After the "Virtually all financial records destroyed" fiasco, several Board members asked Sloan to please refrain from making public charges without first checking his facts with the Board or the office.  However, on October 16, Sam Sloan made a post on the USCF Forums questioning a statement that appeared on the MSA crosstables of Polgar Chess Center events.  This is only one of a great many posts Sloan has made on the Forums regarding Susan Polgar and/or Paul Truong since his election, most of them negative.

In this case Sloan did raise the general issue in an email to the Board and others first (though without mentioning Polgar events) and received a reply from Mike Nolan, but he seemed not to understand the latter.

Further Forum discussion showed that this statement appears on all MSA crosstables, not just those of Polgar Chess Center events, and that USCF gave no special treatment to the Polgar tournaments, but this did not stop Sloan from suggesting of one of the Polgar events, "It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason."  In extensive additional discussion, Sloan did not retract this charge and continued to suggest impropriety, despite being able to present no evidence whatever to support his claim.

Below is the entire thread, until it moved on to another rating issue.  I have included every post in order up to that point, even though this is quite lengthy, as I believe the reader can thus obtain a good feel for how desirable it is for USCF to have Sloan on the Executive Board.   

Note that many of these posts quote previous posts, so keeping track of who is speaking can be confusing.  To make the posts more understandable, I present the words of the poster (whose name and ID appear at the start of the post) in black.  If the poster quotes a previous post, that post is in red, and if the red post quotes a previous post or posts those are in green.  Editor's notes are in blue.

samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:44 am    Post subject: Strange Reports from past events

EDITOR'S NOTE: Sam's original subject questioned results at the Polgar Chess Center by name.  The subject name was later changed by the moderator, as there was no evidence that Polgar Chess Center events were different from other events regarding the issues Sam raised.  

I have been looking at events played at the Polgar Chess Club, and there is a mysterious entry on many pf them. They say:

"The ratings shown on this page are not official published ratings and may change from time to time. Using them for pairing purposes in tournaments should only be done if this has been advertised in all advance publicity and is announced to all players at the tournament."

Here are some examples:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330-12123950

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200305182470-12123950

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200301254880-12123950

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200301254880-12895631

I have not seen this on the reports for any other tournaments, except for the Polgar tournaments.

Can somebody explain what this is all about?

Sam Sloan


tanstaafl 11246770

Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1362

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:55 am    Post subject:

You're seeing things Sam. Or to be more precise, not seeing them.

Look here for example:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200607041321
You should see the same statement, I believe. Isn't this an event you played in?

The same statement is there in the couple of tournaments I've checked from my MSA page as well (including the US Open). It's just a standard disclaimer that the ratings shown are "post-event" ratings and not official, published ratings.
_________________
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
---
I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
 


tanstaafl 11246770

Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1362

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:59 am    Post subject:

BTW the "-12123950" part of the URL isn't necessary. Unless I'm mistaken that just let's us know that you were looking up the tournaments from Truong's MSA page.
_________________
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
---
I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.


rfeditor 10010250

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 1210

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:16 pm    Post subject:

It means the ratings on the page are unofficial, not bimonthly supplement. (And may change if there is a re-rate.) That is the case with almost all MSA crosstables. Do I really have to explain this to a Board member?
_________________
John Hillery

  
nolan 10339324

Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3916

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject:

:sigh: I wish I could answer Sam's questions just once.

Here's what I wrote in response to Sam's email on this, which went to the Board, our editors, Harold Winston, and a few others.

Quote:
Post-event ratings have ALWAYS been considered unofficial, only the rating supplements have official published USCF ratings, per the USCF rulebook and long-standing practice.

Organizers have the option to use ratings other than the current published rating for players, but are required to advertise this in all advance publicity.

For example, they can use a prior supplement, as is often the case at the National Scholastics.

Similarly, an event that is held just before a new supplement takes effect may choose to use the published ratings that will be in effect in a few days. For example, an event being held in late November could choose to use the ratings in the 2006 Annual List, which becomes official on December 1st.

A growing number of organizers will use the 'most recent event' rating, often getting them off the Internet by looking up each player's tournament
history.

Organizers may also choose to assign minimum ratings to players, such as the CCA floors.

All of these exceptions to the 'current published rating' policy are permitted under USCF rules, but only with proper advance notice to players.

Otherwise, someone with a current official published rating of 1799 who has recently crossed over 1800 as a result of events received after the current supplement was prepared could show up at an event expecting to be permitted to enter an Under 1800 section.

This is why the crosstable pages indicate that the ratings shown there are unofficial, as a reminder to TDs and others.

Under the old ratings programming (ie, before rerating), someone's most recently RATED event as of the point in time when the supplement was created became their official rating.

However, since events were not rated in the order in which they played but in date played order within the batch of events that they were rated with, someone's most recently rated event could have been from an event several months ago, and may not necessarily be their most recent played event, if that event had been received and rated in a previous batch.

Under the new programming, we periodically rerate events to place them into proper chronological order. This also permits us to correct events and have those corrections affect subsequent events. (We may process several hundred corrections in a month.)

This means that the post event rating that comes from someone's most recently PLAYED event (as opposed to most recently RATED event) as of the point in time when the supplement is created becomes their official rating.

Moreover, that post-event rating could still subsequently change because other (tardy) events have been received or because of corrections to events.


samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:47 pm    Post subject:

OK. I see it now. Some of the Polgar tournaments were re-rated years after they took place.

For example:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293340-12123950

This tournament, which was won by Susan Polgar, was originally rated on
2004-04-07 and Re-Rated: 2006-01-12.

Similarly:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330
Rated: 2004-04-07 Re-Rated: 2006-08-08



nolan 10339324

Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3916

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject:

Sam, ALL tournaments are rerated during each pass of a month's worth of events, though if there are no changes to the post-event ratings of any of the players the section is not coded as having been rerated. Around 11,000 sections have been rated so far this year, there were no changes to the post-event ratings of any players in around 350 of those sections.

