Discussion:
The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International Level
(too old to reply)
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-26 21:50:14 UTC
Permalink
http://www.64.com/cgi-bin/ratings.pl/USCF/12649546
Does anybody know the story of how this happened?
The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International
Level
It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with
a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or
international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked
hard of a chance to play.
[deleted]
Did understand it right? US sends the junior representatives
to the world championships based on the USCF rating????
No competition whatsoever?
That's right!
I can't believe it. Then the people wonder why US does not
produce the number of GM that they should.
This is a perfect self destructive system!
I agree.
I have an advice for US: make all the U16 unrated,
then they are going to concentrate on the game.
David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system
hydes.
That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
tournament. Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize
money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.
In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
ratings for everybody. Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings
for his big $$ tournaments.
Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely on
the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a Rook
AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF
adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because the
2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his true
ability.
I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic
events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed
competitions, both in the US and abroad.
Regards,
Miguel
SLOAN, YOU PERV (as stated in steriev.tripod.com) , WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH LJUPCO STERIEV'S PRIVATE EMAILS MEANT ONLY FOR YOU? & SINCE THEY WERE UNPREPARED, THEY WERE DEFINITELY NOT MEANT FOR THE PUBLIC!

Let the truth be finally known...
First of all, forgive him what he did, he was 18/19, not even 20. Too young to think of upcoming internet & its wide media reach consequences. We live once but our names are forever.

Ljupco/Lupco/Ljupce Steriev is really rated over 2200 ELO, his "terrible" play at 1997 us junior championship was to lower his rating. It was done to win money in lower rated groups but he backed down from that because it is/it was immoral.

How did he get to be 2399?
First of all, this proves he had no intentions being senior master, he could have easilty cheated the system & go over 2500 just to get huge rating.
DONT BLAME HIM BUT SHITTY USCF!!!
I think he played in the group of few people & won many games, so that's why, even as a surprise to him, his rating grew exponentially, especially in the light that he still had provisional rating, so any win over 1800 player would be 2300 performance. He did not cheat any system. There was no fraud! He is very moral & ethical man as stated by his Philosophical works to say the least: encyclopediasupreme.org/Philosophy & his music encyclopediasupreme.org/mp3
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-31 20:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Here's fine super grandmaster level game between lupco steriev (1999/2000 yugoslavian correspondence champion geocities.ws/cmby2k /gildyshow2 & stan vaughan:

[Event "The WCA/WCF Correspondence Match"]
[Site "USA, Chicago, Illinois/USA, Nevada, North Las Vegas"]
[Date "8/8/99-4/30/2000"]
[White "NM Vaughan Stan"]
[Black "NM Steriev Ljupce/Lupco/Ljupco"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d2-d4 g8-f6
2. c2-c4 e7-e6
3. b1-c3 b7-b6
4. e2-e4 f8-b4
5. f1-d3 c8-b7
6. d1-f3 c7-c5
7. d4-d5 b4xc3+
8. b2xc3 d7-d6
9. c1-g5 b8-d7
10. g5-f4 d8-e7
11. g1-e2 e8-g8 {when is best time to castle, just like when to play B2, G2 bishops is one of chess' unsolved mysteries, positional or open tactics & strategies; here black's perfect play is slowly turning into masterpiece!}
12. e1-g1 e6-e5
13. f4-g5 h7-h6
14. g5-h4 e7-e8
15. f1-d1 g8-h8
16. d3-c2 f6-g8
17. c2-a4 g8-e7
18. e2-g3 e7-g6
19. g3-f5 g6xh4
20. f5xh4 e8-d8
21. h4-f5 d7-f6
22. f3-g3 g7-g6
23. f5xh6 f6xe4
24. g3-e3 e4-g5
25. h2-h4 g5-h7
26. e3-g3 d8-f6
27. h6-g4 f6-e7
28. g4-e3 f8-g8
29. h4-h5 g6xh5
30. g3-h3 g8-g5
31. g1-f1 a8-g8
32. a4-d7 h7-f6
33. d7-f5 f6-e8
34. h3-h4 e8-g7
35. h4-e4 e7-f6
36. f5-h7 g8-f8
37. e4-c2 f6-h6
38. h7-d3 e5-e4
39. d3xe4 f7-f5
40. e4-f3 f5-f4
41. d1-e1 f4xe3
42. e1xe3 g7-f5
43. e3-e6 g5-g6
44. e6-e4 f8-g8
45. f1-e2 h6-f8
46. a1-h1 h5-h4
47. g2-g4 f5-h6
48. h1xh4 f8-f6
49. h4-h3 b7-c8
50. c2-d2 g8-f8
51. d2-e3 h8-g8
52. h3xh6 g6xh6
53. g4-g5 f6xf3+
54. e3xf3 f8xf3
55. g5xh6 f3-f8
56. e4-e7 c8-a6
57. e2-d3 f8-f7
58. e7-e6 f7xf2
59. e6xd6 f2-f4
60. d6-d8+ g8-h7
61. a2-a4 h7xh6
62. d5-d6 a6xc4+
63. d3-e3 f4-f7
64. a4-a5 b6-b5
65. e3-e4 h6-g5
66. d8-h8 a7-a6
67. h8-h2 f7-f4+
68. e4-e3 f4-f5
69. h2-d2 f5-e5+
70. e3-f2 e5-e8
71. d6-d7 e8-d8
72. d2-d6 g5-f4
73. d6xa6 d8xd7
74. a6-c6 d7-d2+
75. f2-e1 f4-e3
76. c6-g6 d2-e2+
77. e1-d1 c4-b3+
78. d1-c1 e2-a2
79. g6-g5 e3-d3
80. g5xc5 a2xa5
81. c1-b2 b3-c4
82. c5-h5 a5-a2+
83. b2-b1 d3xc3
84. h5-h3+ c3-d4
85. h3-h4+ d4-c5
86. h4-h5+ c4-d5
87. h5-f5 a2-e2
88. b1-c1 b5-b4
89. f5-f8 b4-b3
90. f8-d8 c5-b4
91. c1-d1 d5-c4
92. d8-b8+ b4-c3
93. b8-c8 e2-e4
94. c8-h8 b3-b2
95. h8-h3+ c4-d3
96. h3xd3+ c3-c4
97. d1-c2 e4-e2+
98. d3-d2 e2xd2+
99. c2xd2 b2-b1Q {vaughan's position was unstable, unbalanced long before the endgame}
100. d2-e2 b1-d3+
101. e2-f2 c4-d4
102. f2-g2 d4-e3
103. g2-h3 d3-g6
104. h3-h4 e3-f3 {Only careful play and precise order of moves won this game for Steriev, there were many traps for a theoretical draw that were well avoided! Kudos-bravo, bravisimo!!!}
105. h4-h3 g6-g3 ##

Loading...