USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

By contrast, I want to rate the entire Olympiad including all the
players using the same standard USCF rating system that is already used
for all other events. This will require no additional programming by
Mike Nolan. The only real cost will be the time it will take to assign
USCF ID numbers to the approximately one thousand Olympiad players who
do not already have USCF ratings. This cost is minimal compared to he
cost of rating the four thousand kids who play in a national scholastic
event. More than that, this is only a one time charge, as one these
once thousand Olympiad players have a USCF rating and ID number, that
will be completed and permanent.

My plan is to go into competition with FIDE. Once we rate an Olympiad,
every nation in the world will have ten USCF rated players, 6 men and
four women. This will encourage them to come to the US to compete in
our tournaments. I also propose to sell our rating system to other
countries and make some money.

Right now there are 400,000 players with USCF ratings. An Olympiad has
about 1200 players. Incorporating those 1200 players into our rating
system will be a minor cost, and has the potential for great benefits
in the long run.

Every time I go to an Olympiad and every time I compete
internationally, I am approached by players who want to come to the US
to compete. The stumbling block that is stopping these players from
coming to the US is the rating system. If they are rated 2205 by FIDE
(which is the most common rating) and they want to play in the World
Open, they will be assigned a 2305 rating. Most of these 2205 players
are only about 2000 strength (I base that on having played them
myself), so they would have no chance and would just be humiliated if
they had to play as a 2305 player.

It takes 24 games to get an established USCF rating, so they would have
to stay here for a long time to be able to complete for class prizes.

My plan gives them a rating before they come here and encourages them
to play for USCF rating points, which is what most players play for
anyway.

In recent Olympiad there were about 1200 players and 140 of them
already had a USCF rating having played in US tournaments in the past.

Another important point is that the FIDE rating system is completely
different from the USCF rating system. They both started the same but
they have gone in different directions. There are players whose USCF
rating is 500 points above or below their FIDE rating. Goichberg's plan
to rate the Olympiad by using a conversion formula to adjust a players
USCF rating based on his FIDE rating is just absolute nonsense; a
ridiculous, stupid and extremely costly idea. Saying that will probably
get me censured again but I have to speak the truth regardless of the
consequences.

I consider this to be the most important single thing I can accomplish
while I am on the board and I will continue to press for it.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

By contrast, I want to rate the entire Olympiad including all the
players using the same standard USCF rating system that is already used
for all other events. This will require no additional programming by
Mike Nolan. The only real cost will be the time it will take to assign
USCF ID numbers to the approximately one thousand Olympiad players who
do not already have USCF ratings. This cost is minimal compared to he
cost of rating the four thousand kids who play in a national scholastic
event. More than that, this is only a one time charge, as one these
once thousand Olympiad players have a USCF rating and ID number, that
will be completed and permanent.

Sam,
Wouldn't you still have to assign them some sort of initial USCF rating
? WOuldn't that require some conversion table? I think you idea has
merit but I don't see how you can get around assigning some sort of
"converted" rating initially.

Wount there be a problem with providing a rating service for non
members too?

Just curious. I don't have any better ideas I just wondered how that
might be handled.
Thanks,
Rob


My plan is to go into competition with FIDE. Once we rate an Olympiad,
every nation in the world will have ten USCF rated players, 6 men and
four women. This will encourage them to come to the US to compete in
our tournaments. I also propose to sell our rating system to other
countries and make some money.

Right now there are 400,000 players with USCF ratings. An Olympiad has
about 1200 players. Incorporating those 1200 players into our rating
system will be a minor cost, and has the potential for great benefits
in the long run.

Every time I go to an Olympiad and every time I compete
internationally, I am approached by players who want to come to the US
to compete. The stumbling block that is stopping these players from
coming to the US is the rating system. If they are rated 2205 by FIDE
(which is the most common rating) and they want to play in the World
Open, they will be assigned a 2305 rating. Most of these 2205 players
are only about 2000 strength (I base that on having played them
myself), so they would have no chance and would just be humiliated if
they had to play as a 2305 player.

