The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International Level

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Sam Sloan

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
Level

It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
hard of a chance to play.

Everybody who noticed that one of Stan Vaughan's students was being
sent by the United States Chess Federation to the World Youth
Championships in Spain on October 25 - November 7 realized a probable
disaster in the making. Stan Vaughan, who claims to be a grandmaster,
even though, according to those who have played him, he is not even
master strength, uses illegal methods to pump up the USCF ratings of
his students. He then advertises for more students by claiming that
many of his students are top rated US players in their respective age
groups.

As long as this problem is confined to Stan Vaughan's tiny Las Vegas
group, there would seem to be no major problem. But what if some Stan
Vaughan kid pushes out some other kid with a legitimate USCF rating?

America's leading scholastic chess coach, Sunil Weeramantry, wrote a
letter more than two years ago in January 1996 asking that a
qualifying event be held before sending US representatives abroad to
scholastic chess events. Inexplicably, the corrupt and incompetent
USCF delegates and policy board rejected Weeramantry’s proposal at the
Alexandria delegates meeting, the same meeting where Don Schultz was
elected USCF president.

In his letter, Weeramantry pointed out that 7 year old Candice
Leonardo - USCF ID #21000636, had achieved a rating of 1552 almost
entirely by losing games to Stan Vaughan. Her last 10 USCF rated games
had been against Stan Vaughan, who was rated 2265. The key is that
when playing with a provisional rating, the loser gets a performance
rating of 400 points less than the opponent. Thus, every time Candice
Leonardo lost to Stan Vaughan, she was given a performance rating of
1865 for that one game. As a result of losing 12 games in a row, 11 to
Stan Vaughan and one to Gergory Niemi (2065), the rating of Candice
Leonardo had risen from 926 to 1552, making her the highest rated
7-year-old in the United States, all without winning or drawing a
single game.

As Weeramantry's letter pointed out, this does not only cheat the kids
who earned their ratings by legitimate means, and the coaches who
trained those kids. It also hurts the player by preventing her from
acquiring an accurate rating and obtaining a true reflection of her
playing strength.

Candice Leonardo stopped playing chess not long thereafter and is no
longer in the rating lists. However, the scholastic top rating lists
have continued to contain a disproportionate number of Stan Vaughan
students.

Thus, when it developed that Nicole Niemi of Las Vegas, a Stan Vaughan
student, was being sent as the official US representative to the World
Youth Championships in Marina d'Or, Spain, I and no doubt others were
concerned. I decided to remain quiet and not say anything about this,
so as not to put undue and unfair pressure on an 11-year-old girl.

Unfortunately, our fears have been realized. Nicole Niemi bombed out,
finishing nearly dead last with a score of 2-9. At least she knew the
legal moves of chess. However, one observer in Spain said, “All I can
say is the kid tried hard. Beyond that, I will not comment.”

There are 30,000 children in America competing in scholastic chess
programs. Many of them are trying and working fantastically hard to
improve their chess. Many established masters and grandmasters are
earning a living by teaching these children to play. Therefore, it is
monstrously unfair for one child to get a chance to compete for the
world championship because the adults involved cheated to get her in.

Although 2154 games from the event in Spain were preserved for
posterity and the organizers made an effort to save every game, only
one game by Nicole Niemi was saved. Thus, we must try to judge her
chess strength from that one game. Her opponent was the representative
of Slovenia. Here it is:

It can be seen that Nicole Niemi gave up material freely, lost a rook
to an obvious bishop fork and then fell into a simple mate. It is true
that she probably plays chess better than the average 11 year old
girl, but it is important to remember that the US was allowed only one
representative and, because Nicole Niemi got in, some other little
girl who was probably far stronger at chess and who had worked hard at
her game was deprived of a chance to play.

The results (unfortunately not complete) of the World Youth
Championships in Spain are available at
http://www.chesstv.com/chess-net64-es/supertorneo/marinador98/entrada.htm

The games can be downloaded at
http://www.chesstv.com/chess-net64-es/supertorneo/marinador98/resultados/oropesa.zip

Sam Sloan

[Event "World Championship under-12 girls"]
[Site "Marina d'Or Spain"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Niemi, N."]
[Black "Ahmatovic, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[Date "1998.10.27"]

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. e3 a6 4. c3 Nf6 5. Bd3 g6 6. Nbd2 Bg7 7. O-O
O-O 8. e4
dxe4 9. Nxe4 Bg4 10. Nxf6+ Bxf6 11. Bh6 Re8 12. h3 Be6 13. Qe2 Bd5 14.
Bc4 e5
15. Bxd5 Qxd5 16. c4 Nxd4 17. cxd5 Nxe2+ 18. Kh2 e4 19. Nd2 g5 20.
Rfe1 Nd4 21.
Nxe4 Be5+ 22. f4 Bxf4+ 23. Kg1 Be5 24. Rf1 Nc2 25. Rac1 Bd4+ 26. Kh1
Rxe4 27.
Rxc2 c6 28. dxc6 bxc6 29. Rxc6 f6 30. Rc7 Rae8 31. Rg7+ Kh8 32. Rc1
Bxb2 33.
Rcc7 Re1+ 34. Kh2 Be5+ 35. g3 Bxc7 36. Rxc7 R8e2# 0-1

The above is being posted at http://www.shamema.com/niemi.htm

The letter by Sunil Weeramantry is available at
http://www.shamema.com/weeraman.htm

Miguel A. Ballicora

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
In article <3646faa3...@news.mindspring.com>, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) says:
>
>The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
>Level
>
>It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
>a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
>international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
>hard of a chance to play.

[deleted]

Did understand it right? US sends the junior representatives
to the world championships based on the USCF rating????
No competition whatsoever?
I can't believe it. Then the people wonder why US does not
produce the number of GM that they should.
This is a perfect self destructive system!

I have an advice for US: make all the U16 unrated,
then they are going to concentrate on the game.
David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system hydes.

Regards,
Miguel

CHESSCENTR

unread,
Nov 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/10/98
to
>
>I have an advice for US: make all the U16 unrated,
>then they are going to concentrate on the game.
>David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system hydes.

And as a bonus, we would be helping to re-focus the USCF correctly on its
goal of promoting non-rated chess (see above thread).

Chess Center of New York

Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
Hey Sam,

Check out how the other little darlings of US CHESS did. At Eric Schillers
web site, looks like everyone from the US team must have played for Stan
Vaughan at one time or other, eh Sam? Almost all of them, including Patrick
Hummel, came in last in class. Hmmmm. How come you picked on Nicole? Who,
just in case you didn't know it, is a perfectly wonderful twelve year old,
and if you ever played her, watch out for your queenie, cause she might just
get it.

http://www.chessworks.com/events/98events/1998WYCC.html#Overall National
Standings (copy this into your Address window, the spaces prevent you from
clicking there directly)

Just wondering in Las Vegas,
Tom Klem

Sam Sloan wrote in message <3646faa3...@news.mindspring.com>...

ni...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98
to
Hey Tom,

If you looked a little closer at the tables you would see that only the top
10 or so positions were listed, and then the Americans. Whilst most of the
American team finished mid-table, between 2 and 4 points behind the winner,
poor Nicole finished 7 points behind, with 2/11 - in 80th place. I'm sure
she's a 'perfectly wonderful' girl, but she shouldn't have been sent to the
tournament.

Nick Jones

"Tom Klem" <the...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:
> Hey Sam,
>
> Check out how the other little darlings of US CHESS did. At Eric Schillers
> web site, looks like everyone from the US team must have played for Stan
> Vaughan at one time or other, eh Sam? Almost all of them, including Patrick
> Hummel, came in last in class. Hmmmm. How come you picked on Nicole? Who,
> just in case you didn't know it, is a perfectly wonderful twelve year old,
> and if you ever played her, watch out for your queenie, cause she might just
> get it.
>
> http://www.chessworks.com/events/98events/1998WYCC.html#Overall National
> Standings (copy this into your Address window, the spaces prevent you from
> clicking there directly)
>
> Just wondering in Las Vegas,
> Tom Klem
>
> Sam Sloan wrote in message <3646faa3...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
> >Level
> >
> >It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
> >a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
> >international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
> >hard of a chance to play.
> >

[BIG SNIP]

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/21/98
to

ni...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <733k24$bvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Hey Tom,
>
>If you looked a little closer at the tables you would see that only the top


Oh, so you're arguing that a 17-18th place is a fine result?

I stand by my remarks.

Tom

l pomeroy

unread,
Nov 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/21/98
to
Tom Klem (the...@lvcablemodem.com) wrote:

: ni...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <733k24$bvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

: Tom


I looked at the standings and noticed that if the player in question
had scored 5.5 (below the average of the rest of the team) rather
than 2 then the US would have been *5 places* higher in the final
rankings. It's is beginning to look as though Sam Sloan may be
right on this one (shudder!).

Cheers,
Loren Pomeroy

Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/21/98
to

l pomeroy wrote:
>Tom Klem wrote:
>
>: ni...@my-dejanews.com wrote...

>: >Hey Tom,
>: >
>: >If you looked a little closer at the tables you would see that only the
top
>
>
>: Oh, so you're arguing that a 17-18th place is a fine result?
>
>: I stand by my remarks.
>
>: Tom
>
>
>I looked at the standings and noticed that if the player in question
>had scored 5.5 (below the average of the rest of the team) rather
>than 2 then the US would have been *5 places* higher in the final


I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is is :)

Now I'm really shuddering.

While I completely agree that on the face of it, a 12-13th place finish
would have been better than a 17-18th place finish (although in bookie
terms, still quite out of the money), here is where Mr Sloan & I must part
company. The dictionary gives as the definition of bigot: "N{oun} - A person
who is rigidly devoted to his own group, race, religion or politics, and is
intolerant of those who differ."

Now this is what galls me about such comments as Mr Sloans, and I might add
a whole host of other Chess bigots that I have had the displeasure to be
acquainted with, both here in Vegas and abroad.

The USCF has seen fit to put together a team of children, ostensibly for the
purpose of representing the United States of America. The USCF, not Stan
Vaughan, selected Nicole Niemi (for whatever reasons, methods and final
results) for that team. Nicole Niemi, who I believe to be a very talented
young lady, is at times capable of real brilliance at the Chess board. And,
as with all human beings, at other times ...

In short, Ms Niemi, is a human being (the only group that really matters).

Chess bigots, like the guy who comes up to you after you just bought a
computer for $2 bucks and says, 'I coulda got it for ya for 1 buck', always
think they have a player (naturally in their own sphere of influence) who is
better than the one you have. And while that may prove to be true, as long
as the USCF is putting together teams, and IS NOT holding candidate matches
to select that team, I say we all get behind the team and root for them. No
matter, what!

To do anything else, in my humble opinion, is most likely the result of
Chess Bigotry, because the only possible explanation for critizing a twelve
year old in public who is representing this country, is a deranged mind born
of the opinion that no one but his/her 'group, race, religion or politics'
can get the job done. Ever.

Thank you,
Tom


randy...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98
to
In article <737i3m$86f$1...@supernews.com>,

Gee Tom, I might get stirred by your impassioned defense of this child if
somebody (you, perhaps?) had actually answered the charges presented in
Sloan's original post -- i.e., did the player in question get her rating by
LOSING game after game to mostly the same single player in what were
supposedly open events?

