Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member vivify
    rain
    07 Sep '16 04:23
    There is a film based on the life of a Ugandan Chess prodigy, Phiona Mutesi.

    YouTube

    You can read more about her here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phiona_Mutesi
  2. 07 Sep '16 21:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    There is a film based on the life of a Ugandan Chess prodigy, Phiona Mutesi.

    [youtube]z4l3-_yub5A[/youtube]

    You can read more about her here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phiona_Mutesi
    Is it really accurate to describe Phiona Mutesi as a 'chess prodigy'?

    It's true that, as a child, Phiona Mutesi was afflicted by extreme adversity and misfortune.
    It's natural to sympathize with her and wish her to succeed and have a happier life
    But it seems misleading to exaggerate her chess talent, and the term 'prodigy' implies extraordinary talent.
    It's an appealing story for a general public that's ignorant of real chess prodigies.
    (The US media once overhyped Josh Waitzkin, who never became a GM, as like a potential Bobby Fischer.)

    "It should be observed that...Phiona Mutesi...have Elo rating sufficient to justify the titles
    [FIDE WCM--woman candidate master]...given."
    --Wikipedia

    A WCM is normally required to have a minimum FIDE rating of 2000.
    Phiona Mutesi (about age 20) has a rating of FIDE 1622, which is 378 points short.

    If Phiona Mutesi had been born into a poor family in China, then would she have been
    able to challenge Hou Yifan at chess? I regard that as extremely unlikely.

    A more realistic and less sentimental account of her story would go like this:
    Phiona Mutesi, a girl from a slum in Uganda, overcome extreme personal adversity to
    become a young champion in women's chess (a weakly competitive field in Uganda).
    At about age 20, she has become able to play chess about as well as a slightly better
    than average club player in the USA.
  3. 07 Sep '16 22:36
    how deeply have her games been annotated?
    seems to me that this would be a clearer indication of her talent

    note: I have not viewed the video nor read anything about her
  4. 07 Sep '16 22:50
    Originally posted by lemondrop
    how deeply have her games been annotated?
    seems to me that this would be a clearer indication of her talent

    note: I have not viewed the video nor read anything about her
    To be realistic, Phiona Mutesi has excelled against weak competition in women's chess in Uganda.
    When she represents Uganda at the Olympiads, she has mostly faced opponents from the weakest teams.
    Who puts much effort into annotating games by the weakest women players at the Olympiads?

    From experience, I can say there may be major differences in strength among women with the same FIDE titles.
    There are some WIMs whom I defeated rather easily and other WIMs who were quite a challenge for me.

    After her story began attracting much publicity in Uganda and internationally, Phiona
    Mutesi received more support (presumably including coaching) in her chess endeavors.
    Even so, she's still rated only 1622 FIDE (average club player) at about age 20. .

    I wish Phiona Mutesi well. But I suspect that the feature film about her is likely another case
    of Hollywood (and the non-chess media) overhyping a likable underdog without great talent.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    07 Sep '16 23:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    To be realistic, Phiona Mutesi has excelled against weak competition in women's chess in Uganda.
    When she represents Uganda at the Olympiads, she has mostly faced opponents from the weakest teams.
    Who puts much effort into annotating games by the weakest women players at the Olympiads?

    From experience, I can say there may be major differences in stren ...[text shortened]... case
    of Hollywood (and the non-chess media) overhyping a likable underdog without great talent.
    A 1622 FIDE rating (and it was as high as 1686) would put her just outside the top 100 women players in the US (https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&tops=1&country=USA) and in the top 50 in England (https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?tops=1&ina=1&country=ENG).

    I think that makes her a bit better than an "average club player".

    EDIT: Continental Chess runs many of the tournaments in the US; their conversion table for FIDE to USCF ratings specifies that a FIDE rating of between 1580-1649 should be considered an 1800 USCF rating.http://www.chesstour.com/foreignratings.htm

    I found an 1800 who competed in a recent event that I also played in; that ranking placed him in the 90.4 percentile of those who have played in a USCF tournament in the last year.http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10122627
  6. 08 Sep '16 01:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A 1622 FIDE rating (and it was as high as 1686) would put her just outside the top 100 women players in the US (https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&tops=1&country=USA) and in the top 50 in England (https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?tops=1&ina=1&country=ENG).

    I think that makes her a bit better than an "average club player".

