It's actually one of the words that is wrong, not any of the numbers. They're rounded up to the NEXT 100 points, not to the NEAREST.

+1.
Sadly, i have to agree. here's my own fide rating chart:

Yes, I should have said that the USCF "reduces" (for lack of a better word) or rounds down a rating to the last 100-point threshold achieved, and then subtracts 200 points from this number to obtain a Floor. (Note the capital "F.") Thanks for keeping my wording correct.

To address the fellow who says that I'm not handicapping EC as diligently as I am HL, well, EC's "true" strength is being estimated by the USCF rating system much better than HL's has been for the past 25 years. This is why I've been focusing on HL. Of course the USCF rating system is not perfect, or even accurate when it comes to high-variance players (which includes rapidly improving players), but it's all that we have. Yes, EC beat some experts and drew a master, but he also lost to a near-beginner in the following tournament....go figure.

OA

Has Lederer been inactive since 1987? If that's so I'm liking Allen's chances more and more. I played my last tournament maybe 20 years or so ago, was rated about 2220 CFC at the time. I played only the odd blitz game since then but about 8 years ago I played in two blitz tournaments and played really well, performance rating was probably still over 2200. Now that another 8 years have passed though I dunno, I just joined FICS to play in the 2+2 tournament and have played maybe 30 5 minute games or so there in the last few days. I have dropped a bunch of pieces and my rating at the moment is only slightly over 1600. Yikes.

If Howard hasn't played at all in the last zillion years it's gonna be tough. Though the time control will be a factor IMO, the slower the game the better Howard's chances IMO.

In fairness to you, FICS ratings, FICS blitz ratings especially, tend to be about 200-300 points lower than respective USCF ratings. Not to get off topic....

Followers of this thread might be interested in the following quote from Mark Glickman, the Chairman of the USCF ratings committee. This is what he wrote to me after I asked him if there was any way we could estimate the inflation/deflation of 1980s' ratings relative to 2010 ratings.

The USCF doesn't have any computer-readable ratings data prior to 1991, unfortunately. So there is really no scientific way I can think of to get at measuring inflation/deflation during the 80s. My vague recollection is that there was fairly serious deflation in the late 1980s due to the sudden influx of scholastic players, but that doesn't pertain to the time period you mention.

the USCF "rating floor" is aimed at curbing cheating, it's not meant to be a statistically justified lower bound for how far a player's playing strength can decline.

Couldn't see this mentioned anywhere, but it seems this thread and bet are getting quite a bit of attention (that article is a couple of months old but I stumbled across it by accident just now).

Anyway, Allen how are things progressing?

lol how do u know howard isn't studying? and what did you define as studying?

Cliffs for this please??

When is the game?

Is AC getting Soviet School lessons?

As I understand it, they are friends and the money they are betting isn't significant to either one so if Howard says he's not studying then that's that.

If ur a fool for quitting chess to play poker, what's that make all those guys who continue play chess and think poker is no different then buying lottery tickets? Geniuses and prodigies....lol.

From what I have observed during my son's "scholastic" career the last 7 years, the kids seem to be the ones who are underrated and many adult players(especially older ones) seem to be overrated or have hit their floors. I have seen numerous instances where an 8 year old 1300 destroys an adult 1700, a 12 year old "A" player beats an adult master or a 15 year old master beats an IM or a GM.

There's indications that ratings may be more accurate now than 30 years ago. There are more strong players now than ever before, but that doesn't mean everything is diluted. I would attribute it to chess engines, chess coaches and a major increase in interest at the scholastic level the last decade.

The rating calculator is very accurate after a certain sample size. So my opinion is that ratings generally speaking, are neither inflated or deflated....but you will find plenty of examples of overrated and underrated players!

studying and playing are 2 very different things that can have a huge impact on that bet.

howard says he wont study but if his alllowed to play, than he will win for sure imo.

after i stop playing for a couple of years, i didnt stdu but juts by playing couple of hundred blitz this year, i know im easilly 50% better than i was before i play my first blitz this year, easillly.

if howard hasnt the rifght to study or play, than cunninham with super hard study might have a chance .

my advise, learn aweful lot of tactics and edgy oppening, since tactics are the first thing that go out the window.

I agree 100%. I believe what Howard promised not to do was "prepare".

