From: Camilla Baginskaite
Date: 02/21/2014 11:37 AM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: tallying the results
Dear friends,
this is hopefully the final tally. I've talked to Ruth
yesterday, asking to use the e-mail below as a projected
summary, so she and Jean can prepare for the weekend meetings.
To add the last minute suggestions, she granted me an extension
until today. This is also the official report to USCF.
So far, I believe the best way would be to add Irina's ideas as
her vote. Questions raised by her could warrant a follow-up
discussion - and I wanted to thank those who took time to answer
- but it is simply too late to make sure everybody has the
chance to think it over and respond.
As for invitational rating, Irina would join Robert Hess in the
undecided camp, since she came up with a different idea - 50% U
= = = = = = = = = =
From: Ruth I Haring
Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 9:56 pm
Subject: Re: tallying the results
Dear all,
In a phone call this afternoon, Camilla presented the three
items that are clearly agreed by you for consideration by the
board. We have one open question which I will present Sunday
afternoon if a consensus is found by the group via email, and
one item to follow up on after the board meeting. The current
invitational rules are posted here:
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11958/689/
Effective date for any approved changes will be 1 Jan, 2015.
Please note that this is the invitation deadline, not the date
of the event. You have agreed on the following recommendations:
1. Remove bonus points for board metals
2. No bonus points for peak rating
3. No bonus points for juniors
Please come to consensus on the waiting period to recommend and
for kind of documentation of residency we will require.
4. Waiting period (note FIDE change of federation must be
completed also)- please respond
A) 18 months waiting period which begins at the time the change
of federation is submitted to the USCF
B) 18 months waiting period which begins when the green card is
received
C) 18 months waiting period which begins when any valid visa is
obtained
5. Invitational rating formula - there were two options
discussed. I suggest that this topic be discussed after I
provide information on the EB discussion planned this weekend on
rating irregularities, where we will discuss recent rating
related issues, and discuss solutions to rating manipulation
attempts.
It is my understanding that their are two options under
consideration
A) pre-2009: 1/3 USCF, 1/3 FIDE, 1/3 avg PEAK USCF and PEAK FIDE
B) 50% USCF, 50% FIDE
Question: if a player has no FIDE rating will the USCF rating
simply be used ?
Comment: Don't forget that USCF rates your FIDE events
Thanks.
Ruth I. Haring
= = = = = = = = = =
From: John Donaldson
Date:02/22/2014 11:34 AM (GMT-06:00)
Subject: Vote on waiting period and invitational formula for
team competitions
Dear Ruth,
Thank you for the good news.
In regards to:
Please come to consensus on the waiting period to recommend and
for kind of documentation of residency we will require.
4. Waiting period (note FIDE change of federation must be
completed also)- please respond
A) 18 months waiting period which begins at the time the change
of federation is submitted to the USCF
B) 18 months waiting period which begins when the green card is
received
C) 18 months waiting period which begins when any valid visa is
obtained
This is hard to say. I'm not sure I have enough information to
make an informed decision. If an adult player moved to the
United States with green card status in hand and immediately
applied to the USCF for a change of Federation then 18 months
sounds like a fair balance between respecting the rights of
current top players without unduly penalizing the new arrival.
This sounds like B to me, but I note that under FIDE rules (see
below) the individual would only be allowed to play in official
FIDE events without a transfer fee 24 months after he his last
official FIDE event for his old federation. This could mean the
waiting period would potentially be 24 months to play in
Olympiads. Also they might not be able to play in the US
Championship until 24 months out if it was a Zonal (World Cup
/World Championship qualifier) year.
5. Invitational rating formula - there were two options
discussed. I suggest that this topic be discussed after I
provide information on the EB discussion planned this weekend on
rating irregularities, where we will discuss recent rating
related issues , and discuss solutions to rating manipulation
attempts.
It is my understanding that their are two options under
consideration
A) pre-2009: 1/3 USCF, 1/3 FIDE, 1/3 avg PEAK USCF and PEAK FIDE
B) 50% USCF, 50% FIDE
I vote for A for the reasons I gave before - it is useful to
have some stability built into the system. Using only one rating
list also could encourage a player to sit on their rating after
meeting the activity requirement.
