Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

Main

Date: 22 Jun 2005 03:11:34
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

This is one of my pet projects which I hope to expand on if I am
elected.

In the last week, I have been having a heated argument with Randy
Bauer about our relative strengths. The problem is that he played most
of his chess in the 1980s and I played most of my chess in the 1960s.
Not only can we not compare with each other but the USCF MSA Database
does not start until 1991.

I would like to see major historical tournaments added to the USCF
online database. In particular, I would like to see every US Open
going back to 1900 (when it was called the Western Open) added to the
database.

My first idea was to get the USCF staff to type this all in. However,
now I have a better idea: Get volunteers to do it.

For example, I played in the US Open in 1959, 1960, 1964 and 1966. I
played in the US Junior in 1958, 1963 and 1964.

I have the cross tables for the US Open in 1959 and 1966. I would be
willing to volunteer to type in those cross tables myself.

One problem is that back then there were no USCF ID numbers. Probably
most of the players continued to play chess and later on got ID
numbers. I would have to look them up and for those players who
stopped playing perhaps a computer would assign them.

The next problem would be how to get the data I have entered into the
USCF online database. Mike Nolan would have to set up some procedure
hereby we volunteers could enter cross tables into the database. A
password system would have to be instituted. The games would be
unrated but still the results would be there. I am sure that over time
all the major USCF tournaments would get into the database and we
would greatly benefit as a result.

I would appreciate comments, especially from Mike Nolan.

On another subject, Bill Goichberg indicated that the 2004 World Chess
Olympiad in Spain would be USCF rated. Why was that not done?

I propose to allow foreign tournaments such as the Championship of
Iceland to be USCF rated as long as those countries are willing to pay
the USCF rating fees.

Sam Sloan

Date: 22 Jun 2005 12:20:34
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives
>
> This is one of my pet projects which I hope to expand on if I am
> elected.
>
> In the last week, I have been having a heated argument with Randy
> Bauer about our relative strengths. The problem is that he played most
> of his chess in the 1980s and I played most of my chess in the 1960s.
> Not only can we not compare with each other but the USCF MSA Database
> does not start until 1991.

Sam, this is a great idea. In fact I was discussing collections of classic
games yesterday with Rob
Mitchell.

I referred him to what the Russians have done with their Rusbase, which you
can access via www.ruschess.com

A very similar idea to yours.

Phil

> I would like to see major historical tournaments added to the USCF
> online database. In particular, I would like to see every US Open
> going back to 1900 (when it was called the Western Open) added to the
> database.
>
> My first idea was to get the USCF staff to type this all in. However,
> now I have a better idea: Get volunteers to do it.
>
> For example, I played in the US Open in 1959, 1960, 1964 and 1966. I
> played in the US Junior in 1958, 1963 and 1964.
>
> I have the cross tables for the US Open in 1959 and 1966. I would be
> willing to volunteer to type in those cross tables myself.
>
> One problem is that back then there were no USCF ID numbers. Probably
> most of the players continued to play chess and later on got ID
> numbers. I would have to look them up and for those players who
> stopped playing perhaps a computer would assign them.
>
> The next problem would be how to get the data I have entered into the
> USCF online database. Mike Nolan would have to set up some procedure
> hereby we volunteers could enter cross tables into the database. A
> password system would have to be instituted. The games would be
> unrated but still the results would be there. I am sure that over time
> all the major USCF tournaments would get into the database and we
> would greatly benefit as a result.
>
> I would appreciate comments, especially from Mike Nolan.
>
> On another subject, Bill Goichberg indicated that the 2004 World Chess
> Olympiad in Spain would be USCF rated. Why was that not done?
>
> I propose to allow foreign tournaments such as the Championship of
> Iceland to be USCF rated as long as those countries are willing to pay
> the USCF rating fees.
>
> Sam Sloan

Date: 22 Jun 2005 04:16:01
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

I suspect that this is a function of geography. GMs and IMs are rather
thin on the ground in the midwest.

Wick Deer

Date: 22 Jun 2005 00:07:54
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

Yes, Paul has brought some clarity to the discussion.

Certainly no offense was meant to Mr. Bauer, and yes, I would consider
a 2300 who encountered GM opposition so rarely perhaps a bit on the
soft side (and did I note no wins against IMs? Certainly a bunch of
draws can compensate for that). But that is an opinion others might
not share, and certainly, numbers don't lie....

Date: 22 Jun 2005 10:57:05
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, Paul has brought some clarity to the discussion.
>
> Certainly no offense was meant to Mr. Bauer, and yes, I would consider
> a 2300 who encountered GM opposition so rarely perhaps a bit on the
> soft side (and did I note no wins against IMs? Certainly a bunch of
> draws can compensate for that). But that is an opinion others might
> not share, and certainly, numbers don't lie....

