The Fabulous 00s: Something to Nip in the Bud
Ethics Problem: Red-Flag Matches used to gain Youth Master Record for Nip
Here is something we should definitely nip in the bud.
As GM Hikaru Nakamura correctly pointed out on ICC and in his blog, there is no way matches should be counted if someone is trying for a youth/rating record. He nails the issue on the head - it’s all about the integrity of the record. A nine year old should be able to do good things via rated tournament games and not need that extra “boost” for a mad record rush. Unless, of course, the nine year’s old relatives are trying to short-circuit the system in order to gain, yes, you’ve guessed it, the time-dependent record. And how to short-circuit the tournament system? Simple: sprinkle in a few matches. After all, if a kid needs some points pronto, all the “sponsoring relative” needs to do is find a “friendly” match opponent in the rolodex for just such an emergency. Readers: I heard disturbing and disgusting reports that Nip’s coach paid the match opponents. I can only hope it’s not true. Can anyone verify? If so, all the matches should be tossed out.
Author’s note 3/15/08: IM Greg Shahade posted this agreement on Hikaru’s blog:
” I am a big fan of Nicholas Nip, I got to see him first hand at the US Chess School training session in San Francisco. I think he’s a great kid, with a ton of talent and I don’t think that he would ever knowingly cheat. Despite that, I don’t believe such matches should be valid, if someone wanted to they are such an easy way to unfairly gain rating points, and kids have been doing it for a while to qualify for certain events like the World Youth and such.
I just think it’s terrible that such matches are allowed, especially in regards to breaking records, and the USCF needs to do something about it, even retroactively in this case (especially as without matches Nip’s record may be almost unbeatable in the future). This is nothing against Nip, who is a great talented young player, but this practice of junior players being allowed to play matches of many games against a single player (who may be extremely overrated) to boost their ratings quickly and either qualify for events or break records needs to stop immediately.
By Greg Shahade on 3/10/2008 1:36 PM ” I could not agree with this sentiment more.
Here is Nicholas Nip’s recent (and painful to read) rating history according to USCF MSA:
| Date | Event | Reg. Rtg. | Quick Rtg |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-03-05 200803055421 |
MECH QUAD 2 (CA) 1: SECTION1 |
2187 => 2207 | 2060 => 2102 |
| 2008-03-01 200803013821 |
MECH. QUAD (CA) 1: MECHD.S3C |
2186 => 2187 | 2051 => 2060 |
| 2008-02-26 200802262691 |
WINTER TUESDAY NIGHT MARATHON (CA) 1: TNM108 |
2193 => 2186 | |
| 2008-02-24 200802241711 |
MATCH NIP-PEREZ (CA) 1: SECTION 1 |
2167 => 2193 | 2002 => 2051 |
| 2008-02-23 200802231671 |
NIP-FUENTES MATCH (CA) 1: SECTION 1 |
2137 => 2167 | 1952 => 2002 |
| 2008-01-21 200801210681 |
WESTERN CLASS CHAMPIONSHIPS (CA) 1: MASTER |
2144 => 2137 | |
| 2007-12-18 200712182161 |
FALL TUESDAY NIGHT MARATHON (CA) 1: TNM507 |
2128 => 2144 | |
| 2007-12-14 200712142971 |
SCHILLERVSNIP (CA) 1: SECTION 1 |
2104 => 2128 | 1904 => 1952 |
| 2007-12-08 200712088871 |
MCCLAIN MEMORIAL (CA) 1: MCCLAIN07 |
2113 => 2104 | 1911 => 1904 |
| 2007-11-25 200711254631 |
NOVEMBER CUPERTINO (CA) 5: X5 |
2101 => 2113 | 1893 => 1911 |
Note the big rating gains in the Perez, Fuentes, and Schiller matches. The Perez and Fuentes matches were rated one day apart, on 2/23 and 2/24! Not to malign the competitive abilities of these people, but let’s state the obvious: none of these matches should count to accomplish any type of record or receive any type of invitation. The whole thing is entirely absurd - even a relative of the Caissic Kid did not rig the match, it smells like they were, in fact, rigged. To take it further, if any of these people (Fuentes, Perez, Schiller) are family friends, it’s already far gone and out of the question to count the matches for this particular record. It’s not the kid doing this, it’s some well-meaning relative or “proud coach” (living vicariously?) but it still smells.
Postscript 3/14/08: a California informant reports that the match opponents are, in fact, family friends. These matches should be annulled.
Postscript 3/15/08: Reports are popping up in the blogosphere that Nip’s coach paid the match opponents. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, it just did. If this is indeed the case, the offending party or parties should apologize to the world chess community and voluntarily rescind all the matches. Of course, it’s psychologically difficult to rescind a vicarious award.
