• The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International L

    From macamalena2@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Sam Sloan on Sat Jan 26 13:50:14 2019
    On Tuesday, November 24, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6, Sam Sloan wrote:
    The remarkable rating changes of Ljupco Steriev are available at:


    Does anybody know the story of how this happened?

    "DAVID GRANIK" <dgranik@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    Miguel A. Ballicora wrote in message <728o5o$eap$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>... >>In article <3646faa3.4213633@news.mindspring.com>, sloan@ishipress.com (Sam >Sloan) says:

    The Stan Vaughan Nevada Problem finally reaches the International

    It had to happen sooner of later and now finally it did. Some kid with >>>a vastly inflated Stan Vaughan rating got into a national or >>>international event, thereby depriving some other kid who had worked >>>hard of a chance to play.


    Did understand it right? US sends the junior representatives
    to the world championships based on the USCF rating????
    No competition whatsoever?

    That's right!
    I can't believe it. Then the people wonder why US does not
    produce the number of GM that they should.
    This is a perfect self destructive system!

    I agree.

    I have an advice for US: make all the U16 unrated,
    then they are going to concentrate on the game.
    David Bronstein was right about all the evils that the ranking system >hydes.

    That is a good idea. You don't need ANY ratings to run a Swiss System
    tournament. Ratings are only useful to define a player's class for prize >money eligibilty--not an issue with scholastic events.

    In fact, it might not be such a bad idea for the USCF to get rid of
    ratings for everybody. Goichberg and his CCA could keep track of the ratings >for his big $$ tournaments.

    Last year, Ljupco Steriev qualified for the US junior Closed solely on
    the basis of rating . He finished 0-9. As white, he managed to lose a Rook >AND Queen within 15 moves in one game. After the tournament, the USCF >adjusted Steriev's rating downward from over 2400 to about 1300, because the >2400 rating he had "earned" was obviously quite unrepresentative of his true >ability.

    I truly don't know why the USCF doesn't use the results of actual scholastic >events to determine who earns a spot in Junior and Youth closed >competitions, both in the US and abroad.



    Let the truth be finally known...
    First of all, forgive him what he did, he was 18/19, not even 20. Too young to think of upcoming internet & its wide media reach consequences. We live once but our names are forever.

    Ljupco/Lupco/Ljupce Steriev is really rated over 2200 ELO, his "terrible" play at 1997 us junior championship was to lower his rating. It was done to win money in lower rated groups but he backed down from that because it is/it was immoral.

    How did he get to be 2399?
    First of all, this proves he had no intentions being senior master, he could have easilty cheated the system & go over 2500 just to get huge rating.
    I think he played in the group of few people & won many games, so that's why, even as a surprise to him, his rating grew exponentially, especially in the light that he still had provisional rating, so any win over 1800 player would be 2300 performance.
    He did not cheat any system. There was no fraud! He is very moral & ethical man as stated by his Philosophical works to say the least: encyclopediasupreme.org/Philosophy & his music encyclopediasupreme.org/mp3

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From macamalena2@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jan 31 12:45:52 2019
    Here's fine super grandmaster level game between lupco steriev (1999/2000 yugoslavian correspondence champion geocities.ws/cmby2k /gildyshow2 & stan vaughan:

    [Event "The WCA/WCF Correspondence Match"]
    [Site "USA, Chicago, Illinois/USA, Nevada, North Las Vegas"]
    [Date "8/8/99-4/30/2000"]
    [White "NM Vaughan Stan"]
    [Black "NM Steriev Ljupce/Lupco/Ljupco"]
    [Result "0-1"]

