No comment from me on the ratings. After all, I am mentioned by Mark Glickman, official USCF Ratings Chairman, as having successfully implemented his new, highly accurate system correctly in his first paper he published on it years ago at Boston Universtity.

I offered to help Fencer way back when, but got the stereotypical "nothing is wrong with the ratings" reply.

I know exactly what Fencer is doing wrong, since he is constantly referring to a very old paper Mark wrote, which DOES NOT consider calculating the so-called "rating period" variable properly the way we need (rate after a 1-game trial, not many provisional games in parallel).

Hope everyone else enjoys the random 4-digit number next to their name :)