 2450 rating.

It would have been hard to QC that claim if any posts contradicting it
were instantly deleted, wouldn't it?


 
Date: 10 May 2008 07:13:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
When the USCF first started the rating system, it was free. I do not
know when rating fees were first introduced. I imagine that it
happened in the 1970s.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 May 2008 06:42:36
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 8:34=C2=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On May 9, 12:54=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> > > reprinted today.
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> > > Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> > > obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > =C2=A0I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
> > time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
> > length of copyright for such works?
>
> If the intitial copyright date was 1978 or later, author's life plus
> 70 years. If it was pre-1978, 95 years after the start of copyright.
> Unless the copyright holder voluntarily put it in public domain
> (possible, I suppose, since I doubt Elo was in it for the money), or
> Sloan obtained permission from the copyright holder, he's violating
> the law. However, it would be up to whoever currently owns the
> copyright to raise the matter.

In view of this, Sam, I wonder if you have secured the copyright? It
would seem that it has not expired, that the book is not in the public
domain.


 
Date: 10 May 2008 05:42:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 11:54 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> reprinted today.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> Sam Sloan

I have priced the book at $25.95. The reason for this is that any book
over $25 qualifies for Super Saver Free Shipping. Since Amazon
otherwise charges $3.99 for shipping, this effectively reduces the
price of the book to $21.96.

Before I realized this I priced my books at $24.95 which is of course
the worst possible price.

However, when ordering this book, please be sure to check the box for
Free Super Saver Shipping. Otherwise, you will have to pay the
additional $3.99

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 May 2008 03:07:42
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo


J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]m...
> On May 9, 12:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> >> reprinted today.
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
> >>
> >> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> >> obtain, has just been reprinted.
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan
>
> >I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
> >time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
> >length of copyright for such works?
>
> Elo died in 1992, so most likely the copyright runs until 2062. The
> book was originally published in 1978 by 'Arco', which seems to
> be a vanity label. If you google you find a reference to a 1979
> edition by Batsford. It is possible, therefore, that Batsford
> owns the copyright; also possible that Elo's heirs own it.
>
> It is pretty much certain that Sloan doesn't own the rights
> to this nor to most of the other nonsense he is
> reprinting.
>
> The book itself isn't very interesting, because Elo stretches
> his point and doesn't have a solid grasp of statistical logic.
> However, the basic method, which is elementary, is well
> described in this book and also in 2 papers published
> earlier.
>
> What Sloan means when he says he is
> 'sending the book to the printers' is that he is sending
> a CD with the page images to Amazon. Amazon
> then runs off a copy and glues it together *after*
> somebody orders it.
>
> They don't seem to be very concerned about copyright
> ownership; However, Sloan does have to state that he
> owns the rights. Presumably then Amazon is in
> the clear and it is Sloan who will get sued if the owner
> takes notice and thinks it is worthwhile.
>
> Another aspect of Sloan's current scam is that
> he seems to have no inhibitions about copying
> cover artwork for the pirated reprints.
> This may well be under separate copyright.


Arco was not a vanity press. They published a number of chess books
during the 1970s, including "The Complete Games of Paul Keres," a one-
volume edition of Keres's three books. I assume they were later
gobbled up by one of the bigger fish, but I've never researched it.


 
Date: 09 May 2008 19:58:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 5:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 9, 12:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> > reprinted today.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> > Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> > obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
> time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
> length of copyright for such works?

And, unless I am mistaken, it was published in a second edition in
1987.


 
Date: 09 May 2008 17:34:38
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo


[email protected] wrote:
> On May 9, 12:54=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> > reprinted today.
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
> >
> > Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> > obtain, has just been reprinted.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
> I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
> time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
> length of copyright for such works?


If the intitial copyright date was 1978 or later, author's life plus
70 years. If it was pre-1978, 95 years after the start of copyright.
Unless the copyright holder voluntarily put it in public domain
(possible, I suppose, since I doubt Elo was in it for the money), or
Sloan obtained permission from the copyright holder, he's violating
the law. However, it would be up to whoever currently owns the
copyright to raise the matter.


 
Date: 09 May 2008 15:48:58
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 12:54=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> reprinted today.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> Sam Sloan

I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
length of copyright for such works?


  
Date: 10 May 2008 10:56:30
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]m...
On May 9, 12:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
>> reprinted today.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>>
>> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
>> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>>
>> Sam Sloan

>I'm still wondering if this book is in the public domain at this
>time. It was first published in 1978, just 30 years ago. What is the
>length of copyright for such works?

Elo died in 1992, so most likely the copyright runs until 2062. The
book was originally published in 1978 by 'Arco', which seems to
be a vanity label. If you google you find a reference to a 1979
edition by Batsford. It is possible, therefore, that Batsford
owns the copyright; also possible that Elo's heirs own it.

It is pretty much certain that Sloan doesn't own the rights
to this nor to most of the other nonsense he is
reprinting.