    1. d2-d4 g8-f6
    2. c2-c4 e7-e6
    3. b1-c3 b7-b6
    4. e2-e4 f8-b4
    5. f1-d3 c8-b7
    6. d1-f3 c7-c5
    7. d4-d5 b4xc3+
    8. b2xc3 d7-d6
    9. c1-g5 b8-d7
    10. g5-f4 d8-e7
    11. g1-e2 e8-g8 {when is best time to castle, just like when to play B2, G2 bishops is one of chess' unsolved mysteries, positional or open tactics & strategies; here black's perfect play is slowly turning into masterpiece!}
    12. e1-g1 e6-e5
    13. f4-g5 h7-h6
    14. g5-h4 e7-e8
    15. f1-d1 g8-h8
    16. d3-c2 f6-g8
    17. c2-a4 g8-e7
    18. e2-g3 e7-g6
    19. g3-f5 g6xh4
    20. f5xh4 e8-d8
    21. h4-f5 d7-f6
    22. f3-g3 g7-g6
    23. f5xh6 f6xe4
    24. g3-e3 e4-g5
    25. h2-h4 g5-h7
    26. e3-g3 d8-f6
    27. h6-g4 f6-e7
    28. g4-e3 f8-g8
    29. h4-h5 g6xh5
    30. g3-h3 g8-g5
    31. g1-f1 a8-g8
    32. a4-d7 h7-f6
    33. d7-f5 f6-e8
    34. h3-h4 e8-g7
    35. h4-e4 e7-f6
    36. f5-h7 g8-f8
    37. e4-c2 f6-h6
    38. h7-d3 e5-e4
    39. d3xe4 f7-f5
    40. e4-f3 f5-f4
    41. d1-e1 f4xe3
    42. e1xe3 g7-f5
    43. e3-e6 g5-g6
    44. e6-e4 f8-g8
    45. f1-e2 h6-f8
    46. a1-h1 h5-h4
    47. g2-g4 f5-h6
    48. h1xh4 f8-f6
    49. h4-h3 b7-c8
    50. c2-d2 g8-f8
    51. d2-e3 h8-g8
    52. h3xh6 g6xh6
    53. g4-g5 f6xf3+
    54. e3xf3 f8xf3
    55. g5xh6 f3-f8
    56. e4-e7 c8-a6
    57. e2-d3 f8-f7
    58. e7-e6 f7xf2
    59. e6xd6 f2-f4
    60. d6-d8+ g8-h7
    61. a2-a4 h7xh6
    62. d5-d6 a6xc4+
    63. d3-e3 f4-f7
    64. a4-a5 b6-b5
    65. e3-e4 h6-g5
    66. d8-h8 a7-a6
    67. h8-h2 f7-f4+
    68. e4-e3 f4-f5
    69. h2-d2 f5-e5+
    70. e3-f2 e5-e8
    71. d6-d7 e8-d8
    72. d2-d6 g5-f4
    73. d6xa6 d8xd7
    74. a6-c6 d7-d2+
    75. f2-e1 f4-e3
    76. c6-g6 d2-e2+
    77. e1-d1 c4-b3+
    78. d1-c1 e2-a2
    79. g6-g5 e3-d3
    80. g5xc5 a2xa5
    81. c1-b2 b3-c4
    82. c5-h5 a5-a2+
    83. b2-b1 d3xc3
    84. h5-h3+ c3-d4
    85. h3-h4+ d4-c5
    86. h4-h5+ c4-d5
    87. h5-f5 a2-e2
    88. b1-c1 b5-b4
    89. f5-f8 b4-b3
    90. f8-d8 c5-b4
    91. c1-d1 d5-c4
    92. d8-b8+ b4-c3
    93. b8-c8 e2-e4
    94. c8-h8 b3-b2
    95. h8-h3+ c4-d3
    96. h3xd3+ c3-c4
    97. d1-c2 e4-e2+
    98. d3-d2 e2xd2+
    99. c2xd2 b2-b1Q {vaughan's position was unstable, unbalanced long before the endgame}
    100. d2-e2 b1-d3+
    101. e2-f2 c4-d4
    102. f2-g2 d4-e3
    103. g2-h3 d3-g6
    104. h3-h4 e3-f3 {Only careful play and precise order of moves won this game for Steriev, there were many traps for a theoretical draw that were well avoided! Kudos-bravo, bravisimo!!!}
    105. h4-h3 g6-g3 ##

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)