From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: USCF Ratings Committee
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:55:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.134353.231@news.unige.ch> chachere@cui.unige.ch (CHACHERE Lawrence) writes:
>
>Since you asked, I will let you know just what I think of that
>USCF rating committee

Since you posted to the entire world, I will let you know just what I
think of your posting.

>... - basically it is about as incompetent as
>most other USCF committees. 

Perhaps true.  They've certainly done some strange things lately.  What
are you doing to remedy that?

>... About every six months or so, I get
>a letter from USCF (despite the fact that I let my membership 
>expire over a year ago, in order to protest the poor administration)
>stating that they have adjusted my rating on
>the basis of movement of my FIDE rating, from events outside the
>US. 

I tend to agree that USCF ought not to bother about providing services
to non-members.  I suggest that you simply throw away the unwanted
correspondence.  

>... Not that it concerns me very much, since having a FIDE rating
>kind of makes a USCF rating insignificant; but this whole policy
>of adjustment is totally mathematically unsound, because the two
>scales are completely independent.

Unless, of course, the goal is to try and bring the scales into
correspondence.  The only "mathematically sound" way to do that is to
examine the performances of players who hold both USCF and FIDE ratings,
and the interactions between players with USCF and FIDE ratings.  A
large population of players who participate in both pools may, in fact,
provide a good "mathematically sound" basis for joining the two rating
pools together.  After all, USCF NM's rarely compete against USCF E
players - but there is a perfectly sound way of including all of them on
the same scale.  The key, of course, lies in the intermediate players
who provide links from the top to the bottom of the scale.

>...  Besides the fact, that my personal
>tournament results outside the US are none of the USCF's business.

First...you *have* a USCF rating - even though you have renounced your
membership.  One of the services that you paid for while you were a
member was the promise that "once rated, always rated". 

Second...are these performances somehow private, secret affairs?  If you
had never held a USCF rating, and then entered a USCF-sanctioned
tournament, your FIDE rating would be very much USCF's business.  It is
entirely appropriate for USCF to use a realistic rating for you when
(if) you compete in USCF events, especially when large amounts of money
may be involved.  I presume that your FIDE rating means that you would
be reasonably expected to be in competition for significant prize money.

Perhaps you would be happy if USCF simply stopped sending you polite
letters keeping you informed of your rating.  I know that I would be
just as happy not to waste postage on correspondence with someone who
shows an active dis-interest in the organization.  I would still be in
favor of USCF continuting to track your world-class performances, if
only to protect current USCF members from being put at an unfair
financial advantage.  I'm sure that you have no intention of ever
entering a USCF-sanctioned event and hoping to capitalize on your
outdated, unrealistically low USCF rating - but I'll bet that you've met
a few chess players in your travels who do not share your high moral
ground. 

>If the USCF is worried about USCF ratings seeming relatively inflated
>compared to FIDE ratings, maybe they should just face up to the fact
>that ALL US ratings are inflated, and they should subtract about 100
>rating points globally, from all members.  

I'm not convinced that this is the case.  Evidence, please?

And...I'm curious now - has USCF been *raising* or *lowering* your USCF
rating, based on FIDE performances?  Please tell us your USCF rating on
the date you dropped your USCF membership, your FIDE rating at that
time, and your USCF and FIDE ratings as of today.

>The United States is probably
>the easiest place in the world to become a "chess master"

I'm not convinced that this is the case.  Evidence, please?

>... that title
>used to mean something over there when it wasn't a dime a dozen, and I
>am not talking about raw numbers, but also in terms of the overall
>percentage of members.
>
>Speaking of the good old USCF, I heard a while back that Max Dlugy
>was threatening to resign because the fascist USCF policy board
>members were persisting to ban the democratic policy of allowing ALL
>USCF members to vote.

My, my - what a colorful, yet objective, way to approach the issue.

>...  Why is some GM unqualified to decide on issues
>and for elected officers, in contrast to a few power-hungry inactive 
>class B-C chess politicians who are allowed to vote?  

Perhaps because chess skill over the board has not been demonstrated to
correlate well with administrative skill in the office.  Examples
abound.

[N.B. - this does not imply any particular position on whether or not
USCF (or FIDE, or the GMA) has been managed competently.]

Taking a leaf from your book, why is the administration of USCF now
"any of your business"?  If you want to affect USCF policy, get active
in your local and state organizations, show up at committee meetings,
and do something about it.  Of course, it might help to re-instate your
membership first.

>All I can say is the USCF is probably the ONLY thing I will not have
>missed by the time I am ready to return to the US.

You appear to have much more to say than that.  Why not say it in the
appropriate forum?  Or is it too much fun to stand on the sidelines and
lob verbal mortars.  

Those who care do something about it.  Those who don't simply bitch,
bitch, bitch. 

Gens Una Sumus
-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess