Pete Rose Does not Belong Back in Baseball but He Belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame

Pete Rose broke Major League Baseball's fundamental rule about gambling on the sport and he lied about breaking that rule. He deserved to receive a harsh punishment and he has received a harsh punishment: Rose accepted a lifetime ban in 1989. That ban came with a proviso enabling Rose to apply to the MLB Commissioner for reinstatement after one year but now that Rob Manfred has become the third consecutive MLB Commissioner to reject Rose's application for reinstatement it appears that Rose's lifetime ban will most likely never be lifted.

It is understandable why MLB refuses to let Rose have an active role in the sport as an executive, field manager or instructor. Rose continues to bet on sports--including baseball--and even though Rose now apparently does his gambling legally he has failed to "reconfigure his life," which was the standard imposed upon him in order to be reinstated. If Rose were not a compulsive gambler and/or a very stubborn/defiant person then he would have stopped gambling completely and stopped associating himself with casinos. Rose's complaint that this is the only way he can support himself after being banned from baseball does not hold water; Rose remains an immensely popular figure who does not need to be involved with gambling in order to support himself.

If Rose were permitted to work in baseball this would not only reduce the deterrence value of the lifetime ban but it would also potentially create huge problems; Rose clearly cannot stop gambling and if he has access to insider knowledge about baseball players and teams then the possibilities for fixing games (or simply having an unfair advantage as a wagerer) are huge. That is not to say that Rose ever fixed a game or that he would fix a game now but it is understandable that MLB does not want to take such a risk with a compulsive gambler who is also a serial liar.

Rose would have a lot to offer to the sport if he had not chosen this life path but he has to suffer the natural consequences of his mistakes. Rose's exile from the sport he loves is tragic but it is a self-imposed tragedy and it is a tragedy that he could have mitigated over the past few decades if he had made some sincere efforts to "reconfigure his life." Rose reminds me of an alcoholic who says "I can stop drinking whenever I want" but refuses to stop drinking even if the alcohol consumption could harm the alcoholic and/or others. Rose needs intensive therapy/treatment to control his gambling addiction and he has never sought out that help; that is his prerogative and if all of his gambling activities now are legal then no one has the legal authority to stop him but MLB provided Rose with a standard for reinstatement--life reconfiguration--and Rose has failed to meet that standard.

However, Rose's eligibility for Hall of Fame induction should be restored. When Rose agreed to accept the lifetime ban with the possibility of applying for reinstatement, he did not forfeit his eligibility for Baseball Hall of Fame induction. Rose became ineligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame on February 4, 1991, when the Baseball Hall of Fame passed a rule prohibiting anyone who is on MLB's permanently ineligible list from being inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Rose is the only living person on the permanently ineligible list, which means that the rule was passed purely to exclude him (it may theoretically exclude other people in the future but he is the only living person affected by the rule now). Without this new rule, Rose would have appeared on the Baseball Writers Association of America Hall of Fame ballot from 1992-2006. The writers could have studied the evidence at their leisure and made their own determination about whether or not Rose belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Clearly, based on the merits of his skills and accomplishments, Rose would be a first ballot Hall of Famer. A case could be made that based on character he should be excluded--but the writers should at least have been given the opportunity to pass judgment and to consider that judgment over a 15 year period (assuming that Rose did not make it in immediately).

The Veterans Committee examines the Hall of Fame candidacies of any eligible candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame who is not selected after being on the BBWAA ballot but in 2008 the Veterans Committee passed a rule barring anyone from the permanently ineligible list from being considered for Hall of Fame induction. Again, this is a rule that primarily if not exclusively affects Rose.