How does this happen? I've played in lots of tournaments (I have a 2304 USCF
rating and, as far as I know, nobody has ever questioned its validity). I've
NEVER been paired with the same player in successive rounds, let alone
3,4,5,6,... etc. successive rounds.

Given the circumstances as presented by Mr. Sloan (yet to be rebutted), I
would suggest that it is others, not he, who are taking advantage of this
youngster.

Call me a bigot if you wish; just don't have any mirrors handy.

Randy Bauer

Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98
to

randy...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> "Tom Klem" <the...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:


(snip, snip)

>
>Gee Tom, I might get stirred by your impassioned defense of this child if
>somebody (you, perhaps?) had actually answered the charges presented in
>Sloan's original post -- i.e., did the player in question get her rating by
>LOSING game after game to mostly the same single player in what were
>supposedly open events?

Believe me, I'm loathe to make this defense based on something that Stan
Vaughan did or did not do because of personaltity conflicts which I
personally have with Vaughan, but, remember last year when Sam Sloan made
*other* charges that Vaughan was having hundreds of children's School Mates
magazines sent to his home? Remember? The implication being some sinister
purpopse?

Turns out, Sam was lying. There were exactly three address labels in the
state of Nevada addressed to Stan Vaughan's home. His, his ex-wife's and his
son. Oh gee Randy, I guess we can assume that everything that Sam Sloan
tells us here on this forum is not motivated by his Chess Bigotry and USCF
political dirty trickster hatred of others.

>
>How does this happen? I've played in lots of tournaments (I have a 2304
USCF
>rating and, as far as I know, nobody has ever questioned its validity).
I've
>NEVER been paired with the same player in successive rounds, let alone
>3,4,5,6,... etc. successive rounds.
>

This also is a lie. It doesn't happen. It's a LIE. Don't forget Randy, you
are repeating lies.

>Given the circumstances as presented by Mr. Sloan (yet to be rebutted), I
>would suggest that it is others, not he, who are taking advantage of this
>youngster.
>

Taking advantage? Besides losing thousands of dollars in tournament play
offered only for the love of the game over the past four years by tournament
organizers here in Southern Nevada, how was Nicole Niemi taken advantage of?
Besides volunteering hundreds of hours and more thousands of dollars taking
children to various chess events around the country, how was Nicole Niemi
taken advantage of? Oh, you're saying that Coca Cola sponsored Nevada Chess?
NOT! Do you mind? Try, if you can, to be specific. Exactly, how is anyone
taking advantage of this youngster?

>Call me a bigot if you wish; just don't have any mirrors handy.
>

Is your argument about mirrors based upon the possibility, Mr Bauer, that
(like the fabled Vampires of other Children's fairy tales) your image never
appears in one?

My suggestion to you and other Chess Bigots around the country is this: try
taking a positive, helpful approach to ALL the children in this country who
are interested in Chess. It might just help the game and your sliding
membership numbers.

IMHO, bigotry is one of the most hateful factors causing the decline of USCF
membership and one of the many reasons I personally have for boycotting the
USCF, which I urge all reading this to continue to do until 1) OMOV is fully
implemented and 2) "La Caissa Nostra", that vile gang of bandits and
criminals currently in charge of the USCF is removed.

Tom Klem

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98
to
"Tom Klem" <the...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:

>I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is is :)

>Now I'm really shuddering.

You don't need to. You're quite ok.

>While I completely agree that on the face of it, a 12-13th place finish
>would have been better than a 17-18th place finish (although in bookie
>terms, still quite out of the money), here is where Mr Sloan & I must part
>company. The dictionary gives as the definition of bigot: "N{oun} - A person
>who is rigidly devoted to his own group, race, religion or politics, and is
>intolerant of those who differ."

LOL.

Let me jump in from abroad, please. Give me the chance to walk
virtually on American soil. Believe it or not, but I try to do it just
risking my own reputation. Because nobody here invited me and I'm
writing for nobody's advantages. However I must admit that the name of
'Sam Sloan' attracts me because the fellow Americans seem to react
quite irrationally strange to this man. Irrational because it's a
mixture of rejection and lacking justification. So, that's my starting
point. Exactly because I don't know any of the participants, for me
they're all like "A", "B", "C", I have the freedom to concentrate on
the basic content -- if it's to understand at all for me as a
foreigner.

Now, this one with the "noun" 'bigot' really made me laugh. Because in
my book, and note well that such notions are international, I really
couldn't find something in Sloan's multiple webpages, which justified
this notion. On the contrary, I saw many here in rgcm who opposed him
mainly from a standpoint that could itself be best described by the
notion bigottery.

For me Sloan is the total opposite of a bigot. Because bigot has also
another important content. Excuse me but my English is so weak that I
had to re-translate from German back into English to present my point.
You gave in the definition above the sub-point religion. And to be
right on the spot, Tom, please no offence, if we look from Europe in
direction of the USA, this bigottery (in religious affairs) is the
dominating impression. Because the notion bigot, related to religion
mean re-translated this: 'sanctimoniousness'. You know, it's not that
someone is pious. Everbody would respect someone like this. But the
notion bigot implies something which is 'only pretended',
'exaggerated', 'something false'.

Now, Sam Sloan, as far as I have read his papers, is the complete
opposite of such a false character who denies what he deeply prefers
in the dark of the night. Sloan is exactly therefore the enemy for
many because they attack him for his openess and search for freedom.
Hey, I must add that I don't mean with all this that I want to
subscribe to all the stories Sloan's proud of. But he's *not* a bigot.

Back to chess.

>Now this is what galls me about such comments as Mr Sloans, and I might add
>a whole host of other Chess bigots that I have had the displeasure to be
>acquainted with, both here in Vegas and abroad.

Again, I don't know the particular people and situation over there.
Where do you see a problem? ---
As long as we haven't found a system like that in the former USSR for
a systematical uprise of talented children in chess, we have no
alternative for the actual methods. And it's a very natural and human
side of the problem that a specific trainer or sponsor will always be
in favour for his specific prodigee. Not enough, he will also be very
determined and even go too far with his support. But all this doesn't
touch the notion "bigot" yet.

Try to look at it from the outcome. If over years the prodigees of XY
would later fail to develop into good players, and others from YZ
would always reach the top while they were discriminated during their
first years, it would be a good political action to favor the YZ side
a little bit more in future, no?

So, rather of speaking of bigots, I would recommand you to give
empirical data for something bad you might know of. *Then* you would
benifit chess as a whole in your country.


>The USCF has seen fit to put together a team of children, ostensibly for the
>purpose of representing the United States of America. The USCF, not Stan
>Vaughan, selected Nicole Niemi (for whatever reasons, methods and final
>results) for that team. Nicole Niemi, who I believe to be a very talented
>young lady, is at times capable of real brilliance at the Chess board. And,
>as with all human beings, at other times ...

>In short, Ms Niemi, is a human being (the only group that really matters).

>Chess bigots, like the guy who comes up to you after you just bought a
>computer for $2 bucks and says, 'I coulda got it for ya for 1 buck', always
>think they have a player (naturally in their own sphere of influence) who is
>better than the one you have. And while that may prove to be true, as long
>as the USCF is putting together teams, and IS NOT holding candidate matches
>to select that team, I say we all get behind the team and root for them. No
>matter, what!

>To do anything else, in my humble opinion, is most likely the result of
>Chess Bigotry, because the only possible explanation for critizing a twelve
>year old in public who is representing this country, is a deranged mind born
>of the opinion that no one but his/her 'group, race, religion or politics'
>can get the job done. Ever.

A smart institution like the USCF should rely on all sorts of highly
motivated trainers and sponsors, no? Let the 'old men' fight for their
babies. (You should take a short look into the computerchess group to
see how people even fight for their machine-babies!) The national
institution should be thankful of the individual support at the base.
However this needs also a more moderate language. To even speak out
such things as a possibly existing "deranged mind" makes something
normal like a 'criticism' much worse than any criticism could be in
itself. Beyond all critics the concerned people are united in the same
goal and if they try to respect each other it's for the best of the
young ones and for chess as a whole. Criticism as such isn't bad and
shouldn't be forbidden. 'Bigotry' is something totally different.

Please don't take my lesson without a grain of salt. This is usenet.
And it's Sunday. So excuse my (perhaps impolite?) frankness.


Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98
to

Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <7396rk$69j$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...

Rolf, thank you for your insightful thoughts and comments. I agree with much
of what you have to say. Also, I think your English is much better than you
realise. :) I agree that my characterization of Sam Sloan is definitely
not politically correct. But on background, Sam has consistently lied for
and supported La Caissa Nostra, that vile group of Chess bandits and
criminals who currently have control of the USCF.

Last year, Sam made another one of his outrageous claims in support of 'his'
"group, religion, race, politics". He claimed (and I have to believe that he
knew this claim was untrue because of the ease with which he could have
verified before posting) that one of our tournament organizers here in
Nevada was receiving the 'School Mates' magazines of hundreds of children by
having them sign up for the USCF using his own home address. He implied that
this TD was doing this to vote illegally in USCF elections. This claim is
and was a total falsehood. I ordered all the USCF labels for Nevada and
using a computer found that the TD in question had exactly four address
labels. His own, His ex-wifes (they coreside), and his two sons who are
legitimate members of the USCF.

I stand by my comments regarding Sloan's motives. In the classical sense,
while it may not be apparent on the surface, he is a Chess bigot because he
attacked (for political purposes it would appear) a twelve year old girl.
Added onto the previous lie from last year and other comments that he has
made about the situation here in Nevada, it is fairly clear that he is on
"La Caissa Nostra's" side.

If I am wrong about this and Sam is just simply 'offended' by Nicole's
presence in Spain(?) for purely technical reasons, then let Sam lobby the
USCF to change it's selection procedure from the rating system (which the
USCF invented) to a series of candidates matches. If he is silent on this
point, well then we can draw our own conclusions and assume that I am right.

BTW, Rolf, I have enjoyed your comments ever since I began reading these
newsgroups, and I am not offended by your 'grain of salt' :)

Tom Klem


Peter Coleman

unread,
Nov 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/23/98
to
Your definition is wrong. Bigot contains no element of falsehood. It
merely connotes INTOLERANCE. To quote my Thesaurus "dogmatist, zealot,
monomaniac, diehard, doctrinaire, enthusiast".

I wouldn't like to say whether Mr Sloan is a bigot - it's not an
uncommon affliction after all. He does, however, come across as being,
to put it as politely as possible, somewhat eccentric. His views appear
to often have little in common with rational thought and usually not
with each other. Indeed although they contain certain characteristics,
they appear to come from someone who's political and moral outlook
varies day by day.

This is why, I'm sure, most people look askance at each and every one of
his assertions, even though some may have distinct merit.

Perhaps he should have read the fable ' The boy who cried "Wolf!" '


Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <7396rk$69j$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
>

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Nov 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/23/98
to
"Peter Coleman" <plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Your definition is wrong. Bigot contains no element of falsehood.

Excuse me, but to me after re-translation from German a certain part
of the notion bears falsehood in it.

But I agree with you, not *false* in that sense that something was
totally wrong, lied or so. False from the general understanding.

Trust me. I didn't invent it. Here's the short way I followed the
line. Look, I'm not a linguist yet.

bigot --- German among several more meanings: froemmelnd (from the
normal word fromm), this is in relation to religion. It means a
certqain false exaggerated way of being pious. So perhaps I translated
the clear German falsch into false. But perhaps false in English
doesn't have the special intended or unconcious cheat factor.

