Should Elected USCF Officials be Allowed to Sit on their Rating Floors?
Sam Sloan
Floors?
Of the five current members of the USCF Executive Board, three have
their ratings propped up to artificially high levels by rating floors,
one other has played only three rated games in 30 years and only one
has a current rating reflective of his true strength. That one is Joel
Channing, who is an active player with a rating of 1196.
As a result, the voters are led to believe that the board members are
stronger at chess than they actually are.
In 2003, Bill Goichberg revived his rating of 2339 from 30 years ago
when he defeated players rated 1296 and 1023.
Don Schultz was awarded a floor of 2000 in the 1996 Penfork Open,
where he won the Under-2000 Section, which had a $1000 first prize.
Under the rules at that time, if you won $1000 or more in a class
tournament you were floored so that you could not win that prize
again. Don's rating after the tournament was 1941. Prior to that, he
had been at around 1900 for the previous 30 years and had never been
over 2000. Since then, he has been on his 2000 floor, unable to get
his rating above that. I remember one tournament where Don had an
easily winning position against a young girl. He offered her a draw
rather than finish her off, saying that he could not lose rating
points anyway, so why not.
Beatriz Marinello was at one time a very solid master. However, in
2003 when she was running for election her strength declined markedly,
probably for health reasons. She was given the Life Master Title, but
she was not qualified for that, as 300 games are required and she only
has about 230 games. Close, but still rules are rules.
Her performance rating since 2003 has been about 1950. Had she not
been given a floor, her rating would be about 2100 now.
The most outrageous case is Robert Tanner. He was for many years
sitting on a floor of 2100 when suddenly his floor was raised to 2200.
This happened during the 2004 Jessica Wilder Memorial. He entered that
\tournament with a rating of 2103, won all four of his games,
defeating players rated 1063, 1354, 1393 and 1381. For this
performance, his rating was raised from 2103 to 2200 !!!!
I am not kidding. Look it up:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200404241361-10495334
Trying to figure out how this happened, I went back and found that in
1992-1993 Tanner player a lot of games at the master level. However,
he did not play 300 games and, by the end of 1993, he was like that
old lady who fell down and could not get up. He hit a floor of 2200
and sat there for the next several years until 1999 when floors were
lowered by 100 points, and then Tanner promptly fell down to 2100.
I do not know why he had a 2200 floor in the first place as he had not
played 300 games above 2200 and his rating has never been over 2300.
Tanner has been on his floor of 2200 ever since, except that in 2004
he gained one point by defeating players rated 1361 and 1451. Then, in
2006, Tanner gained another point by soundly thrashing a player rated
407. (This is not a typo.) These are the strongest players Tanner has
defeated in many years.
Meanwhile, everybody is laughing at my rating of 1920. I am willing to
bet a fairly considerable amount of money that I can beat any current
member of the board in a match, with the exception of Bill Goichberg
of course.
The propose of floors is to avoid a situation where a player looses
games on purpose or simply has a few bad tournaments, so that his
rating falls down and he is thereby able to win a large cash prize.
However, elected officials have the opposite desire. They want to
raise their ratings so that the voters will think that they are
stronger than they really are.
I propose that from now on any person who runs for election or is
elected shall have his floor abolished retroactively and his rating
recalculated without any floors so that the voters can know how strong
he really is at chess.
Sam Sloan
London Chess
minors.
Tony
samsloan
I have admitted to no such thing.
Who are you?
Bill Brock is a sick man who has admitted that he has has sex with
minors. He thinks or fantasizes that everybody else is as guilty as he
is.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Don Schultz does not believe me and has just sent me an email
challenging me to a match for money.
I think that I am the slight favorite but Don has chances to beat me
because he has been playing actively and we were always nearly equal.
The real questions concern Tanner and Beatriz, especially Tanner. He
has not faced serious competition in years. He just plays Class D and
Class E players. Can he still play at the expert level?
Any takers?
Sam Sloan
London Chess
samsloan wrote:
You're a sick man. You unfairly attacked Beatriz Marinello and James
Eade. You're a despicable bloke. Shame on you!
Tony
Sam Sloan
concentrating on important stuff, like running USCF, rather than
trivialities, like their own chess ratings.
Almost everybody who has ever become an EB member has experienced a
significant drop in his or her playing strength. I would, in fact,
become highly suspicious of any future EB member for whom this were
not true.