    EDIT: Contin ...[text shortened]... played in a USCF tournament in the last year.http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10122627
    As usual, No1Marauder likes to disregard or distort the complete context of what I wrote.
    Earlier I wrote that Phiona Mutesi is '*slightly better* than an average club player in the USA'.
    (For reasons of space within a parenthetical comment, I later abridged it to 'average club player' in brief.)

    My statement that Phiona Mutesi is 'slightly better than an average club player in the USA' is accurate.
    First of all, I compare her to all rated players, regardless of gender, *not only* to female players.
    Phiona Mutesi seems to be about USCF class B (USCF rating 1600-1799) in strength.
    An average club player in the USA would be USCF class C (USCF rating 1400-1599).
    So she (rated 1622 FIDE) seems 'slightly better'.

    We know that Phiona Mutesi comes from an extremely disadvantaged background.
    But she has been seriously playing (and presumably had some coaching in) chess for years.
    If she really were a 'prodigy' (to quote Vivify), one would expect that, by age 20, she
    should be much stronger than 1622 FIDE.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Sep '16 01:33
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    As usual, No1Marauder likes to disregard or distort the complete context of what I wrote.
    Earlier I wrote that Phiona Mutesi is '*slightly better* than an average club player in the USA'.
    (For reasons of space within a parenthetical comment, I later abridged it to 'average club player' in brief.)

    My statement that Phiona Mutesi is 'slightly better tha ...[text shortened]... o quote Vivify), one would expect that, by age 20, she
    should be much stronger than 1622 FIDE.
    The percentile figures refute your claim and you should withdraw it; a player in the 90th percentile is not average or slightly above it.
  8. 08 Sep '16 02:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The percentile figures refute your claim and you should withdraw it; a player in the 90th percentile is not average or slightly above it.
    I note that No1Marauder, a lawyer who's zealous to attack me in typically disingenuous ways,
    has *completely ignored my main point* that claiming Phiona Mutesi is a 'prodigy' seems misleading.
    Instead, No1Marauder prefers to keep attacking me upon one minor point.

    No1Marauder apparently claims that Phiona Mutesi (at age 20) is in the '90th percentile'
    Of what? Of USCF tournament players?

    Here's a USCF ratings distribution chart for November 2004 (the latest that I could find online):
    http://archive.us.chess.org/ratings/ratedlist.php

    Phiona Mutesi's rated 1622 (simplifying assumption that it's about equivalent to USCF):
    Class B 1600-1699 is in 82.99% for all USCF members and 77.76% for non-scholastic members.
    At age 20, she no longer would be considered a 'scholastic' player.
    (The USCF seems to have many low-rated scholastic members, who play a few games and quit.)
    So No1Marauder's claim that she's in the '90th percentile' (or above) seems exaggerated.

    Perhaps No1Marauder's accustomed to being around weaker players, who would stand
    in awe of anyone rated 1622. My chess culture is different. A friend of mine (who drew
    at age 12 with Anatoly Karpov in a simul), who has defeated or drawn with IMs. has no
    reluctance in calling himself a 'weak player'. I don't recall being in any non-scholastic
    chess club where a player rated 1622 would be considered 'strong'.

    By the way, my father would have been extremely disappointed with me if I ever had done
    as badly as placing only in the 90th percentile in any academic test. He was extremely
    disappointed when I once happened to place slightly outside the top 1% on a test, though
    he knew that I had been ill when I took it.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 Sep '16 02:37
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I note that No1Marauder, a lawyer who's zealous to attack me in typically disingenuous ways,
    has *completely ignored my main point* that claiming Phiona Mutesi is a 'prodigy' seems misleading.
    Instead, No1Marauder prefers to keep attacking me upon one minor point.

    No1Marauder apparently claims that Phiona Mutesi (at age 20) is in the '90th percentile' ...[text shortened]... place slightly outside the top 1% on a test, though
    he knew that I had been ill when I took it.
    Apparently reading comprehension wasn't on those tests or you'd be able to grasp that a FIDE 1622 is equivalent to a USCF 1800 and a USCF 1800 puts one in the 90th percentile of those who have played in a USCF tournament in the last year. All those points were supported by appropriate links.

    Average or a little better than average does not equate to someone who is in the top 10 per cent.
  10. 08 Sep '16 20:05 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Apparently reading comprehension wasn't on those tests or you'd be able to grasp that a FIDE 1622 is equivalent to a USCF 1800 and a USCF 1800 puts one in the 90th percentile of those who have played in a USCF tournament in the last year. All those points were supported by appropriate links.