I understand the argument that Rose's character flaws should keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have made it clear that MLB's PED cheaters should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame because they have defiled MLB's record book. What Rose did is terrible and the way that he denied his conduct for years before begrudgingly making some admissions says a lot about Rose's character but the difference between Rose and the PED cheaters is that there is no evidence that Rose's gambling impacted the quality of his play or defiled the sport's record book. Rose should be placed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and if he is voted in then his plaque should not only list his pertinent accomplishments but also state that in 1989 he was placed on the permanently ineligible list because he bet on baseball. Unless or until there is evidence that Rose's playing career/statistics are tainted by his gambling Rose deserves at least the opportunity to be selected as a Baseball Hall of Famer. The lifetime ban from the sport shields MLB from any damage that Rose's compulsive gambling could cause now and punishes him in a way that will hopefully deter others from making the mistakes that he did.

Professional Tennis is Plagued by Match Fixing

In The Secret World of Tennis Match Gambling, Tomas Rios details rampant match fixing in the professional ranks. Rios explains why corruption is so pervasive in professional tennis:

Tennis is perfectly suited--in every way--for match fixing.
 
Tennis is the third-most bet upon sport in the world and, between the ATP and the Women's Tennis Association, there are 126 tournaments making up this year's tour. The sheer volume of betting and matches makes spotting suspicious activity virtually impossible in all but the most obvious and reckless cases.
 
Then there's the sport's inherent vulnerability to "spot fixing." European sportsbooks allow bettors to wager on not just matches, but sets, games, and even individual points. A corrupt player could easily throw a handful of points over the course of a match and not even the keenest observer would be able to spot it.
 
Of course, a player needs motivation to go corrupt. Tennis does a fine job of making sure players have the best motivation of all.

The "motivation" is that it costs well over $100,000 to play on the ATP or WTA tours when one includes travel costs and the cost of a full-time coach. While the top-10 players make more than $1,000,000 per year and thus have much less incentive to cheat, most tennis professionals can make more money--and guaranteed money at that--by fixing matches than they can make by trying to win prizes honestly.

A 2014 study by Ryan Rodenberg and Elihu Feustel titled "Forensic Sports Analytics: Detecting and Predicting Match-Fixing in Tennis" used betting market analysis and predictive tennis models to determine that it was likely that at least one percent of first round tennis matches over a span of more than two years were fixed. That works out to an average of 23 matches per year--and that does not include the sets, games and points that may have been thrown in "spot fixing" scams.

Rios cites a specific match from 2007 pitting the fourth ranked player in the world versus a player who barely cracked the top 100. The wagering on that match reached a fever pitch--10 times the average--and the match ended with the fourth ranked player conceding the match after claiming that he was injured. The ATP investigated the situation for over a year but could not prove any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, within the tennis community it is widely believed that the match was fixed--and that type of corruption casts a pall on the entire sport.

Emory Tate Will Long Be Remembered For Slashing Attacks and Spirited Conversation

I was shocked and saddened to find out this morning that International Master Emory Tate passed away yesterday while participating in a California chess tournament. Tate was originally from Indiana and he was a fixture on the Midwest chess scene for many years, winning six Indiana state championships in addition to claiming five Armed Forces championships and a host of other tournament wins. Tate did not receive the International Master title until he was almost 50, a testament to his hard work and persistence.

Of course, for years before Tate became an IM he was a threat to anyone he faced, even a former World Championship Candidate like Grandmaster Leonid Yudasin, who was the eighth ranked player in the world in January 1991. No article about Tate is complete without including this brilliant and beautiful game from the 1997 U.S. Masters:

FM Emory Tate vs. GM Leonid Yudasin

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Bb3 Nbd7 8. Qe2 Nc5 9. g4 b5 10. g5 Nfd7 11. Bd5 Bb7 12. Bxb7 Nxb7 13. a4 bxa4 14. Rxa4 Nbc5 15. Ra3 Qb6 16. O-O Be7 17. Kh1 O-O 18. b4 Na4 19. Nf5 exf5 20. Nd5 Qd8 21. exf5 Re8 22. Qh5 Nab6 23. Rh3 Nf8 24. f6 Nxd5 25. fxg7 Kxg7 26. Bb2+ Kg8 27. g6 Bf6 28. gxf7+ Kh8 29. Rg1 Re1 30. Rxe1 Bxb2 31. Re8 Nf6 32. Rxd8 Rxd8 33. Qh6 Ne4 34. Qh4 Nf6 35. Rg3 N8d7 36. Qh6 1-0