So, let the EB run the show, and let their playing strengths drop, and
let them hit their floors so they can't sandbag. That's exactly the
way it should be.
Bill Smythe[/quote]
I am aware that chess officials and office employees see their ratings
drop when they have to devote their time to USCF business.
The perfect example is Mike Cavallo. His rating was suspiciously
raised to 2200 in 1997 when he was hired to be Executive Director. In
no way was he entitled to a 2200 floor. Neverthrless, he was a real
2179 player, so raising his rating was just a minor 21 point fib.
Take a look at
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12501406
As soon as his floor was removed, Cavallo dropped nearly 200 points to
just above 2000.
I am not complaining about Don Schultz. His floor was earned
ligitimately under the rules at that time. It was not earned in the
expected way that was intended, however. He go a "money floor" by
winning $1000 or more in a class section. Money Floors were imposed to
stop players like Master Ilyan Kreitner who used to win the Under-1800
prize at the World Open over and over again, even though his true
strength was 2200.
In 1996, some rich guy in Texas held a big money tournament with a
$1000 first prize. The guy never held a tournament before or since. It
was not well advertized and not many people knew about it. Don Schultz
found out about the tournament and won it when Al Losoff left his
queen en pris.
I am not complaining at all about this. Just stating the facts, Mam.
What I am complaining about is when two board members are awarded the
Original Life Master title without having earned it. To be an Original
Life Master one must play 300 tournament games while holding a rating
over 2200. It is a hard title to win. It should not be given away and
especially not to chess politicians who have not earned it. These two
board members did not qualify under the rules.
I am aware of another case where a player was given the OLM title
simply because he requested it. He said that he needed the title so
that he could tell his paying chess students that he is a chess
master. I do not believe that he has even 50 games towards the OLM
title, much less 300. I believe that his OLM title should be revoked.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
I believe the 2200 floor wa part of the original LM proposal around
1976.[/quote]
From the USCF 1978 Chess Yearbook "A Life Master's rating may go below
2200, but this does not affect his title, which is permanent."
The minutes from the 1998 delegate's meeting seems to imply that the
new Life Achievement awards would be calculated in a similar method to
OLM. With each title the player's floor would be raised which appeared
to have included OLM floors.
So sometime between 1978 and 1998 the floor was apparently added to
Original Life Masters.[/quote]
Around 25 or 30 years ago there were several years when the rating of
Asa Hoffmann was consistently below 2200. Whenever anybody asked him
what his rating was, he would say "I am a Life Master."
In reality, he was not a real master. His rating was about 2180.
Finally, he married a beautiful young girl named Eva who was willing
to work hard to support him. Now that he could devote himself to chess
and did not have to worry about where his next meal was coming from,
his rating shot up to about 2400, where it had been in the 1960s.
So, at that time, the OLM title did not get you a 2200 floor.
I do not think that it should now either. The two board members who
are said to have the OLM title have never broken 2300, so why should
they have a 2200 floor? It has already been calculated that if their
ratings were left in free fall, they would be rated around 2100 now or
even lower.
For example, in 1999 I had the same rating as Robert Tanner. Actually,
he had one point more. My rating was 2104. His was 2105.
After that, he was given the OLM title without winning any games. The
highest rated player he has defeated since then was rated 1451.
Nevertheless, his rating has been pegged at 2200.
I have remained active and my rating has dropped 184 points to 1920.
Nevertheless, in spite of my rating drop, I have defeated several
strong players recently, including masters.
Based upon this, does anybody really believe that Tanner is stronger
than I am, even though he is rated 280 points higher?
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
rating in early 2004.
Robert Tanner went over the 300 life master game count prior to 2004,
but that wasn't noted on his record until last November.
I don't know when Bill Goichberg went over the 300 game count point,
his floor has been 2200 for as far back as our computerized records
go.[/quote]
I just called Jerry Hanken in Los Angeles and had a long talk with him
about this subject.
Jerry Hanken says that Mike Nolan is mistaken and that Robert Tanner
is NOT an Original Life Master and therefore is not entitled to the
2200 rating floor.
Hanken says that Tanner has always been a 2100 player. He has never
been a solid master strength player. Although his rating may have
peeked over 2200 occasionally, he has never had the 300 games over
2200 which are required for the OLM Title.
Hanken says that in case there is any doubt about this, Mike Nolan
should call Hanken directly and Hanken will explain it to him.