The first time an event is rerated, it is more likely that there will be changes to the post-event ratings of the players than in subsequent rerates.


ChessPromotion 12123950

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:18 pm    Post subject:

Mike,

I object to this heading. The Polgar Chess Center has run USCF rated tournaments for 10 years without any problem. This heading is nothing more than another desperate attempt by a psychotic individual trying to draw attention to himself. The heading is demeaning and harmful to the integrity of the Polgar Chess Center, its members and supporters.
_________________
Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!

 
samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:21 pm    Post subject:

nolan wrote:
Sam, ALL tournaments are rerated during each pass of a month's worth of events, though if there are no changes to the post-event ratings of any of the players the section is not coded as having been rerated. Around 11,000 sections have been rated so far this year, there were no changes to the post-event ratings of any players in around 350 of those sections.

The first time an event is rerated, it is more likely that there will be changes to the post-event ratings of the players than in subsequent rerates.


Thank you for this explanation.

However, you have not explained why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played.

In particular, event
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330
was Received: 2004-03-10 Entered: 2004-04-06 Rated: 2004-04-07 Re-Rated: 2006-08-08

It seems that this tournament, which was directed by Paul Truong and won by Susan Polgar, was re-rated two years and four months after it was originally rated. It was re-rated on August 8, 2006, just four days before the USCF deletates meeting in Chicago. Truong and Polgar were both in Chicago at that time.

It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason. Would you kindly tell us what that reason was? Also, can we see what the rating report looked like before it was re-rated?

Sam Sloan



tanstaafl 11246770

Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1362

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
... It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason. ...Sam Sloan

That's a comment that cuts both ways.

For example:
I am OUTRAGED that Mr. Sloan would misuse his position to try to interfere with the ratings process by interjecting politics into the discussion. Mr. Sloan's efforts to prevent the Polgar tournaments from being properly re-rated is a travesty...

Now Sam, why don't you simply agree to quit throwing around baseless charges? Then we can have productive discussions.
_________________
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
---
I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.
 

ChessPromotion 12123950

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:12 pm    Post subject:

tanstaafl wrote:
samsloan wrote:
... It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason. ...Sam Sloan

That's a comment that cuts both ways.

For example:
I am OUTRAGED that Mr. Sloan would misuse his position to try to interfere with the ratings process by interjecting politics into the discussion. Mr. Sloan's efforts to prevent the Polgar tournaments from being properly re-rated is a travesty...

Now Sam, why don't you simply agree to quit throwing around baseless charges? Then we can have productive discussions.


Going 4-0 to win 1 point is for political reason. And this ..... is sitting on the board of the USCF.
_________________
Stand up, unite and fight for the rights of all USCF members, especially children!



chessoffice 10088887

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 131

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:41 pm    Post subject:

ChessPromotion wrote:
Mike,

I object to this heading. The Polgar Chess Center has run USCF rated tournaments for 10 years without any problem. This heading is nothing more than another desperate attempt by a psychotic individual trying to draw attention to himself. The heading is demeaning and harmful to the integrity of the Polgar Chess Center, its members and supporters.


I agree that the heading is inappropriate and think it should be changed to something like, "How does re-rating work?"

Even with this change, I don't understand why a member of the Executive Board, of all people, can't just send his question about re-rating directly to Mike Nolan. Instead, even though he appears to understand little about re-rating, he publicly suggests that something improper may have occurred. This is absurd.

Bill Goichberg
 

 
nolan 10339324

Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3916

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 pm    Post subject:

Many events from 2004 have been rerated, because ALL events that were rated on or after January 1, 2004 have the potential for being rerated.

We would have liked to have gone further back than that!

What causes an event to be rerated?

1. A correction to the data in that event, such as a mis-reported result or an incorrect player ID.

2. A rerate of a previous event involving one or more of the players in that event.

3. A correction to the pre-event rating for one or more of the players in that event. Most of these are due to retroactive changes to someone's floor, mostly due to floors that were lost or not restored when a returning player's rating was restored. However, we have also had some relatively late reports of class prize floors, sometimes 6 months after the fact, as well as returning players whose previous rating was not restored at all and were incorrectly treated as if they were unrated again.

I think Paul is correct that this thread really has nothing to do with these events being Polgar events, there are hundreds if not thousands of other events for which the same question could have been raised, especially by someone who does not appear to understand what rerating is and how it works.


samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:13 am    Post subject:

chessoffice wrote:
ChessPromotion wrote:
Mike,

I object to this heading. The Polgar Chess Center has run USCF rated tournaments for 10 years without any problem. This heading is nothing more than another desperate attempt by a psychotic individual trying to draw attention to himself. The heading is demeaning and harmful to the integrity of the Polgar Chess Center, its members and supporters.



I agree that the heading is inappropriate and think it should be changed to something like, "How does re-rating work?"

Even with this change, I don't understand why a member of the Executive Board, of all people, can't just send his question about re-rating directly to Mike Nolan. Instead, even though he appears to understand little about re-rating, he publicly suggests that something improper may have occurred. This is absurd.

Bill Goichberg


Once again, Bill Goichberg has attacked me, without any reason that I can think of.

I do not understand why he cannot simply answer my question, which is: Why was this particular event re-rated two years and four months after it occurred and just four days before the USCF Delegates meeting in Chicago?

I have not suggested or implied that anything improper occurred. I am just asking a simple question.

As to Bill's question, which was why did I not simply send Mike Nolan a private email asking this question, the answer is that Mike Nolan does not calculate the ratings; he just posts them. Also, he still has not answered my question, so why would asking him the question privately have made any difference.