Know what I want to say? Please check it yourself with the help of a
German dic.

Other parts of your post show good insight. Especially why people
might react in the way they react on Sloan. But also here I wouldn't
follow you in your definition of eccentricity. For me -- in his
webpages -- he's very honest deep to the bone where he's telling more
disadvantageous stuff about himself. Exactly that proved for me that
he's a very strong character. Very open. Exactly how I thought
Americans should be. And I was completely shocked by the furious
opposition here in rgcm. But I want to remind you to search my first
discussion with him (in Dejas). Where he was in my view simply
careless although his intention was provokingly wise and positive. But
that was a difficult topic where I have deeper insight as an expert.
(Topic was the respect for the privacy even of someone helpless in a
closed institution.)

Honestly, I doubt that I personally would be so strong and open-minded
if all that what happened to Sloan happened to me! That alone should
earn some respect, no?

Excuse the longer post again. Did you understand why the guy and the
reaction here is so important for me? :)

Well, I wished I had had something opposing the mainstream in my own
case ... I had also support but only anonymously. Know what I mean? :)
I'm still frightened by the apparent lack of courage in special by the
Americans ... Why is this the case? Bad sample in usent alone?

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to

Miguel A. Ballicora wrote in message <728o5o$eap$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

>In article <3646faa3...@news.mindspring.com>, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam
Sloan) says:
>>
>>The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
>>Level
>>
>>It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
>>a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
>>international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
>>hard of a chance to play.
>
>[deleted]
>
>Did understand it right? US sends the junior representatives
>to the world championships based on the USCF rating????
>No competition whatsoever?

That's right!


>I can't believe it. Then the people wonder why US does not
>produce the number of GM that they should.
>This is a perfect self destructive system!
>

I agree.


>I have an advice for US: make all the U16 unrated,
>then they are going to concentrate on the game.

>David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system
hydes.
>
That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
tournament. Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.

In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
ratings for everybody. Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
for his big $$ tournaments.

Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely on
the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a Rook
AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because the
2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his true
ability.

I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic
events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
competitions, both in the US and abroad.


>Regards,
>Miguel

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to

Tom Klem wrote in message <736flb$ddt$1...@supernews.com>...

>
>ni...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <733k24$bvh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Hey Tom,
>>
>>If you looked a little closer at the tables you would see that only the
top
>
>
>Oh, so you're arguing that a 17-18th place is a fine result?
>
>I stand by my remarks.
>
>Tom
>
>
If there are only 18 players, then it would be a poor result. If there
are 80+ players, then, yes, it WOULD be a fine result. 18 out of 80 is a
finish in the top 25%. In a classroom, that would usually translate to a B+.
Niemi's result WAS poor.VERY poor. None of the sophistry, semantic quibbles,
statistical obfuscations, and general obtuseness which has been spewed can
change that fact.

I'm NOT yet convinced that Niemi did benefit from ratings
manipulations. If her rating was manipulated upward, I certainly don't
believe she was a willing or aware participant in that scheme. I clearly got
the impression that Sloan was attacking Stan Vaughn, not Nicole Niemi.
Certainly, a study of the ratings of Vaughn's students and former students
is in order. Also, there should be a detailed look at all of Niemi's games
and results the past few years. If possible, Niemi should play under
tournament condition against a field of players who have established ratings
which are in a close range of Niemi's listed rating. Or simply play a field
of 11-12 year girls and see how she does in an open scholastic tournament.

Just because the Republicans are strongly opposed to Bill Clinton and
his policies doesn't mean that it follows that the Republicans are
incorrect/lying when they accuse Clinton of engaging in sex acts with
Lewinsky. Even though many of the accusations which republicans have made
against Clinton are demonstrably false, it doesn't follow that all of their
contentions are wrong.

Likewise, I view with skepticism what Sam Sloan has to say. I evaluate
his assertions on a case by case basis. I think there is likely some merit
to Sloan's comments in this instance. If Vaughn is innocent of Sloan's
charges, then let him (or somebody else ) prove it. On rec.games.chess ,
whether you (or I) like it or not, a person accused is guilty until proven
innocent. One doesn't need guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to form an
opinion here. One does not even need a preponderance of evidence. One merely
needs to see the smoke in order to suspect that there is fire as well. There
is a hell of a lot of smoke in Nevada chess, and Nevada Chess politics.
Given that undeniable fact, it is easier for me and others to believe that
there is validity to Sloan's charges of unscrupulous activities in the
coaching "methods" of Vaughn. My mind is still open on this matter.
Go ahead, Tom. Convince me!

First Ljupco Steriev, now this. The USCF does need to reform the
selection process of US kids for chess competitions. The kids should have to
qualify by doing well in a tournament against their peers. One can only pray
that Don Schulz isn't the one who creates the new qualification criteria.

Sam Sloan

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
The remarkable rating changes of Ljupco Steriev are available at:

http://www.64.com/cgi-bin/ratings.pl/USCF/12649546

Does anybody know the story of how this happened?

"DAVID GRANIK" <dgr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>Miguel A. Ballicora wrote in message <728o5o$eap$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>>In article <3646faa3...@news.mindspring.com>, sl...@ishipress.com (Sam
>Sloan) says:
>>>

>>>The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
>>>Level
>>>
>>>It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
>>>a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
>>>international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
>>>hard of a chance to play.
>>

Bruce Draney

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
DAVID GRANIK wrote:

> >
> That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
> tournament.

Excuse me? Since Swiss system events rank everyone in order to pair
them, how can you make a statement like this?


Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
> money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.

Oh really? I think you would find a huge amount of disagreement about
this statement as well.

>
> In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
> ratings for everybody.

Not such a bad idea if you'd like to put what's left of the
organization out of business. If it weren't for the rating system USCf
would already be dead and buried.

Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
> for his big $$ tournaments.

He could keep track of those players who play in his events. I'm not
sure what percentage of the overall rated players play in his events but
I suspect overall its a fairly small percentage that have CCA ratings.

>
> Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely on
> the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a Rook
> AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
> adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because the
> 2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his true
> ability.

>
> I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic
> events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
> competitions, both in the US and abroad.

Certainly using rating only especially for junior/scholastic players
is a very dangerous idea. I'm going to just venture a guess here that
the reason has to do with economics. Switching to a tournament format
to determine this would cost money. The top players would still have to
be identified some way, then invited to the same place at the same time
in order to play one another to determine who would make the team.
Given the current financial status of the organization, it's probably
unlikely to happen without major sponsorship. Your idea of taking the
top finishers in national scholastic events might work, although no
doubt there would be controversy depending upon where the national
scholastic events were held and whether the top junior players were all
able to make it to these events.

Even switching to a playoff format would not completely end
dishonesty or cheating. You would still have to base who you invited to
the playoffs on ratings or something such as that and if you invited the
top 16, number 17 who obtained their rating honestly might not get in,
while number 14 who cheated to get a higher rating might get invited
instead.

When fame, prestige and money are on the line, people will cheat
sometimes to get it. It's just human nature. You can try to limit it,
but you can't eliminate it.

>
> >Regards,
> >Miguel

Best Regards,

Bruce

Chesspride

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
>I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic
>events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
>competitions, both in the US and abroad.
>
>

Mr. Granik apparently is unaware that this matter was discussed at the USCF
delegates meeting in either 1995 or 1996 (the exact date would require
additional research)..

The suggestion was made (by W. Schaetzle, of Alablama) to have the Junior Chess
Congress serve as the qualification event for the FIDE World Youth Festival.

This would have the added benefit of providing a direct purpose for the Junior
Chess Congress event(s).

The idea did not find favor with either the Scholastic workshop or the general
delegates meeting. The main counterargument was that, when determining the top
players, a brief competitive Swiss was less reliable than the year-long rating
average.

It was deemed unfair that one of the highest-rated players might lose his/her
spot due to one poor game in a short Swiss.

The cost issue was also cited...requiring the top players to compete in an
additional U.S. event...sometimes thousands of miles from home...was not viewed
favorably.

The selection criteria for all USCF invitational events are published each year
in the April yearbook issue of Chess Life. This information is also available
on the USCF website at <http://www.uschess.org>.

The L. Steriev matter was certainly embarrassing...but it, too, was explained
in Chess Life. A series of matches had been rated inadvertently as Swiss
results....thus, the normal restriction on points gained was not recognized by
the rating program.

The rating error was not recognized in time to alter the invitations for the
U.S. Junior Championship. When it was found, an immediate correction was
issued.

Eric C. Johnson
USCF Assistant Director

Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
>
> I'm NOT yet convinced that Niemi did benefit from ratings
>manipulations. If her rating was manipulated upward, I certainly don't
>believe she was a willing or aware participant in that scheme.

I posted in another part of this thread the ratings history for Nicole. She
progressed over a three year period and was not a provisionally rated player
as some on this forum have assumed/asserted. The only scheme that Nicole or
any of her teacher's (ie: her father is really quite good at Chess himself
and has contributed greatly to the childs progress) is for Nicole to get
better at the game of Chess. Nicole, her father and even Stan Vaughan have
nothing to do with the USCF ratings system or it's formulation.

>I clearly got the impression that Sloan was attacking Stan Vaughn, not
Nicole Niemi.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you here. Sure, everybody hates Stan
Vaughan. The most hated man in Chess (besides Jerry Hanken). Yada yada yada
yada yada. How does any of this help Nicole get better. When she reads about
how her 'poor' performance held back the team, I'm sure she'll be just
thrilled with the game of Chess and all of the Chess bigots behind the
attack.


>Certainly, a study of the ratings of Vaughn's students and former students

I imagine that if you put *all* of Stan Vaughan's students on a spread sheet
or graph showing, entry point and ratings progress over time, like all human
activity, it would be all over the map. In case you missed it in another
post, Patrick Hummel was also a student of Stan Vaughan up until he went
over the 2000 mark. Then, the chess bigots in Las Vegas, Conver, et al.,
took advantage (perhaps but who really knows) of a personality conflict of
Vaughan's with the mother of the young lad to 'steal' or perhaps 'enhance'
Patrick whichever you choose. But the point of this bigotry is this, before
Stan came along (and believe me I do not wish to defend him) NOBODY was
interested in Children's chess here in Nevada. Conver, Magruder, et al. only
became interested in scholastics when they rightfully perceived a threat to
their continued unelected power (that's right, in case you haven't read my
previous postings, A Magruder refused to hold elections in the state
affiliate for six years). So the bigots began their attack on Vaughan (who
threatened their illegal power structure) by attacking first the results of
his students, the veracity of his reputation as a chess master and any thing
else they could do to throw mud on the wall so some would stick, all just to
keep a few carpetbaggers from back east and themselves in a position to
control events in Nevada.


>is in order. Also, there should be a detailed look at all of Niemi's games
>and results the past few years.