The book itself isn't very interesting, because Elo stretches
his point and doesn't have a solid grasp of statistical logic.
However, the basic method, which is elementary, is well
described in this book and also in 2 papers published
earlier.

What Sloan means when he says he is
'sending the book to the printers' is that he is sending
a CD with the page images to Amazon. Amazon
then runs off a copy and glues it together *after*
somebody orders it.

They don't seem to be very concerned about copyright
ownership; However, Sloan does have to state that he
owns the rights. Presumably then Amazon is in
the clear and it is Sloan who will get sued if the owner
takes notice and thinks it is worthwhile.

Another aspect of Sloan's current scam is that
he seems to have no inhibitions about copying
cover artwork for the pirated reprints.
This may well be under separate copyright.




 
Date: 09 May 2008 14:09:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 4:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> >I spent half an hour on the phone this week interviewing someone who wants
> >to bring chess ratings into the C21st, and who will additionally provide
> >Chessville with 4 articles on the subject. He operates an outfit in
> >competition to 'standard' ratings, but is still true to Elo - in fact more
> >true than those systems which use ratings floors and ceilings. Phil Innes
>
> So his system cuts sandbaggers and manipulators a little more slack?


Let's not forget that there are "lifetime sandbaggers"
as well. When I first started playing in rated tourneys,
I noticed that the winner of our state's Reserve section
sounded strangely familiar. It turned out that he was
deliberately staying below the cutoff point, so he
could win, year after year, thereby becoming world-
famous like Sam Sloan.

No amount of quibbling over K-factors or ratings
floors or ceilings can impede these "lifers". And in
addition to American "lifers", there are of course
more than a few foreigners who travel to play in our
"big money" tournaments, year after year. These
folks know that if they stay below certain cutoffs,
they will end up the richer for it, financially anyway.

Fortunately, the amount of devotion to duty and
determination to lose -- sometimes -- and never
having the ambition to become a Class A player
like me, is rare, so these "lifers" are /relatively/
few and far between.

One item which seems to be of interest is the
mathematical advantage of having the first move
in a game of chess. If this edge were found to
be almost identical at every level, it should be an
easy matter to implement a change in the ratings
system to more accurately reflect the fact that I
have been given 62.147% Blacks and only
36.853 Whites (the other 1% of the time I was
forced to play with red or green pieces, and I
hung my Queen as a direct result).

Apparently as the result of some fairly recent
ratings deflation, a lot of folks are now on their
rating floors. What can be done about this? Is
it merely superficial, allowing such players to
"save face" when in fact their /real/ ratings are
tracked and used for calculating all ratings
changes? I, of course, wouldn't know about
such things, since I am never on any floor and
am always breaking through ceilings (ahem).


-- help bot




  
Date: 09 May 2008 14:42:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Fri, 9 May 2008 14:09:33 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:


> Apparently as the result of some fairly recent
>ratings deflation, a lot of folks are now on their
>rating floors. What can be done about this? Is
>it merely superficial, allowing such players to
>"save face" when in fact their /real/ ratings are
>tracked and used for calculating all ratings
>changes?

I asked this question myself some time ago, and was told that the
floor IS the real rating -- there is no unpublished rating which
reflects "real" strength and is used for calculating the results of
others.


 
Date: 09 May 2008 14:04:32
From: SBD
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 9, 3:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:40:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I spent half an hour on the phone this week interviewing someone who wants
> >to bring chess ratings into the C21st, and who will additionally provide
> >Chessville with 4 articles on the subject. He operates an outfit in
> >competition to 'standard' ratings, but is still true to Elo - in fact more
> >true than those systems which use ratings floors and ceilings. Phil Innes
>
> So his system cuts sandbaggers and manipulators a little more slack?

Yes it is probably that Chess Express nonsense he has been touting for
some time now.


  
Date: 20 May 2008 07:53:27
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo
On May 16, 12:37 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:17:20 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
> >> in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
> >> was the guy?
> >Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
> >Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
> >matter what his floor is.
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290
> >Sam Sloan
>
> If the guy Phil referenced was Heisman, then Phil's comment was
> slightly misleading.

I doubt even a person as clueless and dishonest as P Innes had Dan
Heisman in mind.

Heisman has a Master Quick Chess rating from the
> early 1990s, has published several books, and, ironically, is
> referred to as "NM Dan Heisman" at Chessville.

Dan also won the Championship of Philadelphia in 1973, and secured his
NM title a few years later. He also has a real FIDE rating, as opposed
to the vapor "nearly an IM" status of P Innes.

So, his award of a
> 2200 floor may have had some sloppy aspects, but it wasn't as if an
> unknown Joe Blow asked for a Master's title and got it.
>
> But, in deference to the point Phil made,, I think the award of a
> Master's title *does* matter, even if the person hasn't played for
> twenty years.

I agree.