Also, it seems odd that ALL of the tournaments directed by Paul Truong have this curious entry at the top of the rating report. I am just asking a perfectly valid question of why that is.

I cannot understand why you are making such a big issue over my question, rather than simply answering it.

Sam Sloan


chessoffice 10088887

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 131

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:14 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
nolan wrote:
Sam, ALL tournaments are rerated during each pass of a month's worth of events, though if there are no changes to the post-event ratings of any of the players the section is not coded as having been rerated. Around 11,000 sections have been rated so far this year, there were no changes to the post-event ratings of any players in around 350 of those sections.

The first time an event is rerated, it is more likely that there will be changes to the post-event ratings of the players than in subsequent rerates.


Thank you for this explanation.

However, you have not explained why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played.

In particular, event
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330
was Received: 2004-03-10 Entered: 2004-04-06 Rated: 2004-04-07 Re-Rated: 2006-08-08

It seems that this tournament, which was directed by Paul Truong and won by Susan Polgar, was re-rated two years and four months after it was originally rated. It was re-rated on August 8, 2006, just four days before the USCF deletates meeting in Chicago. Truong and Polgar were both in Chicago at that time.

It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason.


Sam, why are you making a public accusation regarding the reason before you have even obtained a response to your question below asking for the reason? This is really outrageous.

You are on the Executive Board, and if you suspect impropriety, you need to contact the board or the office with your concerns, and to say nothing publicly unless you find evidence to back up your suspicions. You act as though you were not on the board, and the board and office have ignored your argument, leaving you no place to voice your concerns but the internet discussion groups. Of course, no one has ignored you, indeed you routinely make hostile posts about people without asking the board or office for the facts. Your method is usually to publicly post the charges first and ask questions later. This is inexcusable behavior.

In this case all we have learned so far from this discussion is that you appear to be poorly informed about your topics (unofficial ratings, MSA announcements, re-rating). We have yet to learn that the office did anything incorrect, and it is truly ridiculous to speculate on what the motives might have been for an improper action, when no evidence has yet been presented that the re-rating was anything other than normal procedure!

Bill Goichberg

Quote:
Would you kindly tell us what that reason was? Also, can we see what the rating report looked like before it was re-rated?

Sam Sloan


Author Message
chessoffice 10088887

Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 131

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:48 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
chessoffice wrote:
ChessPromotion wrote:
Mike,

I object to this heading. The Polgar Chess Center has run USCF rated tournaments for 10 years without any problem. This heading is nothing more than another desperate attempt by a psychotic individual trying to draw attention to himself. The heading is demeaning and harmful to the integrity of the Polgar Chess Center, its members and supporters.


I agree that the heading is inappropriate and think it should be changed to something like, "How does re-rating work?"

Even with this change, I don't understand why a member of the Executive Board, of all people, can't just send his question about re-rating directly to Mike Nolan. Instead, even though he appears to understand little about re-rating, he publicly suggests that something improper may have occurred. This is absurd.

Bill Goichberg

Once again, Bill Goichberg has attacked me, without any reason that I can think of.


Why do you think you are immune from criticism? I suspect the reason for the criticism is obvious to the readers of these forums.

Quote:
I do not understand why he cannot simply answer my question, which is: Why was this particular event re-rated two years and four months after it occurred and just four days before the USCF Delegates meeting in Chicago?


I don't have to answer this as Mike Nolan already has. Also, I see no relevance whatever to "four days before the USCF Delegates meeting....." Is there a rule I am not aware of that re-rating cannot take place around the time of the Delegates meeting?


Quote:
I have not suggested or implied that anything improper occurred. I am just asking a simple question.


No, you haven't suggested or implied that anything improper occurred, you have CHARGED that something improper did!

"It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason."

Do you seriously maintain that the above sentence does not charge improper activity? Surely it is improper for ratings to be based on politics.

Quote:
As to Bill's question, which was why did I not simply send Mike Nolan a private email asking this question, the answer is that Mike Nolan does not calculate the ratings; he just posts them. Also, he still has not answered my question, so why would asking him the question privately have made any difference.


If you didn't think Mike Nolan was the right person, you could have contacted Bill Hall or the board. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you didn't ask because you didn't know who to ask.

As for making any difference, Mike has answered your question, and do you really think asking the question publicly along with a false smear charge of "political" re-rating was appropriate?

Quote:
Also, it seems odd that ALL of the tournaments directed by Paul Truong have this curious entry at the top of the rating report. I am just asking a perfectly valid question of why that is.


Which tournaments do not have that curious entry? I never noticed any but perhaps they exist.

Quote:
I cannot understand why you are making such a big issue over my question, rather than simply answering it.

Because it is not just a question, it is a reckless charge, it is an attempt to smear those you regard as your enemies, it is conduct unbecoming an Executive Board member.

Bill Goichberg

Quote:
Sam Sloan



samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject:

chessoffice wrote:
samsloan wrote:
I cannot understand why you are making such a big issue over my question, rather than simply answering it.


Because it is not just a question, it is a reckless charge, it is an attempt to smear those you regard as your enemies, it is conduct unbecoming an Executive Board member.

Bill Goichberg


I think that anybody reading this thread will be able to see that I have not made a reckless charge. I have just asked a simple question, which became another question, neither of which have been answered.

Since you are the president, you are the best person who ask. So, why do not you answer it?

Sam Sloan

  
rfeditor 10010250

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 1210

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:08 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:


I think that anybody reading this thread will be able to see that I have not made a reckless charge. I have just asked a simple question, which became another question, neither of which have been answered.

Since you are the president, you are the best person who ask. So, why do not you answer it?