It takes 24 games to get an established USCF rating, so they would have
to stay here for a long time to be able to complete for class prizes.

My plan gives them a rating before they come here and encourages them
to play for USCF rating points, which is what most players play for
anyway.

In recent Olympiad there were about 1200 players and 140 of them
already had a USCF rating having played in US tournaments in the past.

Another important point is that the FIDE rating system is completely
different from the USCF rating system. They both started the same but
they have gone in different directions. There are players whose USCF
rating is 500 points above or below their FIDE rating. Goichberg's plan
to rate the Olympiad by using a conversion formula to adjust a players
USCF rating based on his FIDE rating is just absolute nonsense; a
ridiculous, stupid and extremely costly idea. Saying that will probably
get me censured again but I have to speak the truth regardless of the
consequences.

I consider this to be the most important single thing I can accomplish
while I am on the board and I will continue to press for it.

Sam Sloan

Sam

Exactly how many USCF players would benefit from rating the Olympaids?
Am I correct in my assumption that you have written a lengtly article
for the benefit of 4 US players?

Marcus Roberts

samsloan wrote:
USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

By contrast, I want to rate the entire Olympiad including all the
players using the same standard USCF rating system that is already used
for all other events. This will require no additional programming by
Mike Nolan. The only real cost will be the time it will take to assign
USCF ID numbers to the approximately one thousand Olympiad players who
do not already have USCF ratings. This cost is minimal compared to he
cost of rating the four thousand kids who play in a national scholastic
event. More than that, this is only a one time charge, as one these
once thousand Olympiad players have a USCF rating and ID number, that
will be completed and permanent.

My plan is to go into competition with FIDE. Once we rate an Olympiad,
every nation in the world will have ten USCF rated players, 6 men and
four women. This will encourage them to come to the US to compete in
our tournaments. I also propose to sell our rating system to other
countries and make some money.

Right now there are 400,000 players with USCF ratings. An Olympiad has
about 1200 players. Incorporating those 1200 players into our rating
system will be a minor cost, and has the potential for great benefits
in the long run.

Every time I go to an Olympiad and every time I compete
internationally, I am approached by players who want to come to the US
to compete. The stumbling block that is stopping these players from
coming to the US is the rating system. If they are rated 2205 by FIDE
(which is the most common rating) and they want to play in the World
Open, they will be assigned a 2305 rating. Most of these 2205 players
are only about 2000 strength (I base that on having played them
myself), so they would have no chance and would just be humiliated if
they had to play as a 2305 player.

It takes 24 games to get an established USCF rating, so they would have
to stay here for a long time to be able to complete for class prizes.

My plan gives them a rating before they come here and encourages them
to play for USCF rating points, which is what most players play for
anyway.

In recent Olympiad there were about 1200 players and 140 of them
already had a USCF rating having played in US tournaments in the past.

Another important point is that the FIDE rating system is completely
different from the USCF rating system. They both started the same but
they have gone in different directions. There are players whose USCF
rating is 500 points above or below their FIDE rating. Goichberg's plan
to rate the Olympiad by using a conversion formula to adjust a players
USCF rating based on his FIDE rating is just absolute nonsense; a
ridiculous, stupid and extremely costly idea. Saying that will probably
get me censured again but I have to speak the truth regardless of the
consequences.

I consider this to be the most important single thing I can accomplish
while I am on the board and I will continue to press for it.

Sam Sloan

On 4 Jan 2007 06:52:27 -0800, "samsloan" wrote:

USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

What's the conversion formula that has to be programmed ?

On 4 Jan 2007 08:42:38 -0800, wrote:

Sam

Exactly how many USCF players would benefit from rating the Olympaids?
Am I correct in my assumption that you have written a lengtly article
for the benefit of 4 US players?

Didn't you read his post ? Rightly or wrongly, Sloan claims rating
the Olympiad will encourage foreign players to play in the US.

samsloan )
wrote (4 Jan 2007 06:52:27 -0800):

7 ... If they are rated 2205 by FIDE (which is the most
7 common rating) and they want to play in the World
7 Open, they will be assigned a 2305 rating. ...

