01 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI disagree that cutting out the rating requirement helps avoid gaming the system. Other means of manipulation are also easy - witness the many posts in this thread on faking games and whole tournaments, as well as game throwing by other top players specifically to help people get norms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood
Both Bloodgood (who may not have done it deliberately) and this guy: User 285560 demonstrated that it is quite easy to manipulate ratings systems. Restricting the GM title to candidates irrespective of rating cuts out most realistic ways of fixing the system. Also a "weak grandmaster" would stick o llenge the legality of the policy change in court. So there's a lot of inertia to overcome.
At least with the rating system, it is easy to check history and see that the system is being played. One example with the US rating system is Robert Tanner, who got the life master title by playing games only against friends and getting them rated. It sticks out like a sore thumb once a real person looks at the history.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is the point of greenpawn's idea of only having candidates as grand masters. There'd be 97 of them, including people who are dead. By the time they've got that far it's certain they are unusually strong players.
I disagree that cutting out the rating requirement helps avoid gaming the system. Other means of manipulation are also easy - witness the many posts in this thread on faking games and whole tournaments, as well as game throwing by other top players specifically to help people get norms.
At least with the rating system, it is easy to check history and ...[text shortened]... and getting them rated. It sticks out like a sore thumb once a real person looks at the history.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes, but what is a candidates tourney? That now changes from year to year.
This is the point of greenpawn's idea of only having candidates as grand masters. There'd be 97 of them, including people who are dead. By the time they've got that far it's certain they are unusually strong players.
04 Aug 13
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think "quite easy" is overstating it a bit. Bloodgood was from my hometown. He had to commit a murder and be sentenced to life in prison to get the isolated and contained rating group which inflated his rating! 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood
Both Bloodgood (who may not have done it deliberately) and this guy: User 285560 demonstrated that it is quite easy to manipulate ratings systems. Restricting the GM title to candidates irrespective of rating cuts out most realistic ways of fixing the system. Also a "weak grandmaster" would stick o llenge the legality of the policy change in court. So there's a lot of inertia to overcome.
Basically, in his situation, new people would be sentenced to prison, and when they played him, the old provisional rating system would give then a rating 400 points below his, no matter how bad they were.
The effect was to inflate the entire rating pool, and his rating just got higher and higher. The same effect happens here, to a lesser degree- but you don't have to "off" someone to get in!
05 Aug 13
I was posted a link to another tournament that did not take place.
http://en.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4002366/the-fake-heroes-of-chernobyl.aspx
How many more tournaments never happened?
Tartakower's great days were before Alkehine died in 1946.
FIDE then took over and the candidates started in 1948.
I used that date as a cut of point.
Since then only 97 players have qualified for the WC Candidates.
Hi Bepop.
I got half the game - you need to split it up in 2 or 3 PM's.