Sam Sloan


Because the question has already been answered. Repeatedly. Question for you, Sam: Are you terminally stupid, or are you pretending to be stupid for tactical reasons? Please choose one.
_________________
John Hillery

 

samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:27 am    Post subject:

rfeditor wrote:
samsloan wrote:

I think that anybody reading this thread will be able to see that I have not made a reckless charge. I have just asked a simple question, which became another question, neither of which have been answered.

Since you are the president, you are the best person who ask. So, why do not you answer it?

Sam Sloan


Because the question has already been answered. Repeatedly. Question for you, Sam: Are you terminally stupid, or are you pretending to be stupid for tactical reasons? Please choose one.

No, my questions have not been answered.

Mike Nolan gave possible reasons for why it might have been done.

Bill Goichberg attacked me for asking the question of why it was done.

Neither of them have answered the question of specifically why it was done in these particular cases.

It is extremely rare and indeed I have never heard of another chess event being re-rated more than two years after it was played. It is certainly not unreasonable to ask why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played and during the politically charged committee meetings in Chicago.

Sam Sloan


joelchanning 12560070

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:55 am    Post subject:

rfeditor wrote:

Because the question has already been answered. Repeatedly. Question for you, Sam: Are you terminally stupid, or are you pretending to be stupid for tactical reasons? Please choose one.

Moderator, this is out of bounds. Thank you, Joel Channing


JediJoshua 12666993

Joined: 21 Nov 2005
Posts: 170
Location: Southern Indiana
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject:

Sam, Mike doesnt' hand pick tournaments to be rerated, if the computer 'automatically' flags an event that needs to be rerated, its rerated. He doesn't need to waste his time chasing rabbits to look in the system to find out who play whom who played another guy that had an old event from 2004 that got in late and made this even reratable, its nonesense to ask for the 'specific' reason, the general reasons should satisfy you if you are a sensible person.

But then again, I don't believe you are sensible.
_________________


SteveTN 12467003

Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 176
Location: Nashville, TN
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:37 am    Post subject:

joelchanning wrote:
rfeditor wrote:

Because the question has already been answered. Repeatedly. Question for you, Sam: Are you terminally stupid, or are you pretending to be stupid for tactical reasons? Please choose one.

Moderator, this is out of bounds. Thank you, Joel Channing

Moderator, I object to this attack on a succint observation and subsequent accurate and pointed question. Thank you, Steve Owens

(Not really, but you get the point...)
_________________
Steve OWENS in Tennessee
Just a USCF Member
It is time to GROSS

 


joelchanning 12560070

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:41 am    Post subject:

Quote:

It seems that this tournament, which was directed by Paul Truong and won by Susan Polgar, was re-rated two years and four months after it was originally rated. It was re-rated on August 8, 2006, just four days before the USCF deletates meeting in Chicago. Truong and Polgar were both in Chicago at that time.

It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason. Would you kindly tell us what that reason was? Also, can we see what the rating report looked like before it was re-rated?

Sam Sloan


Moderator, now that I look at this entire thread again, it seems that this, too is out of bounds. I believe that the Standards of Conduct require that this should have been first directed to the staff and the Board in the form of a confidential inquiry before making it in the form of a public assertion.

Joel Channing

 

martinak 10140447


Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 222
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:41 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
It is extremely rare and indeed I have never heard of another chess event being re-rated more than two years after it was played. It is certainly not unreasonable to ask why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played and during the politically charged committee meetings in Chicago.


You might try checking some facts before asking?

Let's look at:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200403257820-11115292
Received: 2004-03-30 Entered: 2004-04-19 Rated: 2004-04-23 Re-Rated: 2006-08-18

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200403257830-11115292
Received: 2004-03-30 Entered: 2004-04-19 Rated: 2004-04-23 Re-Rated: 2006-08-18

Now if we wanted to use your explanations, it would seem like somebody got elected to the EB and then decided to have his old tournaments rerated. But who could this Machiavellian 11115292 be?

Since (as Mike Nolan posted earlier in this thread) only events after 1/1/2004 are rerated, only the events between 1/1/2004 and 10/17/2004 could have been re-rated 2 years after they were played. And so far, everything that I have looked at in that range has been re-rated. Have you checked any other tournaments in that range before "asking" your question? Obviously you didn't even check your own events!
_________________
- Tom Martinak


Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:55 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:

It is extremely rare and indeed I have never heard of another chess event being re-rated more than two years after it was played. It is certainly not unreasonable to ask why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played and during the politically charged committee meetings in Chicago.

Sam Sloan



Two observations:

One, as a long-time reader of rec.games.chess.politics as well as this forum, when Sam Sloan says "I've never heard of" something, rest assured it is probably a fairly regular occurrence.

Two, Sam Sloan attributes nearly any USCF action to some political purpose. I assume the implication is that Susan somehow benefitted from a re-rating in return for... beats the heck out of me. As with most of Sam Sloan's claims (remember the 'virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed' claim?), it lacks basic credibility.
_________________
Randy Bauer

 

joelchanning 12560070

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:58 am    Post subject:

joelchanning wrote:
samsloan wrote:

I think that anybody reading this thread will be able to see that I have not made a reckless charge. I have just asked a simple question, which became another question, neither of which have been answered.

Since you are the president, you are the best person who ask. So, why do not you answer it?

Sam Sloan


Mike, now that I'm on a roll, it is my observation that the above quote is most disingenuous and sarcastic. Having said that, I want it known that in no way am I being critical of you, Mike -- you've got enough "tsuris" (Yiddish for aggravation) as it is. Joel

This has degenerated into so much quibbling that I want to drop the whole thing. Mike, please disregard everything I've said here.

Thanks,

Joel Channing

Last edited by joelchanning 12560070 on Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:22 am; edited 1 time in total

 

Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:12 am    Post subject:

joelchanning wrote:
samsloan wrote:

I think that anybody reading this thread will be able to see that I have not made a reckless charge. I have just asked a simple question, which became another question, neither of which have been answered.

