Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 3rd 07, 09:48 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Tanner Tournaments

The penalties against Larry Cohen were imposed just a few days before
I took office on the board and I wish that they had waited because I
would have voted for a much lesser penalty.

What Tanner did was vastly worse.

Cohen merely changed the order in which the rounds of the tournament
were played. All of the games played were real games by real players.
Changing the order of the games gave a player a GM norm that he
otherwise would not have had, and Cohen mistakenly thought he had the
right to do that.

Tanner created 19 fake tournaments involving four fictitious players
who played each other over and over again supposedly on hiking trails
under the stars, thereby giving Tanner about 170 rating points
increasing his rating from about 2150 to 2320 and ultimately giving
himself the life master title.

In the one tournament Tanner had played since his title was taken away
from him his performance was 1825 which I suspect is his real
strength.

Other than these fake tournaments, Tanner has never defeated a player
rated over 2000 in the 16 years that we have the MSA. He does have a
lot of draws against players rated over 2000 but these were apparently
quick draws with players who gained rating points from his 2200 LIFE
Master rating.

Tanner would also play one game in a tournament against a scholastic
player rated 1000. By winning that one game, he gained a fraction of a
rating point which was rounded up to one point, thereby creating the
illusion that he had verified his 2200 rating.

One time he went too far and ambitiously played a 1300 rated player
and he lost the game.

Now we have the term "Tanner Tournaments" that has worked its way into
the chess jargon.

Obviously the penalties against Tanner should be equal to or greater
than the penalties against Larry Cohen.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 5th 07, 03:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default Tanner Tournaments

What did Cohen do and what was his punishment?

"samsloan" wrote in message
ps.com...
The penalties against Larry Cohen were imposed just a few days before
I took office on the board and I wish that they had waited because I
would have voted for a much lesser penalty.

What Tanner did was vastly worse.

Cohen merely changed the order in which the rounds of the tournament
were played. All of the games played were real games by real players.
Changing the order of the games gave a player a GM norm that he
otherwise would not have had, and Cohen mistakenly thought he had the
right to do that.

Tanner created 19 fake tournaments involving four fictitious players
who played each other over and over again supposedly on hiking trails
under the stars, thereby giving Tanner about 170 rating points
increasing his rating from about 2150 to 2320 and ultimately giving
himself the life master title.

In the one tournament Tanner had played since his title was taken away
from him his performance was 1825 which I suspect is his real
strength.

Other than these fake tournaments, Tanner has never defeated a player
rated over 2000 in the 16 years that we have the MSA. He does have a
lot of draws against players rated over 2000 but these were apparently
quick draws with players who gained rating points from his 2200 LIFE
Master rating.

Tanner would also play one game in a tournament against a scholastic
player rated 1000. By winning that one game, he gained a fraction of a
rating point which was rounded up to one point, thereby creating the
illusion that he had verified his 2200 rating.

One time he went too far and ambitiously played a 1300 rated player
and he lost the game.

Now we have the term "Tanner Tournaments" that has worked its way into
the chess jargon.

Obviously the penalties against Tanner should be equal to or greater
than the penalties against Larry Cohen.

Sam Sloan



  #3   Report Post  
Old March 5th 07, 03:42 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Tanner Tournaments

On Mar 4, 10:33 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:
What did Cohen do and what was his punishment?

"samsloan" wrote in message

ps.com...

The penalties against Larry Cohen were imposed just a few days before
I took office on the board and I wish that they had waited because I
would have voted for a much lesser penalty.


What Tanner did was vastly worse.


Cohen merely changed the order in which the rounds of the tournament
were played. All of the games played were real games by real players.
Changing the order of the games gave a player a GM norm that he
otherwise would not have had, and Cohen mistakenly thought he had the
right to do that.


Tanner created 19 fake tournaments involving four fictitious players
who played each other over and over again supposedly on hiking trails
under the stars, thereby giving Tanner about 170 rating points
increasing his rating from about 2150 to 2320 and ultimately giving
himself the life master title.


In the one tournament Tanner had played since his title was taken away
from him his performance was 1825 which I suspect is his real
strength.


