Main Date: 04 Apr 2008 06:12:56 From: Subject: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Sam, > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially ludicrous example involving myself: "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many others. One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that Rev. Walker is fully informed.   Date: 07 Apr 2008 19:28:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 3:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. "... a stooge for the Evans ratpack". -- help bot This guy reminds me of "Jr", a fellow who somehow got caught in the middle of the rat pack's attacks on "anons". Some speculated that "Jr" might be LE, and very soon he disappeared into the sunset. I am only pointing this out so that Sam Sloan cannot later take the "credit" for scooping the story; if it turns out that "Jr" and Rev. Walker are one and the same stooge, I tossed it out there first. In any case, you can fuggetabout any grudge matches, unless I get my usual Queen odds; I don't care how old the guy is-- he used to be /really good/! -- help bot   Date: 07 Apr 2008 18:48:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: The Elo System On Apr 6, 12:09 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. > >> However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor > >> Kingston is. In the above comment, Mr. Sloan obviously intended to convey that he has never had a *FIDE* rating, but he wrote "Elo rating". Why? The answer is clearly his need to wrangle the facts such as to attack Taylor Kingston -- an annoying critic of the Evans ratpackers. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's an obvious flaw in the USCF ratings, which has been noted by others and a fix already envisioned: there are, believe it or not, chess tourneys in which a player can be given more Blacks than Whites, and this in turn can skew the results. The format I describe is called a "quad", and in a quad, one not only is never forced to play against oneself (whew!), but can be given White against patzers and Black against the top seed(s), where one "needed" the White. Worse, this can happen over and over, as the players are seeded by ratings, and these rankings can remain fairly stable over time. Luckily, I am as bad with one color as with the other, but many folks can get a skewed result from this kind of thing. The point of chess ratings should be their ability to accurately predict game outcomes, but so long as premature draws and other such problems exist, the best we can do is eradicate the obvious flaws, as described above. -- help bot   Date: 07 Apr 2008 17:07:03 From: Subject: Re: "nothing is revealed" #1 Google hit http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/frankielee.html [...] Well, up the stairs ran Frankie Lee With a soulful, bounding leap, And, foaming at the mouth, He began to make his midnight creep. For sixteen nights and days he raved, But on the seventeenth he burst Into the arms of Judas Priest, Which is where he died of thirst. No one tried to say a thing When they took him out in jest, Except, of course, the little neighbor boy Who carried him to rest. And he just walked along, alone, With his guilt so well concealed, And muttered underneath his breath, "Nothing is revealed." Well, the moral of the story, The moral of this song, Is simply that one should never be Where one does not belong. So when you see your neighbor carryin' somethin', Help him with his load, And don't go mistaking Paradise For that home across the road.   Date: 07 Apr 2008 16:59:53 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 7, 11:00=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > An analogy I would make is with grades at a university. These are > taken very seriously; there is no doubt more possibility for > corruption than in the USCF rating system. There are people who have > cheated the system in various ways, no doubt even including people > giving money for grades in rare cases. > > There is not any organized attempt to determine whether an > individual's grades were tampered with. When it does come to light, it > is usually very much like Sam's case; someone cannot understand how > this individual received such a grade, and pursues the inquiry. We > certainly have no special checks on our honor's list students. > > I would not expect to find that the USCF has better system for catchin > abuse than a university. > > As for quality control, the university and the USCF do very much the > same thing. They monitor inflation/deflation of grades/ratings, and > use various tools with varying degrees of success o try to make sure > they do not get out of control. Just to make this clear, let me say that the analogy is not to a student cheating. A student cheating is a reasonably common event, and the university is fairly vigilant. This is like the procedures in chess to guard against a player cheating during the game. The rare event is a TD/professor or graduate student cheating. This is (I hope!) a very rare event, which is why there is not much attention in either the chess world or the university to it. It is more serious than a student/player cheating despite the rarity, and can do more damage. In both cases, it is an issue of the people we trust to make the system run actively undermining the system. It is usually exposed in both cases only due to some accident, not because of fixed procedures in place which guard against it. Jerry Spinrad > > All in all, the USCF rating system is one of the few things the USCF > has gotten right. There are many worse areas to focus on, and it seems > strange to pick on the ratings system as a major feature of USCF > incompetence. The magazine, management, and promotion are all far more > important problem areas. > > Note to those who remember the distant past: I still feel that the > lowering of K factor for high rated players is not a good decision. > However, I would not call this incompetence or abuse; simply a > disagreement. > > Jerry Spinrad > > On Apr 6, 8:23=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, "[email protected]" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > > > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > > > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > > > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > > > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > > > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > > > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > > > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > > > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > > > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > > > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > > > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > > > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is= > > > all on the trusted individual. > > > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > > > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > > > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > > > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > > > strange way of looking at the case. > > > > JerrySpinrad > > > I agree the fault is on the 'trusted' individual, but one can make the > > case there should be some sort of oversight applied to title > > applications. I haven't the faintest idea of how this should be done, > > or indeed if USCF needs to place such oversight in place following > > Tannergate. P Innes, as usual, doesn't make any sort of argument one > > way or another other than waving his hands and screaming.- Hide quoted t= ext - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 07 Apr 2008 19:04:44 From: Guy Macon Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed [email protected] wrote: >This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. > >It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but >very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to >check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief >job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Is that specified in the ratings committee job description? The rating committee should make a reasonable effort to police the system against cheating. If the only job of the rating committee is to set up a good system, the committee should have been disbanded once the system was set up. >Every rating system can be manipulated by a cheater placed in >a position of trust. That's not true. Systems exist where no one person can cheat the system; any CPA can set up such a system for you. >I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at >fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball >league at fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of >gamblers. In both cases, whether the organization is at fault hinges on the nature of the cheating. If it was subtle cheating that nobody could have caught, the organization is not at fault. If it was blatent cheating that anybody should have been able to catch, or if they were tipped off and ignored the tip, then the organization is at fault This does not, of course, reduce the guilt of the atcual cheater. Someone playing the same high-rated player over and over -- a high rated player who never plays anyone else -- is trivially easy to spot. Any sports federation that doesn't commision someone to write software that catches such blatant cheating is simply not doing their job. -- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >   Date: 07 Apr 2008 09:00:28 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed An analogy I would make is with grades at a university. These are taken very seriously; there is no doubt more possibility for corruption than in the USCF rating system. There are people who have cheated the system in various ways, no doubt even including people giving money for grades in rare cases. There is not any organized attempt to determine whether an individual's grades were tampered with. When it does come to light, it is usually very much like Sam's case; someone cannot understand how this individual received such a grade, and pursues the inquiry. We certainly have no special checks on our honor's list students. I would not expect to find that the USCF has better system for catchin abuse than a university. As for quality control, the university and the USCF do very much the same thing. They monitor inflation/deflation of grades/ratings, and use various tools with varying degrees of success o try to make sure they do not get out of control. All in all, the USCF rating system is one of the few things the USCF has gotten right. There are many worse areas to focus on, and it seems strange to pick on the ratings system as a major feature of USCF incompetence. The magazine, management, and promotion are all far more important problem areas. Note to those who remember the distant past: I still feel that the lowering of K factor for high rated players is not a good decision. However, I would not call this incompetence or abuse; simply a disagreement. Jerry Spinrad On Apr 6, 8:23=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > > all on the trusted individual. > > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > > strange way of looking at the case. > > > JerrySpinrad > > I agree the fault is on the 'trusted' individual, but one can make the > case there should be some sort of oversight applied to title > applications. I haven't the faintest idea of how this should be done, > or indeed if USCF needs to place such oversight in place following > Tannergate. P Innes, as usual, doesn't make any sort of argument one > way or another other than waving his hands and screaming.- Hide quoted tex= t - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 07 Apr 2008 14:19:07 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed <[email protected] > wrote in message news:c05bcc14-bd8d-4862-8e78-6551ecd9aa5d@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... An analogy I would make is with grades at a university. These are taken very seriously; there is no doubt more possibility for corruption than in the USCF rating system. There are people who have cheated the system in various ways, no doubt even including people giving money for grades in rare cases. There is not any organized attempt to determine whether an individual's grades were tampered with. When it does come to light, it is usually very much like Sam's case; someone cannot understand how this individual received such a grade, and pursues the inquiry. We certainly have no special checks on our honor's list students. I would not expect to find that the USCF has better system for catchin abuse than a university. -------- ** fine feathers! uscf cannot admit to any system to invigilate even a master rating - in the past 24 hours i have cited 2 instances! colleges do have systems, which may or may not be extaordinary, but even high schools have systems for catching plagiarists. i fail to understand why jerry spinrad seems to be acting as proxy agent for ken sloan, and why he suggests that having no qc is a-ok? ** if indeed uscf has no control systems whatever, it merely needs to say so, not argue about it, or justify it, or pretend there is system while none exists - its plain old truth telling that is required, rather than argumentation which merely obfusticates the issue of what is there and what is not ** here is yet another distrait post which admits nothing of what goes on, and where nothing is revealed phil innes ------- As for quality control, the university and the USCF do very much the same thing. They monitor inflation/deflation of grades/ratings, and use various tools with varying degrees of success o try to make sure they do not get out of control. All in all, the USCF rating system is one of the few things the USCF has gotten right. There are many worse areas to focus on, and it seems strange to pick on the ratings system as a major feature of USCF incompetence. The magazine, management, and promotion are all far more important problem areas. Note to those who remember the distant past: I still feel that the lowering of K factor for high rated players is not a good decision. However, I would not call this incompetence or abuse; simply a disagreement. Jerry Spinrad On Apr 6, 8:23 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > > all on the trusted individual. > > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > > strange way of looking at the case. > > > JerrySpinrad > > I agree the fault is on the 'trusted' individual, but one can make the > case there should be some sort of oversight applied to title > applications. I haven't the faintest idea of how this should be done, > or indeed if USCF needs to place such oversight in place following > Tannergate. P Innes, as usual, doesn't make any sort of argument one > way or another other than waving his hands and screaming.- Hide quoted > text - > > - Show quoted text -   Date: 06 Apr 2008 19:48:59 From: samsloan Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 9:19 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > And I agree with several others that it seems to be a very bad idea for > the man to be continuing as a TD after what has happened. It appears > that the sanctions applied to Mr. Tanner were basically Bill Murray > style, "Aren't you the naughty one! You better be good! Now get out of > here you knucklehead!!" > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. I personally was not out to get Tanner. I discovered this ratings manipulation purely by accident while I was looking for something else. I basically was having an argument with Jerry Hanken who was claiming that Tanner was "never a master" whereas I was claiming that he was. I started looking at Tanner's tournament results. At first I thought I was hallucinating, seeing things, and finally I realized what was going on. I filed my ethics complaint but did not tell anybody about it. I decided just to let the wheels of justice grind. Nobody knew about it until the Ethics Committee made its decision months later. The actual ratings manipulation took place in 1992 and 1993. However, sources who knew him back in the 1980s say that he was manipulating his rating even back then. Basically it seems that his real chess strength is about 1900 but he manipulated his rating up to 2300. On the other hand, he is one of the most experienced and qualified TDs. How many other directors have experience running tournaments with 4,000 screaming kids running around? I see little point in revoking his TD Certification. Sam Sloan   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:54:54 From: samsloan Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > samsloan wrote: > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > > The whole story is at: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > > supposedly was rated over 2300. > > > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > > Sam Sloan > > Sam, > > Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail > upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface > appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much > research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your > research skills in this instance./ > > However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps > someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of > this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the > reportage of this event? > > What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. What happened was the Ethics Committee by a vote of 6-3 found that Tanner had manipulated his own rating and voted to reprimand him (only). Then Goichberg made a (secret) deal with Tanner that if he would resign from the board and from all his FIDE Positions, which included his position as USA Zone President, no further action would be taken against him, such as revoking his TD Certification. Tanner accepted this deal and went back to Arizona and nothing further has been heard from him. However, I understand from other sources that upon his return to Arizona, once the schools where he was running chess classes found out about this, he lost all his teaching jobs and those jobs were given to other chess teachers. I have heard that Tanner is completely out of chess now. I must say that Tanner behaved like a gentleman throughout this entire affair. He never uttered even one word of recrimination or anything like that. The first time I have ever heard anybody say that this was some sort of political vendetta or anything like that was the inappropriate posting by Phil Innes today. Sam Sloan     Date: 06 Apr 2008 19:19:18 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed samsloan wrote: > On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> samsloan wrote: > >>> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >>> The whole story is at: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... >>> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >>> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >>> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >>> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >>> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >>> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >>> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >>> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >>> supposedly was rated over 2300. >>> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. >>> Sam Sloan >> Sam, >> >> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail >> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface >> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much >> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your >> research skills in this instance./ >> >> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be >> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps >> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of >> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the >> reportage of this event? >> >> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > What happened was the Ethics Committee by a vote of 6-3 found that > Tanner had manipulated his own rating and voted to reprimand him > (only). > > Then Goichberg made a (secret) deal with Tanner that if he would > resign from the board and from all his FIDE Positions, which included > his position as USA Zone President, no further action would be taken > against him, such as revoking his TD Certification. > > Tanner accepted this deal and went back to Arizona and nothing further > has been heard from him. > > However, I understand from other sources that upon his return to > Arizona, once the schools where he was running chess classes found out > about this, he lost all his teaching jobs and those jobs were given to > other chess teachers. I have heard that Tanner is completely out of > chess now. > > I must say that Tanner behaved like a gentleman throughout this entire > affair. He never uttered even one word of recrimination or anything > like that. The first time I have ever heard anybody say that this was > some sort of political vendetta or anything like that was the > inappropriate posting by Phil Innes today. > > Sam Sloan Sam, There is information about a tournament called the SMART CHESS VALENTINE'S TOURNAMENT held on 2008-02-23 at GILBERT, AZ 85299 USA. I find this on the USCF ratings search site. There were three sections, a K3, a K6, and an Open. Robert B Tanner is listed as Assistant TD in all three sections. A Cassandra J Tanner shows up in the K3 event. Robert B Tanner also is listed as a player in the Open section. I think it is safe to conclude that the man is still active in USCF chess. Thanks for the information about how this was handled after the charge was filed with the Ethics Committee. The "secret deal" you mentioned does concern me. This is what I think of as "burying the corpse and trying to pretend it never happened." If there had been a more public treatment of this, perhaps other important things would have been uncovered. Perhaps better safeguards would have been devised to prevent it in the future. And I agree with several others that it seems to be a very bad idea for the man to be continuing as a TD after what has happened. It appears that the sanctions applied to Mr. Tanner were basically Bill Murray style, "Aren't you the naughty one! You better be good! Now get out of here you knucklehead!!" -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:32:27 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed David Kane wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > > generally regarded as suspect. > > I think most of Sam's critics would concede that he was basically > right in this case. Yes, the stopped clock was right for once. It was never determined that Tanner's > opponents were "fake", though. (personally I think it the most likely > scenario although there are other possibilities, none of which > make Tanner's behavior look any better) > > That somebody could file phony tournament reports and still be > a TD - that's USCF "standards" for you. He should have been stripped of his TD authority. > It really has nothing to do with the rating function or rating > committee. There will always be ways to game the system. Agreed.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:27:09 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 8:22 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > The Historian wrote: > > On Apr 6, 7:57 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > >>> is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > >>> member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > >>> committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > >>> nobody at fault here except for the board member. > >>> It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > >>> very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > >>> check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > >>> job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > >>> can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > >>> rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > >>> case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > >>> fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > >>> fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > >>> all on the trusted individual. > >>> For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > >>> ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > >>> job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > >>> particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > >>> strange way of looking at the case. > >>> Jerry Spinrad > >>> On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> samsloan wrote: > >>>>> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Chess One wrote: > >>>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>>>>>news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a > >>>>>>>>> board > >>>>>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. > >>>>>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > >>>>>>>> What board member resigned, and why? > >>>>>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > >>>>>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a > >>>>>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > >>>>>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for > >>>>>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed > >>>>>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two > >>>>>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > >>>>>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > >>>>>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's > >>>>>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master > >>>>>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of > >>>>>>> play. > >>>>>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged > >>>>>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who > >>>>>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR > >>>>>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the > >>>>>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > >>>>>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at > >>>>>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this > >>>>>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has > >>>>>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', > >>>>>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system > >>>>>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show > >>>>>>> if anything changed. > >>>>>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > >>>>>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor > >>>>>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a > >>>>>>> Fide postion... > >>>>>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. > >>>>>>> Phil Innes > >>>>>>>> Sam Sloan > >>>>>> Phil, > >>>>>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > >>>>>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > >>>>>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Cordially, > >>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > >>>>> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > >>>>> The whole story is at: > >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > >>>>> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > >>>>> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > >>>>> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > >>>>> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > >>>>> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > >>>>> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > >>>>> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > >>>>> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > >>>>> supposedly was rated over 2300. > >>>>> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > >>>>> Sam Sloan > >>>> Sam, > >>>> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail > >>>> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface > >>>> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much > >>>> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your > >>>> research skills in this instance./ > >>>> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > >>>> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps > >>>> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of > >>>> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the > >>>> reportage of this event? > >>>> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > >>>> -- > >>>> Cordially, > >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >> I have spent quite a few hours today searching around the Web based on > >> the search terms "USCF Ratings scandal." There has been lots to read. > >> One thing is noticeable by its absence -- An official account of the > >> Tanner scandal by the USCF. I see where the man was charged, where he > >> eventually apologized, and where he resigned -- then nothing. Perhaps > >> the official report is confined in some members-only area of the USCF > >> web site which I will never see, because I am not going to rejoin... > > >> I notice that Mr. Tanner is still directing tournaments and playing in > >> them. The tournament cross table I looked at showed him getting a bye > >> then drawing a game and then forfeiting two games. As he was the Asst. > >> TD perhaps he only joined to round out the number of players... > > >> Meanwhile... I encountered this statement at Mig Greengard's blog in an > >> old entry dated July 10, 2006. "That Michigan Class A player who > >> allegedly cheated in Philly is facing perhaps very serious sanctions > >> such as a lifetime ban from playing in USCF tournaments." Consider the > >> fairness of the sanctions between these two cases... > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > Let's see. You 'can't find' a report on possible sanctions against > > Tanner, so you conclude one doesn't exist. > > No, I did not conclude... I indicated that I could not find it. > > You bring up a speculative > > > new report from a blog posting by someone outside of the USCF and draw > > a comparison between it and what you can't find for Tanner based > > solely on what MAY happen at some point. > > I asked people to consider the fairness involved in the sanctions that > were mentioned in both cases. If you don't want to fine. Don't. > > And all this in defense of > > > drivel P Innes posted about Dr. Sloan. No wonder you find Sam Sloan's > > research skills 'fierce.' > > I am not defending Sam Sloan, Phil Innes, Mr. Spinrad, Ken Sloan, David > Kane, or you. I am simply trying to inquire and learn some things. Do > you have anything informative or useful to contribute to this thread? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. Pointing out bad arguments and flawed thinking is a contribution. Unfortunately, it's both needed and unwelcome here.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:23:53 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > all on the trusted individual. > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > strange way of looking at the case. > > Jerry Spinrad I agree the fault is on the 'trusted' individual, but one can make the case there should be some sort of oversight applied to title applications. I haven't the faintest idea of how this should be done, or indeed if USCF needs to place such oversight in place following Tannergate. P Innes, as usual, doesn't make any sort of argument one way or another other than waving his hands and screaming.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:15:13 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 3:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chess One wrote: > > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > >> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a > > >>> board > > >>> member to resign! That's not false. > > > >> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > > > >> What board member resigned, and why? > > > > I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > > > fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a > > > title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > > > > But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for > > > ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed > > > tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two > > > at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > > > > At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > > > departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's > > > the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master > > > with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of > > > play. > > > > I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged > > > him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who > > > oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR > > > newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the > > > usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > > > > Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at > > > USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this > > > happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has > > > ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', > > > which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system > > > with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show > > > if anything changed. > > > > Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > > > ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor > > > is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a > > > Fide postion... > > > > Makes a change to getting a watch. > > > > Phil Innes > > > >> Sam Sloan > > > Phil, > > > This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > > investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > > more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > > -- > > > Cordially, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > The whole story is at:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > supposedly was rated over 2300. > > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > Sam Sloan Agreed. It's more P Innes drivel.