Since you are the president, you are the best person who ask. So, why do not you answer it?

Sam Sloan


Mike, now that I'm on a roll, it is my observation that the above quote is most disingenuous and sarcastic. Having said that, I want it known that in no way am I being critical of you, Mike -- you've got enough "tsuris" (Yiddish for aggravation) as it is. Joel


"Fools are my theme, let satire be my song." Lord Byron
_________________
Randy Bauer


joelchanning 12560070

Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 247

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:19 am    Post subject:

Randy Bauer wrote:

"Fools are my theme, let satire be my song." Lord Byron


"I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Woody Allen

 

Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:24 am    Post subject:

joelchanning wrote:
Randy Bauer wrote:

"Fools are my theme, let satire be my song." Lord Byron


"I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Woody Allen


"I refused to attend his funeral. But I wrote a very nice letter explaining that I approved of it." Mark Twain
_________________
Randy Bauer



Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:38 am    Post subject:

Randy Bauer wrote:
joelchanning wrote:
Randy Bauer wrote:

"Fools are my theme, let satire be my song." Lord Byron



"I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Woody Allen


"I refused to attend his funeral. But I wrote a very nice letter explaining that I approved of it." Mark Twain


Sorry for hijacking the thread. It was intentional.

Stick a fork in it, it's dead, Jim.
_________________
Randy Bauer


Vince Hart 12685294

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 66

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject:

Randy Bauer wrote:
samsloan wrote:


It is extremely rare and indeed I have never heard of another chess event being re-rated more than two years after it was played. It is certainly not unreasonable to ask why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played and during the politically charged committee meetings in Chicago.

Sam Sloan


Two observations:

One, as a long-time reader of rec.games.chess.politics as well as this forum, when Sam Sloan says "I've never heard of" something, rest assured it is probably a fairly regular occurrence.

Two, Sam Sloan attributes nearly any USCF action to some political purpose. I assume the implication is that Susan somehow benefitted from a re-rating in return for... beats the heck out of me. As with most of Sam Sloan's claims (remember the 'virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed' claim?), it lacks basic credibility.

It is not limited to USCF actions. It is the way that Sam views the world in general. He finds conspiracies and self-dealing everywhere.


Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:14 pm    Post subject:

Vince Hart wrote:
Randy Bauer wrote:
samsloan wrote:

It is extremely rare and indeed I have never heard of another chess event being re-rated more than two years after it was played. It is certainly not unreasonable to ask why these events were re-rated more than two years after they were played and during the politically charged committee meetings in Chicago.

Sam Sloan


Two observations:

One, as a long-time reader of rec.games.chess.politics as well as this forum, when Sam Sloan says "I've never heard of" something, rest assured it is probably a fairly regular occurrence.

Two, Sam Sloan attributes nearly any USCF action to some political purpose. I assume the implication is that Susan somehow benefitted from a re-rating in return for... beats the heck out of me. As with most of Sam Sloan's claims (remember the 'virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed' claim?), it lacks basic credibility.

It is not limited to USCF actions. It is the way that Sam views the world in general. He finds conspiracies and self-dealing everywhere.

A cogent observation.

From my experience, often those who view the world from a 'conspiracies and self-dealing' perspective do so because it is the way they themselves operate. As a consequence, it is natural for them to assume it in others.
_________________
Randy Bauer


samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:11 pm    Post subject:

joelchanning wrote:
Quote:

It seems that this tournament, which was directed by Paul Truong and won by Susan Polgar, was re-rated two years and four months after it was originally rated. It was re-rated on August 8, 2006, just four days before the USCF deletates meeting in Chicago. Truong and Polgar were both in Chicago at that time.

It seems obvious that this tournament was re-rated for some political reason. Would you kindly tell us what that reason was? Also, can we see what the rating report looked like before it was re-rated?

Sam Sloan


Moderator, now that I look at this entire thread again, it seems that this, too is out of bounds. I believe that the Standards of Conduct require that this should have been first directed to the staff and the Board in the form of a confidential inquiry before making it in the form of a public assertion.

Joel Channing


What started as a simple question with probably an easy answer has suddenly become a big issue, because of both the refusal to answer the questions and the attacks upon me for asking them.

I have just remembered something that I had completely forgotten, because the two tournaments that have recently been re-rated were the very two events that qualified Susan Polgar to play on the US Olympiad Team.

At that time, Susan believed that she had to play 20 rated games within the past year to meet the activity requirement to play on the team. (She and most of the rest of us did not realize that, in the waning hours of the McCrary Presidency, he had changed the rule to 10 games).

In order to get in the ten rated games she felt that she needed to qualify for the team, Susan played in these two tournaments in her own chess club, thereby getting in 8 additional games so as to get herself on the Olympiad team.

The problem was that all eight of her opponents were very weak players.

The tournaments were:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293330
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200402293340

Her opponents were rated:

1557, 1739, 1620, 1400, 1469, 1687, 1666, 1389

Susans rating was 2613
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12452240

In addition, in a previous tournament which counted for the 20 game requirement, Susan played 9 games against players rated 1500 or 1600.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200307069880-12452240

So, Susan qualified to the US Olympiad Team by playing against players rated 900 to 1000 points below her.

This sparked a better protest by several of the players who were being squeezed off of the Olympiad Team, especially former Woman Champions Elena Donaldson and Anjelina Belakovskaia. There were heated exchanges of words between them and Susan and Truong on my fide-chess Yahoo Group.

Here is one of the postings by Anjelina Belakovskaia on March 27, 2004:

After all, in order to play for medals, the US Team shouldn't have a player who is only brave enough to face beginners and too busy to prepare for the Olympiad.