Whenever I hear these kind of suggestions, I just want to scream. Sorry, but
Dan Conver tried all that, with volumes of word processed garbage
(repetitious crap and lies) that was proven to be totally false. I
personally had to wade through hundreds of pages of that 'supposed' evidence
in the early part of '96 when the 'get Stan Vaughan' movement was beginning
to reach it's zenith and I and other concerned Chess players saw that to do
otherwise would result in the destruction of the progress which had been
made in the State of Nevada. Hundreds of thousands of USCF membership
dollars were spent on this bigotry based local affair by the federation (who
states in their enabling legislation that they never get involved in local
affairs). The only result of this bigotry was the destruction of Stan
Vaughan as a teacher and tournament organizer. Vaughan went from holding
tournaments with hundreds of participants in public libraries and schools
where conditions were great and the art of Chess was advanced, to tens of
chess players on the weekends in his garage in N Las Vegas. Score one for
the bigots.

Make no mistake about it. That is exactly what you the membership of the
USCF paid for. A bigotted witch hunt against an organizer who was perceived
as a political threat. Congratulations USCF members. Do you feel like you've
been used. Well, you have been. Not only was this witch hunt conducted
against Vaughan, but also against the Nevada members of the USCF. I have
seen in my database, that at one time there were almost 1600 +/- players on
the Nevada roles. Now it is well below 700. After being confronted with the
bigotry and hate most just quit playing Chess. What does this number 1600
mean anyway. It means that the State of Wisconsin and the State of Nevada
would have about the same number of delegates to the federation. Instead of
seeing Ken Horne you might have seen Ken Horne, Snapper McGauhey, Kent
Bolton and Dan Conver in Hawaii last year, but alas, hatred and bigotry
destroyed the growth of Chess in Southern Nevada.

And here's the point. No sane person wants to hang around with boorish
bigotted assholes who are constantly attacking others and have nothing to
show for any efforts on their part. So, while alot of players (sometimes as
many as 30 on a Sunday afternoon, myself included) had been playing at Dan
Conver's tournaments, most just simply quit.

If possible, Niemi should play under
>tournament condition against a field of players who have established
ratings
>which are in a close range of Niemi's listed rating. Or simply play a field
>of 11-12 year girls and see how she does in an open scholastic tournament.
>


Here I completely agree with the assertion that candidates matches should be
held. Why weren't they? Because the USCF was spending your money elsewhere
on stupid bigotted attacks on Nevada.

>
> Likewise, I view with skepticism what Sam Sloan has to say. I
evaluate


You should. Sam Sloan lied to everybody last year and for four months (the
time it took to get the evidence from the USCF) everyone believed him.

>his assertions on a case by case basis. I think there is likely some merit
>to Sloan's comments in this instance. If Vaughn is innocent of Sloan's


Personally, I don't care a whit about Stan Vaughan's innocence. All I care
about is the progress and fulfillment of new Chess players (children and
adult). The USCF will die, if it continues to allow this unethical behavior
to continue at all levels of the goverance structure. And make no mistake
about it, Sam Sloan for whatever his reasons, is simply repeating the
bigotted rhetoric of the bungling, beaurocratic bigots whom I refer to as,
"La Caissa Nostra" that vile gang of bandits and criminals who currently
control events at the USCF. Sam Sloan is simply, for whatever reasons,
fronting for the USCF on this one.

I take exception to the attacks on Children and the attempts to link their
progress or lack of progress with some missguided 'conspiracy theory' about
Vaughan and his missuse of the ratings system. It is wrong, and it is
counter productive for YOU to do these kinds of things.

Many, many, many famous Chess masters have had bad tournament results. I
don't have it right in front of me, and my memory isn't that great, but I
think that Aaron Nimzowitsch as a young man had many horrible tournament
results in the early 1900's (1908 and others were pretty bad if memory
serves me). I'm sure the bigots of that time pilloried him too. It goes with
the territory I suppose. Just don't use the chidren to attack your favorite
straw man. It's not only unseemly, it is bad for US CHESS.

>
> First Ljupco Steriev, now this. The USCF does need to reform the
>selection process of US kids for chess competitions. The kids should have
to
>qualify by doing well in a tournament against their peers. One can only
pray
>that Don Schulz isn't the one who creates the new qualification criteria.
>
>

Maybe if the USCF wasn't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the
witch hunt in Nevada, they could have held a decent series of candidates
matches.

It is remarkable to me, how the priorities of the USCF could have been
subverted like this, but there you have it. The bigots have held the day, as
recent events here in Nevada have shown. And they will continue to do so
until One Member, One Vote puts La Caissa Nostra back in the rat infested
alley which they came from.

Tom Klem


Peter Coleman

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to

Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <73cn3o$v8u$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...

>"Peter Coleman" <plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Your definition is wrong. Bigot contains no element of falsehood.
>
>Excuse me, but to me after re-translation from German a certain part
>of the notion bears falsehood in it.


I'm sure if you continuously translated a word from one language to
another, to another, etc. ad nauseam, eventually "black" would mean
"white". All I am saying is that bigot in the English language, contains
no element of falsity. What it does contain (and this more from use than
origin) is overtones of persecution (largely religious) and a general
feel of someone who goes too far. There is no suggestion that the
bigot's beliefs are not sincere, merely that the exclusion of
alternative views is, per se, objectionable.

>Other parts of your post show good insight. Especially why people
>might react in the way they react on Sloan. But also here I wouldn't
>follow you in your definition of eccentricity. For me -- in his
>webpages -- he's very honest deep to the bone where he's telling more
>disadvantageous stuff about himself. Exactly that proved for me that
>he's a very strong character. Very open. Exactly how I thought
>Americans should be. And I was completely shocked by the furious
>opposition here in rgcm. But I want to remind you to search my first
>discussion with him (in Dejas). Where he was in my view simply
>careless although his intention was provokingly wise and positive. But
>that was a difficult topic where I have deeper insight as an expert.
>(Topic was the respect for the privacy even of someone helpless in a
>closed institution.)


"Exactly how I thought Americans should be". How they should be,
undoubtedly. How we all should be. However the reality is that America
is a haven of bigotry. Certainly compared to many European countries.

>Honestly, I doubt that I personally would be so strong and open-minded
>if all that what happened to Sloan happened to me! That alone should
>earn some respect, no?


If I believed that his mind was of a normal persuasion I would agree
with you. However it seems to me that he actively courts censure. He
thrives on approbration - or so it appears.

Peter Coleman

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
I take it you don't approve of the USCF officers then, eh? ;)

Tom Klem wrote in message <73elkp$cap$1...@supernews.com>...

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
"Tom Klem" <the...@lvcablemodem.com> wrote:

>Rolf, thank you for your insightful thoughts and comments. I agree with much
>of what you have to say. Also, I think your English is much better than you
>realise. :) I agree that my characterization of Sam Sloan is definitely
>not politically correct. But on background, Sam has consistently lied for
>and supported La Caissa Nostra, that vile group of Chess bandits and
>criminals who currently have control of the USCF.

Thanks for tolerating my opinion. I think it's better now for me to
step out because I don't know anything about the special mafia in
Nevada. However I read you in a new post where you also supported any
attempts to find a fair mode of training and coaching chess talents.
I'm almost sure that Sloan is also interested in that same effort. So
if exactly the main attacked one is already a guarantee for such a
development in Nevada then the whole debate is perhaps about the best
way and not a principle opposition. Why not making the best out of it?
For me critics isn't bad or negative. With you I hope that the girl
will continue to play chess. For her the support of her father e.g. is
much more important. BTW do you have some pgn from her? Please send
them via email. Or does there exist a special webpage with games of
young players? TWIC usually covers only the main events. Last year I
had a hard time to find some games of the new player Jenny Shahade.
She's making good progress. Thanks again.


Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to
"Peter Coleman" <plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>All I am saying is that bigot in the English language, contains
>no element of falsity.

See below.

>What it does contain (and this more from use than
>origin) is overtones of persecution (largely religious) and a general
>feel of someone who goes too far. There is no suggestion that the
>bigot's beliefs are not sincere, merely that the exclusion of
>alternative views is, per se, objectionable.

That's exactly what I meant. If a child in such a specific group of
extremists is "believing" the same stuff, then it would contain no
falsehood at all. The point where I entered was when the more
experienced know quite well from the "outside" informations that they
went too far, and that they excluded certain undeniable truths.

>"Exactly how I thought Americans should be". How they should be,
>undoubtedly. How we all should be. However the reality is that America
>is a haven of bigotry. Certainly compared to many European countries.

Not a good situation because the USA is judged as an homeland of
democracy and has a leading role in World's politics. It's only normal
to ask what a lousy overall educational standard is still existing. (I
must admit that I wrote a post about Clinton and the Republicans in
answering Tom Klem, but then I didn't send it because it was too
off-topic. Bigotery is threatening a whole political system, and those
who are attacking have illegal children out of extra-matrimonial
relationships. You should know what foreign politicians said to this
US-topic.)


Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to

Peter Coleman wrote in message <73f5q5$bv3$5...@newnews.global.net.uk>...

>I take it you don't approve of the USCF officers then, eh? ;)
>
>Tom Klem wrote in message <73elkp$cap$1...@supernews.com>...
>>
>>It is remarkable to me, how the priorities of the USCF could have been
>>subverted like this, but there you have it. The bigots have held the
>day, as
>>recent events here in Nevada have shown. And they will continue to do
>so
>>until One Member, One Vote puts La Caissa Nostra back in the rat
>infested
>>alley which they came from.
>
>
>


LOL.

Tom Klem


Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/24/98
to

Rolf Tueschen wrote:

(snip)

> [...] I read you in a new post where you also supported any


>attempts to find a fair mode of training and coaching chess talents.
>I'm almost sure that Sloan is also interested in that same effort.
>

And, let me make it clear: I have no personal grudge against Sam Sloan. If
it is as you say, that he supports the search for a proper candidates
selection process, then I'm with him on that.

Tom Klem

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Nov 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/25/98
to

Bruce Draney wrote in message <365ABF...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>...

>DAVID GRANIK wrote:
>
>> >
>> That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
>> tournament.
>
>Excuse me? Since Swiss system events rank everyone in order to pair
>them, how can you make a statement like this?
>
Swiss System tournaments were no doubt held before the advent of a
rating system. Simply randomly pair players in the first round, then have
players play someone in their scoregroup. There would probably be fewer
mismatches in the first round pairings as well. Even today, there are
probably many scholastic tournaments where most, if not all, or the players
are unrated. Added bonus: you'd be able to cut the rulebook in half....

>
>Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
>> money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.
>
>Oh really? I think you would find a huge amount of disagreement about
>this statement as well.
>
>>

Is it really so crucial that kids can compete for the class G,H, and I
trophies?


>> In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
>> ratings for everybody.
>
> Not such a bad idea if you'd like to put what's left of the
>organization out of business.

As long as I keep getting my Chess Life for the rest of my life ;-)

If it weren't for the rating system USCf
>would already be dead and buried.
>

And maybe some new, better National Chess Federation would now be
leading the US to a chess renaissance.


> Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
>> for his big $$ tournaments.
>
> He could keep track of those players who play in his events. I'm not
>sure what percentage of the overall rated players play in his events but
>I suspect overall its a fairly small percentage that have CCA ratings.
>

But since I believe that ratings are only necessary in big $$
tournaments, that small % would be sufficient. I wasn't suggesting that CCA
keep track of ALL ratings from all tournaments.