    Average or a little better than average does not equate to someone who is in the top 10 per cent.
    No1Marauder makes a far-fetched claim *without citing any specific evidence* beyond his
    arrogant hand-waving ('appropriate links' ). I guess that No1Marauder might find a link
    *somewhere on the internet* to claim anything he wishes. Has No1Marauder met Elvis lately?

    "... FIDE 1622 is equivalent to a USCF 1800."
    --No1Marauder

    That's absurd. My preferred source for FIDE to USCF rating conversion is Mark Glickman,
    a senior lecturer on statistics at Harvard University.

    In contrast to No1Marauder's convenient 'hand-waving', I cite a *specific link* to my source.
    http://glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf

    This is Mark Glickman's conversion formula for a player with a FIDE rating but no USCF rating.
    USCF rating = 180 + 0.94 x FIDE, if FIDE <= 2000
    USCF rating = 20 + 1.02 x FIDE, if FIDE > 2000

    So FIDE 1622 converts (rounded up) to 1705 USCF.
    (If we misapply the formula for FIDE > 2000 players, it converts to 1674 USCF.)

    So, according to Mark Glickman, a FIDE 1622 rating converts to USCF 1705, which is
    *95 points below* No1Marauder's cocksure claim of USCF 1800.
    In short, Mark Glickman says that No1Marauder's very wrong.

    I expect that No1Marauder will keep ignoring or attempting to distort my main point that
    Phiona Mutesi (at about age 20) would hardly be considered a 'strong' player by anyone
    who knows much about rated tournament chess. Her record shows that she's hardly a 'prodigy'.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Sep '16 00:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    No1Marauder makes a far-fetched claim *without citing any specific evidence* beyond his
    arrogant hand-waving ('appropriate links' ). I guess that No1Marauder might find a link
    *somewhere on the internet* to claim anything he wishes. Has No1Marauder met Elvis lately?

    "... FIDE 1622 is equivalent to a USCF 1800."
    --No1Marauder

    That's absurd. My ...[text shortened]...
    who knows much about rated tournament chess. Her record shows that she's hardly a 'prodigy'.
    Again your reading comprehension problem flares up. I cited a specific source; the group which runs virtually all major tournaments in the US. To wit:

    EDIT: Continental Chess runs many of the tournaments in the US; their conversion table for FIDE to USCF ratings specifies that a FIDE rating of between 1580-1649 should be considered an 1800 USCF rating.http://www.chesstour.com/foreignratings.htm

    I found an 1800 who competed in a recent event that I also played in; that ranking placed him in the 90.4 percentile of those who have played in a USCF tournament in the last year.http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10122627

    Glickman is entitled to his opinion, but I think the actual practice of those who grade entrants into tournaments which award cash prizes is more persuasive then the estimates of an academic. Ms. Mutesi would have been required to compete in the U2100 rather than the U1800 at the recent NY State Championships for example.

    Anyone who knows much about tournament chess knows that an 1800 (or even a 1705) is considerably stronger than the "average club player". So apparently you aren't in that category.

    BTW, in looking through the results there I found this player who started the tournament with a 1704 USCF; that rating had him in the 87.2 percentile. http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10089506

    So even if one accepted the Glickman formula (as mentioned most major US tournaments don't), Ms. Mutesi would be considerably above average.
  12. 09 Sep '16 02:27 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Again your reading comprehension problem flares up. I cited a specific source; the group which runs virtually all major tournaments in the US. To wit:

    EDIT: Continental Chess runs many of the tournaments in the US; their conversion table for FIDE to USCF ratings specifies that a FIDE rating of between 1580-1649 should be considered an 1800 USCF rating ...[text shortened]... (as mentioned most major US tournaments don't), Ms. Mutesi would be considerably above average.
    I have no interest in whatever CCA, a USCF affiliate *but not USCF itself*, does.
    I note that No1Marauder prefers to 'cherry pick' a USCF affiliate rather than, say,
    quote any official USCF formula for conversion from FIDE to USCF ratings.

    I don't bother read much, if not most, of what No1Marauder writes because, based upon
    my ample observation of what he al,ready has written, I expect it to be disingenuous nonsense.

    No1Marauder's definitely wrong when he arrogantly attempted to claim or at least imply
    that his cherry-picked (he did not cite the specific link in his original post) rating conversion
    table used by CCA is universally accepted by knowledgeable chess observers.
    Mark Glickman (whom No1Marauder seems to sneer at) strongly disputes it.

