On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:47:05 -0800, "Tom Klem"
wrote:

I'm sure if he were here to tell it, Yamamoto would agree. (... began his
study of economics at Harvard in 1916, and led the attack on Pearl Harbor in
1941)

Harvard grad? And he ended up just hanging around. Tsk, Tsk.

Yes the grad schools are still tops but the reason is the average US grad
school, especially in the sciences, engineering, and certain business
discliplines, has more Indians than Calcutta and more Chinese than Hong
Kong. The chemistry and chemical engineering departments at MIT, CalTech,
etc. would have no students or faculty if all the Asian-born and
first-generation Indians and Chinese went home.

However, American kids still go in for law, to some degree business, and the
social sciences. I wonder why? Actually I don't. Let's see if someone in
this newsgroup can tell me.

Angelo

"RSHaas" wrote in message
...
"Our schools and teachers are third-rate, and that's reflected in our
graduates." (adp)
==============
The top 100 US graduatle schools are as good or better than the rest
of the
world's top 100.
European and Asian students jump at the opportunity to get an advanced
degree in the USA.

RSHaas

Nakamura, at age 16, is barely a third-tier GM. In the DePalma system first
tier is about 2700, then 2625, then 2550, then below that are guys who
get invited to the Greater St. Alphonzo's Open in Mauritania. At 14 Fischer
was playing Tal, Byrne, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Reshevsky. Yikes

It would be great if Hikaru joined the second tier or first tier by age 20,
but 2700 status seems highly unlikely for a guy who plays mostly other
third-tier GMs, equivalent IMs, and the likes of me in World Open side
games.

Christiansen was #17 in the world at his peak and has beaten Karpov. I think
Browne was around #25 and Seirawan somewhere around there. But that was long
ago.

Angelo


"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:4fkLb.61150$BQ5.1511@fed1read03...

"RSHaas" wrote in message
...
"Our last home grown world-class GMs were Larry Christiansen, Walter
Browne,
and Yasser Seirawan. That was back in the freaking '70s, before you were
born!
All are well past their prime. (adp)
==============
The '70's would be pre-scholastic chess era. Nowadays the USA leads
the
world in players rated 500 and below.

RSHaas

What about Hikaru Nakamura?

Tom Klem

Kevin,

Excellent explanation. You've convinced me, except for one point. You assume
that bonus points make optimal corrections. There are many situations where
you can gain points, and your opponents lose points, but no bonus points are
involved.

So there is a connection between juniors (improving players) and deflation,
but it has nothing to do with players leaving the pool. I think I believe
that now. Thanks.

adp

"Kevin L. Bachler" wrote in message
...
I thought these examples may help.

Think of the strengths of players and the rating system as a balance
scale. We
are trying to put enough points on the scale to balance it against the
strength
(instead of weight) of the players.

In this sense, it is vaguely like double-entry accounting. The goal is to
have
the strength (assets) equal the points (liability & shareholders equity).

With these analogies in mind, consider the following examples. Again,
these
clearly show that players leaving the pool do not cause deflation or
inflation.
It is the improvement or "worsening" of players that does this.

+++++

Example I:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1500 1500
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6600 6600


The system is balanced. No inflation, and no deflation.


Example II:

One player leaves:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1500 1500
B 1600 1600
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 4900 4900

BOTH the aggregate strength of the system AND the aggregate rating of the
system
declined. But the system is balanced. No deflation.


Example III:

One player improves, and in unrated games goes from beating players his st
rength
50% of the time, to beating them 75% of the time, but this player plays no
rated
games:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1500
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6600


The aggregate strength now exceeds the aggregate rating. So the system is
deflated. It happened because one player improved.


Example IV:

One player improves, and in unrated games goes from beating players his
strength
50% of the time, to beating them 75% of the time, but this player plays
several
rated games against the pool:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1725
B 1600 1525
C 1700 1625
D 1800 1725
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6600

Again, the system is deflated, even though player A is over-rated.
Several
players are deflated because their points went to player A.


Example V:

Same as example IV, but add bonus points to correct the system:

Player Strength Rating
====== ======== ======
A 1700 1700
B 1600 1600
C 1700 1700
D 1800 1800
----- ==== ====
Total 6800 6800

The bonus points flow to the underrated players (like a vacuum!) to
correct
their ratings.


****

Think of it as weighing plants.

You put 4 plants on a scale. You put weights on the other side equal to
the
weight of the plants.