Best regards,
Anjelina

Here is part of another lengthy posting by Angelina:

> Susan Polgar woke up after 7 or so years of inactivity and came up
> with a brilliant idea to get sponsors for US WOMEN'S OLYMPIC TEAM. (I
> personally think it is a great effort!)
> HOWEVER, THE MAIN QUESTION ? WHO WILL BE ON THE TEAM? ? WAS OPEN IN
> THE AIR. By Susan ? if she finds money for the Team ? then the team
> has to be formed from the players SHE APPROVES.

> And this is your DREAM TEAM?
>
> Look what you got: Krush and Shahade are against Goletiani, all of
> them are against Hahn, illegally squeezed in Zatonskih is hiding,
> Polgar is screaming.
>
> It sounds more like girls in a Bordello are fighting over a client, rather than an Olympic Team preparing to win a medal.
>
> Why did we let Polgar come in the picture in the first place? Just to
> ruin women chess in America and cut deals behind the scenes?

> Best regards,
> Anjelina


So now, more than two years later, the very two tournaments that enabled Susan Polgar to qualify for the USA Olympiad Team have been mysteriously re-rated by the USCF.

Why is one not allowed to ask why this was done?

Sam Sloan


Vince Hart 12685294

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 66

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:21 pm    Post subject:

Randy Bauer wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
[quote="Randy Bauer
Two observations:

One, as a long-time reader of rec.games.chess.politics as well as this forum, when Sam Sloan says "I've never heard of" something, rest assured it is probably a fairly regular occurrence.

Two, Sam Sloan attributes nearly any USCF action to some political purpose. I assume the implication is that Susan somehow benefitted from a re-rating in return for... beats the heck out of me. As with most of Sam Sloan's claims (remember the 'virtually all USCF financial records have been destroyed' claim?), it lacks basic credibility.

It is not limited to USCF actions. It is the way that Sam views the world in general. He finds conspiracies and self-dealing everywhere.

A cogent observation.

From my experience, often those who view the world from a 'conspiracies and self-dealing' perspective do so because it is the way they themselves operate. As a consequence, it is natural for them to assume it in others.[/quote]

That is frequently the case. Occasionally, they are just irrationally paranoid.



tanstaafl 11246770

Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1362

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:39 pm    Post subject:

It is probably a thankless task, but I'm going to try one more time.

Sam,
It HAS been explained to you why this event was re-rated. This was NOT a manual operation, but was AUTOMATICALLY done by the ratings software. This was caused by SOME OTHER event that had not been rated or was rated in the wrong order.

It may be difficult to tell you the DETAILS of which event etc. caused the re-rate because this is done AUTOMATICALLY. NO PERSON MADE A DECISION TO RE-RATE THIS SPECIFIC EVENT.

VIRTUALLY EVERY EVENT FROM THAT TIME PERIOD HAS BEEN RE-RATED.

This could have been something as earth-shattering as ONE 1500 rated player's rating having changed by ONE point in a correction made to SOME OTHER TOURNAMENT that just happened to have a player in common with the tournament you've questioned.

ALL TOURNAMENTS that I've looked at INCLUDING THOSE THAT YOU'VE PLAYED IN, have that "mysterious" disclaimer that you questioned at the start of this thread.

If you don't understand the rating system, you're not alone. It's a complicated subject. However, there's no reason to start throwing around charges of "Political" motives in RATINGS CALCULATIONS. That's just plain silly. That you have reached back for this other "controversy" from the past is equally silly and it has NOTHING to do with the re-rating of this tournament.
_________________
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
---
I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.



ChessPromotion 12123950

Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 332
Location: Forest Hills, NY
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject:

tanstaafl wrote:
It is probably a thankless task, but I'm going to try one more time.

Sam,
It HAS been explained to you why this event was re-rated. This was NOT a manual operation, but was AUTOMATICALLY done by the ratings software. This was caused by SOME OTHER event that had not been rated or was rated in the wrong order.

It may be difficult to tell you the DETAILS of which event etc. caused the re-rate because this is done AUTOMATICALLY. NO PERSON MADE A DECISION TO RE-RATE THIS SPECIFIC EVENT.

VIRTUALLY EVERY EVENT FROM THAT TIME PERIOD HAS BEEN RE-RATED.

This could have been something as earth-shattering as ONE 1500 rated player's rating having changed by ONE point in a correction made to SOME OTHER TOURNAMENT that just happened to have a player in common with the tournament you've questioned.

ALL TOURNAMENTS that I've looked at INCLUDING THOSE THAT YOU'VE PLAYED IN, have that "mysterious" disclaimer that you questioned at the start of this thread.

If you don't understand the rating system, you're not alone. It's a complicated subject. However, there's no reason to start throwing around charges of "Political" motives in RATINGS CALCULATIONS. That's just plain silly. That you have reached back for this other "controversy" from the past is equally silly and it has NOTHING to do with the re-rating of this tournament.

We all know that this has nothing to do with the ratings. This is just another desperate attempt by this lunatic to gather some attention. It's been a few hours since someone talked about him.

If he really wanted a true answer, he could have asked Mike N., Bill H., Bill G. or others privately through email. After all, isn't he a board member? Is this how a board member supposed to ask questions? Is this how a board member supposed to behave?

Shame of ALL those who support his conduct and behavior! They make me sick.


samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:31 am    Post subject:

It now appears that the answer to my original question was that this is a new policy to put this disclaimer at the top of every ratings page. Mike Nolan must have done this just within the last few days, because I had never seen it before. So apparently just after this new policy was implemented I happened to look at a rating page for a Polgar tournament and asked this question.

Editor's note: The policy of putting the disclaimer at the top of each page is not new, even though Sloan never noticed it before.

Now, I have a new question, which is why was this language added to the rating reports on the USCF website without informing the executive board or the membership. I think that this language is confusing and should be taken down. If we want to inform the tournament directors not to use the ratings on the website for pairing purposes, the USCF should inform the directors, rather than put this confusing and unnecessary language on the top of every ratings page.