Other than these fake tournaments, Tanner has never defeated a player
rated over 2000 in the 16 years that we have the MSA. He does have a
lot of draws against players rated over 2000 but these were apparently
quick draws with players who gained rating points from his 2200 LIFE
Master rating.


Tanner would also play one game in a tournament against a scholastic
player rated 1000. By winning that one game, he gained a fraction of a
rating point which was rounded up to one point, thereby creating the
illusion that he had verified his 2200 rating.


One time he went too far and ambitiously played a 1300 rated player
and he lost the game.


Now we have the term "Tanner Tournaments" that has worked its way into
the chess jargon.


Obviously the penalties against Tanner should be equal to or greater
than the penalties against Larry Cohen.


Sam Sloan


Cohen changed the order of the games played in a ten round tournament.
The game was actually played in round 7 but he reported it played in
round 10.

The point was that there is a FIDE rule that if a player achieves a GM
Norm by Round 9, then the last round does not count.

Since the player seeking the GM Norm lost the game, he would have made
the GM norm had the game been played in Round 10, but since he
actually played it in round 7 the norm was not valid.

Sam Sloan


  #4   Report Post  
Old March 5th 07, 06:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default Tanner Tournaments

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 4, 10:33 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:
What did Cohen do and what was his punishment?

"samsloan" wrote in message

ps.com...

The penalties against Larry Cohen were imposed just a few days before
I took office on the board and I wish that they had waited because I
would have voted for a much lesser penalty.


What Tanner did was vastly worse.


Cohen merely changed the order in which the rounds of the tournament
were played. All of the games played were real games by real players.
Changing the order of the games gave a player a GM norm that he
otherwise would not have had, and Cohen mistakenly thought he had the
right to do that.


Tanner created 19 fake tournaments involving four fictitious players
who played each other over and over again supposedly on hiking trails
under the stars, thereby giving Tanner about 170 rating points
increasing his rating from about 2150 to 2320 and ultimately giving
himself the life master title.


In the one tournament Tanner had played since his title was taken away
from him his performance was 1825 which I suspect is his real
strength.


Other than these fake tournaments, Tanner has never defeated a player
rated over 2000 in the 16 years that we have the MSA. He does have a
lot of draws against players rated over 2000 but these were apparently
quick draws with players who gained rating points from his 2200 LIFE
Master rating.


Tanner would also play one game in a tournament against a scholastic
player rated 1000. By winning that one game, he gained a fraction of a
rating point which was rounded up to one point, thereby creating the
illusion that he had verified his 2200 rating.


One time he went too far and ambitiously played a 1300 rated player
and he lost the game.


Now we have the term "Tanner Tournaments" that has worked its way into
the chess jargon.


Obviously the penalties against Tanner should be equal to or greater
than the penalties against Larry Cohen.


Sam Sloan


Cohen changed the order of the games played in a ten round tournament.
The game was actually played in round 7 but he reported it played in
round 10.

The point was that there is a FIDE rule that if a player achieves a GM
Norm by Round 9, then the last round does not count.

Since the player seeking the GM Norm lost the game, he would have made
the GM norm had the game been played in Round 10, but since he
actually played it in round 7 the norm was not valid.

Sam Sloan


Playing around with international titles is probably as serious as making up
games. So what happened to him?



  #5   Report Post  
Old March 5th 07, 07:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
SBD SBD is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,172
Default Tanner Tournaments

On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Playing around with international titles is probably as serious as making up
games. So what happened to him?



Not knowing what happened in the punishment is indeed aggravating; you
say it is as bad as making up games, I would disagree slightly.

It strikes me as the following analogy is appropriate:

1. Playing around with the rounds is a lot like "scientists," to show
positive results, who throw out "outliers," especially in today's
pseudoscience where the ns are so small (I've seen many race to "firm
conclusions" based on studies of six people in medical "science"
today). Most of the results are authentic, even if limited, and an
argument of convenience, the "outlier" argument, is used to exclude a
result or two. That people rely on such studies for treatments,
recommendations, is just plain stupid.

2. Making up games is like making up data that never existed. There
are of course scores of cases one can read about in medical/scientific
research where phoney data was used many times by a researcher seeking
a shortcut to fame and fortune. If the results are the opposite of
what really occured, people could easily die from the false data.