    Looking at that table now, I would say that it seems CRUDELY SIMPLISTIC, having
    EVERYONE with a FIDE or ANY FOREIGN (except for Quebec, England, Germany,
    Philippines, or China) RATING in the 1580-1649 RANGE BEING ASSIGNED THE SAME
    1800 USCF RATING. This seems far from a fine sophisticated calibration of ratings.

    So CCA would assign the SAME 1800 USCF rating to BOTH a player with a 1580 Mexican rating
    and a player with a 1649 Russian rating (as though Mexican and Russian chess were similar).

    CCA might well have a significant bias, being motivated to assign players with FIDE or
    foreign ratings a comparatively (perhaps inaccurately) high initial USCF rating. Why?
    Because, at the major USCF-rated tournaments that it runs, CCA does *not* want to
    hear complaints from American players that foreign players have been assigned TOO LOW
    RATINGS, thus making them 'unfairly' eligible to win class prizes. So CCA might well
    be biased to assign initially inflated USCF ratings to players with FIDE or foreign ratings.

    I once played with a non-American player who said that he was about 2200-2300 in his country.
    He also had a 1998 USCF rating (based upon a minimum number of games needed to quality).
    He said that he was going to enter a major USCF tournament in the "under 2000" section.
    And he did, but he did not win as he had expected. Finishing tied for second (as I recall),
    he complained that it was unfair because the winner was an even bigger 'sandbagger'!
    I suspect that CCA attempts to stop foreign 'sandbaggers' from winning its class sections.

    "Glickman is entitled to his opinion."
    --No1Marauder (making a typically grudging concession)

    Mark Glickman offers much more than a mere personal opinion (No1Marauder's sneering insinuation).
    In fact, Mark Glickman is the chairman of the USCF ratings committee (a position he has held since 1992).
    As a senior lecturer in statistics at Harvard, Mark Glickman evidently has more expertise
    in statistical analysis than anyone employed by CCA. And Mark Glickman has written a
    number of technical papers (apparently beyond No1Marauder's comprehension) on chess ratings.

    So on one hand, there's No1Marauder's 'cherry-picked' champion, an apparently crude
    ratings conversion table used by the Continental Chess Association, a USCF affiliate.
    (I already have explained a motive for it to be biased toward assigning higher USCF ratings.)
    On the other hand, there's Mark Glickman, the chairman of the USCF ratings committee
    and a senior lecturer in statistics at Harvard. In contrast to No1Marauder, I would accept
    Mark Glickman's statistical analysis and conclusions over any offered by the CCA.

    I know that No1Marauder's eager to sneer at my knowledge of chess as well as of everything else.
    I can say that I have ample experience around chess players with FIDE and USCF ratings.
    I don't know anyone who would believe (like No1Maruader) that FIDE 1622 really equates to USCF 1800.

    Informally (before I bothered to do any calculation), I would have reckoned that her
    USCF rating would likely be her FIDE rating + 100 (or slightly less). So I would have
    estimated a 1622 FIDE rating as around 1700 USCF, perhaps slightly more, which
    remarkably matches the result of Mark Glickman's formula.

    No1Marauder may be accustomed to players who regard a 1622 FIDE (or 1705 USCF) player as 'strong'.
    In my chess circle, such a player would be regarded as 'weak', if not hardly more than a beginner.
    Now I think that's rather unfair, so I don't mind describing a 1622 FIDE player as 'slightly
    above average'. If No1Maruauder keeps quibbling, I might be willing to stretch it to
    'moderately above average'. But I don't know of any decent player who would stand in
    awe of a FIDE 1622 player.

    I once visited a (smallish) chess club in the USA. It wanted to run a tournament that
    day, and it needed one more player to fill out the top section (for an even number of players).
    I had not been playing chess recently, but I was persuaded to join (to do a favor for the club).
    I was put in a (all-play-all) of six players. The other five players were rated from around
    1650 to 1850 USCF (with an average rating in the 1700s). I thought that if I played
    normally, then I should win this tournament without trouble. I did complain (sarcastically)
    when I was assigned Black for my first three games and was assigned Black again for my
    fourth game. I scored 5-0, winning the tournament. I took no pride in it. I regarded it as
    a weak tournament, and my performance was something predicted by my estimated rating.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    09 Sep '16 18:33 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I have no interest in whatever CCA, a USCF affiliate *but not USCF itself*, does.
    I note that No1Marauder prefers to 'cherry pick' a USCF affiliate rather than, say,
    quote any official USCF formula for conversion from FIDE to USCF ratings.