Tate justifiably loved to show that game to anyone who was interested. I personally watched Tate rattle off those moves from memory on several occasions. His descriptions of the lines he analyzed during the game were mesmerizing and entertaining. It is important to note that when Tate showed the game it did not feel like he was showing off; Tate loved chess, loved to talk about chess, loved to analyze chess and that passion shined through when he discussed this game, so what an observer experienced was Tate's joy and the wonders of chess, as opposed to someone bragging about beating a top GM.

I faced Tate six times in over the board play from 1997-2008, scoring two draws and four losses. In the first round of the Oberlin (Ohio) Open on 4/29/2000, I missed a chance to defeat Tate (who candidly admitted after the game that he had stood worse) and he finished the game in his typical style:

David Friedman (2096) vs. Emory Tate (2443)

1. Nf3 Nc6 2. g3 e5 3. d3 d5 4. Bg2 Bg4 5. Nbd2 f5 6. c4 d4!? (6... e4) 7. Qa4 Qd7 8. Qb5 Bd6? (8... e4 is a better try, but White has a clear advantage after 9. Ne5) 9. a3!? (9. c5 Bf8 10. Qxb7 is winning for White.) 9... Nf6!? (9... Rb8 is more prudent but definitely not in keeping with Tate's style.) 10. Qxb7!? (I could not resist the bait. White is better after 10. c5 Be7 11. Qxb7. The point is that e5 is not adequately defended. White is winning after ... Rb8? [11... O-O is Black's best try, leading to a White advantage after 12. Qb3+ Kh8 13. Ng5+=] 12. Nxe5 Rxb7 13. Bxc6 Qxc6 14. Nxc6+-) 10... Rb8 Black has a lot of play for the sacrificed pawn. 11. Qa6 O-O? (11... e4 is more in keeping with Tate's style.) 12. c5!? (12. Ng5) 12... Be7 13. Ng5 Nd5 14. Qc4 Rbd8 15. Qxd5+ Qxd5 16. Bxd5+ Rxd5 17. Ne6!? (17. Nc4) 17... Rc8=+ 18. h3 Bh5 19. g4 fxg4 20. hxg4? (20. Ne4 is a better try.) 20... Bf7-+ The Ne6 is trapped. Black is winning. (20... Bxg4? 21. Nxg7 Kxg7 22.Rg1 h5 23. f3=) 21. Nxc7 (21. Nxg7 is a better try.) 21... Rxc7 22. b4 a5 23. b5 Nd8 24. a4 Rdxc5 25. Ba3 Rc3 26. Bxe7?? A blunder in a lost position. Rc1+ 0-1

Shortly after I played this game, my friend NM Mark Kalafatas told me, "There are NO better tactical players in the country than Emory Tate. He has a genuine and very rare gift in that regard and has beaten most of the best players in the country at one time or another. I think he is the Earnie Shavers of chess...He (Shavers) gave Ali a good fight and was a terribly powerful puncher that could knock out anyone with a single blow."

Tate loved to talk about a variety of subjects and he was willing and eager to analyze chess games with anyone at any time, regardless of a person's rating or status. I enjoyed the time that I spent with him at various tournaments over the years and regret that I will never again have the opportunity to watch him analyze his win against Yudasin.

IM Emory Tate will be long remembered and dearly missed by anyone who was fortunate enough to cross his path. 

Djokovic Once Again Bests Federer in a Grand Slam Final

A significant amount of the coverage leading up to the U.S. Open Final focused on Roger Federer as an ageless tennis deity who has remade his game and even developed a new shot (which--with his characteristic humblebrag modesty--he calls "SABR," meaning Sneak Attack by Roger) that supposedly is an unstoppable weapon. That is all well and good, except that this coverage has been rendered largely meaningless by a story that should be the headline grabber but likely will not capture as much attention as all of the praise that has been heaped on Federer: the real story is two-fold, namely (1) Novak Djokovic defeated Federer in the U.S. Open Final in four sets and (2) Djokovic is clearly the best player in the world, even if he has not named a shot after himself or convinced writers that it is their sworn duty to wax poetic about his every breath, move and statement.

Much of the mainstream media coverage of tennis defies logical analysis. It does not make sense to assert that (1) Federer is as good as he has ever been and (2) that he is the greatest player of all-time while relentlessly ignoring Federer's struggles versus Rafael Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer is as good as he has ever been and if Federer truly established himself years ago as the greatest player of all-time then he should still be winning Grand Slams. Otherwise, it is only logical to assert--at a minimum--that even if Federer achieved greatest of all-time status at some point in the distant past he has since been supplanted by Nadal and Djokovic. Logically and conceptually it simply does not compute to say that Federer is the greatest of all-time and that he has developed a new shot that makes him better than ever but that the successes of Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant in terms of the greatest player of all-time debate--and this does not even take into account the fact that a very good case could be made that Bjorn Borg is better than all three of them.

There is no question that Federer is very durable. That durability has enabled him to amass some impressive career numbers, including his record-setting 17 Grand Slam singles titles. However, Federer has appeared in 66 Grand Slam events and his .258 Grand Slam winning percentage is not even close to the record Grand Slam winning percentage posted by Borg (.407). Borg never lost in the first round of a Grand Slam, he lost in the second round just once and he made it to at least the quarterfinals in 20 of his 27 appearances (.741). Federer has lost in the first round of a Grand Slam six times, he has lost in the second round once and he has advanced to the quarterfinals in 46 of his 66 appearances (.697).

Federer's head to head struggles versus Nadal are well documented, with the tally currently standing at 23-10 in Nadal's favor, including 9-2 in Grand Slam matches and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal has not been nearly as durable as Federer, though Nadal has been durable enough to win at least one Grand Slam for 10 straight years (2005-14), breaking the mark of eight set by Borg and later matched by Pete Sampras and Federer. Nadal is tied with Sampras for second on the all-time list with 14 Grand Slam singles titles but Nadal's Grand Slam winning percentage (.326) is much better than Federer's or Sampras' (.269). Injuries have limited Nadal at various points in his career and especially since the French Open in 2014 (Nadal's last Grand Slam singles title) but Federer has suffered an even longer drought, with his last Grand Slam winning coming at Wimbledon in 2012 (Federer's only Grand Slam title since 2010).

The Djokovic-Federer head to head rivalry is now tied at 21-21, but Djokovic enjoys the edge in Grand Slam matches (8-6) and Grand Slam Finals (3-1). Federer won five of their first six head to head encounters but Djokovic has captured 20 of the next 36, including each of the past three times that they have met in a Grand Slam Final. Djokovic has won 10 Grand Slam titles in 44 appearances (.227) while losing twice in the first round and twice in the second round and reaching the quarterfinals 34 times (.773, a percentage even better than Borg's).

If Federer had defeated Djokovic in the U.S. Open Final then this would have been cited as yet another piece of evidence that Federer is indisputably the greatest player of all-time--but Djokovic's win against Federer seemingly does not in the slightest way dent Federer's claim to that title. When Nadal beat Federer like a drum, Federer's fans made the excuse that Nadal was a clay court specialist. Now, Djokovic is beating Federer on hard courts (U.S. Open), on grass courts (Wimbledon) and on clay (2012 French Open, 2015 Italian Open) but nothing can seem to loosen Federer's supposedly secure grip on the mythical greatest of all-time title.