Both are bad; one is stupid and a little shady, one is, in my opinion,
criminal. Neither should be tolerated, of course.



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 6th 07, 06:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default Tanner Tournaments

SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 5, 12:55 pm, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Playing around with international titles is probably as serious as making
up
games. So what happened to him?



Not knowing what happened in the punishment is indeed aggravating; you
say it is as bad as making up games, I would disagree slightly.

It strikes me as the following analogy is appropriate:

1. Playing around with the rounds is a lot like "scientists," to show
positive results, who throw out "outliers," especially in today's
pseudoscience where the ns are so small (I've seen many race to "firm
conclusions" based on studies of six people in medical "science"
today). Most of the results are authentic, even if limited, and an
argument of convenience, the "outlier" argument, is used to exclude a
result or two. That people rely on such studies for treatments,
recommendations, is just plain stupid.

2. Making up games is like making up data that never existed. There
are of course scores of cases one can read about in medical/scientific
research where phoney data was used many times by a researcher seeking
a shortcut to fame and fortune. If the results are the opposite of
what really occured, people could easily die from the false data.

Both are bad; one is stupid and a little shady, one is, in my opinion,
criminal. Neither should be tolerated, of course.


Good analogy. But one could argue that Cohen made up two games as well (a
bad thing to do), with the aim of manipulating title requirements (an even
worse thing to do). A win was reported for the penultimate round, but it did
not occur. The game that should have counted did not.

You are as cynical about medical "research" as I am. I wonder how you got
that way. Do people routinely say you're nuts? I hear that all the time.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.


  #7   Report Post  
Old March 6th 07, 08:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
SBD SBD is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,172
Default Tanner Tournaments

On Mar 6, 12:23 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Good analogy. But one could argue that Cohen made up two games as well (a
bad thing to do), with the aim of manipulating title requirements (an even
worse thing to do). A win was reported for the penultimate round, but it did
not occur. The game that should have counted did not.


My impression was that results were switched; both games still
occurred but were reported out of order. If a fake game was reported
that is as bad.


You are as cynical about medical "research" as I am. I wonder how you got
that way. Do people routinely say you're nuts? I hear that all the time.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.


I taught the Applied Research course for about 15 years in my
university's School of Health-Related Professions. One of the goals
was to encourage critical reading of the medical and health literature
so that even though these individuals wouldn't be doing research
themselves, they could/should be able to read the literature with an
eye to seeing whether the conclusions matched the rigor needed to
actually draw such conclusions. Physician researchers are in my mind,
the absolute worst; they are technicians with little command of their
subject (competent performance does not signify understanding; and my
own opinion is that 50% of the US's physicians are incompetent), and
especially try to make their data seem more conclusive than it really
is. Finally, a student would get that is why one day the NEJM report
on why eating bananas will make you live to be a hundred was on the
news one day, and then an AMA report saying bananas cause cancer the
next. Or why physicians know almost as much about pharmacology as the
local drug reps, and fall into the "pill of the week" routine. But of
course, I have had to fire 3 physicians in the last 5 years because
they wanted to prescribe various things for me that were definitely
contrainidicated for the various conditions I have, and all became
upset when I questioned them. In the South, the doctor as god syndrome
is even more prevalent than in other places.

Polypharmacy in the old days used to be a problem because patients
would cherry-pick physicians and not tell them what drugs they were
taking; now it is a problem because physicians don't understand the
difference between adverse effects and side effects, that you have to
take into account varying physiologies, and so on...... and the
physicians are passing out pills like bubble gum. Pharmaceuticals can
be a wonderful thing, used properly...

I just don't suffer fools gladly, and well, the only people who call
me nuts here are Larry Parr, Phil Innes, and Jason Repa, our own "Dr.
Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard" stooges; which I think is a wonderful
testament to my sanity. And only Parr has made a diagnosis of
bipolarity in me; although Innes felt compelled to chime in in his
usual style; I guess he was watching the Lifetime movie of the week or
some such, and felt I fit the mold.


  #8   Report Post  
Old March 12th 07, 04:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 13
Default Tanner Tournaments

Of course, one director made one false report and the other made over 30
false reports that we are sure of. One for someone else's gain and one for
personal gain. One didn't have political connections so they got 10 year,
one did so they got three So it goes with the USCF.



"SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 6, 12:23 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:


Good analogy. But one could argue that Cohen made up two games as well (a
bad thing to do), with the aim of manipulating title requirements (an
even
worse thing to do). A win was reported for the penultimate round, but it
did
not occur. The game that should have counted did not.


My impression was that results were switched; both games still
occurred but were reported out of order. If a fake game was reported
that is as bad.


You are as cynical about medical "research" as I am. I wonder how you got
that way. Do people routinely say you're nuts? I hear that all the time.
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.


I taught the Applied Research course for about 15 years in my
university's School of Health-Related Professions. One of the goals
was to encourage critical reading of the medical and health literature
so that even though these individuals wouldn't be doing research
themselves, they could/should be able to read the literature with an
eye to seeing whether the conclusions matched the rigor needed to
actually draw such conclusions. Physician researchers are in my mind,
the absolute worst; they are technicians with little command of their
subject (competent performance does not signify understanding; and my
own opinion is that 50% of the US's physicians are incompetent), and
especially try to make their data seem more conclusive than it really
is. Finally, a student would get that is why one day the NEJM report
on why eating bananas will make you live to be a hundred was on the
news one day, and then an AMA report saying bananas cause cancer the
next. Or why physicians know almost as much about pharmacology as the
local drug reps, and fall into the "pill of the week" routine. But of
course, I have had to fire 3 physicians in the last 5 years because
they wanted to prescribe various things for me that were definitely
contrainidicated for the various conditions I have, and all became
upset when I questioned them. In the South, the doctor as god syndrome
is even more prevalent than in other places.

Polypharmacy in the old days used to be a problem because patients
would cherry-pick physicians and not tell them what drugs they were
taking; now it is a problem because physicians don't understand the
difference between adverse effects and side effects, that you have to
take into account varying physiologies, and so on...... and the
physicians are passing out pills like bubble gum. Pharmaceuticals can
be a wonderful thing, used properly...

I just don't suffer fools gladly, and well, the only people who call
me nuts here are Larry Parr, Phil Innes, and Jason Repa, our own "Dr.
Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard" stooges; which I think is a wonderful
testament to my sanity. And only Parr has made a diagnosis of
bipolarity in me; although Innes felt compelled to chime in in his
usual style; I guess he was watching the Lifetime movie of the week or
some such, and felt I fit the mold.




  #9   Report Post  
Old March 13th 07, 03:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Tanner Tournaments


BI BI FOR NOW

I just don't suffer fools gladly, and well, the only people who call
me nuts here are Larry Parr, Phil Innes, and Jason Repa, our own "Dr.
Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard" stooges; which I think is a wonderful
testament to my sanity. And only Parr has made a diagnosis of
bipolarity in me -- SBD

Rynd-Dowd (Steven Dowd "I have no aliases" jamesrynd)
claim that this writer diagnosed them with bipolarity.

Wrongo.

They have only one pole. Based on their own
bleating, indeed hilariously tearful testimony at
times on this forum, their pole may be worn out,
though one makes no such claim.

How refreshing were they polar opposites, but
their pole bears a resemblance only to itself. And
that's the polar bare truth.

Bi bi for now.

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 13th 07, 04:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Tanner Tournaments

BI BI FOR NOW

I just don't suffer fools gladly, and well, the only people who
call
me nuts here are Larry Parr, Phil Innes, and Jason Repa, our own "Dr.
Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard" stooges; which I think is a wonderful
testament to my sanity. And only Parr has made a diagnosis of
bipolarity in me -- SBD

Rynd-Dowd (Steven Dowd "I have no aliases" jamesrynd)
claim that this writer diagnosed them with bipolarity.

Wrongo.

They have only one pole. Based on their own
bleating, indeed hilariously tearful testimony at
times on this forum, their pole may be worn out,
though one makes no such claim.

How refreshing were they polar opposites, but
their pole bears a resemblance only to itself. And
that's the polar bare truth.

Bi bi for now.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tanner Tournaments samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 11 March 13th 07 12:34 PM
Tanner Tournaments samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 March 13th 07 12:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017