The language in question is the following:

The ratings shown on this page are not official published ratings and may change from time to time. Using them for pairing purposes in tournaments should only be done if this has been advertised in all advance publicity and is announced to all players at the tournament.

In the first place, I disagree. Tournament directors should not be required to advertise that ratings on the USCF website will not be used for pairing purposes. Why should tournament directors be required to spend money to pay for advertisements saying that ratings on the USCF website are not to be used? Will that not create even more confusion? How does that help the USCF, to tell players and directors not to use the ratings on the USCF website? This would seem to hurt, not help, the USCF. Tournament directors always have the right to decide which ratings to use or not to use.

Why did Mike Nolan not announce that this was a new policy? Had I known that this was something new, I would not have asked the question and the acrimonious thread that has resulted would not have occurred.

I think that this language is wrong and should be removed from the website.

Sam Sloan



Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:19 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
It now appears that the answer to my original question was that this is a new policy to put this disclaimer at the top of every ratings page. Mike Nolan must have done this just within the last few days, because I had never seen it before. So apparently just after this new policy was implemented I happened to look at a rating page for a Polgar tournament and asked this question.

Now, I have a new question, which is why was this language added to the rating reports on the USCF website without informing the executive board or the membership. I think that this language is confusing and should be taken down. If we want to inform the tournament directors not to use the ratings on the website for pairing purposes, the USCF should inform the directors, rather than put this confusing and unnecessary language on the top of every ratings page.


The Sam Sloan style of Executive Board management appears to require Board approval for every normal course of business action. Is he seroiusly suggesting that every word that appears on the USCF website, every business process that is put into place, every paper clip purchased requires Board approval? Further, it leads to paralysis as individuals who are hired to do a job worry that every conceivable action requires them to inform and receive permission to do so. It's bad management and it's bad leadership.
_________________
Randy Bauer




samsloan 11115292

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 672
Location: Bronx, New York
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:10 am    Post subject:

Randy Bauer wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It now appears that the answer to my original question was that this is a new policy to put this disclaimer at the top of every ratings page. Mike Nolan must have done this just within the last few days, because I had never seen it before. So apparently just after this new policy was implemented I happened to look at a rating page for a Polgar tournament and asked this question.

Now, I have a new question, which is why was this language added to the rating reports on the USCF website without informing the executive board or the membership. I think that this language is confusing and should be taken down. If we want to inform the tournament directors not to use the ratings on the website for pairing purposes, the USCF should inform the directors, rather than put this confusing and unnecessary language on the top of every ratings page.

The Sam Sloan style of Executive Board management appears to require Board approval for every normal course of business action. Is he seroiusly suggesting that every word that appears on the USCF website, every business process that is put into place, every paper clip purchased requires Board approval? Further, it leads to paralysis as individuals who are hired to do a job worry that every conceivable action requires them to inform and receive permission to do so. It's bad management and it's bad leadership.

Yes, exactly. I am saying that this major change in the USCF ratings website should not have been made without board approval.

This change will cause a lot of problems for directors, organizers and players.

All of us appreciate the substantially volunteer work that Mike Nolan does, but this disclaimer which states in effect that the ratings on this website are unofficial and are not to be taken seriously or used for pairing purposes, will create serious problems for the USCF and its members.

I am demanding that this disclaimer be taken down immediately, until such time as the board has been informed of it and has had an opportunity to discuss and vote on it.

I am certain that the board will NEVER approve this disclaimer of the ratings website.

Sam Sloan

Editor's note: Individual members of the Executive Board do not have the right to "demand" that the office take actions.  At the subsequent Board meeting in Connecticut a month later, Sam Sloan moved that the disclaimer be removed from the ratings website and this motion was defeated by a vote of 5-1.



Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
Randy Bauer wrote:
samsloan wrote:
It now appears that the answer to my original question was that this is a new policy to put this disclaimer at the top of every ratings page. Mike Nolan must have done this just within the last few days, because I had never seen it before. So apparently just after this new policy was implemented I happened to look at a rating page for a Polgar tournament and asked this question.

Now, I have a new question, which is why was this language added to the rating reports on the USCF website without informing the executive board or the membership. I think that this language is confusing and should be taken down. If we want to inform the tournament directors not to use the ratings on the website for pairing purposes, the USCF should inform the directors, rather than put this confusing and unnecessary language on the top of every ratings page.


The Sam Sloan style of Executive Board management appears to require Board approval for every normal course of business action. Is he seroiusly suggesting that every word that appears on the USCF website, every business process that is put into place, every paper clip purchased requires Board approval? Further, it leads to paralysis as individuals who are hired to do a job worry that every conceivable action requires them to inform and receive permission to do so. It's bad management and it's bad leadership.

Yes, exactly. I am saying that this major change in the USCF ratings website should not have been made without board approval.

This change will cause a lot of problems for directors, organizers and players.

All of us appreciate the substantially volunteer work that Mike Nolan does, but this disclaimer which states in effect that the ratings on this website are unofficial and are not to be taken seriously or used for pairing purposes, will create serious problems for the USCF and its members.

I am demanding that this disclaimer be taken down immediately, until such time as the board has been informed of it and has had an opportunity to discuss and vote on it.

I am certain that the board will NEVER approve this disclaimer of the ratings website.

Sam Sloan


From the discussion so far, involving more than a few members, the only person who is confused is you. I doubt that your confusion is the barometer we should use in determining the validity of decisions made by the USCF office staff. You need to find a new EB approach that doesn't simply waste everybody's time.
_________________
Randy Bauer




tanstaafl 11246770

Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 1362

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:04 am    Post subject:

Sam,

While I disagree with your "demand" at least you are making a REASONABLE argument this time.