If Federer were washed up and just playing out the string then one could make the case that at least some of his losses to Nadal and Djokovic should not count when determining the pecking order among these three players--but the reality is that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been in or reasonably close to their primes from late 2008 to the present. During that time, Federer has been ranked number one in the world for 65 weeks, Nadal has been ranked number one in the world for 141 weeks and Djokovic has been ranked number one in the world for 164 weeks. During that same time span, Federer has won five Grand Slam singles titles, Nadal has won nine Grand Slam singles titles and Djokovic has won nine Grand Slam singles titles. It is difficult to make a reasonable case that Federer is better than Nadal and, considering Djokovic's recent success (three Grand Slam wins in 2015 while appearing in each of the four Grand Slam Finals), it is at least arguable syllogistically that Djokovic is better than Federer as well; after all, if Federer is as good as ever and Djokovic is beating Federer on multiple surfaces than Djokovic is not only better than Federer now but he is better than Federer has ever been.

Just once, it would be refreshing to see a Federer supporter in the media write an article making a point something on the order of "As Federer advanced through this tournament I was reminded of why I like his game so much and why he is so highly regarded but after Federer lost to (Djokovic or Nadal) I was also reminded that, while Federer excels in wiping out the lesser lights, he has never established clear superiority over the other two great players of his time." Federer's SABR turns into a butter knife when he faces Nadal or Djokovic and it is difficult to picture Federer having the necessary mental or physical energy to contend with the relentless Borg in his prime.

ESPN Whacks Patriots in Knees With Regurgitated and Unsubstantiated Allegations

After NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's high-priced lawyers got caught with their legal briefs down and were chastised by federal court Judge Richard Berman for their role in helping Goodell impose his own brand of what Judge Berman termed "industrial justice," it was inevitable and predictable that Goodell would put the mafia-style hit (metaphorically speaking) on the Patriots (which is not to suggest that he ordered or told ESPN to do anything but merely that ESPN--like any loyal capo--knows what the big boss wants done and takes care of it as quickly as possible). So, ESPN--the official propaganda mouthpiece of the NFL--just issued a supposedly bombshell-filled investigative report detailing how Goodell's bumbling of the alleged ball deflation matter is actually a "make up call" for Goodell's handling of the so-called "Spygate" scandal.

One thing that "Spygate" has in common with the alleged ball deflation scandal is that, in both instances, ESPN misreported the facts. During "Spygate," ESPN repeated a never verified--and since debunked--allegation that the New England Patriots illegally recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. Not content to misreport the facts during the immediate aftermath of "Spygate," ESPN resurrected that debunked story this year and had to issue a public--albeit buried--apology. Fast forward to this year's alleged ball deflation scandal, when ESPN--specifically Chris Mortensen--incorrectly reported that 11 of New England's 12 footballs were measured at 2 p.s.i. below the minimum permitted levels at halftime of the 2015 AFC Championship Game. ESPN's motto should be "Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Story That Can Garner Ratings and Revenue."

The new ESPN article contains no new facts but plenty of salacious allegations and quotes from unnamed sources. It would be shocking if it does not contain factual errors, since that is a staple of ESPN reporting, particularly concerning the Patriots. The gist of the story is that a lot of teams that have lost to the Patriots suspect deeply in their hearts that the Patriots cheat in some way. These teams cannot actually prove this but they are pretty sure it is true. Supposedly, Goodell saved the NFL from doom by burying the truth about the Patriots' cheating but promising that if anyone ever cheats again then he will throw the book at them. Thus, after Mortensen made his erroneous report about the Patriots' alleged ball deflation, Goodell jumped in quickly with his "make up call" for supposedly not dealing with "Spygate" harshly enough.

Since Goodell, via ESPN, is determined to retry "Spygate" in the court of public opinion after getting trounced in an actual court regarding the alleged ball deflation scandal, it is worth revisiting the truth about what actually did--and did not--happen during "Spygate." YourTeamCheats is an excellent guide and I will quote from some of that site's research:

The announced reason that the Patriots were punished was for filming their 2007 regular season game against the Jets from a sideline location instead of from an approved filming location (e.g. a press or media box). The actual reason was because they were told to do something by Goodell and didn't do it...

