Something strange is going on in Springfield, Missouri.
A certain local TD has been running numerous events with himself and a few “carefully chosen” lower rated players. These events go on a few times a week. This TD - Mike Clark 12608190 - has now won 72 games in a row and raised his rating from 1925 to 2050 in one month! Very impressive. 
He refuses to allow higher or equal rated players in his events. He has indicated to spectators he’s shooting for a master’s rating. I suspect the games ARE being played… but the whole thing - even if legal - seems a little unethical to me.
Does anybody have any ideas? 
I thought to be considered a master, you must win a certain number of games against opponents that are near or above a master level.
I know in FIDE, there is a strict process for getting a title, which actually makes it fairly hard to get a title and forces you to play at or above the level of the title. -I won’t go into it here, but you must win X number of games against opponets of the title level your shooting for in a certain period of time. (Notwithstanding that winning certain tournaments can give an automatic title of GM.)
I know it has been called to the ED’s attention, Frank, I don’t know what recommendations, if any, have been made.
I’m inclined to agree that there is nothing to suggest the games were not legitimate, but beating up on much lower rated players (and ONLY much lower rated players) shouldn’t be a way to get a significantly higher rating.
There have been some cases of a ratings ceiling being imposed on someone (Jude Acers is the most famous example, I suppose), but there’s nothing in the current ratings programming to implement them. That would require some thought, such as how/when a ceiling is lifted based on suitable performance.
Several people have claimed that years ago one could not become a Master without playing and either drawing or defeating a Master. (I’ve heard both versions more than once.) There’s nothing in the current Ratings Formula about this.
I think it might be a bit extreme to say that to become a Master one must beat a Master, because someone who consistently defeats Experts is clearly better than an Expert.
If something like this were to be implemented, I don’t see any reason to restrict it only to the 2200 boundary. Someone shouldn’t be able to become an Expert by only playing and beating C players, either.
However, these are both issues where the Rating Committee should be asked for a recommendation. I’ve worked with the RC enough to be confident they’ll check with me about any implementation issues before making their recommendation to the EB/ED.
This behavior is unethical. I have recently began attending the Springfield Club and have spoken with Mike about this. He avoids the questions or simply walks away when confronted on how questionable this appears to be. He will not play me…only the “Carefully Chosen” as the rating begins to ascend towards the levels of master…
This is certainly an abuse, in my opinion, regarding the role of a tournament director for the benefit of attaining rating points with little or no actual work. It is disgusting and should be investigated by the powers that be.
James Long 12374730
Do you have any reason to believe that some other TD would be unwilling to submit these games for rating?
Whether or not another TD would be willing to submit these games for rating is an interesting question. They haven’t been; at least not in the volumes which can be seen by this TD. Nevertheless, for the TD in question to continually submit these results in such a rapid succession should raise flags with the Federation. It is not suggested the games did not occur. It is suggested that this is simply taking advantage of newer players with lower ratings under the guise of “tournament director” for the purpose of raising ones rating. And it is working. It is also suggested that this practice should not be allowed if identified, and at a minimun it should be investigated.
Tournament directing is a trusted position in the USCF. The TD should never “appear” to rig or otherwise manipulate the very system which he or she is obligated to protect. Of course, this is my opinion. Anyone could get a TD’s license, lure a select group to get ratings, and once established take advantage of these same individuals for personal gain within the USCF rating system. This seems to be what is occuring in Springfield, unfortunately.
If one considers the history, not only of Mike Clark, but of those which participate in these events, it becomes more obvious that this is a blatant disregard for the position of TD and the rating system. It is an exploitation of members unaware that this might be questionable behavior. Furthermore, it suggests to newer players that all which is required to raise ones rating a considerable amount, is by first becoming a TD as you can determine the results beforehand through selection of the players in any given event. An unscrupulous individual has every opportunity to defraud the USCF and the rating system if he or she sees it as a way to gain a title in chess.
Jude Acres has been mentioned. Charles Bloodgood achieved a 2700 rating while in prison doing the exact same thing. So, it has been done before. But it doesn’t make it right.
I wonder what other established TDs would think of this.
Certainly, this should be reviewed.
One person wanting me to turn in a “tournament” with nothing but 5,7, or more wins for himself and few, or sometimes zero other games played.
yes, I’d be unwilling to submit those games.
A new USCf member plays the same person for his first 7 rated games, clearly a match, but instead of calling it a match would I disperse those games among other tournaments so they first give the guy a master rating, which is then slowly falls down into the 1500’s.
Yes, absolutely, I would be unwilling to submit those games.
Easy call on that one Nolan.
Bob
One of the challenges with writing rules is dealing with the boundary cases in them.
The rules discourage TDs from playing in their own events, but do not prohibit it.
There’s also nothing in the ratings system to prevent a high rated player from gaining rating points in games against much lower rated players.
In other words, nothing that has happened here is in violation of USCF rules, at least as far as I can tell.
If you don’t like what happens when someone takes advantage of the combination of those two rules, you can work to get one or both of them changed. But there will be legitimate concerns raised about any proposed changes.
Another thing to keep in mind: A lawyer (who had held both state and national elected office) once told me that every law has at least two exceptions to it. And when you try to fix one of them, you create at least two more exceptions.
It is a perplexing issue. As you state, no laws have been violated per current USCF rules. However, there should be checks and balances to dissuade individuals from such behavior. This is one of the boundary cases for sure, and there is nothing which permits it from happening. Perhaps the Rules committee will take this situation into consideration and provide a response for the membership. It is a “grey” area that has existed for some time, and the TD’s I know would not conduct business in this manner simply because it is considered unethical; then again, some obviously do…and with relative impunity.
I don’t think it’s proper to mention specific indidudals on the USCF Forums when making allegations of unethical behavior, because it may prejudice public opinion as well as the appropriate committees if and when a complaint is made.
" …when making allegations of unethical behavior, …"
This is a lot stronger than just making allegations.
Proof is sitting right there on the MSA. 
I certainly agree that the individual should be named and identified. It is obvious from his MSA that he is abusing the current rules. Yes, he is following them by the letter, but he is still abusing them.
Bloodgood really did the exact same thing in the prison system. What he did was as legal as this Springfield, MO fellow. They both are severely, ethically wrong.
Mike, I understand your concern for the accuracy of the rules and their impact on reality.
I say the rules can stay extant and this is still something that is wrong and should be stopped and the individual should be punished.
I run a chess club where the next highest rated player is 400 points lower than I am. I certainly could, but have definitely refrained from running and playing in rated tournaments in this club where I would literally mop up in rating points. I have not and will not because it is wrong.
There is no need to change any current rules either. It is obvious that this person is gaming the rating system, as Bloodgood and Tanner did in the past. Another, simple and direct rule should be put in place to stop such behavior. The wording need not be too difficult either. A typical wording might go, “While it is possible for TD’s to play in tournaments they direct, it is prohibited for them to do so when the vast majority (a minimum percentage or minimum number of higher rated players could be cited) of the players in the tournament are either fictitious or rated more than 150 points below the TD himself.”
That doesn’t take into account situation such as show up at my club. There are a number of players who play regular in non-USCF rated ladder and CICL league games, but their only USCF-rated events are the club tournaments. Because of this a numer of higher-rated players avoid the club’s rated events out of fear of losing rating points to the under-rated players. So I end up often playing players 200-500 points lower because many of the club’s players at my level or above opt out of those events (though the logic of the other comparatively high-rated players seems plausible because I’ve ended up having a slight downward trend to my rating because of these events, while the events that were heavily populated by the stronger players resulted in my having an upward trend).
A rule change such as you suggest may end up forcing an honest TD to avoid a club event, with the risk that there would not be a TD to direct said event.
The individual in question refuses to play those rated above him. This is not a case of higher rated players not willing to play. It is a refusal of this individual to play anyone that might win the game, which would forestall the progress towards the master title. Look at the history and what can be seen is a carefully orchestrated attempt to raise ones rating, 2-3 pts at a time, endlessly. At this pace, he will achieve the master title within a couple of months…is this fair? Would an honest TD behave like this? Although I understand your concerns with a rule change, something should be done.
The office can, and should, limit the rating of a player if they feel there’s a lack of evidence that a higher rating is justified by the player’s strength. Never playing anybody within a couple-hundred points of his rating is a strong indicator.
That doesn’t mean that what he’s doing is unethical. He’s actually playing real games, right? They’re not fixed, right? They’re not pre-arranged, right? He’s taking advantage of the system, perhaps, but he’s not breaking any rules.
The USCF doesn’t have to conclude that he’s being unethical in order to take action. It just means that the USCF has to exercise the right to manually correct ratings when/if the office feels there’s a good reason.
Eventually, a couple of these much lower rated players will win a game or two if they’re no more than 200 to 500 points lower in strength. Maybe this situation will self-correct…
You appear to be making the assumption that legal is logically equivalent to ethical.
"[u]That doesn’t mean that what he’s doing is unethical. He’s actually playing real games, right? They’re not fixed, right? They’re not pre-arranged, right? He’s taking advantage of the system, perhaps, but he’s not breaking any rules.
The USCF doesn’t have to conclude that he’s being unethical in order to take action. It just means that the USCF has to exercise the right to manually correct ratings when/if the office feels there’s a good reason.
Eventually, a couple of these much lower rated players will win a game or two if they’re no more than 200 to 500 points lower in strength. Maybe this situation will self-correct…"[/u]
Probably not. One of the “closed pool” players has a similar name and could be his own son. The player/TD in question has won 72 straight games at the rate of almost 20 wins a week. How long do you think it’ll take him to reach a rating of 3000?
I’m not convinced at least some of the games aren’t fixed. If he’s playing players 500 points below him, for each individual (fair) game, he should score approximately 0.95 out of one point (either win 90% of the time and draw 10% or win 95% of the time and draw 0% or somewhere in between). For the sake of argument, let’s say he should win 95% of the time, and lose or draw 5% of the time. The 5% of the time he doesn’t win should be cropping up from time to time in such a large (72 game) sample. It’s possible (2.5% chance) the he can win seventy-two games in a row where he has a 5% chance of losing or drawing each game, but it’s not very likely.
How does one file a complaint with the Rules Committee. The forums are good, but this situation should be looked at by the Rules Committee. Is their a link for something like this on the USCF website? or an address?
I don’t believe the Rules Committee is the appropriate place for a complaint, nor is TDCC, as this was not a violation of USCF tournament rules.
You could file an Ethics Complaint.
In either case, the way to file a complaint is to send it to the USCF office, I think Judy Misner handles them. There is generally a deposit required when filing a complaint.