    I don't bother read much, if not most, of what No1Marauder writes because, based upon
    my ample observation of ...[text shortened]... ed it as
    a weak tournament, and my performance was something predicted by my estimated rating.
    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 as they have been running these types of tournaments for many years, I'd defer to their expertise in such matters rather than the unsubstantiated claims of an internet troll.

    But since I'm in a nice mood, I'll even, for the sake of argument, concede the 1705 USCF figure is a more accurate approximation than CCA's 1800 for a 1622 FIDE. That still leaves Ms. Mutesi's rating in the 87th percentile. I'll be even nicer and lop off 5% based on the 2004 distributions that reduce that percentile for non-scholastic players. What the heck, I'll be even nicer and round it down to the 80th percentile.

    Even with all those concessions, we are left with a player who is higher rated than 4 out of 5 active US players and we be just below the 100th rated female player in the US by FIDE rating. To claim that is equivalent to an "average club player" is nonsense. You are suggesting that the average Joe Schmo playing in a club would be an equal match for the 100th best US woman's player competing in FIDE events. Is that really what you want to say? I find little plausibility in such a claim and no support for it in the percentile rankings.

    I think it's fair to call Ms. Mutesi a "prodigy". She did not start playing until she was 9 years old and within two years was Uganda's girl's champion (you seem to sneer at such an achievement but Uganda isn't San Marino; 37 million people live there). All the while she lived in appalling conditions and did not have access to the books, internet, state support and other conveniences young players in other countries take for granted. She had never used a flush toilet or a shower until she competed in international chess events! Her achievements are remarkable given these facts and more than ample to make her a "prodigy" (the book was written in 2011). A more detailed recital of her story is here: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/aug/28/chess-queen-of-africa-phiona-mutesi

    Of course, there are people who agree with you and think little of her achievements based on their perceptions of the inferiority of African chess; I'm sure you'll find a lot to nod your head at here: http://nationalvanguard.org/2016/09/more-on-the-myth-of-phiona-mutesis-skill-as-a-chess-player/

    I suppose it's grating for you who claim that you could easily defeat Ms. Mutesi (could you give me the crosstable of that USCF tournament where you so easily mopped up the floor with US class B's and A's? Thanks in advance) for her to get such media attention while you have to toil in obscurity trolling on the internet. Life just isn't fair.

    EDIT: From the Guardian article:

    It was during that visit that I first recognised Phiona’s power to inspire. She came to my son’s third grade classroom and a bunch of restless nine-year-olds fell silent as she shared her story. Only two of the 20 students in the class knew how to play chess, so Phiona sat down at one of the tiny school desks and began patiently teaching the game the way Gloria had once taught her. The next day the students begged to play chess again. The following year the entire third grade competed in chess and the year after that more than 200 kids in four grade levels were all part of what had become known around school as the Phiona Mutesi Chess Club.


    What is your response to that?
  14. 10 Sep '16 00:38 / 1 edit
    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

    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 ..."
    --No1Marauder

    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."
    --No1Marauder

    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

    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
    particularly strong.

    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.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 Sep '16 01:02
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    The troll No1Marauder resorts to his usual diversionary insults and 'strawmen'.

    "...than the unsubstantiated claims of an internet troll."
    --No1Marauder

    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 Ches ...[text shortened]... timentalizing, and so I disapprove of exaggerating Phiona Mutesi's chess achievements or talent.
    In reality, you have been shown to be ludicrously incorrect in your initial claim that a FIDE 1622 is equivalent to an "average club player". Your insults and attacks don't change that fact. Someone less mentally deranged then you are would just admit your error and move on but that just does not seem possible in your case.

    Glickman and the CCA seem to have a slight difference in opinion, one that in the case of a FIDE 1622 would equate to a difference of 3 percentile points. That might be important in rating the participants in a tourney (where the CCA has far more experience than Glickman; I note the USCF has not decided to reject the CCA methods and sanctions all CCA tournaments) but it is of no real import in refuting your foolish claim that Ms. Mutesi's rating means she is no or little better than the average club player.

    Like the racist article I cited, you have little regard for African players. That is your prerogative I suppose. But still a person who within two years after learning how to move the pieces starts winning national events and within a few years after that is playing in international events can be justly considered a "prodigy" by any standard definition.

    Your continued personal attacks are uninteresting; I await that crosstable that shows how easily you destroyed US Class A and B's.

    Have fun with that.