The past year has seen an exciting range of activities alluded to, and after
careful consideration, consultation with NFL officials who eliminated
team-stapling, citing a 1930 rule, The Committee has nominated this article
by 'a Delegate'
and say it is 'well thought of and interminably long' on:

[NB: Further entries must be of real writing, as is this one by 'a
Delegate']

WHY CHESS RATINGS SHOULD BE SECRET and TAKE LONGER TO DO

for the grand prize. The winner takes over Larry Evans column in Chess Life
with a brand-new column titled, Patzers Mind, Stapling Mind.

Why not? It would record your score at playing chess. That is what
ratings
ARE. Why would you not want chess games to be rated, or a false record of
wins loses and draws recorded?

The issue is simple:

If you argue that rating systems are predictors only...then compile them
secretly and only release the results.

A masterful start. Not only does this address the thorny problem of knowing
what the hell anyone else is rated by eliminating the possibility of
knowing,
it carefully does not state when the results will be released. [Some current
experiments on this theme are already underway, and the results are
"completely baffling", said a happy USCF official today, but refused to go
on the record.

If however, you make the sausage-making public...then you have to deal
witht
the fact that the "meat" (players) have a say in how you make the sausage.
Ratings are not only descriptors of play -- they influence it.

While some fools have claimed that ratings 'predict' the past, so to speak,
or as some say, record it, this innovative idea from the sausage industry
stops pigs/players from messing up the sausage design system by claiming
that the sausage is literally theirs!

How do they influence it? Every time a player who needs a draw to win the
tourney keeps playing to win to increase his /her rating, the rating
system has
not only described play...it has influenced it.

Henceforth, to save time, this idea will be called the Erie-Predictor or
[EP]. Notably some players are still reluctant to perform within its
parameters, like the Mongolian lady who recently scored 600 points outside
the EP range, but in supplement 'B' a simple method for the practical
bureaucrat to calculate the fine for this 'behavior' is attached.

Every player who declines an objective draw and takes crazy chances to win
to
conserve rating points -- has been influenced by the very public rating
system process. Not just described by it.

As the tension mounts while we wait for a thought, we can look at these
hideous examples of players going for a win instead of observing EP norms,
can illustrate one of the very real dangers of chess-playing in real time
OTB events.

And yes, I have a right to know whether I am entering a rated event or a
non-rated event. It is very foolish to turn around and say later that
you'll rate
the non-rated event (possibly even against the express wishes of the
players
and organizers!!).

Every rule must have an exception, and here we see exception to the rules,
over-ruled. It does not take into account entering rated events which then
are not rated... because commercial branding practices. For example, if I
play in a BMW-Fide event then this does not translate to a MacDonalds USCF
event, even though I played the same player at the same time-control in a
Mac-USCF event some months before, which /was/ rated.

Or to put it this way...if you feel it is OK to rate an event that was
announced as non-rated (under your rating brand or system)...is it equally
OK to
decide NOT to rate an event that was advertised as to be so rated? Issues
of
fairness, issues of fair and truthful advertising come to mind.

Besides the simple-minded but old-fashioned scoring that seems to obsess
actual chess players, these 'higher factor conversions' of old fashioned
ratings are being put in place to serve bureaucrats for a new century.

Players have a right to know what systems will rate their events before
they
play in them...especially if membership in an organization includes the
"right" to a rating.

This is called the 'Erie-System' of rating predictability, which avoids all
the mess caused in the past century by players such as Kasparov, who
sometimes worried himself sick if his BMW-rating was going to convert to a
MacDonalds rating, since of course, how he actually plays chess will get him
further invites. 'Sometimes,' said Kasparov, 'I get asked what my rating is
for the year and I have to say "dunno", and I couldn't take it any more! So
now I'm going to rule Russia instead, its simpler'.

There is a big difference between games played under the idea or
expectation
of rated play...and non-rated play (even if the tourney is under serious
conditions).

Some people may think this is not said often enough, but it needs to be
drummed into players to act 'seriously' in a serious tournament, in
contradistinction to the flippant exchange sac often encountered in
unrated play by certain GMs, some of them having learned to do it when they
were obnoxious teenagers.

In school, you are graded on the test...and the homework is practice. I
see
no reason to rate the practice, otherwise everything is test and nothing
is
homework (which is why online chess is rubbish, but that's another topic)

Because USA simply has too much chess, and figuring out ratings is a waste
of valuable USCF time, from this date forward arbiters and assessors of
chess MUST DECLARE if the games were serious or not serious, as rated on a
chart, Appendix "D". For all scored under 8 of the Seriousity Index , every
0.1 percent below will result in a rating penalty of 1.0 point. Example, a
Seriousity of 6.9 will result in 11 rating points being deducted from EACH
players score.

xxx

So long Evans! You couldn't have come up with this if you tried!

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
The past year has seen an exciting range of activities alluded to, and after
careful consideration, consultation with NFL officials who eliminated
team-stapling, citing a 1930 rule, The Committee has nominated this article
by 'a Delegate'
and say it is 'well thought of and interminably long' on:

[NB: Further entries must be of real writing, as is this one by 'a
Delegate']

WHY CHESS RATINGS SHOULD BE SECRET and TAKE LONGER TO DO

for the grand prize. The winner takes over Larry Evans column in Chess Life
with a brand-new column titled, Patzers Mind, Stapling Mind.

