Are the games being played? This could be another more serious issue than “gaming” the rating system. It is interesting that in April 2009 his rating was 1602, which is when he began directing all of the OPEN tournaments. Just two months prior to April the rating was 1400. This period should be considered carefully as most of the players are “provisional”. These histories are also very relevant. Several of these newly rated members have played more games than I have in the past 20 years in about 6 months. In reality, there is not that much chess activity in Springfield MO. So, these “players” could very well be fictitious, or at least some of them. Specifically, James Michael Clark is of interest. Similar name and over 200 rated games since last April? Really…haven’t seen any advertisements for any of these tourneys in Missouri or national publications. How Open are they? Lots to consider when one takes a discriminating look at the record.
It looks like the TD is playing the same few players over and over but the opponents are playing 95% of their games against the TD. I look at it as if the opponents are playing matches. It also looks like the games are intentionally divided into sections so it won’t appear to the rating software that matches are being played even though they face the same opponent 3+ times per event. At a minimum, it seems that this is an intentional deception of the rating system.
Perhaps Mike Nolan can answer this. If the same games were submitted as a series of matches, would there be some sort of cap on rating changes? I recall some limitations years ago, but I don’t know if they’re still in effect.
On top of it all, USCF is probably getting paid less in rating fees than it should. If the games in question were treated as matches, would he not owe a minimum fee per match? How much is he paying to have his tournaments/matches rated? I think he owes a ton of extra bucks. On that basis alone, these games should not be rated.
This is yet another concern. If you take into consideration this began about April 2009, there is a quite a bit of revenue that has been missed from the games played. They do appear to be set up as matches under a swiss system pairing??? Probably owes the USCF quite a bit…interesting…
Actually I pretty much made such decisions on my own. I would keep the appropriate committee chair informed about prospective actions both as a check on my own power and for the valuable advice I would receive.
Regards, Ernie
There is no difference in ratings fees for a match.
As to what the impact of changing a number of events to a match would be, I really don’t know.
I can tell you what the match rules specify (and did so a few posts ago), but without actually changing all the events and rerating them as matches, I don’t know if that would change anyone’s current rating.
From looking at the tournaments in the last few months, it’s clear that something very fishy is going on. I suspect the games ARE indeed being played because:
a) Mike has several losses in various recent tournaments;
b) Some tournaments have 20+ players and I find it hard to believe that so many players could be persuaded to keep quiet ;
c) If the games really aren’t being played, and let’s say the players in the tournaments didn’t even know they had been registered, it’s unlikely that none of them would notice that they were listed as having played in tournaments. Surely somebody would have brought it up before now.
However, two tournaments stood out for me as being particularly suspect:
201003141641 - Have you ever seen a 7-round Swiss with 22 players and only TWO of those played in more than 3 rounds? And guess which two players? Yep, it’s Mike Clark and James Michael Clark.
201002212921 - This time it’s a 6-round Swiss with 20 players and, again, the only two players to have played in more than 3 rounds are our friends Mike Clark and James Michael Clark (although it apparently didn’t work out so well for JMC this time, since he finished in last place!).
James Michael Clark has also been gaining a lot of rating points in the last few months. If, as others have speculated, they are indeed related then perhaps Mike is expanding his exploitation of the system to include his family members.
It is possible that the club has a ladder system? That’s the only thing I can think of that would be legitimate, because it’s likely that players would come and go from week to week. I admit, however, that the sheer quantity of games played by Mike in the last few months makes that seem unlikely.
I imagine it’s going to be a huge mess if this does indeed turn out to be an ethics violation. Would all of the tournaments Mike has directed need to be deleted? Good luck with the re-rating on that!
Bill, that’s consistent with what I’ve heard from other sources. However, at some point there was apparently a slipup and Jude’s rating went to 2400. That’s the point at which the stories diverge.
Providing none of the tournaments in question were initially rated prior to January of 2004, rerating the other (remaining) events would not be difficult, because we do it every week.
Deciding which events need to be deleted, now THAT’S messy!
“It is possible that the club has a ladder system?”
The club does not have a current ladder system, although there are plans to begin on in the near future…these games are not…
Beginning to wonder if Mike Clark and James Michael Clark one in the same?
USCF records suggest they may be father and son.
Who is the father and who is the son?
Greetings from STLChess.com! We’ve been watching Mike Clark as well, and know him. Here’s a thread that will tell you who the father is and who is the son. Mike Clark is the son. Good luck fixing this one!
http://www.stlchess.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2253
Events with 20+ players are not the norm, based on the ones I have been to. What is actually happening is a combining of multiple sessions, some are actually advertised as tournaments, some not.
For example, http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200904271681-12561384. There are 27 people in it but it is actually a combination of multiple April events that were billed as separate tournaments (http://www.joplinchess.org/2009/03/springfield-tournaments-in-april/ – reformatted from the notification I received). I played 3 rounds on 4/11/2009 but the cross table has me playing in rounds 2, 6, and 8 sometime between the 24th and 27th. I also think there were only 5 or 6 people there during the day when I was there. Not sure there is really anything nefarious doing it that way but isn’t the way it was advertised for sure.
Another example, joplinchess.org/2009/10/spri … -7th-2009/). It was submitted as a 4 round event.
So this has been identified as questionable previously…thank goodness someone else has noticed how odd this really is. The more that is revealed, the more ugly this is beginning to look. Actually from the beginning of 2009 to now the rating has jumped from 1400 to 2058…WOW…he should be on the cover of Chess Life Magazine as the most “improved player”…I mean over 800 points in little over a year after being established is phenomenal. Looks like St. Louis has some problems with this activity as well.
thanks for validation on these concerns
As someone who has attended one of these Springfield events, I can hopefully shed some light on what Mike is doing. First, most of the rated games he has submitted were never part of any sort of formal rated event. Mike will submit any game between two Springfield club players for rating - regardless of when where or how the game is played. Sometimes it is not decided that the game would be rated until after the game is completed. He records these results and combines them into one “tournament” for submission. Sometimes these extra games are combined with an actual, previously-advertised event for submission. Needless to say, no official pairings are ever used for these extra games so anyone may play anyone else.
The games Mike has submitted for himself are no exception. The vast majority follow the same process as above. Again, he may decide after the game is completed whether or not the game will be rated. Most of the players involved in these “tournaments” are quite new to chess and have no idea what Mike is doing or that it may be unethical. I do believe all of the games listed have actually been played. Given how the ‘tournaments’ are run, there really is no need to fabricate games.
My solutions (the bare minimum):
All games played by Mike during the past year should be re-rated as matches - if not thrown out completely. No further tournaments from this TD or affiliate should be rated unless they have 1) been advertised in a CL TLA and 2) the submitted format matches the advertised format.
The abuse comes from the pairings in these so-called tournaments. A check should be placed on this particular TD (not all TD’s) to make sure the tournaments are real and paired following USCF rules.
Let’s stick to facts. Here is Mike Clark’s published regular rating as of the December supplement since 1997:
2009-12-01 1828
2008-12-01 1627
2007-12-01 1640
2006-12-01 1706
2005-12-01 1773
2004-12-01 1693
2003-12-01 1676
2002-12-01 1524
2001-12-01 1532
2000-12-01 1557
1999-12-01 1520
1998-12-01 1611
1997-12-01 1604
I think you may be intermingling Mike’s rating with his father’s rating.
My mistake…it was the father at 1400+ jan 2009.
“Again, he may decide after the game is completed whether or not the game will be rated.”
Is this allowable in the USCF rules? Determining if the game is to be rated afterwards?