>>
>> Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely
on
>> the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a
Rook
>> AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
>> adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because
the
>> 2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his
true
>> ability.
>
>
>
>>

>> I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual
scholastic
>> events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
>> competitions, both in the US and abroad.
>

> Certainly using rating only especially for junior/scholastic players
>is a very dangerous idea. I'm going to just venture a guess here that
>the reason has to do with economics. Switching to a tournament format
>to determine this would cost money. The top players would still have to
>be identified some way, then invited to the same place at the same time
>in order to play one another to determine who would make the team.
>Given the current financial status of the organization, it's probably
>unlikely to happen without major sponsorship. Your idea of taking the
>top finishers in national scholastic events might work, although no
>doubt there would be controversy depending upon where the national
>scholastic events were held and whether the top junior players were all
>able to make it to these events.
>
> Even switching to a playoff format would not completely end
>dishonesty or cheating. You would still have to base who you invited to
>the playoffs on ratings or something such as that and if you invited the
>top 16, number 17 who obtained their rating honestly might not get in,
>while number 14 who cheated to get a higher rating might get invited
>instead.
>

Agreed, but even if a couple of players cheated their way into a
qualification tournament they would be quite likely to not qualify for
further, more important, national (and international) youth championships.
Also, you would have to invite ANYBODY on the basis of rating to an open
tournament. If kids couldn't get ratings, it would make it impossible for
them to cheat in order to inflate their ratings. Another point for me!

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Nov 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/25/98
to

Chesspride wrote in message
<19981124095049...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...

>>I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual
scholastic
>>events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
>>competitions, both in the US and abroad.
>>
>>
>
>Mr. Granik apparently is unaware that this matter was discussed at the USCF
>delegates meeting in either 1995 or 1996 (the exact date would require
>additional research)..
>
Hey! I'm not THAT much of a USCF politics junkie...


>The suggestion was made (by W. Schaetzle, of Alablama) to have the Junior
Chess
>Congress serve as the qualification event for the FIDE World Youth
Festival.
>
>This would have the added benefit of providing a direct purpose for the
Junior
>Chess Congress event(s).
>
>The idea did not find favor with either the Scholastic workshop or the
general
>delegates meeting. The main counterargument was that, when determining the
top
>players, a brief competitive Swiss was less reliable than the year-long
rating
>average.
>

Then make the Swiss tournament less brief! If 5 rounds isn't good
enough (and I don't think it is) then make the tournament 8 or 9 rounds.

>It was deemed unfair that one of the highest-rated players might lose
his/her
>spot due to one poor game in a short Swiss.


Many, if not most, of the participants in the recently completed US
Championship felt that it was unfair to have FIDE WC spots and the 4 US Ch.
semifinal spots at stake in such a short Round Robin, where one loss could
seriously jeopardize a favorites chances. Do you really think that Tal
Shaked is a better player than Seirawan? Or that Dima Gurevich is stronger
than Yermolinsky?


By the way, if rating is such an important criterion, why is Ippolito
the US representative in the World Junior tournament in India? Aren't there
half a dozen US Juniors with higher ratings? (and better prospects)


>The cost issue was also cited...requiring the top players to compete in an
>additional U.S. event...sometimes thousands of miles from home...was not
viewed
>favorably.
>

A valid concern. A possible fix would be to have qualification based on
sort of a grand prix system. There are already so many national scholastic
tournaments that it is impossible to keep track of them. Let kids play in as
many of them as they wish. They can take their top 3-4 results and have them
factored into a final score. The players with the best scores would qualify.
This would ensure that the kids would both be proven strong AND dedicated

>The selection criteria for all USCF invitational events are published each
year
>in the April yearbook issue of Chess Life. This information is also
available
>on the USCF website at <http://www.uschess.org>.
>
>The L. Steriev matter was certainly embarrassing...but it, too, was
explained
>in Chess Life. A series of matches had been rated inadvertently as Swiss

>results....thus, the normal restriction on points gained was not recognized
by
>the rating program.
>
It could happen again unless player's abilities are proven in the
crucible of open tournament play. This wouldn't have to be in a scholastic
tournament necessarily. They can compete in any strong open tournament that
is near and convenient to them. If their results are commensurate with their
ratings, then we'd at least know their ratings are probably valid.

Bruce Draney

unread,
Nov 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/25/98
to
DAVID GRANIK wrote:
>
> Bruce Draney wrote in message <365ABF...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>...
> >DAVID GRANIK wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
> >> tournament.
> >
> >Excuse me? Since Swiss system events rank everyone in order to pair
> >them, how can you make a statement like this?
> >
> Swiss System tournaments were no doubt held before the advent of a
> rating system. Simply randomly pair players in the first round, then have
> players play someone in their scoregroup. There would probably be fewer
> mismatches in the first round pairings as well. Even today, there are
> probably many scholastic tournaments where most, if not all, or the players
> are unrated. Added bonus: you'd be able to cut the rulebook in half....

The answer to your first statement should be easy enough to determine.
Someone needs to look at the date of the first Swiss System event and
look at the date when ratings were first used.

Your second statement about cutting the rulebook in half is obviously
not true. Hardly anything in the rulebook has to do with ratings, other
than the pairing rules which would have to be modified.

There are very few scholastic tournaments, especially large ones where
there are not at least some rated players. What's more the rating is
what attracts many people to play and it is also the main attraction to
people including children to join USCF. Eliminating ratings would be an
unmitigated disaster. It would eliminate the single most important
reason why most people young and old bother to join USCF.

>
> >
> >Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
> >> money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.
> >
> >Oh really? I think you would find a huge amount of disagreement about
> >this statement as well.
> >
> >>
> Is it really so crucial that kids can compete for the class G,H, and I
> trophies?

Is it really so crucial that we eliminate ratings just to prevent a
person from qualifying unfairly for some international competition?
You're suggesting modifying something that will dramatically affect
thousands of players, to prevent a potential abuse by a couple players.
I don't believe that most people are playing chess to win a class prize
or a trophy. I believe they are playing it because it's fun, and they
want to find out what their rating is and see how it goes up and down as
they continue playing. Anybody who stays in chess just to win an
occasional class prize or a small trophy is wasting their time.

>
> >> In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
> >> ratings for everybody.
> >
> > Not such a bad idea if you'd like to put what's left of the
> >organization out of business.
>
> As long as I keep getting my Chess Life for the rest of my life ;-)
>

How long do you think Chess Life would continue to be produced if the
ratings system were scrapped? If you've been following the related
thread on this topic, you'll notice that our regular membership is
already dropping like a rock. If you'd like to put the final nail in
the coffin of the organization, just talk about an idea like eliminating
ratings to prevent someone from cheating.

> If it weren't for the rating system USCf
> >would already be dead and buried.
> >
> And maybe some new, better National Chess Federation would now be
> leading the US to a chess renaissance.

Not likely in the immediate future. The organization hasn't hit rock
bottom yet. Something like that will probably only happen if the
organization itself goes on the rocks and still thousands more jump
ship.

>
> > Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
> >> for his big $$ tournaments.
> >
> > He could keep track of those players who play in his events. I'm not
> >sure what percentage of the overall rated players play in his events but
> >I suspect overall its a fairly small percentage that have CCA ratings.
> >
> But since I believe that ratings are only necessary in big $$
> tournaments, that small % would be sufficient. I wasn't suggesting that CCA
> keep track of ALL ratings from all tournaments.

Well if you really believe this then you are in my opinion completely
wrong. I've never played in a CCA event in my life yet, I would have
little interest in continuing to play tournament chess if there were no
ratings. I believe many other players feel the same way. In Nebraska
we've got almost 500 active/rated players. Only about 5 of those 500 or
1% have ever been to a World Open, New York Open or Chicago Open.

>
> >>
> >> Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely
> on
> >> the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a
> Rook
> >> AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
> >> adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because
> the
> >> 2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his
> true
> >> ability.
> >
> >
> >
> >>

> >> I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual
> scholastic
> >> events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
> >> competitions, both in the US and abroad.
> >

> > Certainly using rating only especially for junior/scholastic players
> >is a very dangerous idea. I'm going to just venture a guess here that
> >the reason has to do with economics. Switching to a tournament format
> >to determine this would cost money. The top players would still have to
> >be identified some way, then invited to the same place at the same time
> >in order to play one another to determine who would make the team.
> >Given the current financial status of the organization, it's probably
> >unlikely to happen without major sponsorship. Your idea of taking the
> >top finishers in national scholastic events might work, although no
> >doubt there would be controversy depending upon where the national
> >scholastic events were held and whether the top junior players were all
> >able to make it to these events.
> >
> > Even switching to a playoff format would not completely end
> >dishonesty or cheating. You would still have to base who you invited to
> >the playoffs on ratings or something such as that and if you invited the
> >top 16, number 17 who obtained their rating honestly might not get in,
> >while number 14 who cheated to get a higher rating might get invited
> >instead.
> >
> Agreed, but even if a couple of players cheated their way into a
> qualification tournament they would be quite likely to not qualify for
> further, more important, national (and international) youth championships.
> Also, you would have to invite ANYBODY on the basis of rating to an open
> tournament. If kids couldn't get ratings, it would make it impossible for
> them to cheat in order to inflate their ratings. Another point for me!

Yeah David and if people were killed at age 50 they couldn't die of old
age at 91. If we have to kill the organization just to prevent a youth
from cheating to qualify for international competition, why not just
eliminate the youth competition. You're talking about making a change
that would effect more than 80,000 members of our organization so that a
couple won't cheat and get into an international competition unfairly.

If you don't think ratings matter to people, I'll give you a
challenge. Hold an unrated event sometime at the same time that you
hold a rated event. See which section draws the most people? If
unrated events are so popular, why do they draw so few people? The only
place where unrated events draw more people than rated events is in
places where there are few USCF members. A few years ago, some friends
of mine started a scholastic program in Colorado. They began in their
first year with unrated events and because there was no scholastic
program in Colorado at the time, the unrated events did well. The
following year however, once these scholastic players had joined USCF,
they ran an event with both a rated and an unrated division. The
unrated division numbers were much lower than the rated numbers. The
third year, there were so many interested in the rated section, that
they no longer had the space for the unrated section, which had shrunk
considerably in popularity in just two years. Even if there are no
prizes, people will support a rated tournament, because they like to
play to see how their rating changes.

The capability exists presently to prevent cheating. We don't need to
take drastic measures like eliminating the rating system or staging
extremely expensive qualifying tournaments. A few years ago, USCF ran
into a similar problem when Claude Bloodgood who is an inmate in a
prison had such a high rating that he was in the top 10 on the rating
list. Rather than eliminate the rating system, they just passed rules
that would prevent someone like Bloodgood who never plays outside the
prison system from qualifying.

USCF should carefully examine the ratings history and results of any
junior who qualifies by rating to represent the country in international
competition. They should look at where, how and in what manner the
rating was earned. They should look at the rated games that the person
played to achieve that rating. It should be quite easy to determine if
someone has cheated their way into a top position, rating wise. This is
again symptomatic of a larger problem. The USCF for years has lacked
the technological capability to keep track of important information in a
useful form so that it can be easily retrieved, examined and analyzed.
Hopefully that will change soon, before things get much worse.

>
> > When fame, prestige and money are on the line, people will cheat
> >sometimes to get it. It's just human nature. You can try to limit it,
> >but you can't eliminate it.

> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Bruce

Lonnie Harris

unread,
Nov 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/25/98
to

Tom Klem wrote:

> (snip)


>
>
> I take exception to the attacks on Children and the attempts to link their
> progress or lack of progress with some missguided 'conspiracy theory' about
> Vaughan and his missuse of the ratings system. It is wrong, and it is
> counter productive for YOU to do these kinds of things.
>

And why, exactly, is it counterproductive? IF (note the word carefully), IF
there is rating manipulation going on, is it better to do something about it
than to shrug our shoulders and move on. IF this is true, it's merely more
fodder to show why America will never become a chess power, and will continue to
be a chessic third world nation.

> Many, many, many famous Chess masters have had bad tournament results. I
> don't have it right in front of me, and my memory isn't that great, but I
> think that Aaron Nimzowitsch as a young man had many horrible tournament
> results in the early 1900's (1908 and others were pretty bad if memory
> serves me).

Opening my copy of My System:

Nimzovich competed in 40 tournaments in his playing career. He had minus results
in 3 of them. The worst of these was his second, the Barmen ("B") tournament of
1905, where he had a result of 3-8-6. He also had a minus result at St.
Petersburg 1914 (his last tournament before WWI), of 1-3-6, and a minus result
at Gothenburg 1920 (his first tournament after WWI), where he went 1-5-7.

I cannot or will not state without proof that rating manipulation happened
in the case of Nicole Niemi, or IF it did, whose idea it was. I will, however,
state that Mr. Vaughan, as her instructor, did a pathetic job of making sure his
student was ready for a major event.

> I'm sure the bigots of that time pilloried him too. It goes with
> the territory I suppose. Just don't use the chidren to attack your favorite
> straw man. It's not only unseemly, it is bad for US CHESS.
>
> >
> > First Ljupco Steriev, now this. The USCF does need to reform the
> >selection process of US kids for chess competitions. The kids should have
> to
> >qualify by doing well in a tournament against their peers. One can only
> pray
> >that Don Schulz isn't the one who creates the new qualification criteria.
> >
> >
>
> Maybe if the USCF wasn't spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the
> witch hunt in Nevada, they could have held a decent series of candidates
> matches.
>

Financial details, please?

> It is remarkable to me, how the priorities of the USCF could have been
> subverted like this, but there you have it. The bigots have held the day, as
> recent events here in Nevada have shown. And they will continue to do so
> until One Member, One Vote puts La Caissa Nostra back in the rat infested
> alley which they came from.
>
> Tom Klem

Lonnie Harris
Wants to say Sheesh!


Peter Coleman

unread,
Nov 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/25/98
to
My belief is that the bigot is either unable OR unwilling to see things
from another perspective. You seem to feel it is only the latter. I
think the latter largely prey upon the failings of the former. You rate
the intellect of some of these people too highly. ;)

Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <73ffc7$85r$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>...

Rolf Tueschen

unread,
Nov 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/26/98
to
"Peter Coleman" <plc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:

>My belief is that the bigot is either unable OR unwilling to see things
>from another perspective. You seem to feel it is only the latter. I
>think the latter largely prey upon the failings of the former. You rate
>the intellect of some of these people too highly. ;)

It might well be a projection. :)

But seriously. You know why I'm quite sure? Because I don't even
looked at the intelligence or such. It's sufficient to have met
alternatives in social life. And politicians of the Rep. Party have
those experiences, no? So pretending different is falsehood, no?

On the other hand you're right. For me it's already sufficient that we
could find a much more complicated problem with such a notion. Perhaps
we could inspire others to make their own reflections.


Tom Klem

unread,
Nov 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/26/98
to

Lonnie Harris wrote:
>
>
>Tom Klem wrote:
>
>> (snip)

>>
>>
>> I take exception to the attacks on Children and the attempts to link
their
>> progress or lack of progress with some missguided 'conspiracy theory'
about
>> Vaughan and his missuse of the ratings system. It is wrong, and it is
>> counter productive for YOU to do these kinds of things.
>>
>
> And why, exactly, is it counterproductive? IF (note the word
carefully), IF
>there is rating manipulation going on, is it better to do something about
it
>than to shrug our shoulders and move on. IF this is true, it's merely more
>fodder to show why America will never become a chess power, and will
continue to
>be a chessic third world nation.
>

Lonnie,

No one has ever proved in any legal court of law that ratings manipulations
were going on. Period. And it was hilarious, amusing and comical (to say the
least), listening to the USCF lawyers try. End of story.

The only reason why we are still talking about ratings manipulation is
because the USCF is still pulling the strings in the background. Do you
think that bigotted comments like Sam Sloan weren't discussed at the highest
levels of the USCF? I might be paranoid, but I can think of two maybe three
people specifically who would have had the disgusting attitude which Sam
Sloan carried the water for.

And finally, let me point you to the *real* source of the ratings system
problems: The politicians on the USCF Policy Board, now renamed Executive
board. Had they taken the action recommended in over four years of 'Ratings
Committee' reports (starting back in 1993), none of this would be going on.
And believe me, we have a serious problem with ratings inflation and the
perception that ratings should be used for anything else other than
tournament pairing (vis a v, ratings = playing strength). Suddenly, it's
just like having twenty bucks in your pocket 25 years ago. That was enough
for you and your date to go to a movie and dinner. Now, you wouldn't walk
out of the house without a hundred. My point here is, now that the system is
unstable but accepted by the GM's and IM's who inhabit our country (and we
are extremely thankful to have the services and entertainment of), who will
ever have the courage to fix/change it. It is a political nightmare. IE:
would you go back to a money scale that accomodated your twenty bucks in
your pocket, if it meant giving up your 'big' salary. I am not sure what the
answer is to how to fix the problem, but surely we would be going through
alot less pain and agony now, had the USCF Policy Board fixed this problem
with the ratings committee suggestions as published in 1993.

Also, let me state for the record that I do not feel competent to argue the
fine points of the ratings system and I will defer to others such as Mark
Glickman, PhD and Chairman of the committee during the reporting period
mentioned, and Kenneth Sloan, PhD to argue about it. They really *know* what
they are talking about. I would bet, that there is even disagreement amongst
the committee members themselves as to the best solution to the problem.

It is my considered opinion that the core of the USCF's base problems lies
with the fact that we have unprincipled, unethical and unscrupulous
officials (Thank you AM) to blame for all this. Instead of taking the high
road over the years in both finance and the affairs between members, they
have treated YOUR USCF as their personal playground. Expensive hotel rooms,
food, airplane tickets, and ridiculous perks which a for profit corporation
the size of the USCF wouldn't dream of demanding for their executives; and,
bigotted, hateful attitudes are all that has emanated from this company of
vile bandits. If the USCF were a mental institution (and some believe that
it resembles one at the governance levels---remember Orlando and the
chanting hate mongers?) it would easily be recognized that the inmates are
running the asylum.

Respectfully,
Tom Klem


Tom M Martinak

unread,
Nov 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/26/98
to
DAVID GRANIK wrote

> I don't owe the USCF anything...the USCF owes me a Chess Life
>magazine....every month....for the rest of my life. How they finance the
>publication of it is their problem.

But it is your problem also. A life membership is for either your life or
the USCF's life, whichever is shorter. Ask many life members of gyms or
life subscribers to a variety of magazines.

Tom Martinak

Bruce Draney

unread,
Nov 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/26/98
to
DAVID GRANIK wrote:
>
> Bruce Draney wrote in message <365C16...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>...
> >DAVID GRANIK wrote:
> >>

Snipped some posts and counter posts by both of us:


> >
> > The answer to your first statement should be easy enough to determine.
> >Someone needs to look at the date of the first Swiss System event and
> >look at the date when ratings were first used.
> >
> > Your second statement about cutting the rulebook in half is obviously
> >not true. Hardly anything in the rulebook has to do with ratings, other
> >than the pairing rules which would have to be modified.
> >

> The pairing rules take up around 50 pages. Take away the fluff, filler,
> and FIDE regulations which swelled the size of the 4th edition, and this
> would come to about 1/3 of the pages devoted to the Official rules of Chess,
> and USCF Tournament regulations and Guidelines. Moreover, many TDs and
> players consider (with justification) the pairing rules to be the most
> difficult and obscure part of the Rules of Chess. In my experience, it is
> the area where the TDs are most likely to err.


Yes, but even without ratings you'd still have to have the pages in
rulebook about pairings. In fact you'd probably have to make up some
additional rules about how to rank people without ratings to do it
with. There are very few pages in the 4th Edition that are directly
related to ratings, which was the point I was trying to make.


>
> > There are very few scholastic tournaments, especially large ones where
> >there are not at least some rated players. What's more the rating is
> >what attracts many people to play and it is also the main attraction to
> >people including children to join USCF. Eliminating ratings would be an
> >unmitigated disaster. It would eliminate the single most important
> >reason why most people young and old bother to join USCF.
> >

> God Forbid that people actually play chess for the love and beauty of
> it! Why pander to the lowest impulses of kids and induce them to become
> ratings points grubbers rather than chessplayers?

You know, I didn't say that people didn't play it for the love of the
game. You said they are playing it for trophies and class prizes and I
disagree that this is most people's primary motivation.

Interesting how you turn someone's enthusiasm for seeing their rating
going up as their game improves, to rating point grubbing. Perhaps you
don't care about your rating. Some people use it for goal setting and
as a measurement of improvement in their game. It matters to most of
our members who do play tournament chess. It matters WAY too much to
some, but lumping those who enjoy it as one of many fun aspects of
playing chess, with others who care only about it and nothing else but
that is unfair.

>
> >>

> >> >
> >> >>
> >> Is it really so crucial that kids can compete for the class G,H, and
> I
> >> trophies?
> >
> > Is it really so crucial that we eliminate ratings just to prevent a
> >person from qualifying unfairly for some international competition?
> >You're suggesting modifying something that will dramatically affect
> >thousands of players, to prevent a potential abuse by a couple players.
> >I don't believe that most people are playing chess to win a class prize
> >or a trophy. I believe they are playing it because it's fun, and they
> >want to find out what their rating is and see how it goes up and down as
> >they continue playing. Anybody who stays in chess just to win an
> >occasional class prize or a small trophy is wasting their time.


> >
> Maybe these regular member are leaving the USCF because they have been
> staying in chess just to win the occasional class prize and/or small trophy
> and they have come to realize that they ARE wasting their time!

Yes and maybe they're not. Maybe they think dues are too high.
Maybe they don't like our leaders or their policies. Maybe they don't
have time to play anymore, maybe they like playing on ICC because it's
more convenient. Maybe they have important things going on in their
lives that come (way) before chess in priority. Are you another one of
the many soothsayers who has figured out exactly why people are leaving
the organization?


> It strikes me that I see a lot of chessplayers who play in USCF tournaments
> who don't look like they are having fun. They seem upset when they lose
> ratings points. The truth is that many tournament players play because they
> are addicts, because they NEED to play, and who enjoy the anticipation of
> playing more than the actual game itself.

Now I'm just curious on what basis you are making a statement like
the one above? What research or data do you have that indicates that
many tournament players play because they are addicts because they NEED
to play? I'm unaware of any clinical study on the matter, so I'm
assuming you must know some who feel this way and therefore it must mean
that everyone else who plays feels this way too. This is a fairly large
leap of logic to make a sweeping statement like the one above.

>
> The elimination of ratings (especially for kids) would do far more than
> merely make it less likely that players would be able to qualify unfairly
> for chess competitions. It would change the reasons why people play chess,
> and alter their aproach to the game.