Boo Young Caruana, Bravo Young Nyzhnyk
I haven’t seen rating manipulation like this since the famous “Caruana gambit” - where future GM Fabiano Caruana, in very unsportsmanlike maneuvering, was pulled out of Marshall Chess Club events (many times) early (forfeiting his remaining games) to protect a few measly USCF rating point gain. In retrospect, how silly that must appear now that Caruana is at or near 2600 FIDE. Parental rating shenanigans always smell funny. And it’s never the kid’s fault. It’s the observer/parent/relative who pulls off these stunts. I want to point out a counter-example - Ukrainian Kid Fresh Ilya Nyzhnyk (somebody buy him a vowel!) is front and center on the world stage, playing in Aeroflots and other strong opens (he recently beat David Pruess and previously won the “B” group at the 2007 Moscow Open at only 10 years of age with a score of 8.5/9 and a performance rating of 2633) and he’s not lurking trying to build a lofty ELO or go for youth records with behind the scenes “matches”.
The USCF should revisit this issue pronto. Nakamura’s complaint is not sour grapes - it is quite obvious, prima facie, that matches are easy to rig and should not be used as a tool for what I am assuming is a close relative’s quest for child Caissic honor. The situation could be even worse: bogus matches could be used to rig invitations to youth squads or student teams! After all, the chances are exceedingly high a child’s match opponents are at least casual acquaintances of the aforementioned relative. And if so, fuhgeddabit - (visualize a baseball umpire ejecting the match, giving it the heave-ho - these matches are outtah here!).
Solution - Stop The Tanner Gambit and the Nip Gambit Deferred
Solution: ban the use of match play to gain child rating records. The potential for abuse is too great. Things can get really silly - for example a sponsoring relative might even be paying the ‘hurry-up offense’ match opponents. The incentives for abuse make for a lengthy list indeed. This sort of glaring abuse problem was actually exposed by Sam Sloan when he outed Robert Tanner’s fake matches, forcing Tanner’s ouster from the USCF Ethics (!!) Committee. Tanner was trying to gain an NM title and claimed matches vs campfire buddies as legitimate games. The “Tanner Gambit” should not be used again in match form - ban the Tanner Gambit and the Nip (Match) Gambit Deferred. And it would also be nice to ban the “Caruana Withdrawal Gambit” - any youth withdrawing from an event who is not dying of bubonic plague should not be given any rating point gains from that event.
Tags: bogus chess records, Caruana Rating Gambit, ethics problem, Fabiano Caruana, Ilya Nyzhnyk, junior chess, Nip, parental chess rating manipulation, potentially rigged matches, robert tanner, Tanner Campfire Gambit
March 10, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I agree that matches devoid of any sort of oversight cannot be counted towards time-related records. This seems like common sense to me.
MG Note: The key concept - lack of oversight. If opponents are getting paid, it’s even worse than no oversight. One cannot imagine Nip’s match opponents not knowing he’s in the mad rush for this record, and are they going to “give their all?” No, why should they? He’s on his way to a record, after all!
March 10, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I do not think any match should ever be able to enable either player to gain more than 100 points in a 3 month period. EVEN if the integrity is there, some folks might be good at identifying opponents who are temporarily overrated.
It might be easy enough to recalc a rating leaving out the match results. Ten, they might still be eligible for whatever record award.
March 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm
How about just having a “match” rating, like a quick rating, correspondence rating, provisional rating, etc.
And, in American chess history, before ratings (1950), they just used titles, gave odds, and, even had an informal system of “timed” games vs. offhand games (records of such) to determine playing strength!
Now that computers do the work, why can’t systems be established to rate all “kinds” of play???
Stephen Dann, chess journalist and historian
MG Note: An Excellent Idea.
March 12, 2008 at 2:44 am
There used to be a USCF rule (maybe still is, don’t know) that if one played a private match, he had to then play at least twenty regular games in advertised tourneys before his rating could qualify him for special tourneys and teams. Since a “record” is a more nebulous thing, it may never have occurred to them to make such special rules.
As far as withdrawing from events to protect rating gains, I don’t see the point unless the plan is to immediately retire from chess, as your rating will obviously be at risk the next time you play. Or if you can arrange it so that all your rated games are played with the White pieces.