Why not? It would record your score at playing chess. That is what
ratings
ARE. Why would you not want chess games to be rated, or a false record of
wins loses and draws recorded?

The issue is simple:

If you argue that rating systems are predictors only...then compile them
secretly and only release the results.

A masterful start. Not only does this address the thorny problem of knowing
what the hell anyone else is rated by eliminating the possibility of
knowing,
it carefully does not state when the results will be released. [Some current
experiments on this theme are already underway, and the results are
"completely baffling", said a happy USCF official today, but refused to go
on the record.

If however, you make the sausage-making public...then you have to deal
witht
the fact that the "meat" (players) have a say in how you make the sausage.
Ratings are not only descriptors of play -- they influence it.

While some fools have claimed that ratings 'predict' the past, so to speak,
or as some say, record it, this innovative idea from the sausage industry
stops pigs/players from messing up the sausage design system by claiming
that the sausage is literally theirs!

How do they influence it? Every time a player who needs a draw to win the
tourney keeps playing to win to increase his /her rating, the rating
system has
not only described play...it has influenced it.

Henceforth, to save time, this idea will be called the Erie-Predictor or
[EP]. Notably some players are still reluctant to perform within its
parameters, like the Mongolian lady who recently scored 600 points outside
the EP range, but in supplement 'B' a simple method for the practical
bureaucrat to calculate the fine for this 'behavior' is attached.

Every player who declines an objective draw and takes crazy chances to win
to
conserve rating points -- has been influenced by the very public rating
system process. Not just described by it.

As the tension mounts while we wait for a thought, we can look at these
hideous examples of players going for a win instead of observing EP norms,
can illustrate one of the very real dangers of chess-playing in real time
OTB events.

And yes, I have a right to know whether I am entering a rated event or a
non-rated event. It is very foolish to turn around and say later that
you'll rate
the non-rated event (possibly even against the express wishes of the
players
and organizers!!).

Every rule must have an exception, and here we see exception to the rules,
over-ruled. It does not take into account entering rated events which then
are not rated... because commercial branding practices. For example, if I
play in a BMW-Fide event then this does not translate to a MacDonalds USCF
event, even though I played the same player at the same time-control in a
Mac-USCF event some months before, which /was/ rated.

Or to put it this way...if you feel it is OK to rate an event that was
announced as non-rated (under your rating brand or system)...is it equally
OK to
decide NOT to rate an event that was advertised as to be so rated? Issues
of
fairness, issues of fair and truthful advertising come to mind.

Besides the simple-minded but old-fashioned scoring that seems to obsess
actual chess players, these 'higher factor conversions' of old fashioned
ratings are being put in place to serve bureaucrats for a new century.

Players have a right to know what systems will rate their events before
they
play in them...especially if membership in an organization includes the
"right" to a rating.

This is called the 'Erie-System' of rating predictability, which avoids all
the mess caused in the past century by players such as Kasparov, who
sometimes worried himself sick if his BMW-rating was going to convert to a
MacDonalds rating, since of course, how he actually plays chess will get him
further invites. 'Sometimes,' said Kasparov, 'I get asked what my rating is
for the year and I have to say "dunno", and I couldn't take it any more! So
now I'm going to rule Russia instead, its simpler'.

There is a big difference between games played under the idea or
expectation
of rated play...and non-rated play (even if the tourney is under serious
conditions).

Some people may think this is not said often enough, but it needs to be
drummed into players to act 'seriously' in a serious tournament, in
contradistinction to the flippant exchange sac often encountered in
unrated play by certain GMs, some of them having learned to do it when they
were obnoxious teenagers.

In school, you are graded on the test...and the homework is practice. I
see
no reason to rate the practice, otherwise everything is test and nothing
is
homework (which is why online chess is rubbish, but that's another topic)

Because USA simply has too much chess, and figuring out ratings is a waste
of valuable USCF time, from this date forward arbiters and assessors of
chess MUST DECLARE if the games were serious or not serious, as rated on a
chart, Appendix "D". For all scored under 8 of the Seriousity Index , every
0.1 percent below will result in a rating penalty of 1.0 point. Example, a
Seriousity of 6.9 will result in 11 rating points being deducted from EACH
players score.

xxx

So long Evans! You couldn't have come up with this if you tried!

Phil Innes

Bravo! It's a masterpiece of ChessPride! Thank you very much for
sharing it! It's good to see the Autocrat of Allentown is still alive
and well!

While some fools have claimed that ratings 'predict' the past,

Predict the past? They are simply indicators of past performance.

contradistinction to the flippant exchange sac often encountered in
unrated play by certain GMs

Ah, no wonder you thought you were a 2450 with all those off-hand
games.

wrote in message
oups.com...
While some fools have claimed that ratings 'predict' the past,

Predict the past? They are simply indicators of past performance.

Did you go to the trouble of snipping my comment which said exactly the same
as yours, in order to...?

You have become a bit petty of late - and this is snipping alertness season.
bad luck for you, another time you would have gotten away with it

Phil

wrote:
"contradistinction to the flippant exchange sac often encountered in
unrated play by certain GMs"

Ah, no wonder you thought you were a 2450 with all those off-hand
games.

I guess when you become a Nearly An IM like Philsy, you too can create
"flippant exchange sacs". Did His I-ness also play sullen pawn advances
and moody Rook lifts?