There has been a discussion at the ICA website of the proper method for
determining the eligibility of players for the Illinois Denker
qualifying tournament.

ICA president Bill Brock offered the following opinion: "I would not
feel guilty passing over an 18-year old for a 14-year-old with a
marginally lower rating and a lot of potential."

Kevin Bachler responded as follows:

"I would. Just as I would about passing over a 14-year old for an
18-year-old with a marginally lower rating and a lot of potential.

If you want Illinois to be stronger, make it about the best player,
period. If you let in the weaker player, then the young weaker player
knows that he doesn't have to prove himself as much. Whereas if he
does, he will grow more and grow faster.

If you want strength, NEVER lower the standards. NEVER."

I posed the following question to Kevin:

"Do you believe that standards are lowered when a player is invited
based upon an artificially inflated rating Kevin?"

Kevin responded:

"I believe that certified USCF ratings are the only consistent measure
that we have to use in addition to specific tournament results, and
that we should therefore use certified USCF ratings and tournament
results. To do otherwise is unfair to all parties involved. From time
to time USCF makes ratings corrections for various reasons, and when
they do so, the new rating is certified, Vince, irrespective of
anyone's personal feeling about it.

It you have more specific questions, I believe that they should be
offline."

Bill Brock has requested that we move the discussion to rgcp so I am
posting my follow-up he

Kevin, as long as you are going to offer the current ICA President
advice on this topic in a public forum, I think it is appropriate to
address these questions in a public forum.

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more. In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Vince Hart

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more. In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Kevin cleared it with an attorney he met in the lunchroom and a CPA that he
passed in the hall before he did that.

StanB wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were
used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more.
In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Kevin cleared it with an attorney he met in the lunchroom and a CPA
that he
passed in the hall before he did that.


The question was purely hypothetical Stan. I was hoping to explore
Kevin's own understanding of the concept of "fairness" without getting
into the question of who might have agreed with him or who he might
have relied on during the course of any actual events that may have
inspired my hypothetical question. Since I am still not completely
clear on what Kevin means when he says that someone "agrees" with him,
I wanted to steer clear of Kevin's ideas about what others may have
thought of his actions.

Vince Hart

Vince Hart wrote:

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were
used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more. In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Vince Hart

Define "illegitimate tournaments." Riddle us not.

"Spam Scone" wrote in message
ups.com...

Vince Hart wrote:

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were
used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more. In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Define "illegitimate tournaments." Riddle us not.

Check Kevin's history, opponents.

For the sake of my hypothetical, illegitimate in the sense that the
USCF subsequently struck the tournaments from the record for
irregularities, and the hypothetical ICA President knew of the
irregularities and believed them to be sufficient to warrant removing
the tournaments from the USCF record.

Vince Hart

Can't we leave Kevin and his family alone? This is not to say that
what was done circa 1999 was good; just that I'm not in a position
today to pass judgment on it. To dwell on it in 2005 is unproductive,
and bad karma.

I strongly disagree with his criticism (quoted upthread), but I didn't
perceive it as being meant personally, and didn't take it as such.
Lots of stuff to get done; would much rather focus on those things.

If two players ratings were equal, I would choose to send the older
player to the Denker, especially if it were their last chance to play
in the event. The Denker is more of an honor than it is a tournament
that will quickly develop young talent.
If a senior deserved it, then it should go to them. It sends a very
bad message when someone's performance over the board is overlooked
because people expect someone else to perform better in the future.

Also about USCF ratings, they are accurate to a degree, but if two
players are within 20-50 points, it doesn't mean very much. I think
that activity should be rewarded in cases like this. Instead of a
minimum games requirement, I'd prefer a system that also rewards those
who play a lot of games. When someone is playing a lot it shows that
they are dedicated to the game, instead of just playing 8-10 games at
the last second to fulfill some artificial requirement.

Vince Hart wrote:
There has been a discussion at the ICA website of the proper method
for
determining the eligibility of players for the Illinois Denker
qualifying tournament.

ICA president Bill Brock offered the following opinion: "I would not
feel guilty passing over an 18-year old for a 14-year-old with a
marginally lower rating and a lot of potential."

Kevin Bachler responded as follows:

"I would. Just as I would about passing over a 14-year old for an
18-year-old with a marginally lower rating and a lot of potential.

If you want Illinois to be stronger, make it about the best player,
period. If you let in the weaker player, then the young weaker player
knows that he doesn't have to prove himself as much. Whereas if he
does, he will grow more and grow faster.

If you want strength, NEVER lower the standards. NEVER."

I posed the following question to Kevin:

"Do you believe that standards are lowered when a player is invited
based upon an artificially inflated rating Kevin?"

Kevin responded:

"I believe that certified USCF ratings are the only consistent
measure
that we have to use in addition to specific tournament results, and
that we should therefore use certified USCF ratings and tournament
results. To do otherwise is unfair to all parties involved. From time
to time USCF makes ratings corrections for various reasons, and when
they do so, the new rating is certified, Vince, irrespective of
anyone's personal feeling about it.

It you have more specific questions, I believe that they should be
offline."

Bill Brock has requested that we move the discussion to rgcp so I am
posting my follow-up he

Kevin, as long as you are going to offer the current ICA President
advice on this topic in a public forum, I think it is appropriate to
address these questions in a public forum.

Suppose the ICA President knows that illegitimate tournaments were
used
to calculate a particular player's USCF rating and that those
tournaments have likely boosted that rating by 200 points or more. In
that case, would it be fair to all parties involved to invite that
player based upon his USCF rating?

Vince Hart

I've really got to do tax returns....

In Illinois, what we're talking about here are folks around ELO 1800.
This is the cutoff (+/- 50 ELO points) for the field of 16 for the
Illinois Denker Qualifier. May I humbly submit that an 18-y.o. so
rated (and I was one, once upon a time in PA: blown off the board by
Anthony Randolph, obliterated by one of the Costigan brothers, but I
digress...) is rather unlikely to win the national event.

A 14-y.o. so rated has a somewhat more realistic chance of winning,
even in the current year.

From memory--there are sixteen slots available in the 2005 Illinois
Denker Qualifier: twelve have been invited so far. Ratings of the
twelve are #1 thru #11, and #15, based on a 5-0 performance in a recent
HS championship, in which I had previously indicated that I would be
awarding one wild card to one of the top finishers. Only 33 points
separate the ratings of #11-15.

So I'm not exactly diluting the field.

Kevin regularly offers his opinion on matters of fairness and ethics
concerning both the ICA and the USCF. He is not reluctant to offer his
opinion on the conduct and motivations of other members and on the
performance of officers. I think his own actions are relevant to
evaluating his opinions.

I think it is regrettable that the discussion of Kevin's activities
might cause discomfort to some members of his family, but I do not see
that as a reason to give him a pass. I think that the cause of the
discomfort is his conduct rather than the discussion.

RGCP regulars will recall the controversy from the middle of 2000
regarding payments Kevin received from an ICA program for chess lessons
he gave to his step-son. I was not active within the ICA at the time,
but I have heard that many within the ICA community chose to view that
controversy as a personal dispute between Kevin and Richard Verber and
declined to take any position on the merits of the issue. Not
surprisingly, Kevin claimed to have the support of the ICA community.
He blamed the dispute on Verber's jealousy.

I think it would have been much better if someone at the ICA had taken
a closer look at Kevin's activities at the time. If the MSA had
been available back then, I think that people's opinions on the
controversy might have been much different and the ICA may have
followed a different course subsequently.

Vince Hart