On Apr 6, 6:11 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
<jeremy.p.spin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> This was the incident which I praised Sam for in an earlier post. It
> is amazing that this could be summarized as a case where a board
> member was forced to resign because of a dispute with the rating
> committee. This was a pure and simple case of ratings fraud. There is
> nobody at fault here except for the board member.
>
> It is easy to say that the ratings committee should catch this, but
> very hard in practice. There are too many pieces of data coming in to
> check whether every one is legitimiate. The rating committee's chief
> job is to set up a good system, not to police it. Every rating system
> can be manipulated by a cheater placed in a position of trust. It is
> rare for a TD to cheat in this way; unfortunately, it is not the only
> case. I do not hold the rating system or the rating committee at
> fault, just as I would not hold the national basketball league at
> fault if a referee is found to be in the pay of gamblers. The fault is
> all on the trusted individual.
>
> For those who tout FIDE's superiority in all things, FIDE has had
> ratings manipulations schemes as well. In this case, Sam did a good
> job exposing a cheater; blaming it on anybody but the cheater (in
> particular, making it seem like the cheater was a victim!) is a very
> strange way of looking at the case.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
I agree the fault is on the 'trusted' individual, but one can make the
case there should be some sort of oversight applied to title
applications. I haven't the faintest idea of how this should be done,
or indeed if USCF needs to place such oversight in place following
Tannergate. P Innes, as usual, doesn't make any sort of argument one
way or another other than waving his hands and screaming.
|