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:13:24 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 7:57 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > > all on the trusted individual. > > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > > strange way of looking at the case. > > > Jerry Spinrad > > > On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> samsloan wrote: > >>> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Chess One wrote: > >>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>>>news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a > >>>>>>> board > >>>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. > >>>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > >>>>>> What board member resigned, and why? > >>>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > >>>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a > >>>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > >>>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for > >>>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed > >>>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two > >>>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > >>>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > >>>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's > >>>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master > >>>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of > >>>>> play. > >>>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged > >>>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who > >>>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR > >>>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the > >>>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > >>>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at > >>>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this > >>>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has > >>>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', > >>>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system > >>>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show > >>>>> if anything changed. > >>>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > >>>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor > >>>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a > >>>>> Fide postion... > >>>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. > >>>>> Phil Innes > >>>>>> Sam Sloan > >>>> Phil, > >>>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > >>>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > >>>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > >>>> -- > >>>> Cordially, > >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > >>> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > >>> The whole story is at: > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > >>> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > >>> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > >>> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > >>> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > >>> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > >>> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > >>> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > >>> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > >>> supposedly was rated over 2300. > >>> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > >>> Sam Sloan > >> Sam, > > >> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail > >> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface > >> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much > >> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your > >> research skills in this instance./ > > >> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > >> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps > >> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of > >> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the > >> reportage of this event? > > >> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > I have spent quite a few hours today searching around the Web based on > the search terms "USCF Ratings scandal." There has been lots to read. > One thing is noticeable by its absence -- An official account of the > Tanner scandal by the USCF. I see where the man was charged, where he > eventually apologized, and where he resigned -- then nothing. Perhaps > the official report is confined in some members-only area of the USCF > web site which I will never see, because I am not going to rejoin... > > I notice that Mr. Tanner is still directing tournaments and playing in > them. The tournament cross table I looked at showed him getting a bye > then drawing a game and then forfeiting two games. As he was the Asst. > TD perhaps he only joined to round out the number of players... > > Meanwhile... I encountered this statement at Mig Greengard's blog in an > old entry dated July 10, 2006. "That Michigan Class A player who > allegedly cheated in Philly is facing perhaps very serious sanctions > such as a lifetime ban from playing in USCF tournaments." Consider the > fairness of the sanctions between these two cases... > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. Let's see. You 'can't find' a report on possible sanctions against Tanner, so you conclude one doesn't exist. You bring up a speculative new report from a blog posting by someone outside of the USCF and draw a comparison between it and what you can't find for Tanner based solely on what MAY happen at some point. And all this in defense of drivel P Innes posted about Dr. Sloan. No wonder you find Sam Sloan's research skills 'fierce.'     Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:22:35 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed The Historian wrote: > On Apr 6, 7:57 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It >>> is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board >>> member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating >>> committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is >>> nobody at fault here except for the board member. >>> It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but >>> very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to >>> check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief >>> job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system >>> can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is >>> rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only >>> case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at >>> fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at >>> fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is >>> all on the trusted individual. >>> For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had >>> ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good >>> job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in >>> particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very >>> strange way of looking at the case. >>> Jerry Spinrad >>> On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> samsloan wrote: >>>>> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Chess One wrote: >>>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>>>>>>>> board >>>>>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>>>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>>>>>>> What board member resigned, and why? >>>>>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >>>>>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a >>>>>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >>>>>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for >>>>>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed >>>>>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two >>>>>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >>>>>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >>>>>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's >>>>>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master >>>>>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of >>>>>>> play. >>>>>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged >>>>>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who >>>>>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR >>>>>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the >>>>>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >>>>>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at >>>>>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this >>>>>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has >>>>>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', >>>>>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system >>>>>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show >>>>>>> if anything changed. >>>>>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >>>>>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor >>>>>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a >>>>>>> Fide postion... >>>>>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >>>>>>> Phil Innes >>>>>>>> Sam Sloan >>>>>> Phil, >>>>>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >>>>>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >>>>>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Cordially, >>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>>>> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >>>>> The whole story is at: >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... >>>>> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >>>>> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >>>>> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >>>>> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >>>>> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >>>>> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >>>>> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >>>>> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >>>>> supposedly was rated over 2300. >>>>> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. >>>>> Sam Sloan >>>> Sam, >>>> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail >>>> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface >>>> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much >>>> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your >>>> research skills in this instance./ >>>> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be >>>> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps >>>> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of >>>> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the >>>> reportage of this event? >>>> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? >>>> -- >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >> I have spent quite a few hours today searching around the Web based on >> the search terms "USCF Ratings scandal." There has been lots to read. >> One thing is noticeable by its absence -- An official account of the >> Tanner scandal by the USCF. I see where the man was charged, where he >> eventually apologized, and where he resigned -- then nothing. Perhaps >> the official report is confined in some members-only area of the USCF >> web site which I will never see, because I am not going to rejoin... >> >> I notice that Mr. Tanner is still directing tournaments and playing in >> them. The tournament cross table I looked at showed him getting a bye >> then drawing a game and then forfeiting two games. As he was the Asst. >> TD perhaps he only joined to round out the number of players... >> >> Meanwhile... I encountered this statement at Mig Greengard's blog in an >> old entry dated July 10, 2006. "That Michigan Class A player who >> allegedly cheated in Philly is facing perhaps very serious sanctions >> such as a lifetime ban from playing in USCF tournaments." Consider the >> fairness of the sanctions between these two cases... >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > Let's see. You 'can't find' a report on possible sanctions against > Tanner, so you conclude one doesn't exist. No, I did not conclude... I indicated that I could not find it. You bring up a speculative > new report from a blog posting by someone outside of the USCF and draw > a comparison between it and what you can't find for Tanner based > solely on what MAY happen at some point. I asked people to consider the fairness involved in the sanctions that were mentioned in both cases. If you don't want to fine. Don't. And all this in defense of > drivel P Innes posted about Dr. Sloan. No wonder you find Sam Sloan's > research skills 'fierce.' I am not defending Sam Sloan, Phil Innes, Mr. Spinrad, Ken Sloan, David Kane, or you. I am simply trying to inquire and learn some things. Do you have anything informative or useful to contribute to this thread? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 07 Apr 2008 19:55:26 From: Guy Macon Subject: Posting hints J.D. Walker wrote: >Do you have anything informative or useful to contribute to this thread? I do! :) Posting hints Here are some references for those who are interested in improving the quality of their posts to newsgroups: -------------------------------------------------------- How do I quote correctly in usenet? http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings http://www.xs4all.nl/%7ewijnands/nnq/nquote.html How do I quote correctly in Usenet? - Quoting and Answering http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html Common Mistakes in Usenet Postings and How to Avoid Them http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/mail-news-errors.html Quoting and Answering http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ How should I react to crackpot messages? http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/crackpot.html How should I react to abusive postings or email? http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/abusive.html How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html The power of negative thinking: how to excel without doing anything http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html Netiquette: "When thou enter a city, abide by its customs." http://www.montebello.k12.ca.us/Resources/Roadmap/map07.html Zen and the art of the internet (usenet section) http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html Why you shouldn't ask for E-mail responses on Usenet http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/mail-responses.html The Word Made Flesh http://www.hoboes.com/html/NetLife/Joy/TheWordMadeFlesh.html Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html +What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"? http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/quote.html Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes with this automated fix! http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ For the Engineer/Programmer: News related RFCs and Drafts http://www.tin.org/docs.html I hope this helps...   Date: 06 Apr 2008 16:11:47 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is nobody at fault here except for the board member. It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is all on the trusted individual. For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very strange way of looking at the case. Jerry Spinrad On Apr 6, 3:50=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > samsloan wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Chess One wrote: > >>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com.= .. > >>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned= a > >>>>> board > >>>>> member to resign! That's not false. > >>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > >>>> What board member resigned, and why? > >>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > >>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accep= t a > >>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > >>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was f= or > >>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in clo= sed > >>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point = or two > >>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > >>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > >>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [= that's > >>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-mast= er > >>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's le= vel of > >>> play. > >>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encoura= ged > >>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the g= uy who > >>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in = YOUR > >>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with a= ll the > >>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > >>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common = one at > >>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has th= is > >>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he= has > >>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has change= d', > >>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's syst= em > >>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to = show > >>> if anything changed. > >>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > >>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings f= loor > >>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and i= nto a > >>> Fide postion... > >>> Makes a change to getting a watch. > >>> Phil Innes > >>>> Sam Sloan > >> Phil, > > >> This incident is pretty interesting. =A0Was it ever published in an > >> investigative article that I could read on the net? =A0I'd love to know= > >> more. =A0If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation= . > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > > The whole story is at: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against =A0Milan Djiatlich, who > > supposedly was rated over 2300. > > > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > > Sam Sloan > > Sam, > > Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. =A0I am going to once again sail > upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface > appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much > research. =A0If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your > research skills in this instance./ > > However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > generally regarded as suspect. =A0Since this is a past event perhaps > someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of > this event. =A0Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the > reportage of this event? > > What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 07 Apr 2008 07:21:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed <[email protected] > wrote in message news:49d2e00f-24c5-4de3-b02f-0e3f49f783f4@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com... This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is nobody at fault here except for the board member. It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but very hard in practice. ** I didn't say the committee should catch anything - I indicated the committee supervises paid staff and that a committee member was criticising other ratings agencies in the US for their poor QC - and given these circumstances of no explanation for Tanner's award, this was pure hypocracy. ** What we don't understand is if there is any QC at USCF, since the ratings department seem not to notice this instance, the ratings committee seem not to invigilate even those attaining a title and a ratings floor [lol] - AND yet another department who grants the title ALSO not even looking at the player record. ** Therefore my questions to Ken Sloan were (a) who IS responsible for QC, and (b) how many OTHERS are there like this? ** Of course the board member was at fault, but 'blame' doesn't seem appropriate, which is merely scapegoating an individual for what is both individual and systemic error. As we see, this person continues to be a TD, which means he continues to have to do with the ratings system which seems to stem from a 'deal' made with Bill Goichberg, who, as many people know, also runs tournaments. ** The Answers to (a) and (b) above are unknown, and the gnomic responses by Ken Sloan further confound things - since the implications are that he cannot address the issues, and that therefore no investigation has taken place into how many others, no procedures put in place to prevent further abuse, and that the same situation can occur tomorrow. ** Perhaps Jerry Spinrad is correct, and it is impossible to do so - which is all thet Ken Sloan would need state - but then at least we understand what QC is in place in the national ratings system, which is to say, none at all. Phil Innes There are too many pieces of data coming in to check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is all on the trusted individual. For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very strange way of looking at the case. Jerry Spinrad On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > samsloan wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Chess One wrote: > >>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned > >>>>> a > >>>>> board > >>>>> member to resign! That's not false. > >>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > >>>> What board member resigned, and why? > >>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > >>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to > >>> accept a > >>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > >>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was > >>> for > >>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in > >>> closed > >>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point > >>> or two > >>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > >>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > >>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way > >>> [that's > >>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a > >>> life-master > >>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's > >>> level of > >>> play. > >>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and > >>> encouraged > >>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the > >>> guy who > >>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in > >>> YOUR > >>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with > >>> all the > >>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > >>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common > >>> one at > >>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has > >>> this > >>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he > >>> has > >>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has > >>> changed', > >>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's > >>> system > >>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to > >>> show > >>> if anything changed. > >>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > >>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings > >>> floor > >>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and > >>> into a > >>> Fide postion... > >>> Makes a change to getting a watch. > >>> Phil Innes > >>>> Sam Sloan > >> Phil, > > >> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > >> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > >> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > > The whole story is at: > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... > > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > > supposedly was rated over 2300. > > > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > > Sam Sloan > > Sam, > > Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail > upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface > appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much > research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your > research skills in this instance./ > > However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps > someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of > this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the > reportage of this event? > > What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -       Date: 07 Apr 2008 12:01:16 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: [email protected]> the > committee supervises paid staff False. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/       Date: 07 Apr 2008 08:04:38 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:49d2e00f-24c5-4de3-b02f-0e3f49f783f4@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > There are too many pieces of data coming in to > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > case. Just to restate my original emphasis which is quite different though not in conflict from that of Sam Sloan who discovered the error, and in fact was able to partially correct it. It is the partiality of the fix which is the on-going issue. So much at USCF seems based entirely at a personality level played among its own burocrats, that the system itself does not change, but simply continues after a stumble with new characters in place. My question to Dr. Sloan is what /systemic/ investigations and remedies were enacted after this instance, which, as Jerry Spinrad points out, are /not/ unique circumstances. But replies by apologists of the system continue to cast their statements in terms of what is not possible to do - eg, not to 'police' the 'good' system. So whose job is it to 'police' or provide any level of invigilation over the ratings system? Is that not part of the 'good' system? The series of null responses, and the absense of positive declaratory statements by Ken Sloan himself, indicate that the 'good' system has no apparent quality police. Randy Bauer's pre-election statements at Chessville [2 sets of them] stressed asking people at USCF to be responsible for what they do, and to effect checks and balances on work. When I asked him directly to address this issue, and also another rather larger issue, he declared to me that since it was before his time of office, then it is not his brief to address it. Paul Truong has also asked after other issues to do with corporate behavior, and not received any board support with the obvious exception of GM Polgar, and sometimes Joel Channing. This personality approach rather skates over the problem, which is that it is a /continuous/ problem. Not the least of which is that we now learn that someone with a 20 year record of submitting peculiar individual results, who resigned a baord seat specifically on this issue, is still in a position as TD to influence the games of others. But let us not beat on the unfortunate Mr. Tanner. I do not see any attention has been paid to the nations rating system, even after this instance, and even to the extent that Jerry Spinrad has to apologise for Ken Sloan's 'good' system by admitting that quality invigilation is absent from it. Just think! This person attained a national title, a ratings floor, and no one seemed to have looked at even /this/ record. I feel my critique is entirely valid in suspecting that nothing whatever happened at USCF in terms of its systemic behavior as result of this cheating - and that is all I want to establish - I have no interest in persecuting Tanner, nor Dr. Sloan, nor have any personality animus - its the RATINGS issue which is important, and I conclude that it is as compromised as could be speculated upon - all the heat of the issue being of personalities, and nothing to impersonal resolution. That is what super sleuth Sam Sloan's activity is inadequate - which is not to necessarily critcise Sloan, after all, there were other board members, paid staff, and countless committee members also engaged and knowledgeable of this issue. Phil Innes > I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > all on the trusted individual. > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > strange way of looking at the case. > > Jerry Spinrad > > On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> samsloan wrote: >> > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Chess One wrote: >> >>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >>>news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department >> >>>>> occassioned a >> >>>>> board >> >>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >> >>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >> >>>> What board member resigned, and why? >> >>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >> >>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to >> >>> accept a >> >>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >> >>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was >> >>> for >> >>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in >> >>> closed >> >>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point >> >>> or two >> >>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >> >>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >> >>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way >> >>> [that's >> >>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a >> >>> life-master >> >>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's >> >>> level of >> >>> play. >> >>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and >> >>> encouraged >> >>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the >> >>> guy who >> >>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in >> >>> YOUR >> >>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with >> >>> all the >> >>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >> >>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common >> >>> one at >> >>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has >> >>> this >> >>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing >> >>> he has >> >>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has >> >>> changed', >> >>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's >> >>> system >> >>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to >> >>> show >> >>> if anything changed. >> >>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >> >>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings >> >>> floor >> >>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and >> >>> into a >> >>> Fide postion... >> >>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >> >>> Phil Innes >> >>>> Sam Sloan >> >> Phil, >> >> >> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >> >> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >> >> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >> >> -- >> >> >> Cordially, >> >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >> >> > The whole story is at: >> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... >> >> > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >> > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >> > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >> >> > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >> > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >> > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >> >> > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >> > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >> > supposedly was rated over 2300. >> >> > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. >> >> > Sam Sloan >> >> Sam, >> >> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail >> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface >> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much >> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your >> research skills in this instance./ >> >> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be >> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps >> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of >> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the >> reportage of this event? >> >> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >         Date: 07 Apr 2008 08:17:50 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed I see that in support of this point about a lack of QC, Todd Miller wrote in Gambit blog yesterday: //Phil Innes Chess history has been destroyed. The ratings for past individuals (prior to 1990) have been destroyed. Some say it was an accident. Others say it was done to cover up false rating reports submitted by coaches to inflate their chess ratings in order to gain respect and money by claiming superior chess skills (e.g., I can coach you because I am a master). Goichberg weakened the title of chess master by claiming that anyone with a rating over 2200 (for only a few games) can call themselves a master for life. The original life master title was for 300 games over master. Of course, who is a life master has apparently been lost when other records were destroyed. Yet, when I requested a rating floor on the basis of my life master title it was given to me?? The USCF didn't ask me to send my certificate or any documentation whatsoever.     Date: 06 Apr 2008 17:57:57 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed [email protected] wrote: > This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It > is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board > member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating > committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is > nobody at fault here except for the board member. > > It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but > very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to > check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief > job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system > can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is > rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only > case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at > fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at > fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is > all on the trusted individual. > > For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had > ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good > job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in > particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very > strange way of looking at the case. > > Jerry Spinrad > > On Apr 6, 3:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> samsloan wrote: >>> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Chess One wrote: >>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>>>>>> board >>>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>>>>> What board member resigned, and why? >>>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >>>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a >>>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >>>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for >>>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed >>>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two >>>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >>>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >>>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's >>>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master >>>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of >>>>> play. >>>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged >>>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who >>>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR >>>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the >>>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >>>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at >>>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this >>>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has >>>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', >>>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system >>>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show >>>>> if anything changed. >>>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >>>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor >>>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a >>>>> Fide postion... >>>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >>>>> Phil Innes >>>>>> Sam Sloan >>>> Phil, >>>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >>>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >>>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >>>> -- >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >>> The whole story is at: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af... >>> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >>> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >>> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >>> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >>> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >>> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >>> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >>> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >>> supposedly was rated over 2300. >>> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. >>> Sam Sloan >> Sam, >> >> Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail >> upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface >> appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much >> research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your >> research skills in this instance./ >> >> However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be >> generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps >> someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of >> this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the >> reportage of this event? >> >> What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > I have spent quite a few hours today searching around the Web based on the search terms "USCF Ratings scandal." There has been lots to read. One thing is noticeable by its absence -- An official account of the Tanner scandal by the USCF. I see where the man was charged, where he eventually apologized, and where he resigned -- then nothing. Perhaps the official report is confined in some members-only area of the USCF web site which I will never see, because I am not going to rejoin... I notice that Mr. Tanner is still directing tournaments and playing in them. The tournament cross table I looked at showed him getting a bye then drawing a game and then forfeiting two games. As he was the Asst. TD perhaps he only joined to round out the number of players... Meanwhile... I encountered this statement at Mig Greengard's blog in an old entry dated July 10, 2006. "That Michigan Class A player who allegedly cheated in Philly is facing perhaps very serious sanctions such as a lifetime ban from playing in USCF tournaments." Consider the fairness of the sanctions between these two cases... -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 13:35:46 From: samsloan Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > >> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a > >>> board > >>> member to resign! That's not false. > > >> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > > >> What board member resigned, and why? > > > I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > > fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a > > title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > > > But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for > > ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed > > tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two > > at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > > > At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > > departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's > > the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master > > with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of > > play. > > > I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged > > him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who > > oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR > > newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the > > usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > > > Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at > > USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this > > happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has > > ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', > > which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system > > with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show > > if anything changed. > > > Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > > ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor > > is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a > > Fide postion... > > > Makes a change to getting a watch. > > > Phil Innes > > >> Sam Sloan > > Phil, > > This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. The whole story is at: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who supposedly was rated over 2300. None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. Sam Sloan     Date: 06 Apr 2008 17:49:13 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > The whole story is at: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 A story, and a leaked one at that, of what we are allowed to know, and the reporter is Sam Sloan, the same Sloan who asked me earlier today to whom I referred. Part of Sloan's commentary reads;- "At the same time, whenever Mr. Tanner has played outside of that closed group, his results have been well below master. He has played in one US Open, three National Opens and in the recent US Amateur Team East and his results in all of these events have been around the 2000 level or lower. Mr. Tanner has never produced even one master result in his entire chess career in a major open tournament. He has no published chess games that I have been able to find and no FIDE rating, This is unusual for a player who has the USCF Original Life Master title. " But still - Sam Sloan has no questions at all about the invigilating group, USCF, who awarded him not only a life mastership, but a ratings floor. Ken Sloan, says Sam Sloan, had nothing to do with it. Neither according to Sloan did Delgate Johnson, who saw this paragon of chess, and suggested to him that he apply - and neither did the USCF office notice aught when they granted the title and the ratings floor. I see, inter alia, that JD Walker asked Sam Sloan what he did about it? And I suppose during his year of board tenancy there were so many things evidently corrupt that it was too much trouble to inquire how come this all happened? Especially, as Larry Parr and I pointed out at the time, that Tanner attained a Fide position he would unlikely hold as a mere 2000 player. ;) > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > supposedly was rated over 2300. ROFL! 31 consecutive games against a 2300! But unknown elsewhere in chess? Gordon Bennett! No one noticed! What, if anything, could USCF have to say about their own part in not noticing this? Surely to rubbish others about their lack of QC in ratings is extraordinarily wanting in plain standards compared to their own, non-existant ones. > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. :) Who Sloan hereby excuses from further comment and investigation - as if it were actually about them as personalities, rather than the system they advocate for and administer. Once more, nothing is revealed about USCF's part in all this. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan     Date: 06 Apr 2008 17:14:15 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Chess One wrote: >> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> >> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned >> >>> a >> >>> board >> >>> member to resign! That's not false. >> >> >> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >> >> >> What board member resigned, and why? >> >> > I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >> > fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept >> > a >> > title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >> >> > But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was >> > for >> > ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in >> > closed >> > tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point >> > or two >> > at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >> >> > At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >> > departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way >> > [that's >> > the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a >> > life-master >> > with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's >> > level of >> > play. >> >> > I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and >> > encouraged >> > him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the >> > guy who >> > oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in >> > YOUR >> > newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with >> > all the >> > usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >> >> > Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common >> > one at >> > USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has >> > this >> > happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he >> > has >> > ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has >> > changed', >> > which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's >> > system >> > with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to >> > show >> > if anything changed. >> >> > Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >> > ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings >> > floor >> > is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and >> > into a >> > Fide postion... >> >> > Makes a change to getting a watch. >> >> > Phil Innes >> >> >> Sam Sloan >> >> Phil, >> >> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > The whole story is at: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > supposedly was rated over 2300. I think these were not even the major crimes. The point being... > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. That Ken Sloan speaks for USCF's rating system, which failed to notice these and other discrepancies, even though it resulted in a title and ratings floor, and secondly that Johnson suggested to Tanner that he was elligible for life-mastership, though another department at USCF awards that title, they too thought nothing amiss with this 'playing record'. Now whether that is a political fix to oblige a board member or complete incompetence in QA are the questions. There are no answers, since even Sloan says neither Johnson nor K. Sloan had aught to do with it - though they both explained what this nothing was in his 'own' newsgroup. <snort > As usual, this is not an issue of ratings competency examined, but WHO is involved in it, which is to say, it is the usual shenanigans of political cronies. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan       Date: 06 Apr 2008 23:45:41 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: [email protected]> > > That Ken Sloan speaks for USCF's rating system, False. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/       Date: 06 Apr 2008 14:40:08 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed Chess One wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Chess One wrote: >>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned >>>>>> a >>>>>> board >>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>>>> What board member resigned, and why? >>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept >>>> a >>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was >>>> for >>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in >>>> closed >>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point >>>> or two >>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way >>>> [that's >>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a >>>> life-master >>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's >>>> level of >>>> play. >>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and >>>> encouraged >>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the >>>> guy who >>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in >>>> YOUR >>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with >>>> all the >>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common >>>> one at >>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has >>>> this >>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he >>>> has >>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has >>>> changed', >>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's >>>> system >>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to >>>> show >>>> if anything changed. >>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings >>>> floor >>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and >>>> into a >>>> Fide postion... >>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >>>> Phil Innes >>>>> Sam Sloan >>> Phil, >>> >>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >>> -- >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >> >> The whole story is at: >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 >> >> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >> >> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >> >> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >> supposedly was rated over 2300. > > I think these were not even the major crimes. The point being... > >> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > That Ken Sloan speaks for USCF's rating system, which failed to notice these > and other discrepancies, even though it resulted in a title and ratings > floor, and secondly that Johnson suggested to Tanner that he was elligible > for life-mastership, though another department at USCF awards that title, > they too thought nothing amiss with this 'playing record'. > > Now whether that is a political fix to oblige a board member or complete > incompetence in QA are the questions. > > There are no answers, since even Sloan says neither Johnson nor K. Sloan had > aught to do with it - though they both explained what this nothing was in > his 'own' newsgroup. <snort> > > As usual, this is not an issue of ratings competency examined, but WHO is > involved in it, which is to say, it is the usual shenanigans of political > cronies. > > Phil Innes > >> Sam Sloan > > As a newcomer/prodigal who is trying to understand these issues, I think I perceive some truth in what both Sam Sloan and Phil Innes are saying. Others may have yet another take on this incident. Ken Sloan may also have a piece of the truth that I do not know about. I remember the old story about the group of blind men who were asked to go tactilely examine an elephant and then come back and describe it. They came back with much different accounts. This story may have application here. The perceived behavior of the USCF to ignore and sweep things under the rug leaves us all blind. I have worked in a large non-profit with several thousand employees. I am familiar with the complex and frustrating politics that can invest such a place. As an independent contractor I had a fairly neutral view of it. I wouldn't want to single a particular person for censure in such an environment unless I had indisputable facts, and a good reason to do it. Nevertheless, I see from a brief Google scan that there have been other scandals regarding ratings and the USCF in recent years. What I would expect from an organization like the USCF, is that when these things are encountered, that the USCF have a formal, public process of resolving them and reporting the facts and conclusions to the membership. What is at stake is the credibility of the organization. I see many people are outraged by various instances of cheating at particular tournaments using computers or communications devices to gain an unfair advantage. Yet what what Mr. Tanner reportedly did was /exponentially/ worse than that. Thus in my opinion, more worthy of full investigation. I think Phil is right to question the Organization's handling of the matter if there has not been a full official accounting of the incident by the USCF. But then, I too can be wrong. I am just trying to get a handle on this new modern world of chess. Evidently, I did get another thing wrong. I made a comment about Afromeev's dog. I should have said cat. My apology to dogs everywhere. I did not mean to insult all dogkind. :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 07 Apr 2008 14:47:04 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:40:08 -0700, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >I see many people are outraged by various instances of cheating at >particular tournaments using computers or communications devices to gain >an unfair advantage. Yet what what Mr. Tanner reportedly did was >/exponentially/ worse than that. Thus in my opinion, more worthy of >full investigation. The big difference was the *immediate* cash made available by the respective cheating. The computer cheats got an immediate bundle of money. Tanner's was more long term, his higher rating probably gleaning more teaching jobs, perhaps other opportunities. >I think Phil is right to question the Organization's handling of the >matter if there has not been a full official accounting of the incident >by the USCF. Given that scholastics is where the money creek runs most freely these days, and that credentials weigh heavily in the academic environment, we can probably expect more folks desiring chess coach, advisor, trainer, etc., positions to creatively seek rating enlargement. And, of course, it never hurts a columnist or reviewer to write from a position of perceived strength. Yeah, Phil's on to something here, IMO.     Date: 06 Apr 2008 13:50:42 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed samsloan wrote: > On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Chess One wrote: >>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>>>> board >>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>>> What board member resigned, and why? >>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a >>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for >>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed >>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two >>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's >>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master >>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of >>> play. >>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged >>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who >>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR >>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the >>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at >>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this >>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has >>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', >>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system >>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show >>> if anything changed. >>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor >>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a >>> Fide postion... >>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >>> Phil Innes >>>> Sam Sloan >> Phil, >> >> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. > > The whole story is at: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 > > Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around > 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby > raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. > > The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre > Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 > Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. > > He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over > and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who > supposedly was rated over 2300. > > None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. > > Sam Sloan Sam, Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail upon troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface appears to be very detailed and consequently the product of much research. If it is all accurate, then, /I am impressed with your research skills in this instance./ However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be generally regarded as suspect. Since this is a past event perhaps someone else has put in as much or more work to dig out the facts of this event. Is there any thing else I can read to possibly balance the reportage of this event? What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 06 Apr 2008 18:26:31 From: David Kane Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > samsloan wrote: >> On Apr 6, 2:02 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Chess One wrote: >>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>>>>> board >>>>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>>>> What board member resigned, and why? >>>> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >>>> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a >>>> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >>>> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for >>>> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed >>>> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or >>>> two >>>> at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >>>> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >>>> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way >>>> [that's >>>> the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master >>>> with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level >>>> of >>>> play. >>>> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged >>>> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy >>>> who >>>> oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR >>>> newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all >>>> the >>>> usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >>>> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one >>>> at >>>> USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this >>>> happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has >>>> ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', >>>> which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system >>>> with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show >>>> if anything changed. >>>> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >>>> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor >>>> is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a >>>> Fide postion... >>>> Makes a change to getting a watch. >>>> Phil Innes >>>>> Sam Sloan >>> Phil, >>> >>> This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an >>> investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know >>> more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. >>> -- >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> He is referring to Robert Tanner and that is not what happened at all. >> >> The whole story is at: >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/376c468af85eaae0 >> >> Basically Tanner created three fake personalities, all rated around >> 2200-2300 and played Quads against them over and over again, thereby >> raising his own rating to over 2300, giving himself a floor of 2200. >> >> The first fake person was Andre Peroit. The first rating of Andre >> Peroit was a provisional 2356 in the 1992 >> Wyoming National Parks RR in Jackson, Wyoming, directed by 'I'anner. >> >> He then created Milan Djiatlich and Leopold Rodl and played them over >> and over, winning 31 consecutive games against Milan Djiatlich, who >> supposedly was rated over 2300. >> >> None of this had anything to do with Ken Sloan or Eric Johnson. >> >> Sam Sloan > > Sam, > > Thanks for the reply and the link Sam. I am going to once again sail upon > troubled waters by saying that this complaint on the surface appears to be > very detailed and consequently the product of much research. If it is all > accurate, then, /I am impressed with your research skills in this instance./ > > However, your critics suggest that your facts and conclusions are to be > generally regarded as suspect. I think most of Sam's critics would concede that he was basically right in this case. It was never determined that Tanner's opponents were "fake", though. (personally I think it the most likely scenario although there are other possibilities, none of which make Tanner's behavior look any better) That somebody could file phony tournament reports and still be a TD - that's USCF "standards" for you. It really has nothing to do with the rating function or rating committee. There will always be ways to game the system. >Since this is a past event perhaps someone else has put in as much or more work >to dig out the facts of this event. Is there any thing else I can read to >possibly balance the reportage of this event? > > What exactly happened after you lodged this complaint? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 10:10:23 From: samsloan Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a board > member to resign! That's not false. > I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. What board member resigned, and why? Sam Sloan     Date: 06 Apr 2008 14:45:00 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >> board >> member to resign! That's not false. >> > > I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. > > What board member resigned, and why? I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of play. I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show if anything changed. Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a Fide postion... Makes a change to getting a watch. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan       Date: 06 Apr 2008 23:41:17 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: egroups.com> the guy who > oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, False. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/       Date: 06 Apr 2008 12:02:23 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed Chess One wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>> board >>> member to resign! That's not false. >>> >> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >> >> What board member resigned, and why? > > I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the > fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a > title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? > > But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for > ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed > tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or two > at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. > > At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF > departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way [that's > the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a life-master > with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his opponent's level of > play. > > I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged > him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy who > oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in YOUR > newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with all the > usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. > > Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one at > USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has this > happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing he has > ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has changed', > which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult USCF's system > with, since the answer lies in his own inability and unwillingness to show > if anything changed. > > Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent > ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings floor > is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico and into a > Fide postion... > > Makes a change to getting a watch. > > Phil Innes > >> Sam Sloan > > Phil, This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 06 Apr 2008 17:06:38 From: Chess One Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:9557df57-d941-4098-a3e1-607eca688249@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a >>>> board >>>> member to resign! That's not false. >>>> >>> I am really curious. I have never heard this one before. >>> >>> What board member resigned, and why? >> >> I am not mentioning his name, since there is no need to celebrate the >> fallen - and indeed he seems to have acted on very bad advice to accept a >> title. But what of the responsibility of those awarding the title? >> >> But this player was on the board preceeding yours, and the crime was for >> ratings rigging - so that he played the same half dozen players in closed >> tournaments, and they all rated 1650/1800 - thereby he gained a point or >> two at a time. I am not sure he ever played anyone 2200 or above. >> >> At the time everyone was shocked he should have done so, yet 2 USCF >> departments allowed (a) him to continue accumulating points this way >> [that's the rating dept], and (b) then another department made him a >> life-master with a ratings floor. Neither of them seem to notice his >> opponent's level of play. >> >> I mention this particularly since the guy who egged him on and encouraged >> him to apply for the title is a USCF Delegate, Eric Johnson, and the guy >> who oversaw the ratings department is Ken Sloan, and this pair decided in >> YOUR newsgroup to rubbish other companies ratings 'quality control', with >> all the usual absense of detail, and abstract criticism. >> >> Ken Sloan has failed to assure anyone that this fault is not a common one >> at USCF, therefore he never 'notices' my question, 'how frequently has >> this happened', even though he assures us that all is OK. The only thing >> he has ever responded with is the comment 'how do you know nothing has >> changed', which is as mindless a piece of verbage as he could insult >> USCF's system with, since the answer lies in his own inability and >> unwillingness to show if anything changed. >> >> Why another department should also not have noticed such a prominent >> ratings-account when giving the player a Masters award and a ratings >> floor is also entirely 'unclear', except to say that he was a politico >> and into a Fide postion... >> >> Makes a change to getting a watch. >> >> Phil Innes >> >>> Sam Sloan >> >> > Phil, > > This incident is pretty interesting. Was it ever published in an > investigative article that I could read on the net? I'd love to know > more. If not, it sounds like an issue that deserves an investigation. > -- J.D. While it is interesting, there is no one to apply to for response - as you see, our Ken is content with single word explanations, despite the consequence to the integrity of the rating system and also to the board membership. It is largely water-under-the-bridge in terms of the individual involved, [he took a lot of bashing at the time, as if to expiate what happened by scaegoating an individual for it was sufficient], but that is not my concentration as much as how it came about. If Ken Sloan or other USCF officios are content to say nothing, nor seem to care - why protest at all? Nothing will come it unless USCF itself cares to not conduct its affairs in the dark - and consequently suffers these flings and arrows. This past few days I understand that a board member has resigned, [I mention his name in my column this weekend, and why] not for anything of this nature, but of a widespread one concerning personality secrecy of certain individuals. Similar to issues above, I think the person understood that protests fall on deaf ears at USCF, where neither standards of objective competence nor efficacy are much to the fore. Phil Innes > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:13:48 From: The Historian Subject: Re: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed On Apr 6, 10:16 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > There's none so blind as those who will not see. > > Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a board > member to resign! That's not false. It is.   Date: 06 Apr 2008 04:18:57 From: samsloan Subject: Re: The Elo System On Apr 6, 1:06 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not > anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and > are Elo systems. > > The USCF is further from Elo than FIDE largely because it has a more > difficult population to cover. Being different from Elo is not a bad > thing. Although people can and do quibble over details in the way > organizations do ratings (I am one of these people, BTW), no one > could reasonably claim that Elo rating was the ultimate in ratings. > > From what I can tell, the Elo system was not wildly different > from the Harkness system and there is nothing to Sloan's > fabrication that Elo is specifically designed for OTB chess > rather than correspondence chess. The Harkness tables are > different in detail from the Elo versions. Does anyone know the > logical basis of the Harkness tables, or what statistical > problems Harkness ratings had? It may be in Elo's book but > it has been a while since I've read it. I suggest that you buy my book, "The Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess" by Kenneth Harkness, because it contains a complete and detailed explanation of the Harkness Rating System. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927 Sam Sloan   Date: 06 Apr 2008 04:13:19 From: samsloan Subject: Re: The Elo System On Apr 5, 11:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Now Sam claims that it is correct to call the FIDE rating system the Elo > system. I ask this question: Has the FIDE rating system veered away > from the original Elo theory as much as the USCF rating system has? If > the answer to this is no by a substantial margin then Sam may be making > a valid point in making this distinction. > > I do not know. I am trying to figure it out. If someone knowledgeable > already has a clear picture of this, feel free to share it. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. I do not know the answer to your question, but I do know that in 1986 when I was helping Susan Polgar calculate her new rating, the Elo System was being followed exactly except that the K-Factor was lower. Under the original Elo System, if you defeated a player with the same rating as you, you gained 16 rating points and your opponent lost the same number of points. However, under the FIDE System at that time, you gained 5 points and your opponent lost 5 points. I know that this was followed exactly because in the July-Dec 1986 rating period Susan played 59 rated games of chess and defeated 13 grandmasters during the entire year of 1986. This made her the second most active player in the entire world (Grandmaster Quinteros of Argentina was the most active) and the biggest killer of Grandmasters that year. I do not think that even Kasparov beat 13 grandmasters that year. After playing all these games we were able to calculate that her new rating was going to be 2495 and it came out to be exactly that, 2495. We knew this because the exact formula had been published and was being followed. (It is difficult to believe in view of what has happened lately with her current husband, the Evil Truong, that Susan and I were such close friends at the time, but we were.) I do not know what the current formula is but I do know that it cannot diverge too much from the original Elo Formula, because it is necessary for the formula to be published, because the Russians do not trust the Americans, the Americans do not trust the Russians and so on, so it is important that everybody knows and can calculate what the new ratings will be. My friend Toti who works for FIDE is the one who actually calculates the FIDE Ratings nowadays, but I do not feel like springing for a call to Kalmykia to ask him. Sam Sloan   Date: 05 Apr 2008 20:13:48 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 4:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > As much as it pains the Parrs, Sloans, Innes and Walkers of this > > world, Kingston had some very good results in correspondence > > chess, results that a "weak" player simply couldn't achieve. > All he had to do is say that he one had a 2300+ rating, and there > would be no argument. I think Mr. Sloan meant to say "once", not "one". It goes without saying that the last part, about how "there would be no argument", is a lie. > However, instead, he said that he had a 2300+ Elo. That is what caused > the uproar. It was invoking Elo's name that caused the problem. Dr. Elo was not a god, therefore taking his name in vain does not cause any "uproar". Perhaps Mr. Sloan has confounded "Elo's" with "Eros"? Anyway, the problem, as Mr. Sloan calls it, seems to be pettiness on the part of some Evans ratpackers; they are in fact forced to fall back to the trenches, pretending that GM Larry Evans is a card-carrying member of the rgc rat pack. The cold hard fact is, they /need/ GM Evans, for without him the pack of rats is limited to Class A strength, and even that seems to rest on the shoulders of but a single member-- Sam Sloan. The others: Larry Parr, Phil IMnes and his trusty sidekick Rob Mitchell, are Class B or lower. This creates a problem when they wish to speak as "authorities" on chess, in other words, almost every day. > For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. > However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor > Kingston is. No, I think Mr. Sloan's USCF rating is an Elo rating. And the fact that TK keeps running away is some evidence that he probably thinks he would lose to Mr. Sloan, but a lot of people refuse to play when they think they have a lot to lose, and little to gain. Here, we have a newsgroup which could dismiss a victory over Mr. Sloan: "so what? He's just a Class A player who plays idiotic openings like Damiano's Defense". -- help bot     Date: 05 Apr 2008 21:09:18 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: The Elo System help bot wrote: > On Apr 5, 4:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> All he had to do is say that he one had a 2300+ rating, and there >> would be no argument. > > I think Mr. Sloan meant to say "once", not "one". > > It goes without saying that the last part, about > how "there would be no argument", is a lie. > > >> However, instead, he said that he had a 2300+ Elo. That is what caused >> the uproar. It was invoking Elo's name that caused the problem. > > Dr. Elo was not a god, therefore taking his > name in vain does not cause any "uproar". > Perhaps Mr. Sloan has confounded "Elo's" > with "Eros"? > <snipping rat package for focusing a new thread... > > >> For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. >> However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor >> Kingston is. > > > No, I think Mr. Sloan's USCF rating is an > Elo rating. > <snipped for a new thread... > I have been reading through a number of Professor Mark Glickman's papers. I am keeping an open mind about Sam's claim about the correct name of the USCF rating system in the past and now. Here is the reason. The current USCF rating system has a number of modifications to it. It may have originally been based on the Elo theory, but over time it has changed. In the beginning it may be fair to call it the Elo system. As time went on, that name Elo system stayed in common use but the system evolved away from the original theory. I still don't know precisely when some of these things happened. Maybe I will learn later. Here are some examples of changes that I >suspect< were never envisioned by Arpad Elo. The implementation of ratings floors, the newer concept of the "money" floor. There have been special measures to deal with inflation and deflation involving bonus points etc... I also wonder if Mr. Elo anticipated the impact of class prizes on his system. There were also a number of changes over time that are less visible. A number of these were implemented by a group headed by Professor Glickman. This is why I earlier asked Sam if he knew if the USCF had adopted the Glicko system. The Glicko system is apparently a broader system of which the Elo system is a special case. (Did I get that right?) Evidently after all the Glickman group's changes went in there was no new name given to the USCF rating system. But it may well be markedly different than Arpad Elo's original conception. Now Sam claims that it is correct to call the FIDE rating system the Elo system. I ask this question: Has the FIDE rating system veered away from the original Elo theory as much as the USCF rating system has? If the answer to this is no by a substantial margin then Sam may be making a valid point in making this distinction. I do not know. I am trying to figure it out. If someone knowledgeable already has a clear picture of this, feel free to share it. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 06 Apr 2008 08:32:13 From: Chess One Subject: Re: The Elo System "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > help bot wrote: >> On Apr 5, 4:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All he had to do is say that he one had a 2300+ rating, and there >>> would be no argument. >> >> I think Mr. Sloan meant to say "once", not "one". >> >> It goes without saying that the last part, about >> how "there would be no argument", is a lie. >> >> >>> However, instead, he said that he had a 2300+ Elo. That is what caused >>> the uproar. It was invoking Elo's name that caused the problem. >> >> Dr. Elo was not a god, therefore taking his >> name in vain does not cause any "uproar". >> Perhaps Mr. Sloan has confounded "Elo's" >> with "Eros"? >> > <snipping rat package for focusing a new thread...> >> >>> For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. >>> However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor >>> Kingston is. >> >> >> No, I think Mr. Sloan's USCF rating is an >> Elo rating. >> > <snipped for a new thread...> > > I have been reading through a number of Professor Mark Glickman's papers. > I am keeping an open mind about Sam's claim about the correct name of the > USCF rating system in the past and now. Here is the reason. > > The current USCF rating system has a number of modifications to it. It > may have originally been based on the Elo theory, but over time it has > changed. In the beginning it may be fair to call it the Elo system. As > time went on, that name Elo system stayed in common use but the system > evolved away from the original theory. I still don't know precisely when > some of these things happened. Maybe I will learn later. Read Chess Don. Don Shultz intoduced and gained Dr. Elo's attention to ratings in chess and provides the context and deployment of it. Don Shultz has a web-site which also has the means to contact him. I'm sure he could establish what's what in terms of any dispute on Elo. > Here are some examples of changes that I >suspect< were never envisioned > by Arpad Elo. The implementation of ratings floors, the newer concept of > the "money" floor. Indeed - Don Shultz reports that one unlooked for result of introducing ratings was that club play actually declined, and players instead took part in [usually weekend] tournaments for the new 'class prizes', and that was also to do with money. > There have been special measures to deal with inflation and deflation > involving bonus points etc... I also wonder if Mr. Elo anticipated the > impact of class prizes on his system. There were also a number of changes > over time that are less visible. A number of these were implemented by a > group headed by Professor Glickman. > > This is why I earlier asked Sam if he knew if the USCF had adopted the > Glicko system. The Glicko system is apparently a broader system of which > the Elo system is a special case. (Did I get that right?) > > Evidently after all the Glickman group's changes went in there was no new > name given to the USCF rating system. But it may well be markedly > different than Arpad Elo's original conception. > > Now Sam claims that it is correct to call the FIDE rating system the Elo > system. I'm not sure he said that. Did he only say it was /initially/ synonymous? > I ask this question: Has the FIDE rating system veered away from the > original Elo theory as much as the USCF rating system has? If the answer > to this is no by a substantial margin then Sam may be making a valid point > in making this distinction. 'Ratings' is actually a new term. The older one is 'grading', and as early as 1880 people have been devising reports and schema to determine relative strength among chess players. [see, G. M. Brumfitt]. No ratings emerged to any general public until the end of WWII. But the Correspondance Chess League of America successfully introduced a system of their own devising in the 1930's. OTB Ratings became more popular in England due to the work of J. Gilchrist and [to be Sir] R. W. B. Clarke. The first 'grading' list appeared March 1954 as result of their work. In the 1950's USCF also implemented a [non-Elo] grading system - but this was problemmatic and was superceded by another devised by its own mathematical committee. At about the same time the Germans used yet another system, INGO. The main differences between the contenders of these three systems was perhaps between the US systems and the English one. The US system related current results to all previous ones, whereas the English related current results to more recent results. Until about 1970 there was nothing else to report - and then Don Shultz's introduction of Elo gained world wide attention, [to chess and also to horse racing!] especially among the increasing number of international players - and was some means for FIDE to also determine strength by an objective means as measured player-to-player. Phil Innes > I do not know. I am trying to figure it out. If someone knowledgeable > already has a clear picture of this, feel free to share it. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 05 Apr 2008 23:06:55 From: David Kane Subject: Re: The Elo System "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > help bot wrote: >> On Apr 5, 4:54 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All he had to do is say that he one had a 2300+ rating, and there >>> would be no argument. >> >> I think Mr. Sloan meant to say "once", not "one". >> >> It goes without saying that the last part, about >> how "there would be no argument", is a lie. >> >> >>> However, instead, he said that he had a 2300+ Elo. That is what caused >>> the uproar. It was invoking Elo's name that caused the problem. >> >> Dr. Elo was not a god, therefore taking his >> name in vain does not cause any "uproar". >> Perhaps Mr. Sloan has confounded "Elo's" >> with "Eros"? >> > <snipping rat package for focusing a new thread...> >> >>> For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. >>> However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor >>> Kingston is. >> >> >> No, I think Mr. Sloan's USCF rating is an >> Elo rating. >> > <snipped for a new thread...> > > I have been reading through a number of Professor Mark Glickman's papers. I > am keeping an open mind about Sam's claim about the correct name of the USCF > rating system in the past and now. Here is the reason. > > The current USCF rating system has a number of modifications to it. It may > have originally been based on the Elo theory, but over time it has changed. > In the beginning it may be fair to call it the Elo system. As time went on, > that name Elo system stayed in common use but the system evolved away from the > original theory. I still don't know precisely when some of these things > happened. Maybe I will learn later. > > Here are some examples of changes that I >suspect< were never envisioned by > Arpad Elo. The implementation of ratings floors, the newer concept of the > "money" floor. There have been special measures to deal with inflation and > deflation involving bonus points etc... I also wonder if Mr. Elo anticipated > the impact of class prizes on his system. There were also a number of changes > over time that are less visible. A number of these were implemented by a > group headed by Professor Glickman. > > This is why I earlier asked Sam if he knew if the USCF had adopted the Glicko > system. The Glicko system is apparently a broader system of which the Elo > system is a special case. (Did I get that right?) > > Evidently after all the Glickman group's changes went in there was no new name > given to the USCF rating system. But it may well be markedly different than > Arpad Elo's original conception. > > Now Sam claims that it is correct to call the FIDE rating system the Elo > system. I ask this question: Has the FIDE rating system veered away from the > original Elo theory as much as the USCF rating system has? If the answer to > this is no by a substantial margin then Sam may be making a valid point in > making this distinction. > > I do not know. I am trying to figure it out. If someone knowledgeable > already has a clear picture of this, feel free to share it. Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and are Elo systems. The USCF is further from Elo than FIDE largely because it has a more difficult population to cover. Being different from Elo is not a bad thing. Although people can and do quibble over details in the way organizations do ratings (I am one of these people, BTW), no one could reasonably claim that Elo rating was the ultimate in ratings. From what I can tell, the Elo system was not wildly different from the Harkness system and there is nothing to Sloan's fabrication that Elo is specifically designed for OTB chess rather than correspondence chess. The Harkness tables are different in detail from the Elo versions. Does anyone know the logical basis of the Harkness tables, or what statistical problems Harkness ratings had? It may be in Elo's book but it has been a while since I've read it.         Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:48:34 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: mcast.com> > It may be in Elo's book but > it has been a while since I've read it. > > I begin to see the problem. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/           Date: 06 Apr 2008 08:39:24 From: David Kane Subject: Re: mcast.com> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > It may be in Elo's book but >> it has been a while since I've read it. >> >> > > I begin to see the problem. And I don't see an answer. Typical childish behavior. > -- > Kenneth Sloan [email protected] > Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 > University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 > Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/         Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:47:14 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: mcast.com> > > Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not > anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and > are Elo systems. I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe were NOT "anticipated by Elo"? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/           Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:30:12 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: mcast.com> Kenneth Sloan wrote: > >> >> Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not >> anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and >> are Elo systems. > > I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe > were NOT "anticipated by Elo"? > > I used the highlighted word >suspect< rather than believe to introduce my doubts in that paragraph. In the specific sentence you refer to I said "I wonder". And, I am certainly not going to contest with you about this, because in my estimation you >know< the answer I am trying to find out Sir :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.             Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:34:06 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: mcast.com> J.D. Walker wrote: > Kenneth Sloan wrote: >> >>> >>> Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not >>> anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and >>> are Elo systems. >> >> I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe >> were NOT "anticipated by Elo"? >> >> > > I used the highlighted word >suspect< rather than believe to introduce > my doubts in that paragraph. In the specific sentence you refer to I > said "I wonder". And, I am certainly not going to contest with you > about this, because in my estimation you >know< the answer I am trying > to find out Sir :) Whoops! Misfire, you were replying to someone else's comment. <duck > Carry on. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 06 Apr 2008 08:38:16 From: David Kane Subject: Re: mcast.com> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > >> >> Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not >> anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and >> are Elo systems. > > I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe were NOT > "anticipated by Elo"? > First let me change "anticipated" to "initially implemented". Then I'd answer the new question with: variable-K, floors (of various types), bonus points I don't think FIDE rating has these, but they do discard results that aren't good enough, which is not Elo approved. > -- > Kenneth Sloan [email protected] > Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 > University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 > Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/             Date: 06 Apr 2008 11:58:03 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: t.com> 3335 wrote: > > "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >>> >>> Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not >>> anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and >>> are Elo systems. >> >> I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe >> were NOT "anticipated by Elo"? >> > > First let me change "anticipated" to "initially implemented". > > Then I'd answer the new question with: variable-K, floors (of various > types), bonus points All three of these features can be found in Elo's book. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/               Date: 06 Apr 2008 10:33:21 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: t.com> Kenneth Sloan wrote: > 3335 wrote: >> >> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>>> >>>> Both the USCF and FIDE rating systems have elements not >>>> anticipated by Elo. Both essentially use the Elo algorithm and >>>> are Elo systems. >>> >>> I'm curious - what features of the current USCF system do you believe >>> were NOT "anticipated by Elo"? >>> >> >> First let me change "anticipated" to "initially implemented". >> >> Then I'd answer the new question with: variable-K, floors (of various >> types), bonus points > > > All three of these features can be found in Elo's book. > I'm curious - did Mr. Elo share Professor Glickman's opinion that rating floors were a flaw in a rating system that was to be used for predictive purposes? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 05 Apr 2008 19:50:15 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 11:43 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > Moreover, it would be possible, in principle, to rerate all the > correspondence games ever played, using Elo's algorithm. To > argue that a Harkness rating is somehow lesser than an Elo > rating (or cannote be equated to an Elo rating) is to grossly > misunderstand what ratings are. They are simply a way of > quantifying results achieved in rated games. Computers being what they are today, it should be possible to throw out the hand- picked starting ratings and instead work out the "true strengths" by a bazillion iterations of some algorithm, like what they have attempted at chessmetrics.com. Earlier, someone mentioned that the Harkness system was replaced by Elo's due to the latter's superior accuracy; but nobody seems to have noticed that the conversion process was going to muck up this "accuracy" significantly. -- help bot   Date: 05 Apr 2008 19:44:27 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > This is an appropriate time for me to acknowledge a couple of errors I > have made in this discussion. First, I stand corrected as indicated in > the following exchange: More like "several". > Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent > professionals. I see no justification for making reckless assumptions like this one. Perhaps if you were to slow down a bit, and try to think things through... . > Here I have realized another error in my thinking. In all the years > that I contracted to do conversions between various systems I did run > into potential clients I would decline to work for because their > management seemed to be less than rational. That sort of thing tends to > adversely impact a conversion. What Mr. Martinak has said tells me that > the USCF is a client I would not have agreed to work for had a contract > been offered to me. I apologize for thinking that the USCF was more > concerned about accuracy than the appearance of accuracy. The incompetence and political manipulations of the USCF are common knowledge among chess players. > I now understand why Taylor Kingston made the claim he did, and yet I > still understand why a number of people feel misled by the way he did > it. You understand *nothing*, Reverend. Nobody "felt misled" by what Taylor Kingston said about his peak rating. This is all ad hominem -- standard "strategy" for the sinister Evans ratpackers -- to misdirect the simple- minded into long-winded discussions of side issues, while neglecting to hone in on some weakness the critics had put under the microscope. ( And if you don't know exactly what that is, it shows the strategy is working.) LOL! > I withdraw my formal objection and instead simply state that I > consider it unnecessary and unwise to make that claim when he can simply > say that he was a recognized postal master as proof of his analytical > competence. Nah. The real proof of TK's analytical skills -- and weaknesses -- lies in a series of articles he wrote in which he attempted, with only partial success, to analyze the article by GM Larry Evans on the alleged throwing of games. Some handy links were posted in rgc several times, /for those who were interested in the facts/. Enough said. > Out of this whole discussion I have gained an even greater lack of > appreciation for the USCF rating system. I feel that it is essentially > an inaccurate system that has been corrupted by things like rating > floors, and political intervention subverting the advice of the > technically competent. Finally, you get something right. > I have to balance that assessment by admitting that the USCF rating > system is a creature of its environment, which is governed by FIDE, > which appears to have an even bigger mess on its hands. I am still > waiting to hear if Afromeev's dog is going to get a GM title. :) Lest you get the impression that what FIDE did with regard to Susan Polgar's rating gives them a decisive edge, just do a wee bit of research on the USCF and Gata Kamsky's USCF rating. I think you'll find that when it comes to this sort of thing, the USCF can hold its own against the best (i.e. the worst) of them. -- help bot   Date: 05 Apr 2008 13:54:36 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 10:43 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Tom Martinak" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:0hIJj.1987$4O1.1726@trnddc03... > > >> My contention has been that back-dated use of a conversion scale in this > >> manner is unsound methodology, and the further back in time one goes the more > >> unreliable such usage becomes. > > > It probably becomes somewhat more unreliable over time, but that is what the > > USCF did - they converted all the ratings in their database no matter how > > long ago that person had been active. Certainly it should be most > > mathematically accurate for those active in the last few years - and the > > rating under consideration was recent. > > > And remember the USCF policy of "once rated, always rated". I am sure if a > > postal player comes back after some long period the USCF would use that > > fornula. I can't imagine them spending any time thinking about whether the > > conversion chart should be different if they stopped playing in 1979 versus > > 1974. We are talking about postal chess, where games go on for years not > > hours. > > > If you are worried about unsound methodology, I doubt that the USCF shared > > that worry. In fact, they modified the actual conversion that occurred from > > the conversion chart for what is essentially political reasons. Those who > > were rated expert, master and senior master under the old system were > > assured to get at least the minimum rating necessary for that under the new > > system - even if their conversion would normally be lower than that. So > > everyone between 1700 and 1738 were converted to 2200 and those between 1900 > > and 1958 were converted to 2400, even though it was only the high end of > > that range that mathematically converted to that number. > > > - Tom Martinak > > Good points all, along with some interesting history thrown in. > Moreover, it would be possible, in principle, to rerate all the > correspondence games ever played, using Elo's algorithm. To > argue that a Harkness rating is somehow lesser than an Elo > rating (or cannote be equated to an Elo rating) is to grossly > misunderstand what ratings are. They are simply a way of > quantifying results achieved in rated games. > > As much as it pains the Parrs, Sloans, Innes and Walkers of this > world, Kingston had some very good results in correspondence > chess, results that a "weak" player simply couldn't achieve. All he had to do is say that he one had a 2300+ rating, and there would be no argument. However, instead, he said that he had a 2300+ Elo. That is what caused the uproar. It was invoking Elo's name that caused the problem. For example, I have never had an Elo Rating. I am willing to admit it. However, I have always been a stronger chess player than Taylor Kingston is. Sam Sloan   Date: 05 Apr 2008 13:41:09 From: SBD Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > samsloan wrote: > > On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent > >> professionals. > > >> Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " > > >> Although I took this as mostly humorous, > > > Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended > > to be humorous. > > > I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at > > the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. > > > Sam Sloan > > Sam, > > I have been reading old reports by year of the USCF regarding ratings. > I also have visited the site of Professor Mark E. Glickman and read > about the Glicko and the Glicko-2 systems. One question I have for > you... From what I read it did not appear that the Glicko system had > been adopted by the USCF. I saw mention of it being adopted by FICS and > some more obscure organizations. Do you know if it has been adopted by > the USCF? The way I understand it, Glickman led the change in the USCF rating system but it was not to the Glicko system. > > I will probably get to Professor Sloan's site in the near future. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.     Date: 05 Apr 2008 13:59:51 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... SBD wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> samsloan wrote: >>> On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent >>>> professionals. >>>> Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " >>>> Although I took this as mostly humorous, >>> Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended >>> to be humorous. >>> I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at >>> the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. >>> Sam Sloan >> Sam, >> >> I have been reading old reports by year of the USCF regarding ratings. >> I also have visited the site of Professor Mark E. Glickman and read >> about the Glicko and the Glicko-2 systems. One question I have for >> you... From what I read it did not appear that the Glicko system had >> been adopted by the USCF. I saw mention of it being adopted by FICS and >> some more obscure organizations. Do you know if it has been adopted by >> the USCF? > > The way I understand it, Glickman led the change in the USCF rating > system but it was not to the Glicko system. Thanks for the information. Perhaps the result was not named. I wonder how different it is now from the original Elo system. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 05 Apr 2008 15:48:40 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... J.D. Walker wrote: > SBD wrote: >> On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> samsloan wrote: >>>> On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent >>>>> professionals. >>>>> Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " >>>>> Although I took this as mostly humorous, >>>> Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended >>>> to be humorous. >>>> I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at >>>> the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. >>>> Sam Sloan >>> Sam, >>> >>> I have been reading old reports by year of the USCF regarding ratings. >>> I also have visited the site of Professor Mark E. Glickman and read >>> about the Glicko and the Glicko-2 systems. One question I have for >>> you... From what I read it did not appear that the Glicko system had >>> been adopted by the USCF. I saw mention of it being adopted by FICS and >>> some more obscure organizations. Do you know if it has been adopted by >>> the USCF? >> >> The way I understand it, Glickman led the change in the USCF rating >> system but it was not to the Glicko system. > > Thanks for the information. Perhaps the result was not named. I wonder > how different it is now from the original Elo system. I found a paper describing the current USCF rating system on Mark Glickman's site. It includes a description of the "rating floor" implementation... http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/rating.system.pdf -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 05 Apr 2008 17:12:52 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Ratings Floors & Titles J.D. Walker wrote: > J.D. Walker wrote: >> SBD wrote: >>> On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> samsloan wrote: >>>>> On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent >>>>>> professionals. >>>>>> Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " >>>>>> Although I took this as mostly humorous, >>>>> Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended >>>>> to be humorous. >>>>> I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at >>>>> the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. >>>>> Sam Sloan >>>> Sam, >>>> >>>> I have been reading old reports by year of the USCF regarding ratings. >>>> I also have visited the site of Professor Mark E. Glickman and read >>>> about the Glicko and the Glicko-2 systems. One question I have for >>>> you... From what I read it did not appear that the Glicko system had >>>> been adopted by the USCF. I saw mention of it being adopted by FICS >>>> and >>>> some more obscure organizations. Do you know if it has been adopted by >>>> the USCF? >>> >>> The way I understand it, Glickman led the change in the USCF rating >>> system but it was not to the Glicko system. >> >> Thanks for the information. Perhaps the result was not named. I >> wonder how different it is now from the original Elo system. > > I found a paper describing the current USCF rating system on Mark > Glickman's site. It includes a description of the "rating floor" > implementation... > > http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/rating.system.pdf I found another paper by Mark Glickman titled "A Comprehensive Guide to Chess Ratings" that appeared in the American Chess Journal in 1995. It includes this statement about ratings floors on page 25: "If ratings are to be used as a predictive tool, the rating floor implementation must be considered a flaw in the rating system." Later in the paper he discusses the USCF's attempts to create a title system so that the perception of punishment and reward could be separated from the concept of ratings as a predictive tool. In theory, players would then gain satisfying rewards while their ratings were free to fluctuate in a way that served the purpose of prediction. Now this is my selective summarizing of one part of what I read. He does go into this quite thoroughly, so interested readers should read for themselves. My own conclusion about this related to our recent controversy is this. If titles were indeed sufficient reward and recognition for players, then there would be much less concern about fluctuating ratings. If that and other anomalies like the ratings floors were resolved, then ratings would be free to do the job that I and many other players would prefer, namely, as accurately as possible reflect the rated person's playing strength at a given time. Unfortunately, it appears that despite several attempts, the USCF has not yet implemented any of the title systems that some very competent people have worked on. Here is a link to Professor Glickman's paper: http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/research/acjpaper.pdf -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 06 Apr 2008 07:22:58 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Ratings Floors & Titles "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... <... > > My own conclusion about this related to our recent controversy is this. If > titles were indeed sufficient reward and recognition for players, then > there would be much less concern about fluctuating ratings. If that and > other anomalies like the ratings floors were resolved, then ratings would > be free to do the job that I and many other players would prefer, namely, > as accurately as possible reflect the rated person's playing strength at a > given time. Unfortunately USCF afficionadoes do not even equate ratings with strength, will argue about it, though cannot describe what strength is otherwise. Removing the floor would obviate an erstwhile 2200 player who is currently performing at 1800 from inflating the ratings of all others played ~ such that for example, if the 2200 loses to a 1900 player, then the 1900 player receives maybe 7 points instead of the current 20. In fact, every result the 2200/1800 achieves inflates the games of others by a whopping dozen points - and this is much the reason why USCF ratings have come to be inflated over Elo and the system used almost elsewhere else. Unlike the deviancy of the English system, which at least equates the strength of any English player to any other in England, the US System is not even predictive of US Players. Furthermore, there is then the anonomaly of being a 1900 player and beating 'a master', who is actually not as strong as the 1900. > Unfortunately, it appears that despite several attempts, the USCF has not > yet implemented any of the title systems that some very competent people > have worked on. If titles are necessary, perhaps the Russian system could be used? Hero of the Soviet Union, et ca., so that you could become a Hero of Crossville or Hero of Wilkes Barre on some sliding scale of achievement? Phil Innes > Here is a link to Professor Glickman's paper: > > http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/research/acjpaper.pdf > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.             Date: 06 Apr 2008 09:52:55 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: > 4533 wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > <...> > >> My own conclusion about this related to our recent controversy is this. If >> titles were indeed sufficient reward and recognition for players, then >> there would be much less concern about fluctuating ratings. If that and >> other anomalies like the ratings floors were resolved, then ratings would >> be free to do the job that I and many other players would prefer, namely, >> as accurately as possible reflect the rated person's playing strength at a >> given time. > > Unfortunately USCF afficionadoes do not even equate ratings with strength, > will argue about it, though cannot describe what strength is otherwise. > > Removing the floor would obviate an erstwhile 2200 player who is currently > performing at 1800 from inflating the ratings of all others played ~ such > that for example, if the 2200 loses to a 1900 player, then the 1900 player > receives maybe 7 points instead of the current 20. > > In fact, every result the 2200/1800 achieves inflates the games of others by > a whopping dozen points - and this is much the reason why USCF ratings have > come to be inflated over Elo and the system used almost elsewhere else. False. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/               Date: 06 Apr 2008 11:16:22 From: Chess One Subject: USCF ratings, nothing is revealed "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 4533 wrote: >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >> >> <...> >> >>> My own conclusion about this related to our recent controversy is this. >>> If titles were indeed sufficient reward and recognition for players, >>> then there would be much less concern about fluctuating ratings. If >>> that and other anomalies like the ratings floors were resolved, then >>> ratings would be free to do the job that I and many other players would >>> prefer, namely, as accurately as possible reflect the rated person's >>> playing strength at a given time. >> >> Unfortunately USCF afficionadoes do not even equate ratings with >> strength, will argue about it, though cannot describe what strength is >> otherwise. >> >> Removing the floor would obviate an erstwhile 2200 player who is >> currently performing at 1800 from inflating the ratings of all others >> played ~ such that for example, if the 2200 loses to a 1900 player, then >> the 1900 player receives maybe 7 points instead of the current 20. >> >> In fact, every result the 2200/1800 achieves inflates the games of others >> by a whopping dozen points - and this is much the reason why USCF ratings >> have come to be inflated over Elo and the system used almost elsewhere >> else. > > False. There's none so blind as those who will not see. Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department occassioned a board member to resign! That's not false. When asked questions about (a) what was the matter with the ratings department, and with those (b) in another department who awarded the title without noticing [ROFL], there was apparently nothing to answer. Given that is Ken Sloan's standard, then what is false is for him, to deny what is evident. Phil Innes As a computer geek, can he also not produce headers such as the one above, otherwise I am going to have to make Alabama jokes! and try to use the same protocols as other people, the same use of words, like false does not mean true, &c, and no answers to reasons for even a board member's resignation is not 'nothing'. this header cut: Re: > <[email protected]> <[email protected] > > > -- > Kenneth Sloan [email protected] > Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 > University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 > Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/                 Date: 06 Apr 2008 23:53:27 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: t.com> > > Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department False -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/                 Date: 06 Apr 2008 11:55:52 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: t.com> > > Ken Sloan's administration of the USCF rating department False. -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/   Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:23:53 From: Sanny Subject: Confusion Removed > > And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official > > rating? > > It wouldn't be their current official USCF postal rating. However, it is > very common to talk about somebody's peak rating and to do that for players > who peaked before the rating were converted it would be necessary to do the > conversion. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges and any list > of the all-time top players would only include players from after the > conversion. Yes Thats Correct. You stole my words. Now I think all confusion is removed. We are talking about Taylor Kingstons peak Rating in 1985. We are not Talking about his Current Rating. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:20:15 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 11:43 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > Good points all, along with some interesting history thrown in. > Moreover, it would be possible, in principle, to rerate all the > correspondence games ever played, using Elo's algorithm. To > argue that a Harkness rating is somehow lesser than an Elo > rating (or cannote be equated to an Elo rating) is to grossly > misunderstand what ratings are. They are simply a way of > quantifying results achieved in rated games. > > As much as it pains the Parrs, Sloans, Innes and Walkers of this > world, Kingston had some very good results in correspondence > chess, results that a "weak" player simply couldn't achieve. Have you ever played correspondence chess? If you had played it, you would have known that many if not most games are not played to completion. Players drop out. We have the perfect example, here. Taylor Kingston says that his correspondence dropped from 1806 to 1560 because he dropped out of and forfeited his games. But he fails to mention how many rating points he gained when his opponents did not complete their games. It would really be impossible or at least undesirable to try to rate correspondence games under the same system as described in the book "The Rating of Chess Players" by Arpad Elo. Sam Sloan     Date: 05 Apr 2008 18:43:13 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Apr 5, 11:43 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good points all, along with some interesting history thrown in. >> Moreover, it would be possible, in principle, to rerate all the >> correspondence games ever played, using Elo's algorithm. To >> argue that a Harkness rating is somehow lesser than an Elo >> rating (or cannote be equated to an Elo rating) is to grossly >> misunderstand what ratings are. They are simply a way of >> quantifying results achieved in rated games. >> >> As much as it pains the Parrs, Sloans, Innes and Walkers of this >> world, Kingston had some very good results in correspondence >> chess, results that a "weak" player simply couldn't achieve. > > Have you ever played correspondence chess? If you had played it, you > would have known that many if not most games are not played to > completion. Players drop out. We have the perfect example, here. > Taylor Kingston says that his correspondence dropped from 1806 to 1560 > because he dropped out of and forfeited his games. But he fails to > mention how many rating points he gained when his opponents did not > complete their games. > > It would really be impossible or at least undesirable to try to rate > correspondence games under the same system as described in the book > "The Rating of Chess Players" by Arpad Elo. Both possible and desirable. If you did some of that vaunted research you've been accused of, you'd know that.     Date: 05 Apr 2008 13:32:59 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: >Have you ever played correspondence chess? If you had played it, you >would have known that many if not most games are not played to >completion. Players drop out. We have the perfect example, here. >Taylor Kingston says that his correspondence dropped from 1806 to 1560 >because he dropped out of and forfeited his games. But he fails to >mention how many rating points he gained when his opponents did not >complete their games. As I remember, under the old Chess Review postal ratings, you got the point but not rating credit when your opponent dropped out. If you wanted to claim a rated win, you had to submit the game for review. Did this change somewhere along the line, or am I just mis-remembering it?   Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:07:43 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent > professionals. > > Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " > > Although I took this as mostly humorous, Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended to be humorous. I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. Sam Sloan     Date: 05 Apr 2008 14:39:27 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Professor Kenneth Sloan's Web Site samsloan wrote: > > I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at > the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. Sam, I found his web page amongst the faculty web pages. I did not see a link to information about chess ratings. I saw many pictures of him playing a brass instrument in various settings. Apparently, among his other interests, he enjoys music! Do you have specific links to which you can direct me? I also did find some USCF pages that were open to non-members that contained comments from him on ratings matters. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.     Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:17:02 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... samsloan wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:17 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent >> professionals. >> >> Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " >> >> Although I took this as mostly humorous, > > Knowing Ken (no relation) Sloan as I do, that remark was NOT intended > to be humorous. > > I recommend that you start reading Ken Sloan's extensive websites at > the University of Alabama uab.edu on this subject. > > Sam Sloan Sam, I have been reading old reports by year of the USCF regarding ratings. I also have visited the site of Professor Mark E. Glickman and read about the Glicko and the Glicko-2 systems. One question I have for you... From what I read it did not appear that the Glicko system had been adopted by the USCF. I saw mention of it being adopted by FICS and some more obscure organizations. Do you know if it has been adopted by the USCF? I will probably get to Professor Sloan's site in the near future. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 05 Apr 2008 05:31:45 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 5:12=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Apr 4, 2:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > samsloan wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 1:24 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Wrong, you said I was not worth taking seriously. =A0I have never sai= d > > >> anything like that about you. =A0I have acknowledged what I saw as yo= ur > > >> achievements in our previous discussion. =A0I think they should have = been > > >> enough to satisfy most anybody. =A0I do not know why you so persisten= tly > > >> seek an Elo rating for you past performance. =A0It isn't necessary. = =A0The > > >> fact that I still disagree with you on this one point seems to be > > >> unacceptable to you. > > > >> Given your attempts to drag my religious beliefs into the discussion,= I > > >> really no longer consider you to be a person one can have a civil > > >> discussion with. =A0What's next are you going to compare me to Hitler= ? > > >> -- > > > >> Cordially, > > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > > I see that you have gotten to know Taylor Kingston rather well. > > > > He has been doing this for more than ten years, attacking all kinds of= > > > people, never making a positive contribution, and never saying > > > anything good about anybody, except that he worships Edward Winter. > > > > Sam Sloan > > > Mr. Sloan, > > > Your comments may be the kiss of death for me! =A0:) > > > People are saying one must be wary of the research behind your > > statements. =A0So let me back up a bit here and ask a few questions -- i= f > > I may. > > > Are you sure it is ten years? =A0Maybe it was some lesser figure.... > > Why yes, indeed. It is more than ten years. > > Take a look at the following posting from 1997, more than ten years > ago: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/54064085e3db89e9 > > "I'm surprised that anyone could take this trash opening seriously." > > Back then, his favorite targets of attack were Raymond Keene, Really, Sam? If you bothered to read that post, you'd see that I actually endorsed Keene's verdict on the Jerome Gambit. Well, I'm outa here for a week, off to California. Try to stay out of trouble, Sam.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 23:36:05 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? ANOTHER SAM SLOAN SCOOP In his chess article for the Dubai Gulf News during the 1986 Olympiad in the UAE, he revealed why and how FIDE cheated Susan Polgar out of 100 rating points to reduce her from number one on the women's rating list behind a Soviet titleholder. This story is reported in Rigging Ratings, chapter 41 of THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans. [email protected] wrote: > THE AWFUL TRUTH > > As noted, there are different kinds of research > skills. Sam, for example, came up with key questions > about the nature of land title for the USCF building > in Crossville. Sam told us, based on toting up > several numbers, that the move to Crossville would > cost us $750,000 -- a number attacked by the usual > gaggle of nincompoops on this forum and within the > USCF Executive Board. To the extent that Sam got > the story wrong, he UNDERESTIMATED the total cost, > though the usual suspects attacked him at the time > fior exaggerating the sums. > > Then the awful truth began to emerge. I > reported two months before the board officially gave the > same number itself that the new building in Crossville > -- which was roughly 45 percent the size of the old > building in New Windsor -- would cost $650,000. I > then reported that the architect's fee for the > original building plan, which was supposed to cost > about $300,000, was about $60,000. We were then told > AFTER I broke this story that they would renegotiate > the architect's fees! > > Sam relentlessly tracked down story after story > about the disastrous move to Crossville. The sense of > his reportage has been confirmed in spades. > > The art of digging for facts and worming them > out of people is a form of research skill. Sam is > often top-notch in this regard. On the other hand if > you want someone to regurgitate details or even to > compile a list of known information, then get Taylor > Kingston or Edward Winter to perform those functions. > > Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 04 Apr 2008 21:22:02 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? THE AWFUL TRUTH As noted, there are different kinds of research skills. Sam, for example, came up with key questions about the nature of land title for the USCF building in Crossville. Sam told us, based on toting up several numbers, that the move to Crossville would cost us $750,000 -- a number attacked by the usual gaggle of nincompoops on this forum and within the USCF Executive Board. To the extent that Sam got the story wrong, he UNDERESTIMATED the total cost, though the usual suspects attacked him at the time fior exaggerating the sums. Then the awful truth began to emerge. I reported two months before the board officially gave the same number itself that the new building in Crossville -- which was roughly 45 percent the size of the old building in New Windsor -- would cost $650,000. I then reported that the architect's fee for the original building plan, which was supposed to cost about $300,000, was about $60,000. We were then told AFTER I broke this story that they would renegotiate the architect's fees! Sam relentlessly tracked down story after story about the disastrous move to Crossville. The sense of his reportage has been confirmed in spades. The art of digging for facts and worming them out of people is a form of research skill. Sam is often top-notch in this regard. On the other hand if you want someone to regurgitate details or even to compile a list of known information, then get Taylor Kingston or Edward Winter to perform those functions. Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 04 Apr 2008 21:09:50 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? SAM'S SCOOPS AND HARDING >I've always equated Sam to one of the tabloids. He puts out some bizarre stuff, but every now and then scoops the big boys. > -- Mike Murray Mike's comparision of Sam Sloan with a supermarket tabloid is fair enough, if the actual value of those tabloids is carefully considered. Namely, the number of real news stories that are later confirmed (sometimes years later) by the mainstream press is larger than commonly understood. As an example, one recollects the in-depth reporting of tabloids on urban ninja night wargames in our cities. There was a strange blackout in the mainstream press, and the story itself was only confirmed by the New York Times some three years AFTER initially reported in tabloids. Another story at the same time is Sybil Edmonds revelations (front page news in the Times of London and the Sunday Times) which was blacked out on our TV and in the mainstream media. One could find mention of the Edmonds case in the tabloids at our supermarkets. Otherwise, one had to read the major dailies of Europe. Sam provided us with a sensation a week during the move to Crossville, and his single real failing in all of that reporting was to UNDERESTIMATE the total cost of this disastrous move to Tennessee. Sam frequently sounds like a tabloid, and he all too often has gotten the big story right. Sometimes wrong. One wishes that he had been wrong about the disastrous move to Cross-to-Bear, but he got the story right in its grisly, crooked essentials. The issue of Sam's research skills is alarmingly simplified by the likes of zdrakec and the usual gaggle of Winterian types. If one wishes to argue that Sam gets facts wrong, then the first person often to admit this point is SAM HIMSELF. He frequently, though not always, cheerfully admits error and corrects himself at length. However, there is another kind of research skill that does not involve mere replication of texts. This kind of research skill involves FINDING OUT interesting information. Sam constantly unearths fascinating nuggets. Concering Harding and the scandals, Sam's point about his reputation at the time of his death is far more nuanced that the ahistorical junk about this or that investigation having been started at the time of Harding's death. Just as Rome was not built in a day, so investigations, trials, convictions and appeals of said convictions are not completed in a day or a year. The scandals of the Harding administration were relatively minor by current standards, and in any case, they left Harding relatively unscathed. The attacks on Harding were not mainly contemporaneous; they came later largely in the form of prospective revenge on the part of New Deal court historians. H. L. Mencken, who made some savage fun of Harding's prose skills (Harding wrote many of his own speeches) nonetheless later concluded, as he did of Coolidge, that he had no new ideas and left us alone. To Mencken, that was high praise. Oh, yes, Mencken praised highly the literary quality of Coolidge's personal memoir. Coolidge was also a translator of Cicero's orations, just as Hoover translated Agricola's De re Metallica from the medieval Latin. Sam's judgment on Harding is nuanced in the form of pronouncing on the man in an acceptable, generalized intellectual shorthand. Yours, Larry Parr samsloan wrote: > On Apr 4, 2:39 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > On Apr 4, 9:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > > > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sam, > > > > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > > > > I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > > > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > > > Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > > > Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > > > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > > > ludicrous example involving myself: > > > > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > > > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > > > > He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > > > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > > > > Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > > > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > > > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > > > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > > > others. > > > > > One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > > > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > > > > Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > > > Rev. Walker is fully informed. > > > > I append another example of our Sam's research "skills," posted in > > another thread just a few minutes ago. Referring to the Teapot Dome > > Scandal, involving bribery for oil leases during the Harding > > > > administration (1921-1923), Sam wrote: > > > > "I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until > > years after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the > > Worst President Ever." > > > > Leaving aside the issue of Harding's worth as a President, I just > > want to comment on Sloan's claim that this scandal "did not come out > > until years after Harding died." I quote from the 1988 World Book: > > > > "In June 1923, Harding ... made the first presidential visit to > > Canada and Alaska. A long message in code from Washington reached > > Harding en route. It brought disturbing news about a Senate > > investigation of oil leases. Reporters later said that the depressed > > Harding asked reporters what a President could do when his friends > > betrayed him." > > Harding died on that trip when he reached back to San Francisco. > Obviously, he could have done nothing about it until he got back to > Washington. Also, at that point it was just the beginning on an > investigation. It was years after Harding died that the investigation > turned up anything. > > What about the $6.5 billion contract that was corruptly awarded by > President Kennedy to build an inferior military aircraft. That was > obviously a much more serious deal than a legitimate oil lease to > Sinclare Oil. > > The $6.5 billion contract awarded to General Dynamics is what many > conspiracy theorists believe led to the Kennedy Assassination. That is > discussed in detail in my other recent book, "Mafia Moll: The Judith > Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F. Kennedy" > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900 > > Odd: The $6.5 billion contract to build an inferior aircraft was known > while Kennedy was President and was under investigation by a Senate > Committee, but the investigation was shut down after Kennedy was > assassinated. > > Yet, after Harding died of what are believed to be natural causes, he > was blamed for things that did not become known until years later. > > By the way, I have not written the book yet. I am writing it now. But, > I already have the ISBN Number. It will appear at: > http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234 > > But I might also take time off to write a book about my friend Booby > the Fish, the one whom they kicked out of the USCF and now they are > shedding crocodile tears that he died. > > Sam Sloan   Date: 04 Apr 2008 20:39:48 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 4, 11:16 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> You are impugning somebody's character based upon a > >> fatuous argument. Suggesting that this is proper > >> behavior for an honest citizen is insulting to all > >> mankind, me included. > > > This is silly. We have been discussing ratings claims, not someone's > > character. There is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day. > > It's not really about rating claims. And you are revealing > quite a bit about your own character, like it or not. One way to see it is that the Reverend JDW is, perhaps, just another of the mindless Evans ratpackers, whose task it is to harry their annoying critics. But there is also a possibility that this poor fellow is a petty pedant, who has gotten stuck on the fact that Taylor Kingston phrased his comment thus: "...with a peak Elo rating of...". I think it is easy to see how a /petty pedant/ could get his panties in a wad over this minor slip-up by TK. The fact is, Mr. Kingston's peak postal rating was attained under the Harkness system, not the Elo system. The greater issues of Taylor Kingston's peak playing strength, the accuracy of Mr. Sloan's comment on TK's strength, and how any of that may relate to criticism of Larry Evans' article, all escape the /petty pedant/, who allows himself to become stuck on some minute point which is of no real importance and in fact was the result of a momentary whim. -- help bot   Date: 04 Apr 2008 20:25:32 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 4, 12:24 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > David Kane wrote: > > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:[email protected]... > >> David Kane wrote: > > >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>news:[email protected]... > >>>> [email protected] wrote: > >>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>>> Sam, > >>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > >>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > >>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > >>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > >>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > >>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > >>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: > > >>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > >>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > >>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > >>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see > >>>>>http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > >>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > >>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > >>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > >>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > >>>>> others. > > >>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > >>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > >>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > >>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. > > >>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not > >>>> as a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a > >>>> tremendous amount of research. He does this for books he is going to > >>>> publish, and he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. > > >>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your > >>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery > >>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and > >>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he > >>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. > > >> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not > >> interested. By describing his research skills, you have engaged in criticism. > > You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that > > should be telling you something. > > I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment > about the fact that he does a lot of it. So "fierce" means "prolific" or ... what?   Date: 04 Apr 2008 20:20:17 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 8:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sam, > > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > ludicrous example involving myself: > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > others. > > One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > Rev. Walker is fully informed. Sloan's announcement of Peter Leko's death is perhaps the best-known example of his 'fierce skills', but my own personal favorite was his comment about Pillsbury and his wife. "The Curse of Pillsbury It has long been thought that Harry Nelson Pillsbury, one of the brightest and most brilliant chess players ever, a man with a photographic memory who could carry thousand of nonsense syllables in his head, a man who perhaps was one of the greatest geniuses in all of human history, died at the early age of 34 because of syphilis. However, now a research scientist in Los Angeles has discovered the true cause of the mysterious illness which felled the greatest chess player ever. The great chess champion caught a disease so horrible, so loathsome, and so terrifying as to be unspeakable. He got it from his wife, who died from this affliction only one year after their marriage." This nonsense is refuted by looking at Pillsbury's obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer (June 18, 1906): "His wife, who when he married her on January 17, 1901, was a Miss Mary E. Bush.... was with him when he died."   Date: 04 Apr 2008 18:52:12 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154) wrote (Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:12:49 -0700 (PDT)): 7 ... 7 ... Taylor Kingston, who was the secret 7 moderator of the Chess Cafe Forum, ... 7 ... _ _ Evidence?   Date: 04 Apr 2008 18:44:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 5:12 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Back then, his favorite targets of attack were Raymond Keene, Larry > Evans and Eric Schiller. He only added me as a constant target of > attack later. > > Funny coincidence: The favorite targets of attack by Edward Winter > were Raymond Keene (especially), Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, the > same targets that Taylor Kingston was constantly attacking. The fact > that the two of them constantly attacked the same people and often > used the same words was what led me to conclude that they might be the > same person. Mr. Sloan seems a bit simple-minded here; such facts would imply that a poster was *parroting* Edward Winter, not that he was Edward Winter. For instance, take a gander at nearly-IMnes, who quite frequently parrots the words of GM Adorjan; does this constitute evidence that the nearly-an-IM is really the GM (minus a few bazillion brain cells)? I think not. > Once, when I Sam Sloan was attacked on chesscafe.com by Edward Winter > and I tried to respond, Taylor Kingston, who was the secret moderator > of the Chess Cafe Forum, would not allow my response to appear. Please explain how it is that Mr. Kingston was a "secret" moderator, when even Mr. Sloan knows who he was. And isn't it true that Dr. Phil nearly-IMnes is the one who has connections to chesscafe, not TK? -- help bot   Date: 04 Apr 2008 15:28:25 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 5:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Apr 4, 2:39 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > I append another example of our Sam's research "skills," posted in > > another thread just a few minutes ago. Referring to the Teapot Dome > > Scandal, involving bribery for oil leases during the Harding > > administration (1921-1923), Sam wrote: > > > "I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until > > years after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the > > Worst President Ever." > > > Leaving aside the issue of Harding's worth as a President, I just > > want to comment on Sloan's claim that this scandal "did not come out > > until years after Harding died." I quote from the 1988 World Book: > > > "In June 1923, Harding ... made the first presidential visit to > > Canada and Alaska. A long message in code from Washington reached > > Harding en route. It brought disturbing news about a Senate > > investigation of oil leases. Reporters later said that the depressed > > Harding asked reporters what a President could do when his friends > > betrayed him." > > Harding died on that trip when he reached back to San Francisco. > Obviously, he could have done nothing about it until he got back to > Washington. Which has no bearing on *_when_* the Teapot Dome Scandal became known. That question was the main point of my post to which you are replying. > Also, at that point it was just the beginning on an > investigation. It was years after Harding died that the investigation > turned up anything. So nothing, not even grounds for suspicion, had turned up, yet a Senate investigation had begun? Rrrrriiiight. > What about the $6.5 billion contract that was corruptly awarded by > President Kennedy to build an inferior military aircraft. That was > obviously a much more serious deal than a legitimate oil lease to > Sinclare Oil. This has no bearing on *_when_* the Teapot Dome Scandal became known, or on any aspect of it. > The $6.5 billion contract awarded to General Dynamics is what many > conspiracy theorists believe led to the Kennedy Assassination. That is > discussed in detail in my other recent book, "Mafia Moll: The Judith > Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F. Kennedy"http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900 This has no bearing on *_when_* the Teapot Dome Scandal became known, or on any aspect of it. > Odd: The $6.5 billion contract to build an inferior aircraft was known > while Kennedy was President and was under investigation by a Senate > Committee, but the investigation was shut down after Kennedy was > assassinated. This has no bearing on *_when_* the Teapot Dome Scandal became known, or on any aspect of it. > Yet, after Harding died of what are believed to be natural causes, he > was blamed for things that did not become known until years later. And for the Teapot Dome Scandal, which became known while Harding was alive, instead of "years later." I take it Sam, that whereas now you present nothing to support your earlier contention that the Teapot Dome scandal "did not come out until years after Harding had died," you have abandoned that claim? For the sake of anyone foolish enough to take your book seriously, I hope so. BTW, I just found this on Wikipedia. I don't like to quote that somewhat unreliable source, but what it says seems relevant: "On April 14, 1922, the Wall Street Journal reported a secret arrangement in which Fall had leased the petroleum reserves to a private oil company without competitive bidding. Fall denied the claims, and the leases to the oil companies seemed legal enough on the surface. However, the following day, Wyoming Democratic Senator John B. Kendrick introduced a resolution that would set in motion one of the most significant investigations in the Senate's history." I may be going out on a limb, but it seems to me that if something is reported in the Wall Street Journal, it has ceased to be secret, and may be regarded as "known." And last I checked, April 1922 was a year and four months *_before_* Harding died, not "years later." Keep that fierce, skillful research coming, Sammy boy!   Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:34:23 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 2:39 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Apr 4, 9:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sam, > > > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > > I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > > Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > > Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > > ludicrous example involving myself: > > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > > He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > > Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > > others. > > > One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > > http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > > Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > > Rev. Walker is fully informed. > > I append another example of our Sam's research "skills," posted in > another thread just a few minutes ago. Referring to the Teapot Dome > Scandal, involving bribery for oil leases during the Harding > > administration (1921-1923), Sam wrote: > > "I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until > years after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the > Worst President Ever." > > Leaving aside the issue of Harding's worth as a President, I just > want to comment on Sloan's claim that this scandal "did not come out > until years after Harding died." I quote from the 1988 World Book: > > "In June 1923, Harding ... made the first presidential visit to > Canada and Alaska. A long message in code from Washington reached > Harding en route. It brought disturbing news about a Senate > investigation of oil leases. Reporters later said that the depressed > Harding asked reporters what a President could do when his friends > betrayed him." Harding died on that trip when he reached back to San Francisco. Obviously, he could have done nothing about it until he got back to Washington. Also, at that point it was just the beginning on an investigation. It was years after Harding died that the investigation turned up anything. What about the $6.5 billion contract that was corruptly awarded by President Kennedy to build an inferior military aircraft. That was obviously a much more serious deal than a legitimate oil lease to Sinclare Oil. The $6.5 billion contract awarded to General Dynamics is what many conspiracy theorists believe led to the Kennedy Assassination. That is discussed in detail in my other recent book, "Mafia Moll: The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F. Kennedy" http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900 Odd: The $6.5 billion contract to build an inferior aircraft was known while Kennedy was President and was under investigation by a Senate Committee, but the investigation was shut down after Kennedy was assassinated. Yet, after Harding died of what are believed to be natural causes, he was blamed for things that did not become known until years later. By the way, I have not written the book yet. I am writing it now. But, I already have the ISBN Number. It will appear at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234 But I might also take time off to write a book about my friend Booby the Fish, the one whom they kicked out of the USCF and now they are shedding crocodile tears that he died. Sam Sloan   Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:31:27 From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 8:39 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes [me] > burst into laughter. Sanny has a wonderful influence on Greg. Otherwise Greg is dreadful :-) ==== Wlod   Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:12:49 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 2:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > samsloan wrote: > > On Apr 4, 1:24 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Wrong, you said I was not worth taking seriously. I have never said > >> anything like that about you. I have acknowledged what I saw as your > >> achievements in our previous discussion. I think they should have been > >> enough to satisfy most anybody. I do not know why you so persistently > >> seek an Elo rating for you past performance. It isn't necessary. The > >> fact that I still disagree with you on this one point seems to be > >> unacceptable to you. > > >> Given your attempts to drag my religious beliefs into the discussion, I > >> really no longer consider you to be a person one can have a civil > >> discussion with. What's next are you going to compare me to Hitler? > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > I see that you have gotten to know Taylor Kingston rather well. > > > He has been doing this for more than ten years, attacking all kinds of > > people, never making a positive contribution, and never saying > > anything good about anybody, except that he worships Edward Winter. > > > Sam Sloan > > Mr. Sloan, > > Your comments may be the kiss of death for me! :) > > People are saying one must be wary of the research behind your > statements. So let me back up a bit here and ask a few questions -- if > I may. > > Are you sure it is ten years? Maybe it was some lesser figure.... Why yes, indeed. It is more than ten years. Take a look at the following posting from 1997, more than ten years ago: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.misc/msg/54064085e3db89e9 "I'm surprised that anyone could take this trash opening seriously." Back then, his favorite targets of attack were Raymond Keene, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller. He only added me as a constant target of attack later. Funny coincidence: The favorite targets of attack by Edward Winter were Raymond Keene (especially), Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, the same targets that Taylor Kingston was constantly attacking. The fact that the two of them constantly attacked the same people and often used the same words was what led me to conclude that they might be the same person. Search his email address at the time [email protected] (kingston @ aol.com) and you will find many instances of this. Once, when I Sam Sloan was attacked on chesscafe.com by Edward Winter and I tried to respond, Taylor Kingston, who was the secret moderator of the Chess Cafe Forum, would not allow my response to appear. Sam Sloan   Date: 04 Apr 2008 12:39:38 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 9:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > =A0 In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sam, > > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > =A0 I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > =A0 Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > ludicrous example involving myself: > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > =A0 He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > =A0 Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > others. > > =A0 One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > =A0 =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > =A0 =A0Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > Rev. Walker is fully informed. I append another example of our Sam's research "skills," posted in another thread just a few minutes ago. Referring to the Teapot Dome Scandal, involving bribery for oil leases during the Harding administration (1921-1923), Sam wrote: "I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until years after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the Worst President Ever." Leaving aside the issue of Harding's worth as a President, I just want to comment on Sloan's claim that this scandal "did not come out until years after Harding died." I quote from the 1988 World Book: "In June 1923, Harding ... made the first presidential visit to Canada and Alaska. A long message in code from Washington reached Harding en route. It brought disturbing news about a Senate investigation of oil leases. Reporters later said that the depressed Harding asked reporters what a President could do when his friends betrayed him." So it's quite clear that members of the Senate, and Harding himself, knew of the scandal while Harding was still alive, rather than "years after he died." Michael Medved, on page 174 of "The Shadow Presidents" (Times Books 1979), describes "Congressional invesigations turning up evidence of massive wrongdoing" within about 6 months of Harding's death in August 1923. So it seems that Sam's "fierce" research cannot find what took me just a few minutes. One hopes he improves before the final version of his book goes to press.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:53:20 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 1:24 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Wrong, you said I was not worth taking seriously. I have never said > anything like that about you. I have acknowledged what I saw as your > achievements in our previous discussion. I think they should have been > enough to satisfy most anybody. I do not know why you so persistently > seek an Elo rating for you past performance. It isn't necessary. The > fact that I still disagree with you on this one point seems to be > unacceptable to you. > > Given your attempts to drag my religious beliefs into the discussion, I > really no longer consider you to be a person one can have a civil > discussion with. What's next are you going to compare me to Hitler? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. I see that you have gotten to know Taylor Kingston rather well. He has been doing this for more than ten years, attacking all kinds of people, never making a positive contribution, and never saying anything good about anybody, except that he worships Edward Winter. Sam Sloan     Date: 04 Apr 2008 12:03:03 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? samsloan wrote: > On Apr 4, 1:24 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wrong, you said I was not worth taking seriously. I have never said >> anything like that about you. I have acknowledged what I saw as your >> achievements in our previous discussion. I think they should have been >> enough to satisfy most anybody. I do not know why you so persistently >> seek an Elo rating for you past performance. It isn't necessary. The >> fact that I still disagree with you on this one point seems to be >> unacceptable to you. >> >> Given your attempts to drag my religious beliefs into the discussion, I >> really no longer consider you to be a person one can have a civil >> discussion with. What's next are you going to compare me to Hitler? >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > I see that you have gotten to know Taylor Kingston rather well. > > He has been doing this for more than ten years, attacking all kinds of > people, never making a positive contribution, and never saying > anything good about anybody, except that he worships Edward Winter. > > Sam Sloan Mr. Sloan, Your comments may be the kiss of death for me! :) People are saying one must be wary of the research behind your statements. So let me back up a bit here and ask a few questions -- if I may. Are you sure it is ten years? Maybe it was some lesser figure.... Is the use of the usage of the word "never" accurate? Surely, he has contributed some things of worth... In what way does he worship Edward Winter? I know that even a severe critic like Larry Parr has had some good things to say about Taylor's work. Would you agree with him? Please remember that he has cursed me as being unworthy of taking seriously. So lets laugh about it instead! :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:46:57 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 12:44=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > zdrakec wrote: > >> No, do your own work. =A0If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go > >> ahead. =A0You supposedly have the skills to do it. > >> -- > > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > A perfectly legitimate attitude - unless you have previously praised > > the subject's research "skills". Refusal to even look at a glaringly > > contrary example smacks of the very thing Sloan is so often guilty of: > > "Don't trouble me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." > > > Disdainfully, > > zdrakec > > Mr. Z., > > A perfectly legitimate attitude in any case. =A0I am under no obligation > to do Taylor's or your work in this matter. =A0If you want to review and > criticize Mr. Sloan's work be man enough to do your own work. =A0I am not > standing in your way. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Here's the salient point you are missing - I'm not really addressing Sloan's "work". I'm addressing your endorsement of it coupled with your refusal to even look at it. I make no particular claim to consistency myself, but to praise someone's "research", then state you won't look at - this paints you as a partisan, and an ill-informed one at that. See the difference? zdraked     Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:50:12 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? zdrakec wrote: > On Apr 4, 12:44 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> zdrakec wrote: >>>> No, do your own work. If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go >>>> ahead. You supposedly have the skills to do it. >>>> -- >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> A perfectly legitimate attitude - unless you have previously praised >>> the subject's research "skills". Refusal to even look at a glaringly >>> contrary example smacks of the very thing Sloan is so often guilty of: >>> "Don't trouble me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." >>> Disdainfully, >>> zdrakec >> Mr. Z., >> >> A perfectly legitimate attitude in any case. I am under no obligation >> to do Taylor's or your work in this matter. If you want to review and >> criticize Mr. Sloan's work be man enough to do your own work. I am not >> standing in your way. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Here's the salient point you are missing - I'm not really addressing > Sloan's "work". I'm addressing your endorsement of it coupled with > your refusal to even look at it. I make no particular claim to > consistency myself, but to praise someone's "research", then state you > won't look at - this paints you as a partisan, and an ill-informed one > at that. > > See the difference? > > zdraked > Mr. Z., Then learn to read. I have not endorsed Sam's work, and I definitely do not endorse yours. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:16:36 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 1:50=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > On Apr 4, 1:26 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: > > >>> =A0 Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese= - > >>> American relations. In my experience, most people with the title > >>> "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, > >>> expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). > >>> Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to =A0run > >>> contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. > > >>> =A0 Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking= > >>> into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten > >>> Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when= > >>> switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating > >>> systems. > >> No Taylor. =A0Keep fishing if it is your wish. =A0I am not interested i= n > >> your creations. =A0 > > > =A0 "_My_ creations"?? Ahem, Rev, Sam Sloan wrote that post. Even Larry > > Parr admits it. He excused on the grounds that Sam was bored. Do you > > concur? > > >> Why do you bother? =A0You already said that I was not to > >> be taken seriously. =A0Have you changed your mind -- yet again? > > > =A0 Apparently you lack the courage to take a stand on even the most > > blatant example of Sloan's loathesomeness, in pursuit of what agenda > > or purpose I cannot imagine. To quote a recent post from another > > thread: "If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand. " > > "Apparently"... =A0"It seems"... =A0"Refusal to imply"... =A0"Seems to run= > contrary"... =A0How much more of this kind of thing are you going to > create? =A0I have not been participating in your monologue. =A0You are > playing this game with yourself. Oh no, you keep answering, both by what you say and what you refuse to say. By the way, your rhetorical dodges are starting to resemble those of Phil Innes. > I remember a point in our previous discussion where we could have agreed > to disagree, yet you pushed on. =A0I asked you if you really wanted to do > that and you did. =A0Now we see the kind of ending to an argument that > Taylor Kingston really wanted. "Rev," having taken it upon yourself to press me repeatedly, and in a most uncordial way, on something you disagreed with, surely you in turn must recognize my prerogative to press you when you have said something I consider ludicrously untrue.     Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:24:14 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > On Apr 4, 1:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> On Apr 4, 1:26 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- >>>>> American relations. In my experience, most people with the title >>>>> "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, >>>>> expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). >>>>> Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run >>>>> contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. >>>>> Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking >>>>> into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten >>>>> Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when >>>>> switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating >>>>> systems. >>>> No Taylor. Keep fishing if it is your wish. I am not interested in >>>> your creations. >>> "_My_ creations"?? Ahem, Rev, Sam Sloan wrote that post. Even Larry >>> Parr admits it. He excused on the grounds that Sam was bored. Do you >>> concur? >>>> Why do you bother? You already said that I was not to >>>> be taken seriously. Have you changed your mind -- yet again? >>> Apparently you lack the courage to take a stand on even the most >>> blatant example of Sloan's loathesomeness, in pursuit of what agenda >>> or purpose I cannot imagine. To quote a recent post from another >>> thread: "If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand. " >> "Apparently"... "It seems"... "Refusal to imply"... "Seems to run >> contrary"... How much more of this kind of thing are you going to >> create? I have not been participating in your monologue. You are >> playing this game with yourself. > > Oh no, you keep answering, both by what you say and what you refuse > to say. By the way, your rhetorical dodges are starting to resemble > those of Phil Innes. > >> I remember a point in our previous discussion where we could have agreed >> to disagree, yet you pushed on. I asked you if you really wanted to do >> that and you did. Now we see the kind of ending to an argument that >> Taylor Kingston really wanted. > > "Rev," having taken it upon yourself to press me repeatedly, and in > a most uncordial way, on something you disagreed with, surely you in > turn must recognize my prerogative to press you when you have said > something I consider ludicrously untrue. Wrong, you said I was not worth taking seriously. I have never said anything like that about you. I have acknowledged what I saw as your achievements in our previous discussion. I think they should have been enough to satisfy most anybody. I do not know why you so persistently seek an Elo rating for you past performance. It isn't necessary. The fact that I still disagree with you on this one point seems to be unacceptable to you. Given your attempts to drag my religious beliefs into the discussion, I really no longer consider you to be a person one can have a civil discussion with. What's next are you going to compare me to Hitler? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:49:19 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? Perhaps Rev Walker would allow this change in formulation of praise? Sam is willing to spend a great deal of time and energy on his research. Unfortunately, in my mind, he then wastes this positive attribute by falling in love with whatever theory comes into his head to explain what he finds. He is willing to do research, but he lacks the quality of self-criticism and objective analysis. As to whether Sam's research ever turned up anything important, I think he can when the evaluation is truly obvious. I may be wrong, but didn't he turn up ratings fraud with regard to a previous USCF board member? On the other hand, Sam had nothing to do with the research on the FSS posts; this was all Brian Motterhead. Sam is also useful when he has been eye-witness to events others are not willing or able to talk about. Few of us have been to FIDE meetings, and you could say that Sam's travel to and reports from these are a form of research. Jerry Spinrad On Apr 4, 12:26=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > On Apr 4, 12:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> David Kane wrote: > > >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >>>news:[email protected]... > >>>> [email protected] wrote: > >>>>> =A0 In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Sam, > >>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > >>>>> =A0 I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context,= but > >>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > >>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > >>>>> =A0 Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > >>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especiall= y > >>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: > >>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > >>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 200= 5 > >>>>> =A0 He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Wi= nter > >>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e= 2z) > >>>>> =A0 Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter= > >>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earlie= st > >>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not E= lo > >>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many= > >>>>> others. > >>>>> =A0 One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan= 's > >>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends:= > >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > >>>>> =A0 =A0Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure= that > >>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. > >>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as= > >>>> a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous > >>>> amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, an= d > >>>> he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. > >>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your= > >>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery > >>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and > >>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he > >>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. > >> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. > > > =A0 Really? So when you praised his research skills, that did not > > constitute "reviewing"? > > >> Sorry not interested. > > > =A0 Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- > > American relations. In my experience, most people with the title > > "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, > > expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). > > Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run > > contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. > > =A0 Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking > > into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten > > Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when > > switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating > > systems. > > No Taylor. =A0Keep fishing if it is your wish. =A0I am not interested in > your creations. =A0Why do you bother? =A0You already said that I was not t= o > be taken seriously. =A0Have you changed your mind -- yet again? > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:55:08 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > Perhaps Rev Walker would allow this change in formulation of praise? > Sam is willing to spend a great deal of time and energy on his > research. Unfortunately, in my mind, he then wastes this positive > attribute by falling in love with whatever theory comes into his head > to explain what he finds. He is willing to do research, but he lacks > the quality of self-criticism and objective analysis. > > As to whether Sam's research ever turned up anything important, I > think he can when the evaluation is truly obvious. I may be wrong, but > didn't he turn up ratings fraud with regard to a previous USCF board > member? > > On the other hand, Sam had nothing to do with the research on the FSS > posts; this was all Brian Motterhead. > > Sam is also useful when he has been eye-witness to events others are > not willing or able to talk about. Few of us have been to FIDE > meetings, and you could say that Sam's travel to and reports from > these are a form of research. > > Jerry Spinrad > > On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> On Apr 4, 12:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>>>> others. >>>>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as >>>>>> a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous >>>>>> amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and >>>>>> he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >>>>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>>>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>>>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>>>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>>>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >>>> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. >>> Really? So when you praised his research skills, that did not >>> constitute "reviewing"? >>>> Sorry not interested. >>> Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- >>> American relations. In my experience, most people with the title >>> "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, >>> expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). >>> Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run >>> contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. >>> Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking >>> into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten >>> Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when >>> switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating >>> systems. >> No Taylor. Keep fishing if it is your wish. I am not interested in >> your creations. Why do you bother? You already said that I was not to >> be taken seriously. Have you changed your mind -- yet again? >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > Mr. Spinrad, Thank you for a balanced response. What you said sounds more likely to me. But I am not in a position to endorse it. I made a limited qualified statement that still sounds true to me. That's all. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:40:12 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 1:26=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > > =A0 Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- > > American relations. In my experience, most people with the title > > "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, > > expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). > > Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run > > contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. >> > > =A0 Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking > > into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten > > Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when > > switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating > > systems. > > No Taylor. =A0Keep fishing if it is your wish. =A0I am not interested in > your creations. =A0 "_My_ creations"?? Ahem, Rev, Sam Sloan wrote that post. Even Larry Parr admits it. He excused on the grounds that Sam was bored. Do you concur? > Why do you bother? =A0You already said that I was not to > be taken seriously. =A0Have you changed your mind -- yet again? Apparently you lack the courage to take a stand on even the most blatant example of Sloan's loathesomeness, in pursuit of what agenda or purpose I cannot imagine. To quote a recent post from another thread: "If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand. "     Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:50:58 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > On Apr 4, 1:26 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- >>> American relations. In my experience, most people with the title >>> "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, >>> expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). >>> Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run >>> contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. >>> >>> Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking >>> into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten >>> Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when >>> switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating >>> systems. >> No Taylor. Keep fishing if it is your wish. I am not interested in >> your creations. > > "_My_ creations"?? Ahem, Rev, Sam Sloan wrote that post. Even Larry > Parr admits it. He excused on the grounds that Sam was bored. Do you > concur? > >> Why do you bother? You already said that I was not to >> be taken seriously. Have you changed your mind -- yet again? > > Apparently you lack the courage to take a stand on even the most > blatant example of Sloan's loathesomeness, in pursuit of what agenda > or purpose I cannot imagine. To quote a recent post from another > thread: "If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand. " "Apparently"... "It seems"... "Refusal to imply"... "Seems to run contrary"... How much more of this kind of thing are you going to create? I have not been participating in your monologue. You are playing this game with yourself. I remember a point in our previous discussion where we could have agreed to disagree, yet you pushed on. I asked you if you really wanted to do that and you did. Now we see the kind of ending to an argument that Taylor Kingston really wanted. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:37:33 From: zdrakec Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? > No, do your own work. =A0If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go > ahead. =A0You supposedly have the skills to do it. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A perfectly legitimate attitude - unless you have previously praised the subject's research "skills". Refusal to even look at a glaringly contrary example smacks of the very thing Sloan is so often guilty of: "Don't trouble me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." Disdainfully, zdrakec     Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:44:17 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? zdrakec wrote: >> No, do your own work. If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go >> ahead. You supposedly have the skills to do it. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > A perfectly legitimate attitude - unless you have previously praised > the subject's research "skills". Refusal to even look at a glaringly > contrary example smacks of the very thing Sloan is so often guilty of: > "Don't trouble me with the facts. I've already made up my mind." > > Disdainfully, > zdrakec Mr. Z., A perfectly legitimate attitude in any case. I am under no obligation to do Taylor's or your work in this matter. If you want to review and criticize Mr. Sloan's work be man enough to do your own work. I am not standing in your way. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:20:01 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 12:50=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > David Kane wrote: > > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >news:[email protected]... > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> =A0 In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > >>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Sam, > >>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > >>> =A0 I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, b= ut > >>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > >>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > >>> =A0 Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > >>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > >>> ludicrous example involving myself: > > >>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > >>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > >>> =A0 He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Wint= er > >>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z= ) > > >>> =A0 Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > >>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest= > >>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo= > >>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > >>> others. > > >>> =A0 One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's= > >>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > >>> =A0 =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > >>> =A0 =A0Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure t= hat > >>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. > > >> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as > >> a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous > >> amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and > >> he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. > > > Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your > > opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery > > of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and > > then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he > > occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. > > I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work.=A0 Really? So when you praised his research skills, that did not constitute "reviewing"? > Sorry not interested. Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- American relations. In my experience, most people with the title "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating systems.     Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:26:57 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > On Apr 4, 12:50 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Kane wrote: >> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Sam, >>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>> others. >>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as >>>> a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous >>>> amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and >>>> he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. > > Really? So when you praised his research skills, that did not > constitute "reviewing"? > >> Sorry not interested. > > Your refusal seems to imply that you endorse his views on Japanese- > American relations. In my experience, most people with the title > "Reverend" strongly disapprove of the sort of things he describes, > expresses and espouses in that thread (http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h). > Your attitude, whether approval or mere indifference, seems to run > contrary to Christian ethics as generally understood. > Would you please explain how your theological views differ, taking > into account, of course, doctrinal fluctuations backdated to the Ten > Commandments, so as to arrive at the correct conversion algorithm when > switching between Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant rating > systems. No Taylor. Keep fishing if it is your wish. I am not interested in your creations. Why do you bother? You already said that I was not to be taken seriously. Have you changed your mind -- yet again? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 09:32:38 From: Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 11:39=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount > of research. =A0He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does= > it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. =A0As I stated before I may= > not agree with some of his conclusions, Please tell us, Reverend, whether you agree with his research and conclusions here: http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h In fact, I'd be quite interested in your opinion of his post as a whole -- its language, its social attitudes, its moral stance, the insight it provides to Sam's character, etc. It seems to me the kind of thing one should not be indifferent to, especially in a man who runs for USCF office and Governor of New York. I would especially like to know if you can read all of Sam's posts in that thread without vomiting.     Date: 04 Apr 2008 09:44:32 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > On Apr 4, 11:39 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount >> of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does >> it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. As I stated before I may >> not agree with some of his conclusions, > > Please tell us, Reverend, whether you agree with his research and > conclusions here: > > http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > In fact, I'd be quite interested in your opinion of his post as a > whole -- its language, its social attitudes, its moral stance, the > insight it provides to Sam's character, etc. It seems to me the kind > of thing one should not be indifferent to, especially in a man who > runs for USCF office and Governor of New York. > > I would especially like to know if you can read all of Sam's posts > in that thread without vomiting. > No, do your own work. If you want to criticize Mr. Sloan's work go ahead. You supposedly have the skills to do it. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 08:39:15 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? [email protected] wrote: > In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sam, >> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. > Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > ludicrous example involving myself: > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > others. > > One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > Rev. Walker is fully informed. > From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. As I stated before I may not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just because I can appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean that I endorse all of his views or actions in life. Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.     Date: 04 Apr 2008 09:31:19 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] wrote: >> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >> >> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sam, >>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >> >> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >> ludicrous example involving myself: >> >> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >> >> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >> >> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >> others. >> >> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >> >> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >> > > From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a enemy > with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of research. > He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it for articles he > has submitted to Wikipedia. Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. As I stated before I may > not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor > Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion to > impress folks with a high Elo rating. > It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better impression by apologizing. > Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that some > of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times Greg > Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just because I can > appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean that I endorse all of > his views or actions in life. help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion that he is capable of making intelligent commentary. > > Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic > put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 04 Apr 2008 09:50:15 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? David Kane wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> [email protected] wrote: >>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>> >>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Sam, >>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>> >>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>> >>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>> >>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>> >>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>> others. >>> >>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>> >>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>> >> >> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as >> a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous >> amount of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and >> he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. > > Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your > opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery > of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and > then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he > occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not interested. > As I stated before I may >> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with >> Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating >> conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >> > > It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. > Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better > impression by apologizing. Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that way here. > >> Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something >> that some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that >> at times Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into >> laughter. Just because I can appreciate that part of his writings >> here does not mean that I endorse all of his views or actions in life. > > help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion > that he is capable of making intelligent commentary. > > >> >> Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic >> put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:13:06 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > David Kane wrote: >> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>> >>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Sam, >>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>> >>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>> >>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>> >>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>> others. >>>> >>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>> >>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>> >>> >>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a >>> enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of >>> research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it for >>> articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >> >> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. > > I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not interested. You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that should be telling you something. > >> As I stated before I may >>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor >>> Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion to >>> impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>> >> >> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. >> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >> impression by apologizing. > > Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have > no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that > way here. Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your past posts. > >> >>> Stand warned, as a casual everyday person I might well do something that >>> some of you might react for very poorly to, like admitting that at times >>> Greg Kennedy is quite humorous and makes burst into laughter. Just because >>> I can appreciate that part of his writings here does not mean that I endorse >>> all of his views or actions in life. >> >> help bot's satire *is* good. If only he could be ridded of his delusion >> that he is capable of making intelligent commentary. >> >> >>> >>> Some of you folks have gotten so polarized and enamored of hyperbolic >>> put-downs that it is really amazing, in a sad way. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:24:29 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... David Kane wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> David Kane wrote: >>> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Sam, >>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>> >>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>>> >>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>> >>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>> others. >>>>> >>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>> >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not >>>> as a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a >>>> tremendous amount of research. He does this for books he is going to >>>> publish, and he does it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >>> >>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >> >> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not >> interested. > > You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that > should be telling you something. I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment about the fact that he does a lot of it. That should be telling you something. People that want to criticize Sam's work should be honest enough to do their own work. >>> As I stated before I may >>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with >>>> Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a >>>> rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>> >>> >>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. >>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>> impression by apologizing. >> >> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have >> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that >> way here. > > Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If > it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, the last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's official USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying that their is an official USCF rating list out there that contradicts that? If so, please let us show us. Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? > I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When > Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 > points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the > facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting > nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") > > It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your > past posts. <shrugs > > > > -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.             Date: 04 Apr 2008 12:49:05 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > David Kane wrote: >> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> David Kane wrote: >>>> >>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>>> >>>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>>>> >>>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>>> >>>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>>> others. >>>>>> >>>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a >>>>> enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount of >>>>> research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does it >>>>> for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >>>> >>>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >>> >>> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not interested. >> >> You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that >> should be telling you something. > > I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment about > the fact that he does a lot of it. That should be telling you something. > People that want to criticize Sam's work should be honest enough to do their > own work. The issue isn't Sam's work. The issue is your appreciation of it without bothering to learn about it. If you want to celebrate your ignorance, by all means go ahead. But there is another way. >>>> As I stated before I may >>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with Taylor >>>>> Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating conversion >>>>> to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. >>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>> impression by apologizing. >>> >>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have >>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that >>> way here. >> >> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. > > I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were referring > to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, the last concrete > fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's official USCF published > rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying that their is an official > USCF rating list out there that contradicts that? If so, please let us show > us. > > Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding that belief. Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, of course. > >> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >> >> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >> past posts. > > <shrugs> > >> >> >> > > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.               Date: 07 Apr 2008 19:03:28 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 6, 3:56 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > > BTW, I've had a USCF 2350 player hang a > > piece for no reason, and two GMs who > > made crude errors against me; you'll never > > guess which *one* of these games I > > managed to win. That's why I always prefer > > the GMs to hang a full Queen... . > What is your Current Rating Help Bot and How many GMs have you played > with. What is the highest rated player you have ever played? My current rating is 1528, but then, you know there are serious issues with the GetClub ratings (stronger levels are lower than weaker ones, draws are rated as losses, etc.). Offhand, I think I have played perhaps three GMs, the top-rated being somewhere around 2710. Twice, I had Black and was under the gun the whole time, but the game in which I had White I did reasonably well on the chess board, though I was clearly "battered" on the clock. These guys are too tough for me; I would rather beat up on weak players, for as one fellow put it in a "Rocky" movie, they're tailor made for me. The USCF 2350 player really did hang a piece for no reason. Offhand, the closest thing to this fluke was when a USCF master once allowed me to trap his KB on the h8 square, from which it could never move without being gobbled up by my pawn on f6 (I had White). -- help bot               Date: 06 Apr 2008 00:56:56 From: Sanny Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... > =A0 BTW, I've had a USCF 2350 player hang a > piece for no reason, and two GMs who > made crude errors against me; you'll never > guess which *one* of these games I > managed to win. =A0That's why I always prefer > the GMs to hang a full Queen... . > > =A0 -- help bot What is your Current Rating Help Bot and How many GMs have you played with. What is the highest rated player you have ever played? Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html               Date: 05 Apr 2008 19:19:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Apr 5, 10:32 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > I've wondered why the USCF doesn't keep and publish (at least on the > website) such statistics as Peak Rating, Greatest Upset, Peak Event > Performance Rating, etc.. Seems these would be more meaningful than > the idea of life titles and might motivate people to play in more OTB > tournaments. Even if one's rating seems stuck at a lower level, > there's a chance of pulling things together for one great event, or > maybe a 2400 player will hang a piece... Careful... we don't want to encourage the dishonest players to "buy" games, just so they can top such lists and thereby attain fifteen minutes of fame. There already exists a problem with some players who have been careful to never allow their USCF ratings to rise beyond some set limit -- career sandbaggers who, for instance, show up for the state championship to repeat, again and again, as winner of the "Reserve" section and grab some loot (and some small fame). BTW, I've had a USCF 2350 player hang a piece for no reason, and two GMs who made crude errors against me; you'll never guess which *one* of these games I managed to win. That's why I always prefer the GMs to hang a full Queen... . -- help bot               Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:00:24 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... David Kane wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> David Kane wrote: >>> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this >>>>>>> context, but >>>>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one >>>>>>> especially >>>>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December >>>>>>> 2005 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. >>>>>>> Winter >>>>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the >>>>>>> earliest >>>>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are >>>>>>> not Elo >>>>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>>>> others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not >>>>>> as a enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a >>>>>> tremendous amount of research. He does this for books he is going >>>>>> to publish, and he does it for articles he has submitted to >>>>>> Wikipedia. >>>>> >>>>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>>>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>>>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>>>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>>>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >>>> >>>> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not >>>> interested. >>> >>> You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that >>> should be telling you something. >> >> I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment >> about the fact that he does a lot of it. That should be telling you >> something. People that want to criticize Sam's work should be honest >> enough to do their own work. > > The issue isn't Sam's work. The issue is your appreciation of it without > bothering to learn about it. If you want to celebrate your ignorance, > by all means go ahead. But there is another way. I am not going to repeat myself on this topic in a number of threads. Read the others if it is important to you. > >>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree >>>>>> with Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating >>>>>> a rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating >>>>> methodology. >>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>> >>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I >>>> have >>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that >>>> way here. >>> >>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >> >> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were >> referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, >> the last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's >> official USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you >> saying that their is an official USCF rating list out there that >> contradicts that? If so, please let us show us. >> >> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? > > I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF > (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, > or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, > but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding > that belief. The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official ratings, not Taylor Kingston. > Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, > of course. Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are irrelevant evidence? > >> >>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>> >>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>> past posts. >> >> <shrugs> >> -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                 Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:09:43 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > David Kane wrote: >> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> David Kane wrote: >>>> >>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>>> In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sam, >>>>>>>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but >>>>>>>> regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to >>>>>>>> Sam's research is an oxymoron. He is generally quite slipshod. >>>>>>>> Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using >>>>>>>> fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially >>>>>>>> ludicrous example involving myself: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same >>>>>>>> person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter >>>>>>>> and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, see >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/382e2z) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter >>>>>>>> Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest >>>>>>>> instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo >>>>>>>> ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many >>>>>>>> others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's >>>>>>>> examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that >>>>>>>> Rev. Walker is fully informed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From what I have seen, not as a professional investigator, and not as a >>>>>>> enemy with an axe to grin, Sam Sloan is involved in a tremendous amount >>>>>>> of research. He does this for books he is going to publish, and he does >>>>>>> it for articles he has submitted to Wikipedia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Out of curiosity, what is an example of Sloan's good research, in your >>>>>> opinion? If there is ever an example of someone making a mockery >>>>>> of investigation it would be Sloan. He starts with a conclusion, and >>>>>> then invents supporting facts out of absolutely nothing. If he >>>>>> occasionally gets a fact or two correct, it is by accident. >>>>> >>>>> I am not reviewing and criticizing Sam Sloan's work. Sorry not >>>>> interested. >>>> >>>> You can't provide a single example of his good research? Maybe that >>>> should be telling you something. >>> >>> I have not tried to review and criticize Sam's work. I made a comment about >>> the fact that he does a lot of it. That should be telling you something. >>> People that want to criticize Sam's work should be honest enough to do their >>> own work. >> >> The issue isn't Sam's work. The issue is your appreciation of it without >> bothering to learn about it. If you want to celebrate your ignorance, >> by all means go ahead. But there is another way. > > I am not going to repeat myself on this topic in a number of threads. Read the > others if it is important to you. The one's I've read are no more responsive than this one. Why can't you provide a single example of Sloan's good research? > >> >>>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with >>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating >>>>>>> conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating methodology. >>>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>>> >>>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have >>>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that >>>>> way here. >>>> >>>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >>> >>> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were >>> referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, the >>> last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's official >>> USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying that their >>> is an official USCF rating list out there that contradicts that? If so, >>> please let us show us. >>> >>> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? >> >> I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF >> (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, >> or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, >> but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding >> that belief. > > The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official ratings, > not Taylor Kingston. When did Taylor Kingston claim to publish official ratings? The issue is whether the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or not. Your refusal to address the issue suggests that you know you are wrong, but not mature enough to admit it. > >> Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, >> of course. > > Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are irrelevant > evidence? On the contrary, the rating lists show the conversion process that the USCF (and secondarily, Martinak and Kingston) used. Why do you object to the conversion method that they used? > >> >>> >>>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>>> >>>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>>> past posts. >>> >>> <shrugs> >>> > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                   Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:40:05 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... David Kane wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> David Kane wrote: >>> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: <snipping redundant argument about Sam Sloan > >>>>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree >>>>>>>> with Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally >>>>>>>> backdating a rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo >>>>>>>> rating. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating >>>>>>> methodology. >>>>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. >>>>>> I have >>>>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it >>>>>> that >>>>>> way here. >>>>> >>>>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>>>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >>>> >>>> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were >>>> referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's >>>> conversion, the last concrete fact I heard about that was that >>>> Taylor Kingston's official USCF published rating that came of it was >>>> 2037. Are you saying that their is an official USCF rating list out >>>> there that contradicts that? If so, please let us show us. >>>> >>>> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate >>>> ratings? >>> >>> I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF >>> (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, >>> or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, >>> but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding >>> that belief. >> >> The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official >> ratings, not Taylor Kingston. > > When did Taylor Kingston claim to publish official ratings? > The issue is whether the USCF's conversion method was > reasonable or not. Your refusal to address the issue suggests > that you know you are wrong, but not mature enough to admit > it. > >> >>> Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, >>> of course. >> >> Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are >> irrelevant evidence? > > On the contrary, the rating lists show the conversion process that > the USCF (and secondarily, Martinak and Kingston) used. > Why do you object to the conversion method that they used? > On a particular date it is a historical fact that the USCF performed a conversion process which took a select set of ratings from the old USCF Postal Rating system and converted them to a new system which has been called the Elo system. Taylor Kingston had an old rating that was selected for this conversion. At the end of the process, as he has told me, he was given his first official USCF postal Elo rating of 2037. I do not argue with this rating conversion process. He also told me that he has not been active since. This suggests that 2037 is the only official published postal Elo rating that he has had. Logically, that also makes it his peak official USCF postal Elo rating. It is quite possible that after that conversion process a number of players wished that a different rating from their past had been selected for the conversion. Some of them may even have been bitter about it. Perhaps there are other disgruntled players that through a process of wishful thinking wish to create a different reality for themselves. I believe it would be extremely bad policy for the USCF to get involved in officially providing back dated conversions for disgruntled players. To my knowledge, to date, they have not done so. I had quite a lengthy discussion with Taylor about this. I offered to agree to disagree with him, but he wanted to go on. I do not see anything new in what you have said. Meanwhile, my view of this whole matter has solidified. You can disagree all you want. I am quite content to agree to disagree as many honest citizens do in our Democracy. I will not insult or otherwise attack you. It is a simple disagreement. Do you want to do that? >>>> >>>>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>>>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>>>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>>>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>>>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>>>> >>>>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>>>> past posts. >>>> >>>> <shrugs> >>>> >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                     Date: 04 Apr 2008 15:56:13 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > David Kane wrote: >> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> David Kane wrote: >>>> >>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: > > <snipping redundant argument about Sam Sloan> > >>>>>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with >>>>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a rating >>>>>>>>> conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating >>>>>>>> methodology. >>>>>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>>>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I have >>>>>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it that >>>>>>> way here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>>>>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >>>>> >>>>> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were >>>>> referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, the >>>>> last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's official >>>>> USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying that their >>>>> is an official USCF rating list out there that contradicts that? If so, >>>>> please let us show us. >>>>> >>>>> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? >>>> >>>> I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF >>>> (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, >>>> or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, >>>> but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding >>>> that belief. >>> >>> The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official ratings, >>> not Taylor Kingston. >> >> When did Taylor Kingston claim to publish official ratings? >> The issue is whether the USCF's conversion method was >> reasonable or not. Your refusal to address the issue suggests >> that you know you are wrong, but not mature enough to admit >> it. >> >>> >>>> Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, >>>> of course. >>> >>> Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are irrelevant >>> evidence? >> >> On the contrary, the rating lists show the conversion process that >> the USCF (and secondarily, Martinak and Kingston) used. >> Why do you object to the conversion method that they used? >> > > On a particular date it is a historical fact that the USCF performed a > conversion process which took a select set of ratings from the old USCF Postal > Rating system and converted them to a new system which has been called the Elo > system. Taylor Kingston had an old rating that was selected for this > conversion. At the end of the process, as he has told me, he was given his > first official USCF postal Elo rating of 2037. I do not argue with this > rating conversion process. > > He also told me that he has not been active since. This suggests that 2037 is > the only official published postal Elo rating that he has had. Logically, that > also makes it his peak official USCF postal Elo rating. > > It is quite possible that after that conversion process a number of players > wished that a different rating from their past had been selected for the > conversion. Some of them may even have been bitter about it. Perhaps there > are other disgruntled players that through a process of wishful thinking wish > to create a different reality for themselves. > > I believe it would be extremely bad policy for the USCF to get involved in > officially providing back dated conversions for disgruntled players. To my > knowledge, to date, they have not done so. > > I had quite a lengthy discussion with Taylor about this. I offered to agree > to disagree with him, but he wanted to go on. I do not see anything new in > what you have said. Meanwhile, my view of this whole matter has solidified. > > You can disagree all you want. I am quite content to agree to disagree as > many honest citizens do in our Democracy. I will not insult or otherwise > attack you. It is a simple disagreement. Do you want to do that? You are impugning somebody's character based upon a fatuous argument. Suggesting that this is proper behavior for an honest citizen is insulting to all mankind, me included. > >>>>> >>>>>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>>>>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>>>>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>>>>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>>>>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>>>>> >>>>>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>>>>> past posts. >>>>> >>>>> <shrugs> >>>>> >>> -- >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> > > > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                       Date: 04 Apr 2008 16:26:15 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... David Kane wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> David Kane wrote: >>> >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >> >> <snipping redundant argument about Sam Sloan> >> >>>>>>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree >>>>>>>>>> with Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally >>>>>>>>>> backdating a rating conversion to impress folks with a high >>>>>>>>>> Elo rating. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating >>>>>>>>> methodology. >>>>>>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even >>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking >>>>>>>> about. I have >>>>>>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see >>>>>>>> it that >>>>>>>> way here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>>>>>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >>>>>> >>>>>> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you >>>>>> were referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's >>>>>> conversion, the last concrete fact I heard about that was that >>>>>> Taylor Kingston's official USCF published rating that came of it >>>>>> was 2037. Are you saying that their is an official USCF rating >>>>>> list out there that contradicts that? If so, please let us show us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate >>>>>> ratings? >>>>> >>>>> I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF >>>>> (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, >>>>> or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, >>>>> but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for >>>>> holding >>>>> that belief. >>>> >>>> The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official >>>> ratings, not Taylor Kingston. >>> >>> When did Taylor Kingston claim to publish official ratings? >>> The issue is whether the USCF's conversion method was >>> reasonable or not. Your refusal to address the issue suggests >>> that you know you are wrong, but not mature enough to admit >>> it. >>> >>>> >>>>> Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, >>>>> of course. >>>> >>>> Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are >>>> irrelevant evidence? >>> >>> On the contrary, the rating lists show the conversion process that >>> the USCF (and secondarily, Martinak and Kingston) used. >>> Why do you object to the conversion method that they used? >>> >> >> On a particular date it is a historical fact that the USCF performed a >> conversion process which took a select set of ratings from the old >> USCF Postal Rating system and converted them to a new system which has >> been called the Elo system. Taylor Kingston had an old rating that >> was selected for this conversion. At the end of the process, as he >> has told me, he was given his first official USCF postal Elo rating of >> 2037. I do not argue with this rating conversion process. >> >> He also told me that he has not been active since. This suggests that >> 2037 is the only official published postal Elo rating that he has had. >> Logically, that also makes it his peak official USCF postal Elo rating. >> >> It is quite possible that after that conversion process a number of >> players wished that a different rating from their past had been >> selected for the conversion. Some of them may even have been bitter >> about it. Perhaps there are other disgruntled players that through a >> process of wishful thinking wish to create a different reality for >> themselves. >> >> I believe it would be extremely bad policy for the USCF to get >> involved in officially providing back dated conversions for >> disgruntled players. To my knowledge, to date, they have not done so. >> >> I had quite a lengthy discussion with Taylor about this. I offered to >> agree to disagree with him, but he wanted to go on. I do not see >> anything new in what you have said. Meanwhile, my view of this whole >> matter has solidified. >> >> You can disagree all you want. I am quite content to agree to >> disagree as many honest citizens do in our Democracy. I will not >> insult or otherwise attack you. It is a simple disagreement. Do you >> want to do that? > > You are impugning somebody's character based upon a > fatuous argument. Suggesting that this is proper > behavior for an honest citizen is insulting to all > mankind, me included. > This is silly. We have been discussing ratings claims, not someone's character. There is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day. > >> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>>>>>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>>>>>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>>>>>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>>>>>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>>>>>> past posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> <shrugs> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                         Date: 04 Apr 2008 20:16:46 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > David Kane wrote: >> >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> David Kane wrote: >>>> >>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>>> David Kane wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> <snipping redundant argument about Sam Sloan> >>> >>>>>>>>>> As I stated before I may >>>>>>>>>>> not agree with some of his conclusions, just as I do not agree with >>>>>>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's on the matter of him informally backdating a >>>>>>>>>>> rating conversion to impress folks with a high Elo rating. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's up to you show what was wrong with the USCF's updating >>>>>>>>>> methodology. >>>>>>>>>> Put up, or shut up. Or do the extraordinary and make an even better >>>>>>>>>> impression by apologizing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Show me what published rating by the USCF you are talking about. I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> no fear of apologizing when I believe I am wrong. I do not see it >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> way here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Either the USCF's conversion method was reasonable or it wasn't. If >>>>>>>> it was, then you are wrong and owe TK an apology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I asked you to show me what official published USCF rating you were >>>>>>> referring to and you declined to do it. As for the USCF's conversion, >>>>>>> the last concrete fact I heard about that was that Taylor Kingston's >>>>>>> official USCF published rating that came of it was 2037. Are you saying >>>>>>> that their is an official USCF rating list out there that contradicts >>>>>>> that? If so, please let us show us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or, are you arguing that the USCF is not authorized to regulate ratings? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am stating the obvious. Either the conversion process that the USCF >>>>>> (and, secondarily, Martiniak and Kingston) used was reasonable, >>>>>> or it wasn't. You apparently have some quarrel with the conversion, >>>>>> but are mysteriously incapable of articulating your reasons for holding >>>>>> that belief. >>>>> >>>>> The USCF is charged with the responsibility of publishing official >>>>> ratings, not Taylor Kingston. >>>> >>>> When did Taylor Kingston claim to publish official ratings? >>>> The issue is whether the USCF's conversion method was >>>> reasonable or not. Your refusal to address the issue suggests >>>> that you know you are wrong, but not mature enough to admit >>>> it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Calling for me to produce irrelevant "evidence" is non-responsive, >>>>>> of course. >>>>> >>>>> Are you stating that the rating lists issued by the USCF are irrelevant >>>>> evidence? >>>> >>>> On the contrary, the rating lists show the conversion process that >>>> the USCF (and secondarily, Martinak and Kingston) used. >>>> Why do you object to the conversion method that they used? >>>> >>> >>> On a particular date it is a historical fact that the USCF performed a >>> conversion process which took a select set of ratings from the old USCF >>> Postal Rating system and converted them to a new system which has been >>> called the Elo system. Taylor Kingston had an old rating that was selected >>> for this conversion. At the end of the process, as he has told me, he was >>> given his first official USCF postal Elo rating of 2037. I do not argue >>> with this rating conversion process. >>> >>> He also told me that he has not been active since. This suggests that 2037 >>> is the only official published postal Elo rating that he has had. Logically, >>> that also makes it his peak official USCF postal Elo rating. >>> >>> It is quite possible that after that conversion process a number of players >>> wished that a different rating from their past had been selected for the >>> conversion. Some of them may even have been bitter about it. Perhaps there >>> are other disgruntled players that through a process of wishful thinking >>> wish to create a different reality for themselves. >>> >>> I believe it would be extremely bad policy for the USCF to get involved in >>> officially providing back dated conversions for disgruntled players. To my >>> knowledge, to date, they have not done so. >>> >>> I had quite a lengthy discussion with Taylor about this. I offered to agree >>> to disagree with him, but he wanted to go on. I do not see anything new in >>> what you have said. Meanwhile, my view of this whole matter has solidified. >>> >>> You can disagree all you want. I am quite content to agree to disagree as >>> many honest citizens do in our Democracy. I will not insult or otherwise >>> attack you. It is a simple disagreement. Do you want to do that? >> >> You are impugning somebody's character based upon a >> fatuous argument. Suggesting that this is proper >> behavior for an honest citizen is insulting to all >> mankind, me included. >> > > This is silly. We have been discussing ratings claims, not someone's > character. There is nothing more to say here. Have a nice day. > It's not really about rating claims. And you are revealing quite a bit about your own character, like it or not. >> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hope you will note the difference in TK's approach and yours. When >>>>>>>> Kingston's recollection of the conversion was shown to be off by 40 >>>>>>>> points, he immediately corrected himself, to be consistent with the >>>>>>>> facts of the matter. In contrast, you come across as wanting >>>>>>>> nothing to do with facts (and becoming a fan of Sloan's "research") >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's an unfortunate and surprising development, based on your >>>>>>>> past posts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <shrugs> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Cordially, >>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> > > > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                           Date: 05 Apr 2008 10:13:16 From: Tom Martinak Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... > My contention has been that back-dated use of a conversion scale in this > manner is unsound methodology, and the further back in time one goes the > more unreliable such usage becomes. It probably becomes somewhat more unreliable over time, but that is what the USCF did - they converted all the ratings in their database no matter how long ago that person had been active. Certainly it should be most mathematically accurate for those active in the last few years - and the rating under consideration was recent. And remember the USCF policy of "once rated, always rated". I am sure if a postal player comes back after some long period the USCF would use that fornula. I can't imagine them spending any time thinking about whether the conversion chart should be different if they stopped playing in 1979 versus 1974. We are talking about postal chess, where games go on for years not hours. If you are worried about unsound methodology, I doubt that the USCF shared that worry. In fact, they modified the actual conversion that occurred from the conversion chart for what is essentially political reasons. Those who were rated expert, master and senior master under the old system were assured to get at least the minimum rating necessary for that under the new system - even if their conversion would normally be lower than that. So everyone between 1700 and 1738 were converted to 2200 and those between 1900 and 1958 were converted to 2400, even though it was only the high end of that range that mathematically converted to that number. - Tom Martinak                             Date: 05 Apr 2008 08:43:14 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "Tom Martinak" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:0hIJj.1987$4O1.1726@trnddc03... >> My contention has been that back-dated use of a conversion scale in this >> manner is unsound methodology, and the further back in time one goes the more >> unreliable such usage becomes. > > It probably becomes somewhat more unreliable over time, but that is what the > USCF did - they converted all the ratings in their database no matter how > long ago that person had been active. Certainly it should be most > mathematically accurate for those active in the last few years - and the > rating under consideration was recent. > > And remember the USCF policy of "once rated, always rated". I am sure if a > postal player comes back after some long period the USCF would use that > fornula. I can't imagine them spending any time thinking about whether the > conversion chart should be different if they stopped playing in 1979 versus > 1974. We are talking about postal chess, where games go on for years not > hours. > > If you are worried about unsound methodology, I doubt that the USCF shared > that worry. In fact, they modified the actual conversion that occurred from > the conversion chart for what is essentially political reasons. Those who > were rated expert, master and senior master under the old system were > assured to get at least the minimum rating necessary for that under the new > system - even if their conversion would normally be lower than that. So > everyone between 1700 and 1738 were converted to 2200 and those between 1900 > and 1958 were converted to 2400, even though it was only the high end of > that range that mathematically converted to that number. > > - Tom Martinak > > Good points all, along with some interesting history thrown in. Moreover, it would be possible, in principle, to rerate all the correspondence games ever played, using Elo's algorithm. To argue that a Harkness rating is somehow lesser than an Elo rating (or cannote be equated to an Elo rating) is to grossly misunderstand what ratings are. They are simply a way of quantifying results achieved in rated games. As much as it pains the Parrs, Sloans, Innes and Walkers of this world, Kingston had some very good results in correspondence chess, results that a "weak" player simply couldn't achieve.                             Date: 05 Apr 2008 06:41:21 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... Tom Martinak wrote: >> My contention has been that back-dated use of a conversion scale in this >> manner is unsound methodology, and the further back in time one goes the >> more unreliable such usage becomes. > > It probably becomes somewhat more unreliable over time, but that is what the > USCF did - they converted all the ratings in their database no matter how > long ago that person had been active. Certainly it should be most > mathematically accurate for those active in the last few years - and the > rating under consideration was recent. > > And remember the USCF policy of "once rated, always rated". I am sure if a > postal player comes back after some long period the USCF would use that > fornula. I can't imagine them spending any time thinking about whether the > conversion chart should be different if they stopped playing in 1979 versus > 1974. We are talking about postal chess, where games go on for years not > hours. > > If you are worried about unsound methodology, I doubt that the USCF shared > that worry. In fact, they modified the actual conversion that occurred from > the conversion chart for what is essentially political reasons. Those who > were rated expert, master and senior master under the old system were > assured to get at least the minimum rating necessary for that under the new > system - even if their conversion would normally be lower than that. So > everyone between 1700 and 1738 were converted to 2200 and those between 1900 > and 1958 were converted to 2400, even though it was only the high end of > that range that mathematically converted to that number. > > - Tom Martinak > > Thanks Tom. That explains a lot. You stated: "I am sure if a postal player comes back after some long period the USCF would use that formula." Taylor Kingston had a recent established rating go through the conversion and ended up with a new rating of 2037. For reasons of his own he chose to look back further and apply that scale to another rating. Your explanation makes this seem less a sin against accuracy, however it gives me less faith in the USCF ratings in general. Still, if someone else did not like the result of the conversion for their established rating, and decided to apply that scale to a different rating, say ten years earlier, would you approve of that? And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official rating? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                               Date: 05 Apr 2008 14:05:29 From: Tom Martinak Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote > Still, if someone else did not like the result of the conversion for their > established rating, and decided to apply that scale to a different rating, > say ten years earlier, would you approve of that? If they were talking about their peak rating and not their current rating then it would be totally appropriate. > And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official > rating? It wouldn't be their current official USCF postal rating. However, it is very common to talk about somebody's peak rating and to do that for players who peaked before the rating were converted it would be necessary to do the conversion. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges and any list of the all-time top players would only include players from after the conversion. - Tom Martinak                                 Date: 05 Apr 2008 08:17:52 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... Tom Martinak wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote > >> Still, if someone else did not like the result of the conversion for their >> established rating, and decided to apply that scale to a different rating, >> say ten years earlier, would you approve of that? > > If they were talking about their peak rating and not their current rating > then it would be totally appropriate. > >> And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official >> rating? > > It wouldn't be their current official USCF postal rating. However, it is > very common to talk about somebody's peak rating and to do that for players > who peaked before the rating were converted it would be necessary to do the > conversion. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges and any list > of the all-time top players would only include players from after the > conversion. > > - Tom Martinak > This is an appropriate time for me to acknowledge a couple of errors I have made in this discussion. First, I stand corrected as indicated in the following exchange: Me: "I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent professionals. Kenneth Sloan: "oops. " Although I took this as mostly humorous, Mr. Martinak's responses have led me to believe that I was wrong to assume competence. I apologize for this error. When I say this I am not commenting on Mr. Kenneth Sloan or Mr. Martinak. They seem to be competent forthright individuals. Although Mr. Martinak has agreed that the idea of backdating the conversion may be mathematically unreliable, he has stated: "If you are worried about unsound methodology, I doubt that the USCF shared that worry. In fact, they modified the actual conversion that occurred from the conversion chart for what is essentially political reasons." Here I have realized another error in my thinking. In all the years that I contracted to do conversions between various systems I did run into potential clients I would decline to work for because their management seemed to be less than rational. That sort of thing tends to adversely impact a conversion. What Mr. Martinak has said tells me that the USCF is a client I would not have agreed to work for had a contract been offered to me. I apologize for thinking that the USCF was more concerned about accuracy than the appearance of accuracy. I now understand why Taylor Kingston made the claim he did, and yet I still understand why a number of people feel misled by the way he did it. I withdraw my formal objection and instead simply state that I consider it unnecessary and unwise to make that claim when he can simply say that he was a recognized postal master as proof of his analytical competence. Out of this whole discussion I have gained an even greater lack of appreciation for the USCF rating system. I feel that it is essentially an inaccurate system that has been corrupted by things like rating floors, and political intervention subverting the advice of the technically competent. I have to balance that assessment by admitting that the USCF rating system is a creature of its environment, which is governed by FIDE, which appears to have an even bigger mess on its hands. I am still waiting to hear if Afromeev's dog is going to get a GM title. :) By the way, an unsound conversion does end up comparing apples to oranges... -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                                 Date: 05 Apr 2008 07:32:34 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:05:29 GMT, "Tom Martinak" <[email protected] > wrote: >"J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote > >> Still, if someone else did not like the result of the conversion for their >> established rating, and decided to apply that scale to a different rating, >> say ten years earlier, would you approve of that? >If they were talking about their peak rating and not their current rating >then it would be totally appropriate. >> And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official >> rating? >It wouldn't be their current official USCF postal rating. However, it is >very common to talk about somebody's peak rating and to do that for players >who peaked before the rating were converted it would be necessary to do the >conversion. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges and any list >of the all-time top players would only include players from after the >conversion. > - Tom Martinak I've wondered why the USCF doesn't keep and publish (at least on the website) such statistics as Peak Rating, Greatest Upset, Peak Event Performance Rating, etc.. Seems these would be more meaningful than the idea of life titles and might motivate people to play in more OTB tournaments. Even if one's rating seems stuck at a lower level, there's a chance of pulling things together for one great event, or maybe a 2400 player will hang a piece...                                 Date: 05 Apr 2008 07:26:00 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Dave Kane's argument... Tom Martinak wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote > >> Still, if someone else did not like the result of the conversion for their >> established rating, and decided to apply that scale to a different rating, >> say ten years earlier, would you approve of that? > > If they were talking about their peak rating and not their current rating > then it would be totally appropriate. > >> And if they did this, would the result be considered a USCF official >> rating? > > It wouldn't be their current official USCF postal rating. However, it is > very common to talk about somebody's peak rating and to do that for players > who peaked before the rating were converted it would be necessary to do the > conversion. Otherwise you would be comparing apples to oranges and any list > of the all-time top players would only include players from after the > conversion. > > - Tom Martinak > Thank you for explaining your view on the matter Tom. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 04 Apr 2008 07:11:04 From: Rob Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"? On Apr 4, 8:12=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > =A0 In another thread, Rev. J.D. Walker said of Sam Sloan: > > On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sam, > > Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. > > =A0 I'm not sure what "fierce" was supposed to mean in this context, but > regulars of this newsgroup know that applying the word "skill" to > Sam's research is an oxymoron. Lets break down this word....Oxy is the Greek name for acid. Moron (psychology), a person with a mental age between 8 and 12 That does fit Sloan , dosen't it? LOL He is generally quite slipshod. > =A0 Often his research is not just weak, but actively bad, using > fabrication rather than documentation. Just to mention one especially > ludicrous example involving myself: > > "My source has confirmed that both Innes and Kingston are the same > person ... I don't believe they exist." - Sam Sloan, 29 December 2005 > > =A0 He later revised this to claim that chess historian Edward G. Winter > and I are the same person. (3 March 2006, seehttp://tinyurl.com/382e2z) > > =A0 Other Sloan fiascoes that regulars here may recall include Peter > Leko's "death," the "missing" USCF records, his misdating the earliest > instances of the Benko Gambit, the claim that USCF ratings are not Elo > ratings, the claim that I am "webmaster" for ChessCafe.com, and many > others. > > =A0 One particularly glaring example comes from April 2005, in Sloan's > examination of Japanese-American relations and urban housing trends: > > =A0 =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/27xx5h > > =A0 =A0Perhaps rgc readers recall other examples. We want to be sure that > Rev. Walker is fully informed.