At the point of this tournament activity we probably had just one GM in the
Midwest, if 6 hours away in Chicago counts (Gurevich). The strongest player
in these parts for many years was IM Mike Brooks, who I played many times.
I probably should have beaten him in a game from the Midwest Open, which can
be found in my instructive games column on IM Jeremy Silman's website.

Randy Bauer

Date: 21 Jun 2005 21:06:17
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

I like Randy Bauer a lot as a member of the USCF Board, and although
our political and economic philosophies are probably light years apart,
I can appreciate expertise and success.

However, I reviewed the same record Sloan did on the MSA, and I would
consider how Bauer got to 2300 an "easy" approach. Was he master
strength? No doubt, but it was pretty obvious he hit 2300 on some soft
results..... But I have seen many people do worse... Certainly nothing
he did was immoral or against USCF rules....

Date: 22 Jun 2005 04:19:03
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I like Randy Bauer a lot as a member of the USCF Board, and although
> our political and economic philosophies are probably light years apart,
> I can appreciate expertise and success.
>
> However, I reviewed the same record Sloan did on the MSA, and I would
> consider how Bauer got to 2300 an "easy" approach. Was he master
> strength? No doubt, but it was pretty obvious he hit 2300 on some soft
> results..... But I have seen many people do worse... Certainly nothing
> he did was immoral or against USCF rules....

I guess I don't understand what was soft about it? It sure didn't seem soft
to me. Here are the statistics:

72 games as a master, 4 losses, to a GM, an IM, a NM and one single solitary
1974 player. 19 games with draws, average rating 2173. The rest were wins,
for an 80% score.

I also scored 80% against experts +25 -2 =13.

In my last tournament, the US Amateur Team Midwest, I beat former and future
master Peter Stein (2193) as well as two experts rated 2054 and 2039. My
next to last tournament was the South Dakota Governor's Cup, which was won
by GMs Serper and Palatnik ahead of GMs Wolf and Kudrin (to whom I lost in
the 4th round). It also included 13 other masters, and besides losing to
Kudrin, I beat players rated 2124 and 1930 and drew a player rated 2153.

This stretch also includes an Ames Chess Festival where I tied for first
with NM Sharrafuddin ahead of NM Kevin Burnett and future NM Ilya Karasek.
It also includes a Waterloo tournament where I finished clear first ahead of
NMs Bob Jacobs (with whom I drew in the 4th round in a game
I should have won), NM Dan Harger, and future NM Ilya Karasek (who I beat in
the last round).

Also included is a Goichberg tournament in Kansas City where I finished in
the money but behind the winners, which included IM Mike Brooks, NM Jim
McLaughlin (I drew with him in the last round) and tied with NM k
Schiffner (we drew in round 4) and ahead of NMs Andrew Witte, Bob Jacobs,
Ken Thomas, k Bohannan, and Alan Piper (who I beat in the third round).

There are also 3 Iowa State Closed Championships. Twice I finished second
behind NM Kevin Burnett and once third behind Burnett and IM tin Olesen
(in all three of those events I drew with Burnett in our game, and I also
drew with Olesen the year he finished ahead of me). There are also at least
2 tournaments where I finished second behind IM Mike Brooks. In half of the
tournaments I competed in as a master, I came in either first or second.

In short, there were lots of competitive tournaments with many strong
players. What, exactly, would you expect a 2300 player to do that I didn't
do?

Randy Bauer

Date: 21 Jun 2005 21:27:54
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > writes:
> 72 games as a master, 4 losses, to a GM, an IM, a NM and one single solitary
> 1974 player. 19 games with draws, average rating 2173. The rest were wins,
> for an 80% score.

What was the average rating of the opponents in those 49 wins?

Date: 22 Jun 2005 04:30:53
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Randy Bauer" <[email protected]> writes:
>> 72 games as a master, 4 losses, to a GM, an IM, a NM and one single
>> solitary
>> 1974 player. 19 games with draws, average rating 2173. The rest were
>> wins,
>> for an 80% score.
>
> What was the average rating of the opponents in those 49 wins?

Oh, god, I've got to go back and do another calculation... I don't know,
Paul, but wouldn't the fact I scored 80% against experts in 40 games be more
relavent? I mean, you can't really choose your early round opponents (even
though Sloan suggests I did), but that's a pretty good score against
experts, don't you think?

How many 2200 players score 80% against experts?

Randy Bauer

Date: 21 Jun 2005 21:52:19
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > writes:
> > What was the average rating of the opponents in those 49 wins?
>
> Oh, god, I've got to go back and do another calculation... I don't know,
> Paul, but wouldn't the fact I scored 80% against experts in 40 games be more
> relavent?