_
According to the procedure described below, a 2205
FIDE rating would be converted to a 2205.625 USCF
rating.
_
"The current FIDE-to-USCF conversion formula, which
the Ratings Commttee spent quite a bit of time working
on, is as follows:
_
For someone whose FIDE rating is 2600 or higher, their
starting USCF rating is their FIDE rating + 50 points.
_
For someone whose FIDE rating is between 2200 and
2599, their starting [USCF] rating is their FIDE rating + 1/8
of the difference between 2200 and their FIDE rating.
(Someone who is FIDE 2200 gets a 2200 USCF rating,
someone who is FIDE 2400 gets a 2425 USCF rating, etc.)
_
For someone whose FIDE rating is below 2200, their
starting rating is their FIDE rating.
_
In all cases these are set up as provisional ratings. If
the player's FIDE rating is 2150 or higher, it is P/10,
otherwise it is P/5." - Nolan (Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:18 am)

"samsloan" writes:

USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

History: 15 years ago, when the USCF office was doing the processing
of ratings for FIDE, I am told that the USCF also used that data to adjust
our player's USCF ratings, though I don't know the exact mechanics of what
was being done.

In September 2005 the Board passed a proposal by the objections procedure
which listed around 8 events that the USCF sends official representatives
to, such as the Olympiads, and mandated that our players' performance in
these events be reflected on those players' USCF rating. (USCF members could
also request in advance of a foreign FIDE event that it affect their
USCF rating, there is a small fee for this.)

The Ratings Committee had come up with a way to do this using the
information on the FIDE website once the event had been rated by FIDE.

However, Bill Goichberg wanted (and the board proposal preferred but did not
mandate) a formula with a higher 'K' factor than the one in the Ratings
Committee's formula.

The Ratings Committee felt that a higher K was mathematically unadvisable.
Eventually Bill relented and agreed to use the Ratings Committee's
methodology, their white paper on this is available at:
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/fideuscf.pdf

The programming to implement these adjustments was completed in early
November 2006 and the named or requested events that had occurred between
October 2005 and October 2006 were processed. This affected around 20
players in the 2006 Annual List.

The person at the USCF office who made these entries estimated that it
took him around 18 hours to gather and enter the data for a total of
around 48 entries, but I suspect that was largely due to learning curve
issues, such as knowing what events to look up and where to find the data
on the FIDE website. I think in the long run this task will take 3-5
minutes per player per event. (That means the 2008 Olympiad, where the
USCF would have a total of 10 representatives, might take around an hour
to research and enter.)

One limitation of this process is that it only works after the player has
a published FIDE rating, which requires 9 FIDE ratable games. Thus
for some players representing the USCF, such as most of the participants
in the World Youth Championships, there would be no adjustments to make
as they do not yet have a FIDE rating.

Interestingly enough, Greg Shahade chided the USCF for making adjustments
based on events like the Olympiad in his column in Chess Life Online on
the December Ratings List even though he was still on the Executive Board
in September 2005 when that proposal was initially approved by the Board.

Bill has urged that we now rate all the events of all USCF members
participating in FIDE rated events.

In a typical FIDE Rating List there are around 500 USA players listed,
thus it may take as much as 40 hours of staff time each quarter to look
up the FIDE tournament history for all of those players, take out the
events that were also USCF rated, like the World Open, and then look up
each of the remaining players and events on the FIDE website and enter
that data into USCF rcords.

Sam Sloan has a different idea, he wants the USCF to rate the entire
event for events like the Olympiad. There were about 900 players in the
2004 Olympiad, 10 of them representing the USA, aother 200 or so who had
USCF IDs and ratings, some of them a decade or more out-of-date, and
the rest were not in the USCF database at all. (About 100 of those players
did not have FIDE IDs or ratings even after the 2004 Olympiad was rated
by FIDE.)