Question: if a player has no FIDE rating will the USCF rating
simply be used ? - YES BUT THIS WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY NEVER
HAPPEN
Comment: Don't forget that USCF rates your FIDE events - TRUE
BUT INCLUDING FIDE RATINGS AS WELL AS USCF HELPS DILUTE THE
USCF'S RATING OF RAPID TOURNAMENTS AND THE POLICY OF ONE
TOURNAMENT EQUALS A MINIMUM OF ONE POINT (THE LENDERMEN EFFECT
WHERE HE BEATS A 1300 AND WITHDRAWS TAKING HOME A FREE RATING
POINT).
John
= = = = = = = = = =
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:00 PM, riharing wrote:
Hi all,
Passed effective 1 Jan 2015:
1. Remove bonus points for board metals
2. No bonus points for peak rating
3. No bonus points for juniors
Ratings will be stored internally with floating point accuracy
to at least two digits after the decimal place but published to
the nearest whole number. Members will be able to click on a
button on their MSA page in order to see the actual rating
rounded to the hundredths place.
I will let you know when the above change is implemented.
Regards,
Ruth
= = = = = = = = = =
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:08 PM, Anjelina Belakovskaia wrote:
Dear Chess Colleagues,
As we were involved in lengthy discussion about how to make the
process of selecting players for the Invitational US
Championships more transparent and less prone to cheating by
chess players, we have completely overlooked another side of the
equation - cheating by the organizers.
As you know, it is less than 1 month left before the 2014 US
Women's Championship.
While communicating to Tony Rich, I was notified that my
position was as follows in the
rating list submitted by USCF:
2014 U.S. Women's Championship
• Invitations:
• (1) - 2013 U.S. Women's Champion (Irina Krush)
• (2) - Wildcard (TBD)
• (7) - Rating (TBD - March supplement)
We've had one player decline thus far (Katerina Rohonyan). Based
on the list I received from the USCF, the players that are next
by rating are as follows:
1. Katerina Nemcova
2. Rusudan Goletiani
3. Anjelina Belakovskaia
4. Sarah Chiang
5. Alisa Melekhina
Checking daily on the Invited Players website, I see 9 names in
total, including both Katerina Nemcova and Alisa Melekhina. Yet,
I didn't receive an invitation.
To me this means that on one hand, USCF took 21 points off my
rating, to lower it down from 2317 to 2296 and added 10 bonus
points to Nemcova, to boost her past me. In addition, USCF
dragged its feet in implementing the residency requirement, thus
making Nemcova eligible to play under the old rules.
On the other hand, and quite suspiciously, the organizers chose
Alisa Melekhina as one of the "wild cards".
I'd really want to find out what's going on with those "wild"
cards and how the process of selection works. The process is
obviously not transparent and raises questions about favoritism,
age discrimination and possible obscure financial benefits by
those who distributes these spots.
At 22, Alisa Melekhina is not a "young rising chess prodigy", to
justify her inclusion in the event. Moreover, her bio on
USChessChamps website states: "With the distractions of law
school nearing an end, she is now free to focus on a
championship run before her legal career begins this fall."
In addition, the 10th place for the US Championship is simply
not filled, even with the tournament approaching. WHY? Who IS or
will be invited? I have not received the answer so far. The only
intelligent guess I can come up with - the Organizers have 1 or
more girls in mind and are waiting for the KCF National
Championship run in April 11-13 by Khodorkovsky/Kasparov, to see
if the "right" girl wins, so they can justify the invitation.
There is NO announced spot given to any section in advance, to
make sure that the "wrong" girl doesn't get it by accident. Can
anyone supply a different theory?
While I truly appreciate what St. Louis does for chess, this
particular subject of Organizers distributing US Women's
Championship Spots to "friends and family" behind closed doors
is not acceptable and I definitely don't appreciate being left
in the dark just a month before the tournament starts.