I think, however, that your demand is based on a misconception. There are several ratings displayed for every person in MSA. Only ONE of these is the current, official, published rating. It is identified as such on their main MSA page.

It has ALWAYS (or at least for many, many years) been the policy of the USCF that only OFFICIAL, PUBLISHED ratings are to be used for tournament pairings. Even back when I got my ratings update from my magazine label each month (25 or 30 years ago), the rating was official only every other month. In between, the rating on the label might change but it was UNOFFICIAL. It wasn't supposed to be used for pairing tournaments.

The post-tournament ratings on each individual tournament are UNOFFICIAL. I would guess that this language was added because some questions were raised on these forums about that specific issue. The language makes it perfectly clear what the policy of the USCF IS -- it doesn't CHANGE the policy, it just makes sure people know it.

There have been some discussions on the forums about changing this policy. There are reasons on each side of the issue. The main reason that I've heard for NOT changing the policy is that people would like to be sure ahead of time which section of a tournament they will qualify to enter. Your demand amounts to a demand to CHANGE the policy. Actually, I tend to favor changing this policy as well, but I disagree with changing a long-standing USCF policy based on a DEMAND from ONE EB MEMBER. Your demand ignores all of the discussions that have taken place, the current (long standing) policy, and the proper procedure that should be used to implement such a change. I think the proper place to suggest such a change would be at the next delegates meeting. If you introduced a motion to allow post-tournament ratings to be "official", you might gather enough support to pass it.
_________________
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
---
I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread.


wzim 11315844

Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 227
Location: Peoria, Il
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:09 am    Post subject:

samsloan wrote:
.... Mike Nolan must have done this just within the last few days, because I had never seen it before. So apparently just after this new policy was implemented I happened to look at a rating page for a Polgar tournament and asked this question. ....
at the tournament.

Sam Sloan



I'm pretty sure this wasn't implemented in just the last few days. The MSA program I made downloads the MSA pages to your local computer. So I have copies of pages from 8/20/2006 and the disclaimer appears in them.



crankwire 12810061

Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 147
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:58 am    Post subject:

Sam,

You are a relatively late comer to these forums. I suggest in the future you search the forums before posting. A search on rerates or block rerates will give you a lot of information on how the current automated rerating implementation behaves. For example:

http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=353
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=303
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=784
http://www.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=938

Also, as others have pointed out, the notice in question has been around in the MSA for several months (I thought I remembered a post from Mike saying that this would be done, but couldn't find it; I'm sure Mike can tell us exactly when the notice went up). Perhaps you hadn't noticed it before.

These are the reasons that your posts seem laughable to most frequenters of the forums. Your posting shows that you don't know how the system works (not a problem) and that you haven't bothered spending time to learn about it, be it by searching the forums or asking the person who's responsible for the programming (maybe next time you will).

Cheers,

Luis


nolan 10339324

Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3916

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:54 pm    Post subject:

Why is it that these things always blow up when I'm driving between Tennessee and Nebraska??

For the record, the event in question has been rerated numerous times, though not every rerate resulted in any changes. However, there were changes to the post-event ratings of one or more of the players in that event on these dates:

2005-03-14
2005-03-16
2005-03-31
2005-05-07
2005-11-09
2006-01-04
2006-01-12
2006-04-11
2006-08-04
2006-08-08
2006-08-18

There is no practical way to determine what previous events or other changes triggered any of these updates to the post-event ratings of the players in this (or any) event, because there could have been MULTIPLE players who had a minor change in their post-event rating because of a rerate of a prior event.

Most of the time changes in an event that far back come from from the correction of the data in some previous event or the restoration of a rating or floor for some USCF member, usually one whose membership had lapsed for several years.



artichoke 10167825

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 472

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:35 pm    Post subject:

To see if I can simplify it, tell me if this is correct:

Most events are rerated a number of times because of various triggers that cause it.

When an event is rerated, the disclaimer is put in place. It's there for most events because most have actually been rerated. It is not a boilerplate that is there regardless of whether the event has actually been rerated.

It is an old policy that predates Mr. Sloan's tenure on the EB, so in any case the Board could not expect a notification during his tenure about any change in policy: the policy was not changed.

If the alleged political reason for rerating the tournament in question involved Susan's eligibility for the Olympic Team, it was in fact irrelevant because in any case she was qualified without playing the event at all, whether she knew it or not.

In other words there seems to be nothing to argue about. Good!!


nolan 10339324

Joined: 20 Dec 2003
Posts: 3916

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:24 pm    Post subject:

That disclaimer appears as part of the event summary for every event, and has been there for months.

It is a reminder that ALL POST-EVENT RATINGS ARE UNOFFICIAL, nothing more, nothing less.

A different disclaimer appears on a section if a change has been recorded to the data in that section (such as a corrected result or player ID) but the section has not yet been rerated. (If the section was originally rated before 1/1/2004 it is not reratable.)



Randy Bauer 10320372

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 216
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:48 am    Post subject:

artichoke wrote:
To see if I can simplify it, tell me if this is correct:

Most events are rerated a number of times because of various triggers that cause it.

When an event is rerated, the disclaimer is put in place. It's there for most events because most have actually been rerated. It is not a boilerplate that is there regardless of whether the event has actually been rerated.

It is an old policy that predates Mr. Sloan's tenure on the EB, so in any case the Board could not expect a notification during his tenure about any change in policy: the policy was not changed.

If the alleged political reason for rerating the tournament in question involved Susan's eligibility for the Olympic Team, it was in fact irrelevant because in any case she was qualified without playing the event at all, whether she knew it or not.

In other words there seems to be nothing to argue about. Good!!

It's been my experience that Sam Sloan is in his element when there is nothing rational to argue about and he finds irrational motivations to maintain the argument.
_________________
Randy Bauer



ChessNews.org homepage