Originally posted by no1marauder
You keep trying to change the subject. The issues revolves around two points that you claimed:
A) That Ms. Mutesi was no better than an "average" or "slightly better than average" club player; (quote above and many other places in this thread:
B) That she is not a "prodigy". First sentence by you in this thread: Is it really accurate to describe Ph ...[text shortened]... or little better than the average club player.
Try to stop being so blatantly dishonest.[/b]
The troll No1Marauder keeps dishonestly distorting or simply lying about what I wrote.
I already know that No1Marauder is far too arrogant and dishonest ever to admit his errors *cleanly*.
No1Marauder typically resorts to more and more diversionary insults, lies, and other abuse.
NO1MARAUDER'S WRONG TO MAKE HIS COCKSURE CLAIM THAT A FIDE 1622
RATING EQUATES TO A 1800 USCF RATING. Mark Glickman, the chairman of the
USCF ratings committee, says that No1Maruder's VERY WRONG--by 95 rating points.
No1Marauder has ludicrously claimed that a 95 rating point difference is 'slight'.
I have pointed out (using some mathematics that seems beyond No1Marauder's comprehension)
that a 1705 USCF player would be expected to score ONLY 36.659% (MUCH LESS THAN 50% )
against a 1800 USCF player. There's MORE THAN A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE between
an expectancy of 36.659% and 50%.
I would note that Mark Glickman's *not* a dictator, and the chairman of the USCF ratings
committee has no power to dictate how a USCF affiliate such as CCA wishes to convert
FIDE (or foreign) ratings to USCF ratings. That's IRRELEVANT--contrary to No1Marauder's
tireless harping--to the accuracy of Mark Glickman's rating conversions formula.
Indeed, my position is that a 1682 FIDE (= 1705 USCF) player is 'slightly above average'
among active adult USCF tournament players. (No1Marauder may prefer to drag a large
number of low-rated junior USCF players who played a few games and quit into the sample)
As a rule of thumb, I regard a USCF class C (1400-1599) as average, and so I regard
USCF class B (1600-1799) as slightly better the average. As I have said, if No1Marauder
wants to keep quibbling, I might consider amending 'slightly' to 'moderately', but no more.
No1Marauder may be accustomed to being around much weaker players than I do,
but no one in my chess circle would regard a FIDE 1622 (= 1705 USCF) player as
anyone more than a slightly above average club player. A friend of mine, who's
rated almost OTB 1800 USCF and about 2100 in official USCF correspondence chess,
regards himself as no better than a moderately above average club player.
In contrast to No1Marauder's emotive cheerleading, I prefer to take a more objective view of Phiona Mutesi.
She may be regarded as a 'prodigy' by the standards of Uganda's women's chess, but
those standards are very low. It's unlikely that she would be regarded as a 'prodigy'
by the standards of a country with a much stronger chess culture.
By the way, at least several of my friends or acquaintances were among the top junior
players (including a champion) of their countries, all of which are much stronger than Uganda.
Some of my friends and acquaintances attended Soviet chess schools for years.
A friend (at age 12) drew a simul game with Anatoly Karpov. So we are much less
easily impressed than the ignorant (or dishonest) likes to No1Marauder.
So if someone wishes to claim that Phiona Mutesi was a 'prodigy' in THE CONTEXT OF
UGANDA'S WOMEN'S CHESS, then I would not object. But I don't believe that the context
of Uganda's women's chess *should be a universal context* for determining who's a prodigy.
My friends or acquaintances who attended Soviet chess schools would not have regarded
Phiona Mutesi as a 'prodigy'. And I would submit that people who learned chess in
the USSR tend to be more knowledgeable than most Americans about chess.