Subject: [fide-chess] Bill Goichberg comments on election results
thus far


Forgive me for asking, but why even worry about Tanner? Didn't he already
resign?


**This is a fair question Curt - and as for personalities, it is water under
the bridge now.

**But //systemically// there is no evidence to suggest that anything
happened at USCF to fix the issue from happening again tomorrow - or even to
explain how the 'error', if error it was, could have happened.

**My questions in respect of the issue are, (1) "how many instances like
this are there?" Which has not received any reply, except the bland
assurance of "none", and that it has "nil-effect" etc. Thouch how that can
be claimed is unsubstantiated.

**The second question must be (2) how is it possible that in such a high
profile issue, where a national title is awarded, rating floor established,
et cetera, can it have come about without anyone at all noticing the
strength and frequency of a small pool of relatively low-rated opponents?

**Two apologists for USCF's rating service have done nothing to reassure
players of any Quality Control at USCF, not even when the disastrous
consequence is that a board member resigns, and have instead diverted the
inquiry into a challenge of other rating services.

**I should also formally state that I have been reporting this issue to
rather more chess people than read Chess Life, and will continue to press
the new board on it, since lesser attention is content to stone-wall any
inquiry. I shall especially question Randy Bauer whose pre-election
responses to my interview with him was topically on the subject of
competency-testing of staff.

**This is not necessary an accusation against current staffers' procedure,
since their activities could well have been overridden in these
circumstances by 'political' issues.

Phil Innes
Vermont


----- Original Message -----
From: samhsloan
To:
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:22 AM
Subject: [fide-chess] Bill Goichberg comments on election results thus
far


Actually, there was a poster to the USCF Forums named "oldtimer" whose
real name was Todd Miller:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10415144

He had a story to tell about this.

He said that he knew Tanner back in the 1980s when both he and Tanner
lived in Utah.

He said that Tanner's rating kept going up and up even though he
played in no tournaments. When asked about this, Tanner said that he
had been playing "private matches" in California.

Also, a 1900 player who lives in Gilbert Arizona where Tanner also
lives told me that he has played over one hundred five-minute games
with Tanner and the actual strength of Tanner is about 1800.

Looking at the real tournaments in which Tanner played, his
performance seems to be in the 1800-1850 range.

Thus, it seems likely that Tanner was manipulating his rating long
before the MSA and that his actual strength has never even reached 2000.

Sam Sloan

--- In , chesspride@... wrote:

In a message dated 8/3/07 5:38:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
innes8@... writes:


You mean, this matter of a board member cheating is nothing to you
Larry -
nothing needs be done about even a board member cheating - not
even a fair
question to how it came about?

Okay, you are on the record as saying so. Okay?

Phil Innes

--- In , Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@

Let's get into the nitty gritty of how he "cheated"...

He's a long-time expert/low 2200 who opted to play some events against
friends of his...and he foolishly submitted not one, not two, but
many of these
private events. His foreign friends received high ratings, due to
the closed pool
nature of the small group. The fellow gaine enough rating points to
go over
2200...and he amassed enough games over 2200 to get his life master
title.

The life master title is essentially a ratings floor -- it is an
honorary
award to recognize amateurs with good rating performance. It is
probably one of
the three rating plateaus that most strong amateurs can hope to
reach -- the
others being 2000 and 2200.

His rating floor inflates his rating by 50 or 100 points -- not the
biggest
deal in the world.

His rating floor impacts virtually nobody, as he doesn't play much.

Was he wrong to do it? Yes. Should he have known better? Yes. If
he had
played his friends once...rather than multiple times...would it have
been OK?
Yes.

And should the ratings clerks at the office have caught it? Yes.


But Innes' major complaint -- that somehow the rating history should be
checked before saying "Hey, Bob...you are at 298 -- how about
playing 2 more?" --
betrays a lack of knowlege.

I felt bad for Bob....because he should have known better. But the
actual
impact on "ratings purity" is next to nil.

ECJ