Yes, in my opinion, it would put USCF out of business. People can
already play for fun without having to join USCF at all. They already
play all of the time in coffee houses, parks, libraries, public schools
and chess clubs. Eliminate ratings and the only people who will join
the organization will be people who just support chess because it's a
good cause or because they want Chess Life magazine and they don't have
a Border's Bookstore in close proximity.

>

> >>
> > How long do you think Chess Life would continue to be produced if the
> >ratings system were scrapped? If you've been following the related
> >thread on this topic, you'll notice that our regular membership is
> >already dropping like a rock. If you'd like to put the final nail in
> >the coffin of the organization, just talk about an idea like eliminating
> >ratings to prevent someone from cheating.
> >

> If the USCF has to depend upon a contrivance such as ratings for its
> survival, maybe it shouldn't survive.

You're stating the obvious David. It already does depend upon such a
contrivance for its survival. The rating system is what holds those
members who still are members in the organization.


Eventually, some other chess
> federation would pick up the ball. There are about half a dozen
> correspondence organizations in the US which cater to a much smaller
> segment.

The first thing that a new chess federation will do if one ever comes
into existence will be to develop its own rating system, and offer
rating services for a highly competitive price to attract away USCF's
members. No new chess federation is going to plan a model of existence
that is DOA. If eliminating ratings kills our current chess
organization, what new organization is going to try to emulate a plan
that killed its predecessor?

> I don't owe the USCF anything...the USCF owes me a Chess Life
> magazine....every month....for the rest of my life. How they finance the
> publication of it is their problem.

You know, last I heard, obligations end if an organization becomes
insolvent. So if I were you and I really wanted to make sure my Chess
Life kept coming for the rest of my life, I wouldn't start making
reckless recommendations about abolishing the rating system and saying
good riddance to those who play primarily because they enjoy the
ratings. You might be cutting off your nose to spite your face. If
USCF doesn't exist, I can pretty much assure you, that you won't be
receiving Chess Life magazine any more.

>

> >
> > Not likely in the immediate future. The organization hasn't hit rock
> >bottom yet. Something like that will probably only happen if the
> >organization itself goes on the rocks and still thousands more jump
> >ship.
> >

> >> >


> >> But since I believe that ratings are only necessary in big $$
> >> tournaments, that small % would be sufficient. I wasn't suggesting that
> CCA
> >> keep track of ALL ratings from all tournaments.
> >
> > Well if you really believe this then you are in my opinion completely
> >wrong. I've never played in a CCA event in my life yet, I would have
> >little interest in continuing to play tournament chess if there were no
> >ratings. I believe many other players feel the same way. In Nebraska
> >we've got almost 500 active/rated players. Only about 5 of those 500 or
> >1% have ever been to a World Open, New York Open or Chicago Open.
> >>

> If the major reason tournament chess players play chess is because of
> ratings, then good riddance to them.

Yeah, David good riddance to all 80,000 members who might enjoy rated
chess. After all, as long as some child doesn't represent the U.S. when
they shouldn't and you get your Chess Life, who cares about them.

> >
> > Yeah David and if people were killed at age 50 they couldn't die of old
> >age at 91. If we have to kill the organization just to prevent a youth
> >from cheating to qualify for international competition, why not just
> >eliminate the youth competition. You're talking about making a change
> >that would effect more than 80,000 members of our organization so that a
> >couple won't cheat and get into an international competition unfairly.
> >

> hmmm. Eliminating youth competition is actually a good idea.
> Particularly if the USCF has to spen any money to subsidize it.

Maybe USCF should eliminate all rated Chess and just put out Chess
Life and that's all. Would that be better as far as you're concerned?

>

Best Regards,

Bruce

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Nov 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/27/98
to

Bruce Draney wrote in message <365C16...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>...

>DAVID GRANIK wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Draney wrote in message <365ABF...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>...
>> >DAVID GRANIK wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss
System
>> >> tournament.
>> >
>> >Excuse me? Since Swiss system events rank everyone in order to pair
>> >them, how can you make a statement like this?
>> >
>> Swiss System tournaments were no doubt held before the advent of a
>> rating system. Simply randomly pair players in the first round, then have
>> players play someone in their scoregroup. There would probably be fewer
>> mismatches in the first round pairings as well. Even today, there are
>> probably many scholastic tournaments where most, if not all, or the
players
>> are unrated. Added bonus: you'd be able to cut the rulebook in half....
>
> The answer to your first statement should be easy enough to determine.
>Someone needs to look at the date of the first Swiss System event and
>look at the date when ratings were first used.
>
> Your second statement about cutting the rulebook in half is obviously
>not true. Hardly anything in the rulebook has to do with ratings, other
>than the pairing rules which would have to be modified.
>
The pairing rules take up around 50 pages. Take away the fluff, filler,
and FIDE regulations which swelled the size of the 4th edition, and this
would come to about 1/3 of the pages devoted to the Official rules of Chess,
and USCF Tournament regulations and Guidelines. Moreover, many TDs and
players consider (with justification) the pairing rules to be the most
difficult and obscure part of the Rules of Chess. In my experience, it is
the area where the TDs are most likely to err.

> There are very few scholastic tournaments, especially large ones where


>there are not at least some rated players. What's more the rating is
>what attracts many people to play and it is also the main attraction to
>people including children to join USCF. Eliminating ratings would be an
>unmitigated disaster. It would eliminate the single most important
>reason why most people young and old bother to join USCF.
>

God Forbid that people actually play chess for the love and beauty of
it! Why pander to the lowest impulses of kids and induce them to become
ratings points grubbers rather than chessplayers?

>>
>> >


>> >Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
>> >> money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.
>> >
>> >Oh really? I think you would find a huge amount of disagreement about
>> >this statement as well.
>> >
>> >>
>> Is it really so crucial that kids can compete for the class G,H, and
I
>> trophies?
>
> Is it really so crucial that we eliminate ratings just to prevent a
>person from qualifying unfairly for some international competition?
>You're suggesting modifying something that will dramatically affect
>thousands of players, to prevent a potential abuse by a couple players.
>I don't believe that most people are playing chess to win a class prize
>or a trophy. I believe they are playing it because it's fun, and they
>want to find out what their rating is and see how it goes up and down as
>they continue playing. Anybody who stays in chess just to win an
>occasional class prize or a small trophy is wasting their time.
>

Maybe these regular member are leaving the USCF because they have been
staying in chess just to win the occasional class prize and/or small trophy
and they have come to realize that they ARE wasting their time!

It strikes me that I see a lot of chessplayers who play in USCF tournaments
who don't look like they are having fun. They seem upset when they lose
ratings points. The truth is that many tournament players play because they
are addicts, because they NEED to play, and who enjoy the anticipation of
playing more than the actual game itself.

The elimination of ratings (especially for kids) would do far more than


merely make it less likely that players would be able to qualify unfairly
for chess competitions. It would change the reasons why people play chess,
and alter their aproach to the game.


>>


>> >> In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
>> >> ratings for everybody.
>> >
>> > Not such a bad idea if you'd like to put what's left of the
>> >organization out of business.
>>
>> As long as I keep getting my Chess Life for the rest of my life ;-)
>>
> How long do you think Chess Life would continue to be produced if the
>ratings system were scrapped? If you've been following the related
>thread on this topic, you'll notice that our regular membership is
>already dropping like a rock. If you'd like to put the final nail in
>the coffin of the organization, just talk about an idea like eliminating
>ratings to prevent someone from cheating.
>

If the USCF has to depend upon a contrivance such as ratings for its

survival, maybe it shouldn't survive. Eventually, some other chess


federation would pick up the ball. There are about half a dozen
correspondence organizations in the US which cater to a much smaller
segment.

I don't owe the USCF anything...the USCF owes me a Chess Life
magazine....every month....for the rest of my life. How they finance the
publication of it is their problem.

>> If it weren't for the rating system USCf
>> >would already be dead and buried.
>> >
>> And maybe some new, better National Chess Federation would now be
>> leading the US to a chess renaissance.
>
> Not likely in the immediate future. The organization hasn't hit rock
>bottom yet. Something like that will probably only happen if the
>organization itself goes on the rocks and still thousands more jump
>ship.
>
>>
>> > Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
>> >> for his big $$ tournaments.
>> >
>> > He could keep track of those players who play in his events. I'm not
>> >sure what percentage of the overall rated players play in his events but
>> >I suspect overall its a fairly small percentage that have CCA ratings.
>> >
>> But since I believe that ratings are only necessary in big $$
>> tournaments, that small % would be sufficient. I wasn't suggesting that
CCA
>> keep track of ALL ratings from all tournaments.
>
> Well if you really believe this then you are in my opinion completely
>wrong. I've never played in a CCA event in my life yet, I would have
>little interest in continuing to play tournament chess if there were no
>ratings. I believe many other players feel the same way. In Nebraska
>we've got almost 500 active/rated players. Only about 5 of those 500 or
>1% have ever been to a World Open, New York Open or Chicago Open.
>>

If the major reason tournament chess players play chess is because of
ratings, then good riddance to them.

>> >>

hmmm. Eliminating youth competition is actually a good idea.
Particularly if the USCF has to spen any money to subsidize it.

Chesspride

unread,
Nov 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/30/98
to
>By the way, if rating is such an important criterion, why is Ippolito
>the US representative in the World Junior tournament in India? Aren't there
>half a dozen US Juniors with higher ratings? (and better prospects)

The answer is 'NO.'

(Although your question is not appropriate...and does not do justice to Mr.
Ippolito.)

Invitations to the FIDE World Junior Championship are based in part on the
February rating list for each year.

The USCF sends two players to the event...one male/one female.

The top finisher in the U.S. Junior Championship is usually afforded the
privilege of an invitation.

The other player (of the remaining gender) is selected via the Feb. rating
list.

In the Feb. 1998 rating list, the rankings were:

1. Tal Shaked 2558
2. Igor Shliperman 2529
3. Dean Ippolito 2478

Mr. Shliperman won the 1998 Interplay U.S. Junior Championship, and was offered
the spot. He declined (due to his studies).

When Mr. Shliperman declined, the invitation reverted back to the Feb. 1998
list.

However:

Michael Mulyar tied for first with Shliperman (who won in the playoff)...so Mr.
Mulyar was offered the spot. He also declined (due to his studies).

Tal Shaked had a personal right to play in the 1998 event (by winning the 1997
event)...but, he also declined. Mr. Shaked's decision did not affect the
invitation process, as his personal right was an extra place.

And so...Mr. Ippolito was offered the invitation. Dean is a very promising
young player.

anti...@spam.demon.co.uk

unread,
Nov 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/30/98
to rec.games.chess.misc, rec.games.chess.politics
In article <73elkp$cap$1...@supernews.com>, Tom Klem wrote:
> I posted in another part of this thread the ratings history for Nicole. She
> progressed over a three year period and was not a provisionally rated player
> as some on this forum have assumed/asserted. The only scheme that Nicole or
> any of her teacher's (ie: her father is really quite good at Chess himself

Surely, it is not beyond someone to provide us with empirical evidence from
the championship to indicate how she performed in relation to what here
expected performance should have been. If she has performed "poorly" then this
would indicate that she had done so.

