The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone, including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their egos.

During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points, it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them. Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.

Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins 25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135 player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below 2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.

I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating and the other, whose last game at our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained 2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).

Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926, 1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late 30s.
Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000. Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.

I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree or
another by young, improving players.

For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300 point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.

For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against Shredder. I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.

I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999. I'd never before beaten an A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.

Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma

In article , Angelo DePalma says...
SNIP

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.


1. Improving players do cause deflation. This is well known and documented.
2. The influx of kids did contribute to helping to deflate the pool, to the
extent that these kids tended to improve over time.
3. The current system was designed to correct the system back to the point where
deflation started to get worse, due to the then removal of floors. I think this
timing was around 1995.
4. I don't know if the RC has done measurements, but I believe Tom Doan had done
measurements a year into the process showing that the corrections were working.
5. Aging players do tend to get worse. It's entirely possible that you (and
others) are not the players they were yesterday.

Might players quit playing for this reason? Yes. But I also think this is
highlighted by the lack of chess clubs. If its harder to play for fun at a
local club, I think its more likely for someone to drop out.

Kevin L. Bachler

Well Said!! Actually though, maybe we as adults are missing something...just
what is the reason these kids are able to do this...I mean, are they getting
lessons from good coaches? I cannot believe it is only because they are
younger. Nor can I buy into the idea that "we" are getting senile. It would
be beneficial I am sure to find out exactly what it is and then for us
adults to emulate it. Incidentaly...this thing called scholastic chess...as
I understand it..it has its own rating system. Why?? I would think it would
be better all the way round if they were rated the same way adults were.
This idea that they are just kids doesn't hold water with me..if they want
to play in adult tournaments, either today or in the future, then there is
no reason for any seperate rating system. And finally...lets get off this
goofy idea of running tournaments with shorter time limits...seems to me,
there is this "thing" today where students have this inability to
concentrate for long time periods....maybe if we had longer time
limits...the students would get over this handicap of "I can't concentrate
that long...or worse.."it is boring." Tough ****..imo..maybe it is time for
reality to sink into those kind.

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most
working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone,
including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their
egos.

During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points, it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them.
Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.

Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins
25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135 player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below
2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.

I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating and the other, whose last game at
our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained 2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).

Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926, 1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late
30s.
Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000.
Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.

I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree or
another by young, improving players.

For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300
point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my
game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea
of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.

For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against Shredder.
I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're
basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.

I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had
topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999. I'd never before beaten an
A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.

Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of
our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with
the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if
you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma

In article k.net, Curt
Seefeldt says...

Well Said!! Actually though, maybe we as adults are missing something...just
what is the reason these kids are able to do this...I mean, are they getting
lessons from good coaches? I cannot believe it is only because they are
younger.

As a coach, I think a major reason young players improve more quickly is the
Internet.

Nor can I buy into the idea that "we" are getting senile.

Bad word, but older players do tend to perform less well.

SNIP


Incidentaly...this thing called scholastic chess...as
I understand it..it has its own rating system.

Generally this is false, although some regions have their only regional
scholastic rating system in addition to the USCF system.

Why?? I would think it would
be better all the way round if they were rated the same way adults were.

They are.

This idea that they are just kids doesn't hold water with me..if they want
to play in adult tournaments, either today or in the future, then there is
no reason for any seperate rating system. And finally...lets get off this
goofy idea of running tournaments with shorter time limits...seems to me,
there is this "thing" today where students have this inability to
concentrate for long time periods....maybe if we had longer time
limits...the students would get over this handicap of "I can't concentrate
that long...or worse.."it is boring." Tough ****..imo..maybe it is time for
reality to sink into those kind.

My students have always played in tournaments with longer time controls, and
today most will not play in rated events of G/30.

Kevin L. Bachler

In my unscholarly opinion chessplayers improve as their intellects improve
and decline as their intellects decline. People undergo most of their
development from childhood to adulthood between ages 10 and 25, which
correlates nicely with age-related improvements in ELO. There are a few
exceptions but pretty much if you're not a master by age 25 it seems the
effort required to achieve that rating doubles every five years.

Faster time controls also benefit younger improving players relative to old
farts.

Someone should do a study on non-renewing adult members to see if there's
any correlation between approaching a rating floor and quitting USCF. My bet
is there's an inverse relationship between the last two digits in your
rating and the likelihood that you won't renew. The closer a falling rating
gets to 2200, 2100, 2000, 1900, etc. the more likely its owner will bail
out. Just a theory. Or hypothesis. I don't remember the difference any more.