Hanken also confirmed what John Hillery just wrote that the "Original
Life Master" title or OLM Title was created in 1998 by Hanken to get
rid of the byzantine "Norm System" whereby a player could get the
"Life Master" title without ever actually being a rated master.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Beatriz has more than 300 life master games, and if it says that
Robert Tanner has more than 300 life master games, and if it says that
Bill Goichberg has more than 300 life master games, we should ignore
that and rely on Jerry Hanken's memory?[/quote]
If Sloan is quoting him correctly, Jerry is obviously mistaken.
Between 1991 and 1993, Robert Tanner played at least 140 games with a
rating over 2200, (peaking at 2319), as Sam could easily have learned
with a few minutes' research. Not that it's anyone's business. It's
about time to treat Sam Sloan as we have other, ah, less than
well-balanced posters. Let him talk to himself.[/quote]
Right. He played 140 games. However, to get the OLM title you need 300
games. Therefore, Tanner is 160 games short.
I have just been through almost the entire tournament career of Tanner
and since 1993 he has never had a master result, not even one. Hanken
says that Tanner was never a master before 1991. He was always a 2100
player, so if he has any master results they are on the website.
Almost all the games Tanner has played are against Class B and Class C
players. Tanner has rarely played in a major master's event like the
World Open or the National Open. and when he has played his results
have been far below master and not even expert.
I have found only one game where Tanner defeated a Master. That was in
the 1993 International Farewell of Friends where he defeated a foreign
player named Andre Periot. It was that one game that got him the 2319
rating.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?199301114260-10495334
I found a ten game match and a nine game match where he defeated a low
rated expert by an overwhelming score. I assume that match results to
not count towards the 300 games.
There is a problem concerning floors. When the Life Master title was
created in the early 1970s, floors did not exist.
There is a stretch of 22 tournaments in a row from 1994 to 1996 where
Tanner sat on a floor of 2200, never even reaching as high as 2201. If
you will look at the actual game results, you will see that they are
very poor, basically Class A level, not even expert.
Obviously, those games cannot count towards the 300, because if you
count those games, that means that he could lose every single game and
still get the life master title. In other words, the Original Life
Master title would be awarded simply by playing 300 games, win or
lose.
Please understand that I have nothing against Robert Tanner. I just
happened to stumble on this anomoly when I was researching something
else.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
obviously mistaken. Between 1991 and 1993, Robert Tanner played at
least 140 games with a rating over 2200, (peaking at 2319), as Sam
could easily have learned with a few minutes' research. Not that it's
anyone's business. It's about time to treat Sam Sloan as we have
other, ah, less than well-balanced posters. Let him talk to
himself.[/quote]
Sorry, but it is you who have not done a few minutes research.
Have you tried checking the round by round results of Robet Tanner? If
you had done so, you would have observed that he often looses to or
draws with 1800 players and almost never defeats a player rated over
2000.
Also, the number of tournaments he has played, 197, is misleading,
becase he rarely completes a tournament, often playing only one or two
games.
Let us take the 1995 US Open in Concord. I chose that one only because
he played enough games to give us an idea of his strength.
There he scored 7-5, but since he took four half point byes, his
actual score was 5-3 in eight games played.
His average opponent in those 8 games was 1918.
Therefore, his performance rating for that tournament was 2018.
This turns out to be a typical performance for Tanner. His performance
rating is usually about 2000.
The only times where he has what could be called a master result is
where he plays low rated players and wipes them out. For example in
one tournament he played three players averaging 1924 and won all
three games. So, this is considered to be a 2324 performance. However,
he never gets that kind of result when he plays against actual
masters. Indeed, he almost never even plays against a master because
his results are too low to earn him a pairing against a master.
I have given you a lot of factual information here. Now, I want you to
go back to the website that you say that I never bothered to check and
see if you can prove me wrong.
Sam Sloan
mar...@stkittsnevischess.org
> I propose that from now on any person who runs for election or is
> elected shall have his floor abolished retroactively and his rating
> recalculated without any floors so that the voters can know how strong
> he really is at chess.
>
> Sam Sloan
Goichberg (Motion to Table)
Adopted 4-1.
Marcus Roberts
Sam Sloan
subject of a series of postings by Eric Mark back in February, 2006. I
simply failed to notice them at the time.