MG Note: I think the point was to gain a point or two from early round fish then save the commute in for the second day and also avoid the “more dangerous opposition.” Pretty silly stuff for a player now rated about 2600 FIDE and one the offending relative was taken to task for at the time. The offending relative (O.R.) offered a frothy indignant defense of the frequent withdrawals, but that made young Fab look even worse. It’s hard to put a good face on playing just the first rounds in a 2 day 4-rounder. A long time ago IM Eugene Meyer gave me the sage advice: Just play all your rounds, no matter how you’re doing. And he’s right. That’s the way to play a chess tournament. Unless of course, the bubonic plague is involved.
March 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I think counting matches for record consideration is totally wrong. Looking at these results it just smells to high heaven. Two matches starting one day apart and finishing one day apart? Is this the homework assignment for “How I spent my winter vacation”? Then it seems kind of funny that there were quads with only one section several days apart. Records and invitation should be based on normal tournament results, and matches should not be taken into consideration. He’s clearly a very talented player, but to have the master rating achieved under such circumstances takes away from what he has achieved at such a young age.
In terms of the playing a few rounds and dropping out, there’s another NY kid who does that. If he plays on Thursday night he’ll request a 1/2 point bye for the last round. I have no problem with that since the last round starts at 10:30 pm. Typically with the rating break he’ll lose to a 2300 in round 1. In round two he may beat a 1700-1800 rated player and then drop out. I’ve seen him do the same thing on the weekend one day events. I think it’s a stupid way to scrape up a few rating points. I think the only time I’ve seen him complete the entire schedule is when he’s wins an important scholastic event.
MG Note: Suggested new USCF rule: if a kid tries to drop out to gain a few rating points, he or she should be put in the public pillory for all to see during the missed round(s).
But I even see older established players monkeying around with well timed byes to avoid certain opponents. Just play the damn game, and beat the guys you gotta beat.
March 15, 2008 at 4:47 pm
The nip quads were really “matches” since the players chose to play each other for a specific purpose. If you agree that these quads are matches, and if you include the X5 section from his November match, his match rating gain of 113 points has exceeded the match rule that “a player may only gain or lose up to 100 rating points through match play during any 180 day period.”
USCF should do something about this. Also, Eric Schiller should have his floor dropped by 100 rating points according to match rules.
March 18, 2008 at 2:15 pm
[...] Author’s postscript 3/18/08: Bear Stearns indeed failed and sold itself to JP Morgan for a paltry $2 per share. Bridge bum Jimmy Cayne made out like a bandit, shelling out $25.8M for a private apartment (no mortgage necessary!) shortly before the death throes. Many thousands of shareholders and employees with Bear 401K’s were ruined faster than you can say “3 No Trump.” It’s time for torches and pitchforks! What was Cayne doing during the collapse? “As investment bank Bear Stearns collapsed, and was sold to JPMorgan Chase for a scant $240 million, its chairman James Cayne played bridge at a tournament last week in Detroit over two critical days, like Nero fiddling away as Rome burned. “ The only thing more morally questionable would have been playing a chess match with Nip. [...]
March 24, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Hmm, wasn’t the USCF rule the match rule that “a player may only gain or lose up to 100 rating points through match play during any 180 day period” at least partly due to the brainchild of a contemporary of ours — Claude Bloodgood in the mid-1970s?
My recollection is that while in the Virginia State Penitentiary, he became one of the highest-rated players in the state mostly thru “matches”.
March 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Is the USCF aware of this?
Has Shillers floor been lowered the way the rules say it should?
Jim T has an interesting point about the 100 point rule. Those “quads” were arranged matches, not quads that anyone could compete in.
Integrity would be nice.
3/29/08: MG Note: There is no there, there, when it comes to USCF ethics. I doubt anyone in power cares about these issues, all I see are congratulations - there is a tiny chance this discussion might lead to something.
April 21, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I watched this morning’s Regis show and saw Little Nic played with
10 adults, live.
I am not a chess player.
I’d say, he REALLY is gifted.
Adults are just being jealous, that’s it.
There is no need to fight against the rating rules.
If you win, you win.
Jealousy will not bring anyone a better person.
MG Note: Nakamura also had to put up with rather silly “jealousy” notions. Elsewhere, NM Shankland posted a comment that the match opponents “were not morons.” These comments miss the point. The crux of the matter is what is, and isn’t, a legitimate route to make a record. Matches should not be allowed to establish youth records, because they are too easy to manipulate. Well-meaning or publicity seeking parents and coaches can really go the extra yard and get the kiddie record in record time, but at what cost? It all boils down to this simple idea, not an attack on personalities.
April 22, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I watched the video that was posted on youtube from his appearance on Regis. I’m from NY, play in a lot of tournaments in the area, and I did not know one single person from the simul. They kept saying these were players from NY area clubs. Who are they, and what clubs?