I'd say it shows you are very consistent at beating weaker players,
which is certainly nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't give Sloan a
chance against you.

What it doesn't show is how you do against other 2300 players. You
mention 19 draws against average opposition rating of 2173, but the
distribution of those opponent ratings is not mentioned.

Anyway, someone who consistently beats 2100's while drawing other
2300's and losing to IM's is a legitimate 2300 player. Someone whose
results are less consistent, who is likely to both lose to a 2100 and
beat a GM in the same event, is also a legitimate 2300 player. One
could reasonably claim that a player who's won some occasional good
games against GM's has better stories to tell than some other player
of the same rating who only beats experts (but does it consistently).

So, you're asking what people are looking for in an impressive 2300
player. I'd look for: 1) the expectation that if you pick ten random
2300 players out of the ratings list and play a game against each one,
that you'll get about an even score; 2) Being able to occasionally
manage to play at a very high level, beating IM's or GM's in good
quality games where nobody messed up.

> How many 2200 players score 80% against experts?

According to the USCF rating formula, a 2200 player should expect to
score about 76% against a 2000 player, if that's what you're asking.

Date: 22 Jun 2005 05:52:02
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

In article <[email protected] >, Paul Rubin
<http://[email protected] > wrote:

> I wouldn't give Sloan a chance against you.

I dunno. Was Sloan's plan to cause another candidate to jump up and down
for a week trumpeting his chess results?

--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061

Date: 22 Jun 2005 10:52:44
From: J�rgen R.
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:52:02 GMT, [email protected] (Frisco Del
Rosario) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Paul Rubin
><http://[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't give Sloan a chance against you.
>
>I dunno. Was Sloan's plan to cause another candidate to jump up and down
>for a week trumpeting his chess results?

Bauer is an unpleasant braggard. It's a miracle he and Sloan haven't
discussed the length of their dicks yet.

Date: 25 Jun 2005 00:04:26
From: Beatriz La Tortillera
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"J�rgen R." < > Bauer is an unpleasant braggard. It's a miracle he and Sloan
haven't discussed the length of their dicks yet.
>

You would be surprised at all the things Sloan & Bauer have done with their
dicks.

Date: 22 Jun 2005 05:04:38
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Randy Bauer" <[email protected]> writes:
>> > What was the average rating of the opponents in those 49 wins?
>>
>> Oh, god, I've got to go back and do another calculation... I don't know,
>> Paul, but wouldn't the fact I scored 80% against experts in 40 games be
>> more
>> relavent?
>
> I'd say it shows you are very consistent at beating weaker players,
> which is certainly nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't give Sloan a
> chance against you.
>
> What it doesn't show is how you do against other 2300 players. You
> mention 19 draws against average opposition rating of 2173, but the
> distribution of those opponent ratings is not mentioned.

Sorry, it was in an earlier post. Here are the numbers (I respect people
that are numbers people):

Losses: 2596, 2249, 2598, and 1979

Draws: 2153, 2232, 2235, 2338, 2237,1802, 2000, 1800, 2323, 2238, 2222,
2597, 1725, 2139, 2359, 2408,2034, 2380, 2046

I worked out the average on the wins (sorry, not wanting to post them all),
and it was 1899.

>
> Anyway, someone who consistently beats 2100's while drawing other
> 2300's and losing to IM's is a legitimate 2300 player. Someone whose
> results are less consistent, who is likely to both lose to a 2100 and
> beat a GM in the same event, is also a legitimate 2300 player. One
> could reasonably claim that a player who's won some occasional good
> games against GM's has better stories to tell than some other player
> of the same rating who only beats experts (but does it consistently).

I don't disagree. One of the things that I think happens for the Sloans of
the world, who regularly play in tournaments with GMs, is that when others
do not they think the results less than legitimate. In the Midwest, we
don't get many of those. However, Midwest players who go to national
tournaments often do very well.
>
> So, you're asking what people are looking for in an impressive 2300
> player. I'd look for: 1) the expectation that if you pick ten random
> 2300 players out of the ratings list and play a game against each one,
> that you'll get about an even score; 2) Being able to occasionally
> manage to play at a very high level, beating IM's or GM's in good
> quality games where nobody messed up.

My record against IM tin Olesen was quite good - in fact he told me that
I was his toughest opponent other than Kevin Burnett while in Iowa. I
scored -1 =5 or 6 with all my games as black, none of which was a quick
draw. My record with IM Mike Brooks is also reasonable, with 3 draws, one
of the quick variety, and 2 losses, although one of the losses probably
should have been a win. I confess to no wins against GMs, but I've only had
3 tournament games with them.
>
>> How many 2200 players score 80% against experts?
>
> According to the USCF rating formula, a 2200 player should expect to
> score about 76% against a 2000 player, if that's what you're asking.