I have had the same experience. I joined FICS a few weeks ago and have played probably a few hundred blitz games by now. 10 days ago or so I was fluctuating between 1550 and 1650, then I reached 1700 and have hovered between 1690 and 1730 or so for a few dozen games now. So yeah, if Howard was allowed to "perpare" for even one day and spent that day playing bliltz that would make a huge difference.

I'm six games into the Las Vegas tournament and after losing the first two I've won 4 in a row in the U1900 section. Since my last game was another miniature http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=39002 I have time for a quick post before the final game this evening.

Under 1900 players are just horrible, myself included in those two losses, although I did just jump straight in after an eight hour drive and no sleep so that's my excuse. Anyway, here's probably my most interesting game where I often wasn't sure what to do. http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=39004

- After 10. Kf1 I thought I might do better than just get a positional edge but I couldn't find anything crushing. He needed to play 9.h3 or an earlier Bb3 or a2 or something.

-I was suspicious of 15...f5 changing horses midstream as I had planned on Rd8, Kh7, maybe g5 first. I couldn't resist either shutting out his bishop or doubling on the f-file if he took but he gets some activity with Qd5+, exf5, and Qe4 I think. Then I should have played 16...f4 since he could still do that. So, oops.

-I guess 26...Qc8 made more sense than moving that rook back and forth but it didn't seem like he could do much anyway. I'm trying to come up with Queen trapping threats, threats of making g4 work especially while there's a fork on f3, or preparing h5 and g4.

-On 28...Rdf1 I didn't really check to see if the immediate Nd4 traps the Queen as I was worried about time. It didn't really look like it would with the check and it doesn't.

-29.Kf1? If he played 29.Qd3 I would lose on time trying to calculate g4.

-Then I still had some trouble. I played 34...Kh8 rather than Rg7 in time pressure intending to take over the d-file but whites next move made that impossible. Anyway I was doing fine till 43...Rh7? with the tunnel visioned idea of trading off his damn rooks completely forgetting I let the rest of his army out.

-50.Rxb7? I guess he felt lost and decided to swindle with a rook and knight attack but I think the two minor pieces and rushing pawns versus my Queen would require some accuracy on my part since I had nothing to sacrifice for a pawn+piece.

I need to pay closer attention and get less trade happy when I get a big material advantage. His rooks were neutralized and I could have just sent a rook and Queen over to mate him.

10-Qc8 before taking with the bishop on f3 looks crushing.

12.Kf1=10.Kf1 Where's the edit button?

Its not possible to edit after a certain time, 30 min I think.

Lol has Lederer conceeded yet?? and can we get some of those guys from last year that said Cunningham had no chance back here for an update.

When is the event? and is it true that you just are learning chess to meet hot chess babes??

How much time are you spending on chess AC? You've improved considerably imo.

Grunching, but if someone with no very limited chess experience wants to get to 2100+ in under a year he must be 1. incredibly smart, 2. practice for hours daily, and 3. not an old fart.

I ended up 4.5 out of 7 at Bally's. Not bad I guess. Here's the score for my last game where I completely pulled up my skirt acquiescing to a draw with my opponent in severe time trouble.

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=39033

The two clear mistakes of the game that I could see were 5...c5 which surprisingly seems to lose a pawn by force. Positionally though, I can't believe it wasn't obvious to try to hamper his g2 bishop with c6 at some point, and my opponent would likely obtain the two bishops later so why open the board, and c5 before Nbd2 is tactically dangerous. I'd say the best plan was 5...Nbd2 and meet c4 with c6 or if he blocks his c pawn I can consider c5 but still possibly not.

The other was 22.e4 completely allowing me back in the game by weakening the light squares for my knight. I actually delayed moving my knight as long as possible hoping he would make the mistake of moving his e pawn. I wasn't thrilled with his Kg2 either. I thought his plan should be after a trade of rooks to bring his king to e1.

In the final position I was unable to find anything fantastic over the board but at home I came up with 27...Kd2 with the same idea of trading rooks and running down his queen pawns ie: 27...Kd2 28.Ne3...Rc1 29.Rxc1...Kxc1 30.f4... Nc6 31.b4...b5 and I might flag him with what looks like the better side of a draw.

Really impressive to see the U1900 standings and see a solid line of 1700-1800 players broken up by a single 1649.

In my last tournament someone playing a class up was leading all the way to the final round.