The Patriots were not punished for filming the Jets defensive signals, as that has never been forbidden by the NFL. As of 2006, however, where you film the game and signals is limited to approved locations. Coincidentally, the Jets had done nearly the exact same thing a year earlier but were not punished, even a little bit, by NFL commissioner and former Jets public relations intern Roger Goodell...

Filming your opponents' signals is--and always has been--completely legal, even today. After a league memo to all clubs in 2006, however, you can't do it from a location where the team could potentially use it during the same game.

As Coach Bill Belichick noted in 2015, 80,000 people can see his team's defensive signals: millions more if a TV camera pans by them. The signals are not meant to be hidden, just as in baseball a third-base coach's signals are not meant to be hidden. They should, however, be properly encrypted, but that is the signaling team's responsibility.

Every single NFL team films every single game they play from multiple angles. As they do this, are they supposed to locate and black out the one part of the stadium where the defensive coach is? Should it be a roaming dot if he moves? Obviously not, because the sidelines are just another part of the larger football field and game.

Spygate was:

• 10% about where they were filming from
• 90% about Belichick stupidly thumbing his nose at Goodell's new rule, and
• 0% about what was being filmed

It should have been called WrongLocationgate or F*ckYouRogergate, because there was absolutely no element of spying involved.

Judge Berman Deflates Roger Goodell's Overinflated Perception of his Power

The deflated football "scandal" is a lot of nonsense that was probably incited by people jealous of the New England Patriots' success (either people in the NFL office who used to work for rival teams and/or people who are currently affiliated with rival NFL teams) and clearly fueled by the sloppy reporting/reckless commentary of "journalists" like Bob Kravitz, Mike Wilbon and Chris Mortensen, each of whom has played fast and loose with the facts while issuing broad, sweeping pronouncements that they are not qualified to make concerning issues of sport, fairness and the law (Peter King also filed a report that was subsequently debunked, but at least he had the good sense and grace to apologize, unlike the defiant Mortensen and the bizarrely proud Kravitz, who listed his self-promoting, bombastic coverage of the story as his "drops the mic" moment on his self-evaluation of his past year's work).

Federal District Court Judge Richard Berman just inserted some common sense--and sound legal principles--into the situation with a scathing 40 page ruling that eviscerates NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for the heavy-handed, sloppy and unfair way that Goodell and his cronies conducted the investigation and punishment of New England quarterback Tom Brady. After spending millions of dollars, the NFL could not come up with one piece of hard (or even circumstantial) evidence proving that the footballs in question were illegally deflated, let alone that Brady had anything to do with the alleged illegal deflation: the scientific analysis of the footballs in question is, at best, inconclusive, and there is no proof that Brady had anything to do with deflating the footballs even if it is true that the footballs were deliberately deflated in a manner that violates NFL rules. Nevertheless, Goodell suspended Brady for four games (under a bizarre theory equating ball deflation with illegal steroid use, a notion that an incredulous Judge Berman summarily dismissed) and media members dragged Brady's name through the mud, saying that Brady should accept the suspension (or at most bargain for a slight reduction) to just close the matter. I am sure that if someone punished Kravitz, Wilbon or Mortensen on the basis of no evidence those guys would just roll over and accept it.

Instead, Brady took the NFL to court and pounded Goodell even more soundly than Brady's Patriots defeated the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game. Judge Berman expressed unconcealed disdain for the NFL's "independent" investigation (the mocking quotes are Judge Berman's) and chastised the league for refusing to grant Brady the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers and see relevant evidence. So, contrary to the incessant media bleating that we have been hearing for months, it is actually the NFL--not Brady--who obstructed the fair investigation of this matter; you can take the word of Kravitz, Wilbon and Mortensen about this point of law or you can take the word of a federal judge who comprehensively reviewed the matter and actually knows how a legal investigation is supposed to work. Goodell also repeatedly moved the goal posts on Brady, changing what Brady was being charged with doing and what basis was being used to determine Brady's punishment. Judge Berman waded through the NFL's sloppy investigation and bizarre, draconian discipline and voided Goodell's four game suspension of Brady. Keep in mind that federal courts rarely overturn an arbitrator's decision but in this case it is so obvious that Goodell neither conducted a competent investigation nor fairly served as the arbitrator of his own ruling that Judge Berman had little choice but to decide the case in Brady's favor.

