On 11 Dec 2006 20:46:45 -0800, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


What has still not really been answered from USCF's camp is how the accussed
got it through the ratings department in the first place, and then, without
apparent invigilation, the accused was awarded a life-title. Questions on
the extent of this problem have been, of course, dismissed, which is the
exact opposite of calling for performance measurements!

I really don't know the answer to that question. However, in my
professional life, I've learned of people who get away with embezzling
millions of dollars without being detected for long periods of time; my
guess is USCF rating points aren't quite as valuable.

Let me offer some observations in defense of the USCF ratings people,
on how Tanner could stay under the radar.

(1) It wasn't like Tanner *only* played in the little closed-circle
events. He played in quite a few normal ones, interspersed with the
closed circle ones.

(2) Evidently, he maintained a mid-level Expert's rating for some time
before beginning the suspicious events. So, it wasn't like he was
jumping multiple classes.

(3) None of the suspect events brought him any prize money or directly
qualified him for anything at the time. The key result the event that
bumped him over 2300, which gave him a 2200 floor under the rules of
the time. After that, collecting games toward the LM title was just
cruising. How many players have performance results well under their
floors? Probably quite a few.

Makes me more impressed at how Sloan and his sources dug into this in
the first place.