From: chachere@cui.unige.ch (CHACHERE Lawrence)
Subject: Re: USCF Ratings Committee
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:06:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.195527.7218@cis.uab.edu>, sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan) writes:
> In article <1992Nov9.134353.231@news.unige.ch> chachere@cui.unige.ch (CHACHERE Lawrence) writes:
> >

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

Oh excuse me, but communication IS an effective action.  The primary
reason reason that incompetent persons manage to maintain positions of power
is because the general public is in the dark.

And by the way, I cannot agree the the USCF has been doing strange things
lately - they have been doing strange things for at least about a decade.	
> 
> >... 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.
> 
I think you somehow may have missed the boat here.  If you read carefully,
the USCF adjusts ratings on the basis of 'movement' of the FIDE ratings.
This is no way to bring the scales into correspondence; USCF will add points
to a rating if the FIDE rating increases, despite the USCF rating being
higher (which is almost always the case.)

> >...  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.
> 
Oh if you are referring to class prizes, that's a whole different can of
worms.  The US is the only nation I am familiar with which tries to reward
mediocrity to the extent of $10,000 class C prizes. Believe, if a foreigner
really wanted to cheat the stupid system, it would be very difficult to stop
him.  The biggest reason there are so few attempts is because so few Europeans
know about the opportunity; the class prize situation in the US is so absurd
that it is incomprehensible to most foreigners.  Some Italian chess-playing friends wouldn't even believe me the first time I told them.

> 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.

Let's see, maybe I can compete for an under 2400 prize (they already
stuck a floor on my rating in the 2300's).  Usually the 'big-money' that
people over 2200 compete for is not in the form of class prizes.

> entering a USCF-sanctioned event and hoping to capitalize on your
> outdated, unrealistically low USCF rating - but I'll bet that you've met
> 
> >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?
> 
Why don't you just open up your 'Chess Life' magazine.  Cross-reference a
bunch of FIDE ratings with USCF ratings; this discrepancy has existed for
years so it doesn't really matter which issues you choose.


> 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.

This is actually irrelevent, but for the record they have been doing
both types of tweeking, and the policy started before I left the country, and before I let my membership expire.  Perhaps the most amusing episode was
in fall of 1990 in a state championship when a fifth round opponent was 
actually protesting being paired against me because my US rating was 'obviously'
way out of line.  The USCF had just subtracted 20 points because a FIDE decrease
at a particular point in time when my US rating was already a little lower 
than normal.
Apparently at that time they were 'double-rating' games, not distinguishing
events that were both FIDE-rated and USCF-rated.
> 
> >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?
> 
The fact that you need evidence tells me that you have never left the
country.  You are making judgements based on your own narrow little world
like those in the 15th century who weren't convinced that the world isn't
flat.  I don't expect people to believe everything they hear, but why don't
you just try to find out for yourself?

> >
> >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.

What a way to evade an issue.  It makes me wonder whether you might be
somehow connected with this autocratic bunch.
> 
> >...  Why is some GM unqualified to decide on issues
> >and for elected officers, in contrast to a few power-hungry inactive 
> 
> Perhaps because chess skill over the board has not been demonstrated to
> correlate well with administrative skill in the office.  Examples
> abound.
> 
Well let's see.  For example, you just asked for 'evidence' about FIDE-USCF
rating discrepancies and US rating inflation.  A titled player would probably know the answers to those questions.  Titled players very often have
lots of experience playing outside the US and thus have a broader perspective
than your average USCF chess politician/"good administrator".
The fact that nobody has 'proven' chess-playing and administration skill
correspondences does not justify excluding them from at least having an
EQUAL voice in policies.  

One example of better 'administration' is comparison of GM Seirawan's magazine
and Chess Life.  Chess Life starting from about the early 1980's has 
degenerated into a rag.  The bulk of people who receive it do so because it
is packaged with the right to play in US tournaments.  In Europe, where people
are free to choose, Inside Chess is a well respected magazine, whereas 
Chess Life is virtually a non-entity.

> [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.

The USCF is my business, since I am plning to return to live in the US,
and due to their strong demands from affiliates about membership requirements 
for playing in tournaments.  I'll bet another thing you did not realize is
that most of these other countries, Norway, Switzerland, Italy, Britain,
Germany, Spain, France, Greece, to name a few, do not require tournament
participants to financially support their national federations with 
membership requirements.  Instead the use 'fair market' policies (some
irony here, since this is pretty much an American concept) to attract
their members.  I pay over $100 annually for my Swiss membership, and
I feel I get every pennies worth.  I am sure that Switzerland has a
higher-per-capita membership than the US, although I guess I don't have
the proper 'evidence' you usually require immediately available.

I really don't understand why you should expect someone who is currently
living outside the US to be active in local and state organizations, by
the way.
> 
> >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.  

The person who wrote the original posting made this an appropriate forum.
I have written numerous letters to the USCF over the years.  A lot of
common and recurrent complaints that many people have been expressing
have simply been ignored - when you can't boot the people out, because
of the elitist non-democratic election system, withholding financial 
support isn't such a bad alternative (especially considering they are
having budget problems.)
> 
> Those who care do something about it.  Those who don't simply bitch,
> bitch, bitch. 

And before you tell me to shut the devil up, why don't you explain
what the hell you are doing?
> 
> 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

Lawrence Chachere
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess