| Kevin Bachler 2005-01-30, 3:44 am |
| "Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107053949.969375.284890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> When I first approached you about this issue Kevin, you declined to
> answer certain questions on confidentiality grounds. I have never
> pursued those questions with you again.
I told you on numerous occasions I was willing to discuss the issues with
you.
quote:
> I really wish you could explain why it took so long to figure out that
> your Life Master title was effected by the bogus tournaments. During
> the second half of 1999, I see five results that impacted your rating
> (not counting the tournament where you played a single game against a
> sub-1000 player). There was one very solid master performance, three
> expert level performances, and one performance in the A range. And
> yet, your rating went from 2184 to a peak of 2314. How could you not
> have realized that the bogus tournaments were having an impact? What
> was it that finally caused you to realize a year and a half later that
> your Life Master title was tainted?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you think there was an
MSA then? Do you have any idea how long it took to get events rated to have
any sense of continuity or tracking? Do you have any sense of rating point
exchange? Did you look at events since the beginnig of that year? Any idea
of publishing time? Any sense of when I lost many of the points back in one
horrific Vegas event? Any sense of the fact that I don't preach or track
ratings, that I preach staying away from watching your rating? Any sense of
the fact that at that time I was working 55 hours a week and training kids
about 30 hours a week? Any sense of how OLM is earned?
Why would you think that I WOULD notice?
Oh, but then, you didn't take the time to ask.
quote:
> As far as the 2001 Denker qualifier goes, I will certainly argue that
> your son should not have been invited if he could not meet the
> applicable ratings criteria in effect at the time but for a manipulated
> rating.
You really seem to have a very hard time getting a very simple concept.
USCF provides ratings. If there is an official rating there, why wouldn't
it be used? When did I, or ICA, become the arbiter of the USCF rating
system? Moreover, if 3 weaker players also qualified, why would it be
questioned? Further, glancing at the analysis you did for my rating, it
appears that your ability to analyze this is somewhat limited -- you do
understand that performance ratings are different than established, and that
the ratings calculator is using a different formula, right?
quote:
>You seemed to argue the same thing with respect to Stan
> Vaughan's student. More importantly, I would argue very stridently
> that it was a decision that should have been made by an unbiased ICA
> Denker committee rather than an ICA President with conflicts of
> interest.
Good, because the decision was based on objective criteria set by the Junior
Committee, not by the ICA president. In fact, the ICA president made NO
DECISION in this regard.
quote:
>In any case, the fact that you chose to put him on board one
Again, you jump to conclusions about things you know nothing about...
quote:
> ahead of three players who did meet the applicable criteria seems
> completely irrelevant to me.
I understand it does.
If there is an official rating, and if that rating is reinforced by the
presence of players in the event known to be weaker, why would you expect
me to question that?
quote:
> Do you think his performance at the event
> demonstrated that he belonged there?
Yes.
In the same time period, his win over a top HS expert in what many have
described as the best team match in IHSA history took first for his team.
You're dealing with bits, you have no sense of timeline, and then you try to
figure out why I couldn't see then what you can see with 6 years of 20/20
hinsight?
quote:
> If you do not feel comfortable revealing them, I do not wish to know
> the names of the players whose ratings the USCF decided to correct.
It's not a matter of comfort, Vince. When WILL you get it?
quote:
> However, I wonder whether you could tell me how big the impacts were on
> their ratings. They must have been much bigger than the three hundred
> point floor boost that did not warrant adjustment.
Another conclusion that makes no sense.
|