The NFL has already announced that it will appeal the verdict. Maybe the league will achieve victory at the Circuit Court level, though that seems doubtful since the league's lawyers just lost in the District Court that they selected for this battle (they filed suit in New York because they felt that they would receive more sympathy in that jurisdiction than in any other one). The NFL's refusal to admit wrongdoing, accept defeat and move on brings to mind Grand Moff Tarkin's mocking dismissal of the idea that the Death Star should be evacuated right before Luke Skywalker blew it to smithereens: "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances."

This saga could potentially drag on for years as it works its way through the federal court system but anyone who enjoys football, respects the legal process and values journalistic integrity hopes that when all is said and done we will no longer have to hear from Goodell, his "independent" investigator Ted Wells, Kravitz (whose most recent column about the Judge Berman ruling betrays a complete inability and/or unwillingness to understand what Judge Berman decided), Wilbon, Mortensen and everyone else who has added much heat but little light to the matter at hand.

The Sport of Chess

The title of this article may seem contradictory or even absurd to some people but over 100 countries officially recognize chess as a sport, as does the International Olympic Committee. John Foley recently offered an eloquent explanation of why chess is a sport. Foley cited 10 reasons that chess is a sport and he urged his home country England to join the 24 out of 28 European countries that classify chess as a sport. Here are some quotes from Foley about each of those 10 reasons:

1) Competitive: ...Chess involves a relentless struggle against one's opponent. There is probably no sporting activity in which two people are locked in a competitive struggle of such intensity for such a sustained period of time. One lapse of concentration and suddenly a good position is transformed into a losing one...

2) Well established: The world championship has been organised since 1886 and our national federation was founded in 1904. Chess competitions are organised at every level: schools, universities, counties, cities, leagues, junior, senior, European, World, etc...

3) Physical fitness: Peak mental condition requires being in good physical condition. Players need to concentrate totally for up to seven hours. As the stress and tension builds up, blood pressure, pulse and respiration rates all increase. Contenders for the world championships have nutritionists and fitness coaches.

4) Behaviour code: Players are penalised for poor sportsmanship e.g. for refusing to shake hands with their opponent. Potential cheating is taken seriously...There is an anti-doping policy.

5) Olympic Recognition: Chess has been recognised as a sport by the International Olympic Committee since 2000. It was an event at the Asian Games in 2006 in Doha and again in Guangzhou in 2010. It is also being considered for inclusion in the Pan-American Games...

6) European Recognition: Chess is recognised as a sport in 24 out of 28 member states of the European Union...

7) Global game: Chess is played around the world irrespective of age, race, gender, income or language...

8) Mental component: All sports have a mental component. Ultimately competitive sports may be construed as strategy games differing only in their physical manifestation. Commentators are prone to similes such as: curling = chess on ice; bowls = chess on grass; snooker = chess with balls, and so on.

9) National accolade: World chess champions have won their national Sportsman of the Year competition including Magnus Carlsen (Norway), Vishy Anand (India) and Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria).

10) Player ranking system. The player ranking system was developed for chess in 1960 and has been adopted by many other sports including American football, baseball, basketball, hockey, korfball, rugby and golf. Football and cricket use a related formula.

Foley concludes, "Chess has health benefits. There is an emerging awareness of the effectiveness of chess in delaying the onset of Alzheimers. Chess promotes social integration as players travel to a venue and interacting socially. Chess presents a welcome social activity to many children who are on the autistic spectrum. Many Aspergers children find chess opens up for them a whole new world which conventional sport does not. For many adults, chess provides them with meaning in their lives."