My estimate was that IF a full crosstable could have been located it would
have taken around 100 hours of staff time to look up all of the players
to see if they had USCF IDs, assign IDs where needed, update out-of-date
USCF ratings in many cases and then enter the crosstable data. Jerry Nash,
the person who serves as the USCF office's liaison with FIDE, thinks it
would take much longer than that.
--
Mike Nolan

Mike Nolan wrote:
"samsloan" writes:

USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

History: 15 years ago, when the USCF office was doing the processing
of ratings for FIDE, I am told that the USCF also used that data to adjust
our player's USCF ratings, though I don't know the exact mechanics of what
was being done.

In September 2005 the Board passed a proposal by the objections procedure
which listed around 8 events that the USCF sends official representatives
to, such as the Olympiads, and mandated that our players' performance in
these events be reflected on those players' USCF rating. (USCF members could
also request in advance of a foreign FIDE event that it affect their
USCF rating, there is a small fee for this.)

The Ratings Committee had come up with a way to do this using the
information on the FIDE website once the event had been rated by FIDE.

However, Bill Goichberg wanted (and the board proposal preferred but did not
mandate) a formula with a higher 'K' factor than the one in the Ratings
Committee's formula.

The Ratings Committee felt that a higher K was mathematically unadvisable.
Eventually Bill relented and agreed to use the Ratings Committee's
methodology, their white paper on this is available at:
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/fideuscf.pdf

The programming to implement these adjustments was completed in early
November 2006 and the named or requested events that had occurred between
October 2005 and October 2006 were processed. This affected around 20
players in the 2006 Annual List.

The person at the USCF office who made these entries estimated that it
took him around 18 hours to gather and enter the data for a total of
around 48 entries, but I suspect that was largely due to learning curve
issues, such as knowing what events to look up and where to find the data
on the FIDE website. I think in the long run this task will take 3-5
minutes per player per event. (That means the 2008 Olympiad, where the
USCF would have a total of 10 representatives, might take around an hour
to research and enter.)

One limitation of this process is that it only works after the player has
a published FIDE rating, which requires 9 FIDE ratable games. Thus
for some players representing the USCF, such as most of the participants
in the World Youth Championships, there would be no adjustments to make
as they do not yet have a FIDE rating.

Interestingly enough, Greg Shahade chided the USCF for making adjustments
based on events like the Olympiad in his column in Chess Life Online on
the December Ratings List even though he was still on the Executive Board
in September 2005 when that proposal was initially approved by the Board.

Bill has urged that we now rate all the events of all USCF members
participating in FIDE rated events.

In a typical FIDE Rating List there are around 500 USA players listed,
thus it may take as much as 40 hours of staff time each quarter to look
up the FIDE tournament history for all of those players, take out the
events that were also USCF rated, like the World Open, and then look up
each of the remaining players and events on the FIDE website and enter
that data into USCF rcords.

Sam Sloan has a different idea, he wants the USCF to rate the entire
event for events like the Olympiad. There were about 900 players in the
2004 Olympiad, 10 of them representing the USA, aother 200 or so who had
USCF IDs and ratings, some of them a decade or more out-of-date, and
the rest were not in the USCF database at all. (About 100 of those players
did not have FIDE IDs or ratings even after the 2004 Olympiad was rated
by FIDE.)

My estimate was that IF a full crosstable could have been located it would
have taken around 100 hours of staff time to look up all of the players
to see if they had USCF IDs, assign IDs where needed, update out-of-date
USCF ratings in many cases and then enter the crosstable data. Jerry Nash,
the person who serves as the USCF office's liaison with FIDE, thinks it
would take much longer than that.
--
Mike Nolan

I have read what Mike Nolan has to say. In my opinoin, the USCF lacks
the financial resources to rate these FIDE events becasue the impact on
the membership is too low. This idea, while interesting, will bankrupt
the USCF.

You have either got to be a NERD or BUSINESSMAN about this.

What you need to do is instruct your FIDE Delegate to get FIDE to move
the ratings office *BACK* to the USCF, which I will support.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

wrote:
Mike Nolan wrote:
"samsloan" writes:

USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

History: 15 years ago, when the USCF office was doing the processing
of ratings for FIDE, I am told that the USCF also used that data to adjust
our player's USCF ratings, though I don't know the exact mechanics of what
was being done.

