David Howell Rating Problem

[samsloan]

David Howell has just won the British Championship, so now is a good
time to discuss the problem with his USCF rating.

This case came up as a very serious matter when I was on the Executive
Board of the United States Chess Federation.

David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.

Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
another US tournament.

His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.

To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.
Take a look at:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12771831

That solved the problem in this one case, but similar things on a
smaller scale happen all the time.

For example, a kid has a rating of 521, does not play rated chess for
8 years and when he comes back now his strength is 2021 but his rating
is still 521.

What to do about the frequent cases like this is a question that needs
to be addressed.

Sam Sloan

[Mike Murray]

You might think you could simply use the highest of USCF, FIDE or
other national rating (converted, if need be).

BUT...the reverse can also be true. A guy quits at 2200 -- comes back
40 years later when he's senile and plays at a 1400 strength, in which
case using the highest rating would exacerbate the problem.

So, you really can't do much about these anomalies. The rating
system is self-healing in the long run.

[RayGordon]

> system is self-healing in the long run.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So I can still use my 1900 rating even though I can now beat Crafty
20.14 at Blitz?

[Mike Murray]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:34:29 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
<r...@cybersheet.com> wrote:

>So I can still use my 1900 rating even though I can now beat Crafty
>20.14 at Blitz?

Only if you play in a tournament.

[Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)]

On Aug 7, 6:59 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David Howell's USCF rating was 1871 in 2000.
>
> Five years later when now a grandmaster he came back to play in
> another US tournament.
>
> His 1871 rating would ruin the rating of anybody he played.
>
> To avoid this, the USCF just arbitrarily raised his rating to 2521.

Sam, with my bias toward positive, I was
forcing myself to see you in positive light
for quite some time. Unfortunately, there were
more and more signs which I couldn't ignore,
which were showing you as someone phony
in several major ways. Your deafness (complete
lack of interest) to some of my ideas was among
those signs, it has contradicted the image of
you which you were promoting. Among those ideas
some were related to rating. The solution of the
problem which you described above was spelled
among in my posts about rating. Actually, I have
two,solutions or call it a two part solution (each
part solving the problem to much extent even
by itself, while the total is still better).

Wlod

[Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)]

On Aug 7, 6:59 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> What to do about the frequent cases like
> this is a question that needs
> to be addressed.

It's simple, Sam. Learn Polish. Then read Vistula,
where I am right now in the process of publishing
a series of articles about rating. The first two parts
will show up soon, followed by the rest.

Wlod

[jon.f...@comcast.net]

Wlod or others,

I would like your help to convert my Arena FIDE rapid rating 1658 and blitz rating 1781 to USCF ratings. What would they be? My thanks, Jon Fortune jon.f...@comcast.net