Originally posted by no1marauder
Your guesses about CCA are unsupported by any actual evidence. They do run virtually every major tournament in the US, so they have an incentive to treat ALL players, including foreign ones, fairly (they pay the same entry fees). Of course, any rating is an approximation, but you've given nothing to support your claims that their methods are unfair and a ...[text shortened]... ad become known around school as the Phiona Mutesi Chess Club.
What is your response to that?
The troll No1Marauder resorts to his usual diversionary insults and 'strawmen'.
"...than the unsubstantiated claims of an internet troll."
No1Marauder made the cocksure claim (ridiculing me at length) that a FIDE 1662 must
convert to a 1800 USCF rating. To support it, No1Marauder cited a 'cherry-picked' source,
the Continental Chess Association, a USCF affiliate, rather than the USCF officially itself.
No1Marauder likes to keep boasting about the CCA's alleged 'expertise' on ratings.
I cited Mark Glickman (whom No1Marauder has preferred to dismiss), who's the chairman
of the USCF ratings committee (since 1992) and a senior lecturer in statistics at Harvard.
In a technical paper (which seems far beyond No1Marauder's comprehension) that I cited,
Mark Glickman has a formula that, when applied, has FIDE 1662 = USCF 1705, which is
95 points lower than No1Marauder's sneering cocksure claim.
So Mark Glickman, the chairman of the USCF ratings committee, says that No1Marauder's very wrong.
And, by extension, Mark Glickman says that the CCA's rating conversions table is wrong.
So would No1Marauder like to support the CCA's take-over of the USCF and the termination of Mark Glickman?
"But since I'm in a nice mood, I'll even, for the sake of argument, concede ..."
That's disingenuous **** from No1Marauder. The only reason why the abusive troll and
pathological liar No1Marauder would ever 'concede' any point--however grudgingly--is
his belated realization that his arrogant cocksure position is hopeless and full of ****.
On my side, I have Mark Glickman, the chairman of the USCF ratings committee and
a senior lecturer in statistics at Harvard, who says that No1Marauder's very wrong.
The pathological liar No1Marauder also keeps reiterating same lies, putting words into my mouth.
Again, my position is that Phiona Mutesi is *slightly better* than an average club player.
If No1Marauder wants to keep quibbling about 'slightly', I would consider amending it to 'moderately'.
No1Marauder also keeps distorting the context of what I wrote. I was comparing Phiona Mutesi
to all rated tournament players, *not* only to female players. If No1Marauder wants to
keep narrowly 'cherry-picking' the sample of comparison, then he could boast that
Phiona Mutesi is in the top 1% of black female players who have grown up in slums.
By the way, American women's chess has been dominated by immigrants from the former USSR,
though they now are being challenged by young women of Asian (primarily Chinese) heritage.
Excelling in chess is not something that 'mainstream' white or black American girls aspire to.
Some of No1Marauder's disingenuous arguments show that either he's very ignorant of
international chess or he's attempting to appeal to readers who are very ignorant of it.
In fact, participating in a FIDE event means nothing by itself about a player's strength.
Many weak players have participated in a FIDE event. At the Olympiads, most of the
players on the weakest women's teams (including Uganda) are really far from strong.
I have met players (who often learned chess in the USSR) who never have participated
in a FIDE event and probably would be at least as strong as some players with FIDE titles.
No1Marauder also seriously misrepresents what I wrote and what I think of Phiona Mutesi.
I already made a point of mentioning that she comes from an extremely adverse situation.
I have *not* criticized her personally. I do criticize some ignorant people (probably
including Hollywood) for apparently exaggerating her chess achievements or talent.
That's not her fault. I have met (and I like) IM Josh Waitzkin, but I would criticize some
of the US media (perhaps including his father) for overhyping his chess potential.
"...Uganda isn't San Marino, 37 million people live there."
And how many Ugandan girls seriously play tournament chess?
No1Marauder seems to make the implicit argument that a country's population is a valid
measure of the *strength of its chess players or culture*. That's LUDICROUS.
Iceland (estimated population 332.000) is much stronger than many much more populous countries.
including Uganda. Iceland has 13 GMs. Uganda has no GMs and two IMs (who are
rated below 2400). To be realistic, Uganda has a weak chess community. I know of
some reasons (including poverty, armed conflicts) that may explain why black African
countries are weak at chess today. But the reality is that this weakness exists.
So does No1Marauder believe that Phiona Mutesi must have faced much stronger chess
competition in Uganda than she would have in Iceland, which has a much smaller population?
"...did not have access to the books, internet, state support and other conveniences
young players in other countries take for granted."
No1Marauder keeps sounding like the arrogant privileged Westerner that he is.
I *already have emphasized* Phiona Mutesi's background of hardship, so No1Marauder's
disingenuously attacking another 'strawman' by insinuating that I am ignorant of it.
No1Marauder's claim is wrong. It's false that *all* young players outside Uganda 'take
for granted" they have access to chess books, internet chess resources, and 'state support'.
(I myself began learning chess without initial access to *any* chess books. I later was
able to borrow a few chess books from the library. I had no internet access. Indeed,
I have spent many years of my life without watching television because we had none.)
In fact, some top players come from quite humble backgrounds. Tigran Petrosian (world
champion 1963-69) was born into a family that was considered very poor even by Soviet
standards in the 1930s (when some people perished from hunger),which may explain
why he later seemed preoccupied with money. Some strong Soviet or Chinese players
evidently came from poor families (whose homes may have lacked indoor plumbing facilities).
It's absurd to believe that all the best Soviet or Chinese players were lavishly coddled
with 'state support' from early childhood until they became international stars in chess.
For some of these players, chess became their ticket out of poverty.
Although Tigran Petrosian, for instance, might have come from a less impoverished background
from Phiona Mutesi, his background was far from being as privileged as No1Marauder fantasizes.
If Phiona Mutesi had born in the USSR, would she have attended a chess school?
And if so, then would she have emerged as an exceptional player? I have known some
players who attended Soviet chess schools for years, and I don't regard any of them as
As I wrote, Phiona Mutesi may be a 'likable underdog'. I know that she has suffered much and
overcome much. But, unlike most Americans apparently, I am averse to Hollywood's
sentimentalizing, and so I disapprove of exaggerating Phiona Mutesi's chess achievements or talent.