Ok, so since I scored 80% against 2100 players, that should equal a 2300,
right?

Randy Bauer

Date: 21 Jun 2005 22:45:51
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Randy Bauer" <[email protected] > writes:
> Ok, so since I scored 80% against 2100 players, that should equal a 2300,
> right?

Yes, or actually a little higher, according to the USCF formula. Your
2300 rating is solid. I'd interpret your critics as realizing that
the USCF formula applies better to some players than others; that even
if the logistic distribution is the right model, against random
opponents, the dR/400 parameter might be more accurately dR/500 for
someone like Sloan and dR/300 for someone like you. Various ratings
statisticians have tried inventing composite ratings that take those
sorts of differences into account, but none has caught on.

There's some validity to the observation that most of your games in
absolute terms were against weaker opponents. When I was playing
actively, I always tried to get opponents who were a little bit
stronger than I was. Of course at the 2300 level outside of places
like NYC, such opponents can be harder to find.

Date: 22 Jun 2005 10:54:52
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Randy Bauer" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Ok, so since I scored 80% against 2100 players, that should equal a 2300,
>> right?
>
> Yes, or actually a little higher, according to the USCF formula. Your
> 2300 rating is solid. I'd interpret your critics as realizing that
> the USCF formula applies better to some players than others; that even
> if the logistic distribution is the right model, against random
> opponents, the dR/400 parameter might be more accurately dR/500 for
> someone like Sloan and dR/300 for someone like you. Various ratings
> statisticians have tried inventing composite ratings that take those
> sorts of differences into account, but none has caught on.
>
> There's some validity to the observation that most of your games in
> absolute terms were against weaker opponents. When I was playing
> actively, I always tried to get opponents who were a little bit
> stronger than I was. Of course at the 2300 level outside of places
> like NYC, such opponents can be harder to find.

Angelo made the point is often harder to gain or maintain a rating against
lower rated players. There are areas in the Midwest, and I've played in
some, where I believe that is the case. Still, when you go to tournaments
in and play GMS, IMs, and lots of NMs and only lose 4 games, it's hard for
me to understand the criticism.

Randy Bauer

Date: 21 Jun 2005 20:51:11
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

Sam Sloan wrote:
> Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives
>
> This is one of my pet projects which I hope to expand on if I am
> elected.

<SNIP >

Better start saving your unemployment now then.

If you even want to *try* and DREAM of getting elected it won't be for
many years to come. *YOU* just getting this idea off the ground will
cost you (personally) at LEAST $1500.00 cold, hard kiz-ash. And this
is, of course, a very conservative estimate.

MN

Date: 21 Jun 2005 20:34:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

Bill Smythe might know this...I think that in the 1960's & early 70's,
the major international tnmts WERE USCF rated, & the ratings not
published. This was necessary to figure out Fischer's true rating.

Date: 21 Jun 2005 20:25:15
From: Paul Rubin
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

[email protected] (Sam Sloan) writes:
> In the last week, I have been having a heated argument with Randy
> Bauer about our relative strengths.

Well that's easy to settle--just stop chickening out of playing a
match with him.

> I would like to see major historical tournaments added to the USCF
> online database. ... I am sure that over time
> all the major USCF tournaments would get into the database and we
> would greatly benefit as a result.

I'm very skeptical that all those scores (or even most of them) would
ever find their way into the database or else I'd be somewhat
supportive of the effort.

Anyway, I don't see why the USCF needs to be involved. Why not just
gather the scores without the USCF and put them on the web?

Date: 22 Jun 2005 03:54:01
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Expanding the USCF Tournament Archives

"Paul Rubin" <http://[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Sam Sloan) writes:
>> In the last week, I have been having a heated argument with Randy
>> Bauer about our relative strengths.
>
> Well that's easy to settle--just stop chickening out of playing a
> match with him.

Sloan tries to make people look smaller than him, but he can't when it comes
to our tournament performance.

As I've noted, in the tournaments as a master on the MSA site (which miss
several of my best tournaments), I still score over 80% in 72 games, with
only 4 losses, against a GM, IM, NM and 1 class player. My 19 draws are
against 2173 average players. Among all the games on the USCF MSA site,
against experts, which is the best Sloan has done, I scored 79% -- +25 -2
=13. Against those rated 2100-2199, I actually scored slightly better at
80% -- +9 -0 =6.

No wonder Sloan doesn't want to play.

Randy Bauer