In September 2005 the Board passed a proposal by the objections procedure
which listed around 8 events that the USCF sends official representatives
to, such as the Olympiads, and mandated that our players' performance in
these events be reflected on those players' USCF rating. (USCF members could
also request in advance of a foreign FIDE event that it affect their
USCF rating, there is a small fee for this.)

The Ratings Committee had come up with a way to do this using the
information on the FIDE website once the event had been rated by FIDE.

However, Bill Goichberg wanted (and the board proposal preferred but did not
mandate) a formula with a higher 'K' factor than the one in the Ratings
Committee's formula.

The Ratings Committee felt that a higher K was mathematically unadvisable.
Eventually Bill relented and agreed to use the Ratings Committee's
methodology, their white paper on this is available at:
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/fideuscf.pdf

The programming to implement these adjustments was completed in early
November 2006 and the named or requested events that had occurred between
October 2005 and October 2006 were processed. This affected around 20
players in the 2006 Annual List.

The person at the USCF office who made these entries estimated that it
took him around 18 hours to gather and enter the data for a total of
around 48 entries, but I suspect that was largely due to learning curve
issues, such as knowing what events to look up and where to find the data
on the FIDE website. I think in the long run this task will take 3-5
minutes per player per event. (That means the 2008 Olympiad, where the
USCF would have a total of 10 representatives, might take around an hour
to research and enter.)

One limitation of this process is that it only works after the player has
a published FIDE rating, which requires 9 FIDE ratable games. Thus
for some players representing the USCF, such as most of the participants
in the World Youth Championships, there would be no adjustments to make
as they do not yet have a FIDE rating.

Interestingly enough, Greg Shahade chided the USCF for making adjustments
based on events like the Olympiad in his column in Chess Life Online on
the December Ratings List even though he was still on the Executive Board
in September 2005 when that proposal was initially approved by the Board.

Bill has urged that we now rate all the events of all USCF members
participating in FIDE rated events.

In a typical FIDE Rating List there are around 500 USA players listed,
thus it may take as much as 40 hours of staff time each quarter to look
up the FIDE tournament history for all of those players, take out the
events that were also USCF rated, like the World Open, and then look up
each of the remaining players and events on the FIDE website and enter
that data into USCF rcords.

Sam Sloan has a different idea, he wants the USCF to rate the entire
event for events like the Olympiad. There were about 900 players in the
2004 Olympiad, 10 of them representing the USA, aother 200 or so who had
USCF IDs and ratings, some of them a decade or more out-of-date, and
the rest were not in the USCF database at all. (About 100 of those players
did not have FIDE IDs or ratings even after the 2004 Olympiad was rated
by FIDE.)

My estimate was that IF a full crosstable could have been located it would
have taken around 100 hours of staff time to look up all of the players
to see if they had USCF IDs, assign IDs where needed, update out-of-date
USCF ratings in many cases and then enter the crosstable data. Jerry Nash,
the person who serves as the USCF office's liaison with FIDE, thinks it
would take much longer than that.
--
Mike Nolan

I have read what Mike Nolan has to say. In my opinoin, the USCF lacks
the financial resources to rate these FIDE events becasue the impact on
the membership is too low. This idea, while interesting, will bankrupt
the USCF.

You have either got to be a NERD or BUSINESSMAN about this.

What you need to do is instruct your FIDE Delegate to get FIDE to move
the ratings office *BACK* to the USCF, which I will support.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE


Mike Nolan is working against me. He doesn't want to validate my
election petition. Will you lend me $25,000 to fight the USCF?

Sam Sloan

Sam,

IF you write down what you intend to do with the money, and it makes
sense to me, I will consider loaning you some money. You can
demonstrate your expereience as an Executive Board member about how you
would use 25,000 dollars to fight the USCF.