If you take off a plan AND its weights, it is clear that the scale is
still
balanced -- i.e. there is no inflation and deflation.

But if you leave all the plants there, AND THEY GROW and get heavier
(stronger),
but you don't change the weights, the scale becomes unbalanced -- there
are
fewer weights (points) than the actual weight of the plants (strength) and
so
the system is DEFLATED.

Kevin L. Bachler

I knew you guys would hit me with Zukertort stories.

People have heart attacks while shoveling snow, running, reading, and
watching TV. But most people who die of heart attacks die in their sleep
while doing nothing at all!

The reason they have heart attacks is because they have heart disease, not
usually because of anything specific they're doing. Certainly not from
lifting pieces.

My mother always tells me "Ang, why don't you get someone to shovel your
snow? Didn't you hear about that guy in Weehawken who dropped dead while
shoveling? He was only 35!!"

My response is anyone who dies shoveling snow, which I can attest is very
strenuous, is probably not long for this world anyway. If he doesn't die on
December 12, 2003, while shoveling he'll probably die on March 3, 2004,
while doing something else.

Doctors tell you all kinds of dumb ****.

Of course if you have angina when you exercise or look at a chessboard it's
a different story. I'm talking about unexpected death.

Angelo

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
link.net...

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...
As for the guy with the heart condition, cut me a break man. I never
heard
of anyone having a heart attack because of chess.

North Penn Chess Club had a death during a tournament about a decade ago.
An
elderly player suffered a heart attack during a game.

Cecil Purdy died in 1979 while playing. His last words were to the effect
that 'I have a win, but it's going to take time.'

Ludwig Otto Hesse, of Bethlehem, suffered a heart attack in 1923 just
prior
to the Allentown-Bethlehem match in the Central Pennsylvania Chess League.
Hesse played against his doctor's orders (the doctor had misdiagnosed the
coronary are "acute indigestion"), won his game, and died about a
half-hour
after getting home.

I can confirm this bit of World Chess Trivia. The winner was indeed Win Moe.
Second was Win Larry. Win Curly and Win Shemp were tied for 3-4.



"Sam Sloan" wrote

The tournament was won by Win Moe, a Burmese National now living in
the USA.

Sam Sloan

If we all used the time we waste here to book up we'd all play like Karpov.

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote

Er...you can't spend one hour a day on chess!???

In article , Angelo DePalma says...

Kevin,

Excellent explanation. You've convinced me, except for one point. You assume
that bonus points make optimal corrections. There are many situations where
you can gain points, and your opponents lose points, but no bonus points are
involved.

No assumption involved. The point is that to level off the system, points MUST
be added back in. Bonus are one way. Feedback points are another. There are
other potential approaches.

Points do tend to flow to the low spots. By themselves, they are not optimal.
They need to be measured and corrected like anything else. It is important to
add the right number, not too few, not too many.


So there is a connection between juniors (improving players) and deflation,
but it has nothing to do with players leaving the pool. I think I believe
that now. Thanks.

adp

Good.

The other important thing is that the correction still needs to be made...but
early, while the players are improving, not later, when they leave. This is one
of the reasons why bonus points tend to work fairly well, it is not too
difficult to get them to the improving players. The method of delivery changes
based on how many are needed.

SNIP

Kevin L. Bachler

"ASCACHESS" wrote

Chess is fun, but it is not life.

As opposed to college football? (smileyface here)


Oh how bitter are the disappointed :-)

Oh, now, Richard! Please don't assign attributes to me that aren't true! Disappointed? Of course. Bitter? Not at all. I was
man enough to admit that my team tanked (and my prowess as a football analyst left something to be desired), and even though you
felt it necessary to whomp on me while I was down, as well as disparage us further by degrading the entire conference, I bear no ill
will against you for it. Remember, I told you in the beginning that I value your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be!

Oh, by the way, OU bb is still undefeated (but UConn is next).

REC

PS -- Draney is the one who should be bitter. The words 'national powerhouse' won't apply to NU for quite some time, I fear.
Callahan??? LOL!

LOL!!!






"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

I can confirm this bit of World Chess Trivia. The winner was indeed Win
Moe.
Second was Win Larry. Win Curly and Win Shemp were tied for 3-4.



"Sam Sloan" wrote

The tournament was won by Win Moe, a Burmese National now living in
the USA.

Sam Sloan