  
Date: 10 May 2008 09:34:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today

"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 9, 3:29 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:40:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I spent half an hour on the phone this week interviewing someone who
>> >wants
>> >to bring chess ratings into the C21st, and who will additionally provide
>> >Chessville with 4 articles on the subject. He operates an outfit in
>> >competition to 'standard' ratings, but is still true to Elo - in fact
>> >more
>> >true than those systems which use ratings floors and ceilings. Phil
>> >Innes
>>
>> So his system cuts sandbaggers and manipulators a little more slack?
>
> Yes it is probably that Chess Express nonsense he has been touting for
> some time now.

I think Tanner's political award came from USCF - he got a master's title,
and a rating floor. No one seems to have been responsible for detecting
either sandbagging or manipulating, certainly no one at USCF, and nothing
happened to USCF's system after the 'awards' were made.

After pointing that out in the NY Times Gambit Blog and wondering how many
similar cases there may be, another guy wrote in to say that he asked USCF
for a master's title by sending them a letter requesting one, and they gave
him one, and a ratings floor - they did not look at any playing records
[they threw away pre-1990 records] nor asked him to sign anything.

In the above, Dowd-ing Thomas and Investigator-Murray are happy to cast
aspersions on a system where anything amiss would be immediately visible,
and to the public - alarm bells would sound, and the USCF political award
system could not operate, since this other system is not a /secret/ one ;)

That sort of thing, these guys attest, is 'nonsense'.

What they consider sense is this: Oddly enough, I discovered the USCF rating
award system's political secrets [RASPS] via the writings of Ken Sloan not
Sam Sloan. Sam Sloan merely outed Tanner, but I discovered that Ken Sloan
could offer no explanation for the complete absense of quality control at
USCF's rating department which permitted the situation, and secondly, that
those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't spot the
cheat.

This second factor admits that such titles are either completely
uninvigilated, and in fact demonstrate no quality control exists whatever,

OR,

the system is designed to be secret, since then chess burocrats can award
each other titles.

The great irony here is that the very same people who cast a blind eye on
USCF's activities, continue to rubbish others - naturally in the vaguest of
terms, but unnaturally to suggest that others have not solved problems which
continue to exist with USCF's own system.

The vaguer it gets, the more crooked and political it becomes.

The ratings system is either a brand, ie, USCF's, which is therefore an
unbid award system in itself constituing a monopoly, or it is a for-cost
operated system for American chess players.

If it is the first of these, then USCF people will object to any competition
to their rating monopoly - and if it is the second, then it seems a tad
over-priced compared with competition, something like 3x, and in fact a
profit center, not an at-cost service at all.

Phil Innes




   
Date: 10 May 2008 09:31:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:34:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>... I discovered that Ken Sloan
>could offer no explanation for the complete absense of quality control at
>USCF's rating department which permitted the situation, and secondly, that
>those who proposed Tanner's award for a master title also couldn't spot the
>cheat.

Phil confuses quality control with fraud detection. The best guard
against the latter is free and open public access to rating and event
history, and an open forum for members' questions and comments about
what appear to be ratings anomalies (named or otherwise, Phil, heh,
heh, heh).

Phil's prattle about QC vis-a-vis titles is ironic, given his aid,
comfort and general flackery in favor of questionable claims by one
well known USCF board member.


 
Date: 09 May 2008 13:40:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
I spent half an hour on the phone this week interviewing someone who wants
to bring chess ratings into the C21st, and who will additionally provide
Chessville with 4 articles on the subject. He operates an outfit in
competition to 'standard' ratings, but is still true to Elo - in fact more
true than those systems which use ratings floors and ceilings. Phil Innes


"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> Elo's book, The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, is
> reprinted today.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891277
>
> Professor Elo's book, long out of print and almost impossible to
> obtain, has just been reprinted.
>
> Sam Sloan




  
Date: 17 May 2008 14:07:51
From:
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo


Mike Murray wrote:
>
> >Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to
> >1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
> >done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their
> >chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess
> >skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).
>
> As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
> re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
> introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
> but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
> destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.


Unfortunately no. The old crosstables were tossed around 1991 by Jim
Meyer to save space. This was, of course, a bad idea, but suggesting
that Meyer did this in in 1991 so that Todd Miller's enemies could ace
him out for coaching jobs fifteen years later says more about Miller's
mental state than it does about the USCF. (Note that, while the
_rating supplements_ exist and could be digitized with enough effort,
the individual results do not. This would not be enough to silence
paranoid twits like Miller and Sloan.)



  
Date: 09 May 2008 13:29:37
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Rating of Chess Players, Past and Present, by Arpad Elo reprinted today
On Fri, 9 May 2008 13:40:02 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I spent half an hour on the phone this week interviewing someone who wants
>to bring chess ratings into the C21st, and who will additionally provide
>Chessville with 4 articles on the subject. He operates an outfit in
>competition to 'standard' ratings, but is still true to Elo - in fact more
>true than those systems which use ratings floors and ceilings. Phil Innes

So his system cuts sandbaggers and manipulators a little more slack?