While I was lucky to get a "rating" spot last year, I have been
sidelined by the organizers for many years, quietly observing
girls with their "Papa"s getting those "wild cards". I think
it's enough.... US Women's Championship is not a beauty contest
and Rex is not giving money to the organizers for personal
enrichment.
This is my opinion. I'd like to hear yours.
Thanks in advance,
Anjelina Belakovskaia
= = = = = = = = = =
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Sam Shankland wrote:
Dear All,
To begin with, this is the first email I have gotten since
Mid-February because I took myself off the list temporarily, so
please forgive me if I am ignorant about what has been discussed
in the last couple months. I'd like to point out were that a
Wildcard means exactly that- chosen by the organizers, based on
whatever criteria they wish, and they consistently dedicate a
maximum of 20% of the spots to wildcards. Their choices have
been very good and very diverse in the past, including players
of all ages. They support upcoming juniors, but wildcards have
also been given to veterans and former champions such as
Seirawan and Shabalov, (other 40+ players include Stripunsky and
Finegold) or others I can't think of off the top of my head but
could probably find if I dug up the old contracts from my email
years ago. It's also only happened one or two times that a
player got more than one wildcard in their life. With their
wildcard choices being sufficiently varied frequently performing
very well, I think Saint Louis has earned their right to
allocate their wildcard spots however they see fit based on
whatever criteria they see fit, and to award them in a timetable
they see fit.
As for rating order, as far as I am aware we voted and
successfully struck down all bonus points effective January
2015, and the penalty for inactivity remains. In my opinion this
penalty is a good thing, it is not many games required and spots
in the US Championship or on the teams should give preference to
serious chess players who actively play the game.
Lastly, I would like to point out Saint Louis has operated
completely within the rules in regard to this year's
invitations. Following the rating criteria USCF supplies for its
rating spots is not a crime, nor is awarding a wildcard that one
specific player does not agree with. In my opinion, referring to
this as "cheating by the organizers" is in very poor taste,
especially after all the work they have done for us, making the
US Championship an event we can all be very proud of.
Best,
Sam
= = = = = = = = = =
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 2:47 PM, Anjelina Belakovskaia wrote:
OK, Sam and all,
Here is a wild cards' "diverse choice" in the US Women's
Championships:
2014 - Alisa Melekhina
? (with less than a month left before the Championship)
2013 - Sarah Chiang
Alena Kats
2012 - Alisa Melekhina
Alena Kats
and I am sure you know how to track their performance, to verify
your "frequently performing very well" assessment.
Sincerely,
Anjelina Belakovskaia
= = = = = = = = = =
From: Sam Shankland
Date: Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Invitational Cheating
Let's start by fixing the facts- Melekhina got a rating spot,
not a wildcard, in 2012. She got her first wildcard this year
and is a vastly different player in a very different stage of
life than Katz or Chiang. I can't check the previous years
women's wildcards because I only have the men's contracts, but
I've already cited plenty of examples of older players who got
chosen. At the end of the day, the wildcards are up to the
organizers and nobody else, it's not our place to question their
choices or refer to their choices as cheating or make baseless
and borderline slanderous claims against them, not to mention
speculation about financial misconduct with 0 evidence.
I missed out on the 2012 US Championship by 7 rating points,
having gained 92 the previous year and taken third in the 2011
championship. It was a big disappointment, but I eventually
realized it was nobody's fault but my own. An extra half point
in my last tournament before the rating list went out would have
gotten me a spot. I realized that the best way to ensure an
invite is to just work hard and play frequently. Then I got
stronger, and my rating went up some more. This strategy has
worked wonders for me the last two years. I would definitely
recommend it, because nobody should ever count on a wildcard
because the organizers have absolutely every right to give one
to whoever they wish.
This will be my last comment on the matter, I am more than happy
to discuss serious rule issues as we have (quite productively)
done before, but refuting claims of cheating organizers and
complaints about who the organizers give wildcards to (when they
are well within their rights) doesn't really interest me. I just
felt the need to stand up for Saint Louis because I believe they
did nothing wrong and did not deserve to be accused of cheating
with regard to the US Championship invitations in front of all
of our top players.