Marcus Rboerts

samsloan wrote:
wrote:
Mike Nolan wrote:
"samsloan" writes:

USCF Rating the Olympiad

We have been having a debate at USCF Executive Board meetings. Bill
Goichberg wants to USCF rate the Olympiads by adjusting the USCF
ratings of the players by a conversion formula. One of the many
problems with this idea is that Mike Nolan will have to write a
computer program to do this, plus it will take approximately 40 to 50
hours of staff time every two years thereafter.

History: 15 years ago, when the USCF office was doing the processing
of ratings for FIDE, I am told that the USCF also used that data to adjust
our player's USCF ratings, though I don't know the exact mechanics of what
was being done.

In September 2005 the Board passed a proposal by the objections procedure
which listed around 8 events that the USCF sends official representatives
to, such as the Olympiads, and mandated that our players' performance in
these events be reflected on those players' USCF rating. (USCF members could
also request in advance of a foreign FIDE event that it affect their
USCF rating, there is a small fee for this.)

The Ratings Committee had come up with a way to do this using the
information on the FIDE website once the event had been rated by FIDE.

However, Bill Goichberg wanted (and the board proposal preferred but did not
mandate) a formula with a higher 'K' factor than the one in the Ratings
Committee's formula.

The Ratings Committee felt that a higher K was mathematically unadvisable.
Eventually Bill relented and agreed to use the Ratings Committee's
methodology, their white paper on this is available at:
http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/fideuscf.pdf

The programming to implement these adjustments was completed in early
November 2006 and the named or requested events that had occurred between
October 2005 and October 2006 were processed. This affected around 20
players in the 2006 Annual List.

The person at the USCF office who made these entries estimated that it
took him around 18 hours to gather and enter the data for a total of
around 48 entries, but I suspect that was largely due to learning curve
issues, such as knowing what events to look up and where to find the data
on the FIDE website. I think in the long run this task will take 3-5
minutes per player per event. (That means the 2008 Olympiad, where the
USCF would have a total of 10 representatives, might take around an hour
to research and enter.)

One limitation of this process is that it only works after the player has
a published FIDE rating, which requires 9 FIDE ratable games. Thus
for some players representing the USCF, such as most of the participants
in the World Youth Championships, there would be no adjustments to make
as they do not yet have a FIDE rating.

Interestingly enough, Greg Shahade chided the USCF for making adjustments
based on events like the Olympiad in his column in Chess Life Online on
the December Ratings List even though he was still on the Executive Board
in September 2005 when that proposal was initially approved by the Board.

Bill has urged that we now rate all the events of all USCF members
participating in FIDE rated events.

In a typical FIDE Rating List there are around 500 USA players listed,
thus it may take as much as 40 hours of staff time each quarter to look
up the FIDE tournament history for all of those players, take out the
events that were also USCF rated, like the World Open, and then look up
each of the remaining players and events on the FIDE website and enter
that data into USCF rcords.

Sam Sloan has a different idea, he wants the USCF to rate the entire
event for events like the Olympiad. There were about 900 players in the
2004 Olympiad, 10 of them representing the USA, aother 200 or so who had
USCF IDs and ratings, some of them a decade or more out-of-date, and
the rest were not in the USCF database at all. (About 100 of those players
did not have FIDE IDs or ratings even after the 2004 Olympiad was rated
by FIDE.)

My estimate was that IF a full crosstable could have been located it would
have taken around 100 hours of staff time to look up all of the players
to see if they had USCF IDs, assign IDs where needed, update out-of-date
USCF ratings in many cases and then enter the crosstable data. Jerry Nash,
the person who serves as the USCF office's liaison with FIDE, thinks it
would take much longer than that.
--
Mike Nolan

I have read what Mike Nolan has to say. In my opinoin, the USCF lacks
the financial resources to rate these FIDE events becasue the impact on
the membership is too low. This idea, while interesting, will bankrupt
the USCF.

You have either got to be a NERD or BUSINESSMAN about this.

What you need to do is instruct your FIDE Delegate to get FIDE to move
the ratings office *BACK* to the USCF, which I will support.

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE


Mike Nolan is working against me. He doesn't want to validate my
election petition. Will you lend me $25,000 to fight the USCF?

Sam Sloan