Angelo


"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Well Said!! Actually though, maybe we as adults are missing
something...just
what is the reason these kids are able to do this...I mean, are they
getting
lessons from good coaches? I cannot believe it is only because they are
younger. Nor can I buy into the idea that "we" are getting senile. It
would
be beneficial I am sure to find out exactly what it is and then for us
adults to emulate it. Incidentaly...this thing called scholastic
chess...as
I understand it..it has its own rating system. Why?? I would think it
would
be better all the way round if they were rated the same way adults were.
This idea that they are just kids doesn't hold water with me..if they want
to play in adult tournaments, either today or in the future, then there is
no reason for any seperate rating system. And finally...lets get off this
goofy idea of running tournaments with shorter time limits...seems to me,
there is this "thing" today where students have this inability to
concentrate for long time periods....maybe if we had longer time
limits...the students would get over this handicap of "I can't concentrate
that long...or worse.."it is boring." Tough ****..imo..maybe it is time
for
reality to sink into those kind.

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot
possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most
working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone,
including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their
egos.

During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and
gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids
entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points,
it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them.
Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.

Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had
on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid
beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who
beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins
25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135
player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below
2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.

I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The
first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating and the other, whose last game at
our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained
2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).

Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926,
1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late
30s.
Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000.
Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.

I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree
or
another by young, improving players.

For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300
point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my
game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea
of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.

For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against
Shredder.
I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts,
who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I
have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're
basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or
covering
his ass.

I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I
was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had
topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999. I'd never before beaten an
A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.

Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of
our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with
the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if
you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to
do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma

I didn't play much for almost 10 years. I was of the opinion when I first
started back (and dropped from the 1800's to the 1700's) that rating
deflation was indeed a problem. Now I'm unsure. I've seen plenty of other
players drop, but all of them have gotten older. I'm practicing again like
I was before, and even though I'm 30 instead of 20, my rating is back in the
mid 1800's where it was before. This is despite I'm playing all of those
other players who have gone from master to expert or expert to A player.

I've got a friend who was a high 1500/low 1600 for many years, and even
though he took a few years off around the same time I did and is a few years
older than I am, he just hit 1700 for the first time ever without studying
too much.

I do think there are weird things going on the lower you go in the rating
charts. You used to hardly ever see anyone with a rating less than 1000.
Now it's fairly common even for adults who know better than to drop a piece
every 3rd move.

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most
working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone,
including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their
egos.

During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points, it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them.
Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.

Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins
25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135 player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below
2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.

I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating and the other, whose last game at
our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained 2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).

Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926, 1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late
30s.
Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000.
Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.

I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree or
another by young, improving players.

For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300
point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my
game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea
of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.

For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against Shredder.
I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're
basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.

I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had
topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999. I'd never before beaten an
A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.

Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of
our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with
the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if
you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma

Speaking from my own experience, I can say there's some small truth to this.
Lord knows I got tired of being pounded by 8-year old Korean kids...

But I think some of the things I've mentioned before also play into the
decline:

1) Pricey Opens. When they come around, they tend to run around $80 or so.
This isn't pin money, and it's all the more galling when you know it's just
being divied up by a handful of slumming grandmasters.

2) Lengthy Opens. They always seem to run for days, usually on holiday
weekends. When you have a family, it's very tough to justify blowing them
off all Memorial Day weekend just to play chess. Sometimes you can enter
late, but it's still a long two-day commitment.

3) Lack of clubs. A big issue. Clubs are usually far away and meet at
awkward times, like on Friday nights. It's also the same group of guys, and
it's a crapshoot that you'll have to sit for a bye if an odd number show up.

What to do? I'd like to see the scholastic tournament model adapted for
adults: one-day tournaments, no cash prizes (I'll take a trophy or a
certificate over 40 bucks anyday), low entry fees, and a "season:" let's
focus on bundling tournaments in a six-month piece of the year, with the
idea that the other half of the year is for practice, study, and clubs.

Who can do this? Only the USCF. That is presumably what their mission is: to
foster chess tournaments. Turn the magazine into a newsletter and use the
extra monies to create a tournament-organizer position, a person responsible
for sponsoring cheap-o, quickie Opens, using clubs as hosts.

TMB




"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

The prevailing opinion on this newsgroup holds that USCF is losing adult
members because of high dues. While I agree that $49 dues cannot possibly
promote membership beetter than $39 or $29 dues, in my opinion most
working
adults don't even think of the extra $10 or $20 per year.

It occurred to me, however, that there is something that everyone,
including
cardboard box-dwellers and perpetual kvetches value, and that's their
egos.

During the last decade USCF has lost about 10,000 adult members and gained
about 25,000 kiddies. It's safe to assume that most of those kids entered
the rating pool as rather poor players. As they gained rating points, it's
inevitable that their higher-rated opponents would lose points to them.
Not
at the same rate as the kids gained, of course, but until the kids are
established they will, as sure as the sun rises, lose points to them.

Think of the effect of the effect USCF's changing demographics has had on
established ratings, especially of higher-rated adults: The 644 kid beats
the 935 kid who beats the 1200 teenager who beats the 1433 girl who beats
the 1735 geezer who wins 25% of his games from the 1935 player who wins
25%
of his games from the established 2135 player. Eventually, the 2135 player
is rated 2070, then 2033. Then, faced with the horror of falling below
2000
for the first time since 11th grade, he quits.

