On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:29:00 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
play in the event.

They can't be expected? But I thought that was the entire point of official
ratings? Some expectation exists of 'officiating'.

When a tournament report is submitted and all the players have valid
membership numbers, I can't see how it would be cost effective for
USCF office staff to (1) make sure a person corresponding to the
membership actually exists, (2) make sure the person corresponding to
the membership number is actually the person playing in the
tournament, etc. This is one case where "Management By Exception" is
probably the right approach.

When to drill down? When some fake wins a prize, qualifies for an
invitational, some guy who we know is a relative fish gets a high
rating from some out-of-town events and the locals get suspicious,
etc. That's when it make sense for the office to start checking --
not ALL the time. And, I agree, when handing out LM titles and giving
rating floors at a level where the prestige of such a floor has
economic value, more thorough checking is in order.

And the spurious events didn't all come in a
batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space.

But a visual scan of data of ratings would immediately make that clear. That
seemed to be a benefit of the XPR system I wrote about.

I'm not following this -- how would it work?

As I
remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.

Because the data is recorded as number. As a visual presentation in a
chart - it would be immediately apparent.

Why? Why would he not just appear to be a "streak" player?

But if this is indeed USCF's system of /recording data/ where is any quality
control to occur?

Secondly, on awarding a master rating and rating floor, /still/ no-one
noticed or checked Tanner's record [if indeed, we are to believe that].

Nobody complained.

Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to
1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their
chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess
skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).

As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.

Mike Murray wrote:

Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to
1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their
chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess
skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).

As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.


Unfortunately no. The old crosstables were tossed around 1991 by Jim
Meyer to save space. This was, of course, a bad idea, but suggesting
that Meyer did this in in 1991 so that Todd Miller's enemies could ace
him out for coaching jobs fifteen years later says more about Miller's
mental state than it does about the USCF. (Note that, while the
_rating supplements_ exist and could be digitized with enough effort,
the individual results do not. This would not be enough to silence
paranoid twits like Miller and Sloan.)

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:17:20 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:

On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
was the guy?

Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
matter what his floor is.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290

Sam Sloan

If the guy Phil referenced was Heisman, then Phil's comment was
slightly misleading. Heisman has a Master Quick Chess rating from the
early 1990s, has published several books, and, ironically, is
referred to as "NM Dan Heisman" at Chessville. So, his award of a
2200 floor may have had some sloppy aspects, but it wasn't as if an
unknown Joe Blow asked for a Master's title and got it.

It was not Dan Heisman, who I write with quite often, even chat with on the
phone. It was the person I cited, as well as the URL.

But what do this numbskulls care? What depends on it? All they do is write
**** about people and lie.

My question had to do with USCF's systems; both the quality control of
ratings [which there is apparently none] and the award system, which also -
by these two illustrations, also lack any quality control. If other people
want to address those subjects, let them.

OR

If they want to **** and moan, and whine and distort, they should write with
hate-merchant and stalker Neil Brennen.

Its a choice.

Phil Innes

But, in deference to the point Phil made,, I think the award of a
Master's title *does* matter, even if the person hasn't played for
twenty years.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:29:00 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

The folks who receive the rating reports, enter the data and publish
the ratings can hardly be expected to determine that some of the paid
USCF members in the crosstable don't really exist, or didn't really
play in the event.

They can't be expected? But I thought that was the entire point of
official
ratings? Some expectation exists of 'officiating'.

When a tournament report is submitted and all the players have valid
membership numbers, I can't see how it would be cost effective for
USCF office staff to (1) make sure a person corresponding to the
membership actually exists, (2) make sure the person corresponding to
the membership number is actually the person playing in the
tournament, etc. This is one case where "Management By Exception" is
probably the right approach.

Surely. But I never said for ALL the players ALL the time. I said on gaining
a masters rating plus ratings floor. Which is one-time. Maybe that can be
afforded - otherwise we have to rely on the TD's check of the players - of
course, Tanner was his own TD...

I don't want to turn this into more questions and answers when people are
addressing things I never proposed. This is the 4th time in as many
consecutive posts.

Personally I think that visual display of results would be relatively easy
to review... but that is a detail. My example showed ZERO checking even for
the ONE-TIME MASTER TITLE and RATING FLOOR.

Sorry to 'shout' - but that is the central topic here.

Phil Innes


When to drill down? When some fake wins a prize, qualifies for an
invitational, some guy who we know is a relative fish gets a high
rating from some out-of-town events and the locals get suspicious,
etc. That's when it make sense for the office to start checking --
not ALL the time. And, I agree, when handing out LM titles and giving
rating floors at a level where the prestige of such a floor has
economic value, more thorough checking is in order.

And the spurious events didn't all come in a
batch -- they were nicely separated both in time and space.

But a visual scan of data of ratings would immediately make that clear.
That
seemed to be a benefit of the XPR system I wrote about.

I'm not following this -- how would it work?

As I
remember, Tanner was strong enough that the fake events didn't stand
out as egregious anomalies. Some nice detective work by Sam Sloan.

Because the data is recorded as number. As a visual presentation in a
chart - it would be immediately apparent.

Why? Why would he not just appear to be a "streak" player?

But if this is indeed USCF's system of /recording data/ where is any
quality
control to occur?

Secondly, on awarding a master rating and rating floor, /still/ no-one
noticed or checked Tanner's record [if indeed, we are to believe that].

Nobody complained.

Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior
to
1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was
done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate
their
chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior
chess
skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master).

As I understand, the ratings records exist on paper and could be
re-entered if we were willing to bear the expense. I'm reluctant to
introduce conspiracy when incompetence is a sufficient explanation,
but you could be right. Paid coaching seems to me almost as
destructive of ratings integrity as large class prizes.

On May 16, 12:37 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 02:17:20 -0700 (PDT), samsloan

wrote:
On May 15, 9:23 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

If this second instance happened as you describe, some guy just writes
in and gets a 2200 floor -- yeah, that's a big deal, much worse. Who
was the guy?
Dan Heisman. However, I see that his floor has been removed recently.
Also, he has not played a rated game in about 20 years so it does not
matter what his floor is.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10158290
Sam Sloan

If the guy Phil referenced was Heisman, then Phil's comment was
slightly misleading.

I doubt even a person as clueless and dishonest as P Innes had Dan
Heisman in mind.

Heisman has a Master Quick Chess rating from the
early 1990s, has published several books, and, ironically, is
referred to as "NM Dan Heisman" at Chessville.

Dan also won the Championship of Philadelphia in 1973, and secured his
NM title a few years later. He also has a real FIDE rating, as opposed
to the vapor "nearly an IM" status of P Innes.

So, his award of a
2200 floor may have had some sloppy aspects, but it wasn't as if an
unknown Joe Blow asked for a Master's title and got it.

But, in deference to the point Phil made,, I think the award of a
Master's title *does* matter, even if the person hasn't played for
twenty years.

I agree.