Best,
Sam
= = = = = = = = = =
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Alejandro Ramírez Álvarez wrote:
Dear Anjelina,
You can find the rating changes for invitations here:
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12230/710/.
USCF didn't randomly take 21 points off your rating, it is in
the rules that were approved. The penalty for inactivity in my
personal opinion is still not harsh enough, but it was
sufficient so that you missed out in the U.S. Championship this
year. I recommend that you play some events this year, playing
chess is really fun!
As far as Wildcards, remember that this is to the discretion of
the organizer completely, and the Chess Club has certainly
earned it. Another recommendation, if you would like one you
might want to play more events, prove how strong you are and how
well you are doing, and not drag games on for 40 moves after you
are down a piece! The last invitation has been sent out this
year, and it is my understanding they are waiting on a response.
Alejandro
= = = = = = = = = =
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Tatev Abrahamyan wrote:
I can’t even being to express how offended and appalled I am by
that email. Bashing young women and girls who are not even in
this thread to defend themselves and reducing the value of the
tournament to a beauty pageant? Very mature and classy! Perhaps
before hurling insults it’s a good idea to self- evaluate and
ask yourself what exactly are you bringing to the table. I can’t
believe such an irresponsible and insulting email could even be
sent out. Thanks to everyone for basically expressing all my
thoughts, which I’m just too shocked to do myself.
= = = = = = = = = =
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Anjelina Belakovskaia wrote:
Attached is the 2009-2014 info. Judge for yourself.
Anjelina Belakovskaia
= = = = = = = = = =
From: Robert Hess
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: Follow-up on Invitational Cheating
Anjelina,
Let it be noted that I have now officially added Tony Rich to
this panlist. If accusations are being leveled at him, Rex, the
committee that decides who is to play in the Championships, and
the CCSCSL, then he should have access to those accusations.
In response to your newest email, I'm not sure what I am
supposed to "judge." The CCSCSL (Tony and his team) chose to
pass over you even though your rating was higher than some wild
cards. I am sure you understand that your sample size is
relatively small. Furthermore, when it comes to wildcards, there
is no mathematical formula the organizers are bound to use to
make their selection. Also, your list demonstrates that there
has been a diverse selection of wildcard candidates. Last year
Alisa Melekhina did not participate in the Championships, but
Sarah Chiang did. Ah, but that year is conveniently missing from
your spreadsheet, because you happened to participate. You are
not presenting us -- in some sense the jury that you are
appealing to -- the full facts.
I really am not sure what you want us to judge. I did not
qualify for this year's US Championship by rating, and the
wildcard spot was given to GM Mackenzie Molner (a strong chess
player who absolutely deserves the spot). Like you, Anjelina, I
haven't played much serious chess over the past year. I did
receive a wildcard invitation to the US Championship in 2009,
and that turned into a result I could never have imagined at
that stage in my life. Sometimes, lower rated players can have
extremely good tournaments. I can use anecdotal evidence to make
my points as well.
Your spreadsheet has not inclined me to judge anything in your
favor. You have misrepresented information (you told us that the
spreadsheet is 2009-2014, yet it conveniently is missing the
year 2013), belittled a competitor's chess-playing ability, and
simply made yourself out to be spiteful. I am not particularly
enjoying this discourse, as I've seen nothing but a begrudged
chess player write sour notes. I have given ample time and
thought to this discussion, and I've given my opinion. I am
still amazed that you had the gall to insult Ms. Melekhina in
such a manner, and continue to do so.
Tony, as mentioned, I've brought you into the conversation so
you can face the accusations being leveled out you, if you so
choose. I believe the injustice here is not by the CCSCSL in the
form of "invitational cheating" as the subject of this email
chain suggests, but by WGM Belekovskaia in the form of her
personal attacks other players and on the generous sponsors and
hosts of the Championships. I personally don't think an
explanation is even owed, but that is not my call.
Robert Hess