I know of at least one person who has stopped playing completely, and
another who stopped coming to Hackettstown, because of ratings. The first
guy is sitting on a 2002 or so rating and the other, whose last game at
our
club was a loss to me (afterward he vowed he was giving up chess), now
"plays up" at the Marshall with masters, FMs and IMs and has regained 2100
status (after falling to below 2000 at H'town).

Today, five of our club's six former experts are rated: 1940, 1926, 1916,
1855, and 1835. One is in his mid-40s and the others are in their late
30s.
Another, currently rated in the mid-1900s, still occasionally tops 2000.
Our
only former master is down 200 points as well, but he's 74 years old.

I might add that I (age 49) am down about 135 points in the past year.
Overwhelmingly, my rating losses are due to bad play. But I and my
former-expert buddies at H'town have been getting mauled to one degree or
another by young, improving players.

For example, on Monday we had a 300 point upset, 400 point upset, 300
point
upset (all losses by the higher rated) and a 400 point upset draw (my
game).
It's nice to see youngsters improve, but I'm beginning to dread the idea
of
having a 1753 rating in a year or two or, heaven forbid, fall to my 1700
floor. If I continue playing with this group I'm afraid that scenario is
almost inevitable.

For the first time ever, on the way home from Monday's game, I began to
wonder what it would be like to play only on the 'Net or against Shredder.
I
would return to competitive chess, of course, when I reach 2200 strength
(big fat ugly smiley face).

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation. That it's mathematically impossible and that, after all, I have
been playing badly. I've seen those arguments and I think they're
basically
the product of somebody either not thinking this idea through or covering
his ass.

I remember my first game back after a very long hiatus, 6 years ago. I was
rated 1667 and my opponent, one of my current H'town buddies who had
topped
2100 in his youth, weighed in at 1999. I'd never before beaten an
A-player,
much less one who for most of his playing days up to that time was an
expert.

Well, I beat him. To this day I have his number, having won about 70% of
our
decisive games (20 or so in all). He's the guy I mentioned earlier with
the
1855 rating, by the way.

I will gladly provide names and data to support anything in this post if
you
request it by email. For reasons of personal friendship I prefer not to do
so in a public forum.

Angelo DePalma

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup. The current system is leaking points
somewhere. Perhaps because of the lowering of floors. Maybe because of the
kiddie stuff. Or even people dropping out of chess. Who knows, it might even
be the formula itself. Ken would tell you that ratings are just statistical
chatter. That the system reflects a perfect bell curve and the numbering of
the y axis is irrelevant. All I know is that most people don't play for
money or trophies. They play for rating points. And when they don't get
them, they lose interest. The system is broke. It does nothing to encourage
chess.

StanB

2) Lengthy Opens. They always seem to run for days, usually on holiday
weekends. When you have a family, it's very tough to justify blowing them
off all Memorial Day weekend just to play chess. Sometimes you can enter
late, but it's still a long two-day commitment.

Flipping through the TLA shows a large number (if not the majority) of
the 1 day events as being G/30. I had to crack open the rulebook to
be sure they hadn't made a mistake by not showing them as "QC". Geez,
how many decades have I been away?

How do one day swisses with 3 games work out? I would consider G/75
or G/60 games, but G/30 games just seem too foreign to me. Why not
make them G/25 or G/20 and have them be QC rated?

adults: one-day tournaments, no cash prizes (I'll take a trophy or a
certificate over 40 bucks anyday), low entry fees, and a "season:" let's

Small one day tournaments and one-game-a-week quads certainly would
work for me, the G/30 doesn't. I'd rather have a multi-way tie for
first place with some good games than a clear winner of a bunch of
blunder-laden games I'd rather not analyze.

focus on bundling tournaments in a six-month piece of the year, with the
idea that the other half of the year is for practice, study, and clubs.

I'm unclear on this. Why can't clubs, one day events, and
uber-swisses co-exist at the same time? Is there that much
competition for weekend slots?

--
Charles Allen

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:07:42 -0500, "StanB"
wrote:

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

This post will no doubt resurrect the recently-dormant rating experts, who
will tell me I'm full of crap and there is no such thing as rating
deflation.

And they would be full of soup. The current system is leaking points
somewhere. Perhaps because of the lowering of floors. Maybe because of the
kiddie stuff. Or even people dropping out of chess.

Good point. Few drop out (or die) with a lower rating than that with
which they started.

Who knows, it might even
be the formula itself. Ken would tell you that ratings are just statistical
chatter. That the system reflects a perfect bell curve and the numbering of
the y axis is irrelevant. All I know is that most people don't play for
money or trophies. They play for rating points. And when they don't get
them, they lose interest. The system is broke. It does nothing to encourage
chess.

StanB