For example, in the Kasparov - Short WC match we all remember Short getting
thrashed. When you look at the grading performances, Short actually improved
and Kasaprov lost points!

1500 does not seem particularly strong to me, but then it is all relative, it
might be strong for her age-group I am not sure. If, however, her performance
was way below par then it is right to question the selection.

Of course, this questioning should not be based on "personal vendettas". The
experience may have had a 'positive' effect on the girl, and thus in this
respect merited.

Nevertheless, you are correct to question Sam's motives in 'naming' this
particular girl. Sam could have made the same comments, merely generalising
about the team's performance - rather than one individual who at the end of
the day may be mentally scarred from the whole experience.


--
Adios Amigo

Carl Tillotson

Lancashire Chess Association
homepage: http://www.lancashirechess.demon.co.uk/

Virtual Access 4.50 build 266 (32-bit)
Using Win95

DAVID GRANIK

unread,
Dec 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/1/98
to

Chesspride wrote in message
<19981129214651...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...

>>By the way, if rating is such an important criterion, why is Ippolito
>>the US representative in the World Junior tournament in India? Aren't
there
>>half a dozen US Juniors with higher ratings? (and better prospects)
>
>The answer is 'NO.'
>

>(Although your question is not appropriate...and does not do justice to Mr.
>Ippolito.)
>

I'm not sure why you think my question is not appropriate, or in which
way my question does not do justice to Mr. Ippolito. There ARE stronger
junior players; they likely would have fared better than Ippolito.
Shaked WON the World Junior last year. In the just finished World Junior Ch.
held in Calcutta, India, Ippolito could only manage 6.5--6.5 in 13
games.... finishing even.

>Invitations to the FIDE World Junior Championship are based in part on the
>February rating list for each year.
>
>The USCF sends two players to the event...one male/one female.
>
>The top finisher in the U.S. Junior Championship is usually afforded the
>privilege of an invitation.
>
>The other player (of the remaining gender) is selected via the Feb. rating
>list.
>
>In the Feb. 1998 rating list, the rankings were:
>
>1. Tal Shaked 2558
>2. Igor Shliperman 2529
>3. Dean Ippolito 2478
>

..... and here are the next 3 players from the Feb. 1998 rating list:
4. Zamora 2475
5. Perelshteyn 2468
6. Mulyar 2462


But in the OCTOBER 1998 rating list, the rankings ARE:

1. Felecan 2588
2. Shaked 2555
3. Shliperman 2544
4. Perelshteyn 2506
5. Mulyar 2482
6. Zamora 2458
7. Ippolito 2442

So it is clear that there ARE indeed "half a dozen" US juniors with
higher ratings. It is also true that in the Feb. 1998 rating list Ippolito
WAS the 3rd highest rated junior. Thanks for enlightening us about why
Ippolito was offered the spot even though he is not the highest rated US
junior. It wasn't obvoius why February would be the rating supplement used
to fill the spots.

>Mr. Shliperman won the 1998 Interplay U.S. Junior Championship, and was
offered
>the spot. He declined (due to his studies).


A pity....


>
>When Mr. Shliperman declined, the invitation reverted back to the Feb. 1998
>list.
>
>However:
>
>Michael Mulyar tied for first with Shliperman (who won in the playoff)...so
Mr.
>Mulyar was offered the spot. He also declined (due to his studies).
>

Another pity....

>Tal Shaked had a personal right to play in the 1998 event (by winning the
1997
>event)...but, he also declined. Mr. Shaked's decision did not affect the
>invitation process, as his personal right was an extra place.
>

Even more of a pity.

>And so...Mr. Ippolito was offered the invitation. Dean is a very promising
>young player.

I'll gladly stipulate that Ippolito is a "promising " player. Any
player who holds a 2457 rating (Dec. 98 rating supplement) certainly should
be considered promising. I would maintain that Ippolito was far more
promising 4 years ago when he sported a 2389 rating (Dec. 98 sup.) Thus, in
4 full years Ippolito has only improved his rating by 68 points. It turns
out that Ippolito's Feb. 1998 rating of 2478 is ,to date, his all-time best.
Impeccable timing!

Ippolito's mediocre result in the 1998 World Junior Ch should not be a
surprise. In the 1996 US Junior Closed Ch. Ippolito scored 4.5 points out
of 11 games (+3-5=3 ) to finish in =8th place at -2. He finished behind
Zamora (who won), Perelshteyn, and Shliperman. In the 1997 US Junior he
finished in 6th place with 5.0 points out of 9 games. Discounting his result
against the notorious Steriev, Ippolito finished even. He finished behind
Shaked (who won), Mulyar, and Shliperman. And of course, in this year's
Interplay US Junior
Championship Ippolito could only finish =5th, with 4.0 out of 9 games (-1).
He finished behind Shliperman, Mulyar, and Perelshteyn again.
Frankly, Ippolito's relative strength compared to other Juniors is
somewhat of a trivial point. Soon it will also be a moot point, since
Ippolito is 20 years old and will soon be to old to compete in "Junior"
competions.
I wish him success in his adult chess endeavors.

macam...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 26, 2019, 4:50:15 PM1/26/19
to
> >>David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system
> >hydes.
> >>
> > That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
> >tournament. Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
> >money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.
> >
> > In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
> >ratings for everybody. Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
> >for his big $$ tournaments.
> >
> > Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely on
> >the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a Rook
> >AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
> >adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because the
> >2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his true
> >ability.
> >
> >I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic
> >events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
> >competitions, both in the US and abroad.
> >
> >
> >>Regards,
> >>Miguel
> >
> >



SLOAN, YOU PERV (as stated in steriev.tripod.com) , WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH LJUPCO STERIEV'S PRIVATE EMAILS MEANT ONLY FOR YOU? & SINCE THEY WERE UNPREPARED, THEY WERE DEFINITELY NOT MEANT FOR THE PUBLIC!

Let the truth be finally known...
First of all, forgive him what he did, he was 18/19, not even 20. Too young to think of upcoming internet & its wide media reach consequences. We live once but our names are forever.

Ljupco/Lupco/Ljupce Steriev is really rated over 2200 ELO, his "terrible" play at 1997 us junior championship was to lower his rating. It was done to win money in lower rated groups but he backed down from that because it is/it was immoral.

How did he get to be 2399?
First of all, this proves he had no intentions being senior master, he could have easilty cheated the system & go over 2500 just to get huge rating.
DONT BLAME HIM BUT SHITTY USCF!!!
I think he played in the group of few people & won many games, so that's why, even as a surprise to him, his rating grew exponentially, especially in the light that he still had provisional rating, so any win over 1800 player would be 2300 performance. He did not cheat any system. There was no fraud! He is very moral & ethical man as stated by his Philosophical works to say the least: encyclopediasupreme.org/Philosophy & his music encyclopediasupreme.org/mp3

macam...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2019, 3:45:52 PM1/31/19
to
Here's fine super grandmaster level game between lupco steriev (1999/2000 yugoslavian correspondence champion geocities.ws/cmby2k /gildyshow2 & stan vaughan:

[Event "The WCA/WCF Correspondence Match"]
[Site "USA, Chicago, Illinois/USA, Nevada, North Las Vegas"]
[Date "8/8/99-4/30/2000"]
[White "NM Vaughan Stan"]
[Black "NM Steriev Ljupce/Lupco/Ljupco"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d2-d4 g8-f6
2. c2-c4 e7-e6
3. b1-c3 b7-b6
4. e2-e4 f8-b4
5. f1-d3 c8-b7
6. d1-f3 c7-c5
7. d4-d5 b4xc3+
8. b2xc3 d7-d6
9. c1-g5 b8-d7
10. g5-f4 d8-e7
11. g1-e2 e8-g8 {when is best time to castle, just like when to play B2, G2 bishops is one of chess' unsolved mysteries, positional or open tactics & strategies; here black's perfect play is slowly turning into masterpiece!}
12. e1-g1 e6-e5
13. f4-g5 h7-h6
14. g5-h4 e7-e8
15. f1-d1 g8-h8
16. d3-c2 f6-g8
17. c2-a4 g8-e7
18. e2-g3 e7-g6
19. g3-f5 g6xh4
20. f5xh4 e8-d8
21. h4-f5 d7-f6
22. f3-g3 g7-g6
23. f5xh6 f6xe4
24. g3-e3 e4-g5
25. h2-h4 g5-h7
26. e3-g3 d8-f6
27. h6-g4 f6-e7
28. g4-e3 f8-g8
29. h4-h5 g6xh5
30. g3-h3 g8-g5
31. g1-f1 a8-g8
32. a4-d7 h7-f6
33. d7-f5 f6-e8
34. h3-h4 e8-g7
35. h4-e4 e7-f6
36. f5-h7 g8-f8
37. e4-c2 f6-h6
38. h7-d3 e5-e4
39. d3xe4 f7-f5
40. e4-f3 f5-f4
41. d1-e1 f4xe3
42. e1xe3 g7-f5
43. e3-e6 g5-g6
44. e6-e4 f8-g8
45. f1-e2 h6-f8
46. a1-h1 h5-h4
47. g2-g4 f5-h6
48. h1xh4 f8-f6
49. h4-h3 b7-c8
50. c2-d2 g8-f8
51. d2-e3 h8-g8
52. h3xh6 g6xh6
53. g4-g5 f6xf3+
54. e3xf3 f8xf3
55. g5xh6 f3-f8
56. e4-e7 c8-a6
57. e2-d3 f8-f7
58. e7-e6 f7xf2
59. e6xd6 f2-f4
60. d6-d8+ g8-h7
61. a2-a4 h7xh6
62. d5-d6 a6xc4+
63. d3-e3 f4-f7
64. a4-a5 b6-b5
65. e3-e4 h6-g5
66. d8-h8 a7-a6
67. h8-h2 f7-f4+
68. e4-e3 f4-f5
69. h2-d2 f5-e5+
70. e3-f2 e5-e8
71. d6-d7 e8-d8
72. d2-d6 g5-f4
73. d6xa6 d8xd7
74. a6-c6 d7-d2+
75. f2-e1 f4-e3
76. c6-g6 d2-e2+
77. e1-d1 c4-b3+
78. d1-c1 e2-a2
79. g6-g5 e3-d3
80. g5xc5 a2xa5
81. c1-b2 b3-c4
82. c5-h5 a5-a2+
83. b2-b1 d3xc3
84. h5-h3+ c3-d4
85. h3-h4+ d4-c5
86. h4-h5+ c4-d5
87. h5-f5 a2-e2
88. b1-c1 b5-b4
89. f5-f8 b4-b3
90. f8-d8 c5-b4
91. c1-d1 d5-c4
92. d8-b8+ b4-c3
93. b8-c8 e2-e4
94. c8-h8 b3-b2
95. h8-h3+ c4-d3
96. h3xd3+ c3-c4
97. d1-c2 e4-e2+
98. d3-d2 e2xd2+
99. c2xd2 b2-b1Q {vaughan's position was unstable, unbalanced long before the endgame}
100. d2-e2 b1-d3+
101. e2-f2 c4-d4
102. f2-g2 d4-e3
103. g2-h3 d3-g6
104. h3-h4 e3-f3 {Only careful play and precise order of moves won this game for Steriev, there were many traps for a theoretical draw that were well avoided! Kudos-bravo, bravisimo!!!}
105. h4-h3 g6-g3 ##


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages