< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|Jul-29-15|| ||andrewjsacks: <Zanzibar> "Not really Acers' problem, per se." Interesting take on it. No, not his "problem," that there was a glitch in the rating system that permitted unethical use of it. His only "problem" was that he did so to such an almost incredible extent that the USCF had to modify several rules.|
|Jul-29-15|| ||Howard: John Barlaycorn....according to Inside Chess, Bloodgood was ranked around 12th or 13th place (roughly). |
But he certainly wasn't #2 !
|Jul-29-15|| ||Howard: Zanzibar's point was basically made in that Inside Chess article. Bloodgood was exploiting an anomaly when it came to playing unrated players in a CLOSED rating pool. That's how his rating got so ridiculously high.|
|Jul-29-15|| ||john barleycorn: <Howard> I read it in a German chess magazine (SM64 2/97) which referred to Chess Life & Review, January 1997 and gave:|
|Jul-29-15|| ||zanzibar: RE: Acers
<andrewjsacks> I'd have to learn much more about the details before I'd feel comfortable drawing that conclusion.
You might be right, that he was deliberately exploiting the rating system.
But, my understanding is that he really was a very strong player (> 2289 in his prime presumably), and that he just played local, match games.
So, was he deliberately milking the system, or was he just playing his "style" of chess?
And if he was deliberately running up his rating, was he doing so to expose the problem, or to exploit it?
I guess I think, ultimately, the USCF rating system needed modifying, either way.
So in the end, it was a positive.
|Jul-29-15|| ||john barleycorn: <Howard> and according to that article the key weakness in the USCF rating system was that (other than in the FIDE rating) your rating would increase always if you would beat the same weak players a hundred times and more.|
|Jul-29-15|| ||andrewjsacks: <Zanzibar> RE Acers|
Well, not much I can say to your response, extremely generous as it is to him. I do suggest you attempt to research it, for example an article, easy to access, by Sam Sloan. There are others too. Anyway, you are a gentleman to attempt to exonerate Mr. Acers. We can respectfully disagree on the point.
|Jul-30-15|| ||zanzibar: <andrewjsacks> Yes, I readily admit to an initial presumption of innocent generally. And especially when I don't know the full story.|
I also readily admit that you might be completely correct in your considered statements on the matter.
I'll try to do a little more research in the matter at some point in the future. And possibly report back - but maybe in Acers' forum instead of this one.
Thanks for your comments in the exchange.
|Jul-30-15|| ||diceman: <tpstar:
Bloodgood wins the Creepiest Picture hands down.>
...he has that Uncle Fester charm.
|Jul-30-15|| ||andrewjsacks: <zanzibar> Good man. This is the type of professional, polite, and gentlemanly exchange--despite differences of opinion--that should be the rule here, not the exception.|
|Jul-31-15|| ||sakredkow: I hope I can remember never to click on this guy's name again.|
|Jul-31-15|| ||offramp: <andrewjsacks> This is a good page for your Frankenstein's-Monster avatar. |
They go together: Bloodgood fire bad.
|Aug-01-15|| ||andrewjsacks: <offramp> Good one!|
|Oct-31-17|| ||FSR: I hadn't realized that Bloodgood died at age 64, like Fischer, Staunton, Steinitz, Planinc, Mednis, Maximilian Ujtelky, and Octavio Troianescu.|
|Oct-31-17|| ||offramp: He only escaped because he wanted to play some OTB games.|
|Oct-31-17|| ||Count Wedgemore: <offramp> Outside The Bastille.|
|Oct-31-17|| ||Cibator: <FSR>: The Irish/British player Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander (awarded the IM title in 1950) is another who could be added to the roll of the "64 Club".|
|Oct-31-17|| ||Bubo bubo: Never heard of this guy before! With that eerie name clearly a suitable <POTD> for Halloween, although Thomas Luther
could have been an alternative in view of today being the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of his 95 theses to that churchdoor at Wittenberg...|
|Oct-31-17|| ||Howard: Ya never heard of Bloodgood before ?! He was actually one of the top-20 players in the U.S. according to the USCF rating list back in 1996...|
....but HOW he got that high is a story in itself! Inside Chess magazine ran an interesting article about this fluky occurrence back in '96.
|Nov-09-17|| ||Richard Taylor: He must have had quite some ability at chess all the same, and he was enthusiastic for sure. Terrible that he killed his own mother if that is what happened. A strange, eerie and tragic tale for him and his mother and others.|
|Nov-09-17|| ||Richard Taylor: What a name to have?! Incredible... Did someone make this whole thing up?|
|Nov-09-17|| ||zanzibar: The bio above, while plausible (if not even likely), is inaccurate if not including the alternative explanation of his high rating - i.e. closed pool effects.|
<This is all a matter of considerable controversy even today. Bloodgood himself vehemently denied these accusations, and said that he played chess in the only competitions available to him, prison tournaments, and won almost every game because he was the strongest player in the prison system. As his rating rose, he wrote the USCF to warn them that its system was prone to "closed pool" ratings inflation. But nothing was done until Bloodgood's rating skyrocketed. Virtue of his high rating, Bloodgood would have qualified for entry into the U.S. Chess Championship, a prestigious invitation-only event intended for the best 16 players in the country. This caused an investigation by the USCF, which debated extensively what to do about the situation. In the end, Bloodgood wasn't invited to the event (which he could not have attended anyway), and the USCF changed its ratings system rules to attempt to prevent "closed pool" ratings inflation.>
Look, the guy supposedly wrote a letter to the USCF to warn of the effect, before his peak rating was obtained. That should be noted (and possibly verified). Regardless, it appears that the USCF itself was uncertain what to do - and didn't outright ban him.
|Nov-10-17|| ||zanzibar: <Tab> I think it's valuable to keep posts for documentation (and for showing all steps in a research, even some of the false ones).|
Still, I wish there was a way for biographers to select/promote those forum comments deemed especially valuable for reference purposes.
An idea I've broached previously.
|Jan-06-18|| ||offramp: I was up at Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street yesterday and I bought Claude Frizzel Bloodgood 's book "The Tactical Grob".|
It is the only book I own that was written by a murderer. That was why I bought it. I'm never going to play the Grob.
It cost me one british pound sterling, which equates to roughly one euro or, in your earth credits, one american dollar.
One british pound. one hundred NEW pence (not the old ones). That is ARGENT daddy-O. ARGENT!!
The money will be subject to UK tax and the residue sent to the USA and divided among Mr Claude Frizzel Bloodgood 's victims.
|Jan-07-18|| ||zanzibar: <Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street>|
The sax player only received a one-time check for £27 for his iconic sax.
<Ravenscroft's fee was, reportedly, a cheque for £27, which he said bounced anyway and was framed and hung on his solicitor's wall. He received no further payment for his session-playing, adding: "If I had received pots of money, I wouldn't have known what to do. It might have destroyed me.">
On the other hand, Lisa covered his solo, which is a tribute far beyond anything money can buy.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·