This is a problem with relying on Internet websites rather than paper
printouts of rating lists. It seems that Tanner's rating was published
as 2102 in the December 2005 rating list. However, he was elected to
the board in August 2005 and in February 2006 his rating was raised to
2200 retroactively to December, 2003.
[quote="ericmark"][quote="Smythe Dakota"][quote="ericmark"] .... it
seems that Robert Tanner .... recently became the latest USCF board
member/employee to have his rating floor raised. (This did not come up
at the meeting. I noticed it when I checked online at MSA .... )
...[/quote]
It appears that Robert Tanner was floored at 2200 at least as far back
as 1993 (he may have been an OLM), until sometime between June 1996
and September 1999, at which time his floor somehow disappeared,
probably due to programming changes at that time.
If so, then the re-instatement of his floor in 2004 was simply the
correction of an oversight.
Bill Smythe[/quote]
My apologies if this appears twice and also if I posted a quote from
Bill Smythe with no comment. I'm still trying to figure out the set-up
of this forum. There's something screwy about the "preview" function.
I think I lost the message I spent the last hour crafting, (lord how I
hate technology), but the gist of it is that Mr. Tanner's rating floor
was re-set quite recently, while he was a sitting EB member. His 12/05
rating---his wallchart rating for the USATE---was 2101. The new 2200
floor was applied retroactively as of a tournament in 2004, as Bill
Smythe notes.
I do not say anything improper happened. Bob was a real gentleman on
Sunday both at the board meeting and when we played our game; even
after the game, for that matter.
His peak rating on MSA is in the 2300s, which would have floored him
at 2200 whether or not he was an OLM under the 1XX rating floors in
effect through the end of 1996. Maybe his floor was mistakenly lowered
when most floors were lowered to 2XX in 1997.
Perhaps Bob or someone checked and figured out he passed 300 games
over 2200 at some point---perhaps the 2004 tournament mentioned above,
though it seems he was in the 2100s going into that event---and the
computer didn't catch it.
The reason I mention it is the long history of EB members and moreso
managers, employees and insiders getting their floors raised 100
points.
Some examples are Eric Johnson, Tim Redman, Dan Heisman, Al Lawrence
and Ken Thomas. (I won't get into the Cavallo dollar floor business
here.)
For the record, Ken T. swears his floor is correct, since he was
briefly rated over 1900 in the 1980s, pre-MSA. Having played him
several times I accept that as plausible when he was younger and the
rating system was more volatile.
Also I sympathize that any tweak to the rating floor of an EB member
will be criticized. As I recall Tom Dorsch took heat when he won a
fairly big Expert class prize in 1997-98, soon after his rating
dropped below 2200 for the first time in many years when the floors
changed from 1XX to 2XX in 1997.
Had Tom insisted on having his floor reset to 2200 while he sat on the
board, someone would have criticized that, too. Another case is
Dorsch's buddy Don Schultz, who has been banging hard against his 2000
dollar-based floor for a long time. If he ever asks for that floor to
be lowered, someone will yelp about it.
The point is I just don't like messing with ratings and floors like
this. I'm no math or tech guy---have I mentioned I hate
technology?---but to some extent I believe in the purity of the rating
system, even if it will never be perfect.[/quote]
Good post by Eric Mark back on February 20, 2006.
From this we learn that Tanner's published rating was 2101 in early
2006 and that his rating was raised to 2200 retroactively after he was
elected to the board.
Eric Mark wrote above that Tanner's rating on the 12/05 rating list
was 2101 and this was the rating on the wall chart at the US Amateur
Team East Championship in February, 2006. Then Tanner's rating was
re-rated retroactively to 2004 because, in the words of Mike Nolan in
February, 2006, "The correction was made retroactive to 12/31/2003
since that's as far back as we rerate events."
Sorry, but whatever the excuse or justification is made, whether ir is
explained by an unfortuate oversight that is now being corrected, or
for any other reason, I do not think that the office should be going
back and correcting upwards the ratings of chess politicians.
Eric Mark also writes, "Some examples are Eric Johnson, Tim Redman,
Dan Heisman, Al Lawrence and Ken Thomas. (I won't get into the Cavallo
dollar floor business here.)" In short, Eric Mark claims that all of
these players have had their ratings adjusted upward for political
reasons. I do not know anything about this or whether he is right or
not, but I do feel that this matter should be looked into.
Sam Sloan