*****************
Further Reading:

Chess as Art, Chess as Violent Sport

Chess as Art, Chess as Violent Sport, Part II

IM Justin Sarkar Obtains Third GM Norm

In 2009, I wrote about International Master Justin Sarkar's "perfect game." IM Sarkar has been pursuing the Grandmaster title for several years, capturing his first GM norm in the 2006 Marshall Chess Club Championship and earning his second GM norm in the 2013 U.S. Masters Championship. IM Sarkar obtained his third and final required GM norm in the May 2015 UTB Grandmaster Norm tournament, so he will receive the GM title once he pushes his FIDE rating to the 2500 level.

IM Sarkar wrote an article for Chess Life Online about his excellent performance in the May 2015 UTB Grandmaster Norm tournament and that article included his round four win against GM Holden Hernandez. In the fifth round, IM Sarkar polished off IM Joshua Ruiz from the black side of the Caro-Kann. The Ruiz game is interesting not only because of how smoothly IM Sarkar defeated IM Ruiz without allowing any counterplay but also because of some thoughts that IM Sarkar shared with me about the etiquette of making draw offers during tournament play. As a strong club player (2100+ USCF), I have noticed that in local events (and even in some larger regional events), players either do not know the correct draw offer etiquette or else they disregard it. The proper method for a player to offer a draw is to make a move, say "I offer a draw" and then hit the clock, enabling the opponent to consider the draw offer undisturbed on his own time. If the opponent declines the draw offer, it is inappropriate to offer a draw again unless you have subsequently declined a draw offer or unless the position has substantially changed since you made your first offer. It is unacceptable to offer a draw (or communicate with your opponent in any way, other than to say "I resign") when your opponent's clock is running and it is unacceptable to harass your opponent with repeated draw offers.

IM Sarkar submitted these comments about his game versus IM Ruiz:

Here's my round 5 game as black against IM Joshua Ruiz. It was played just after my fine win round 4 against GM Holden Hernandez. As hinted in the (CLO) article, I felt it was also a "convincing win" by me.

On move 23 (after playing 23.Rh3), he offered me a draw. This might have bothered me slightly, because I knew that my position was better, possibly significantly better as I correctly realized (and I think there was no extenuating factor to justify the offer, such as me being significantly down on time). However, since it was made just after making his move (and just that one time), I didn't really have a problem nor read much into it.  

As for draw offers, unfortunately there have been players who violate the basic etiquette involved in offering, especially by offering during my thinking time (even a professional GM did that to me in the last year, from a position where I was much better but not yet clearly winning, while taking a long time to decide on my move). While I prefer to be shown proper respect in when to offer me a draw, especially by lower rated opponents (such as, not offering in a situation where I'm likely to decline), by far most important to me is for proper protocol to be followed. "Proper respect" in this context means different things depending on rating level: lower rated players should generally not offer draws unless they have a better, risk-free type of position (but are content with a draw) or they have a significant advantage on the clock and they consider their position at least acceptable, while equally rated players and higher rated players should not offer draws from a clearly worse position, except perhaps if they enjoy a big time advantage.

Regarding proper protocol, generally, offering in the midst of my thinking time is a no-no (except, maybe in a situation where I'm virtually certain to accept, such as when it's clear the opponent is the one pressing me), as is offering more than once before receiving one (except, again, maybe in a situation where I'm almost certain to accept the second one, such as my position being clearly worse or me being on the worse side of a drawn ending). As for the draw offer timing, if on a given move I'm taking a "long think" (as with that GM), getting impatient for me to move is not an excuse for offering a draw while I'm thinking. It's very distracting (except, maybe if I'm thinking for a long time on how to try and defend a worse or lost position; however such offers have usually come when my position is equal or better, including by lower rated players). Offering during their thinking time is also improper but not as bad, as I always have the option to just say nothing and let their clock run (or simply tell them to first make a move), while having the option to consider after their move on that turn.
 
IM Joshua Ruiz - IM Justin Sarkar [B12]
UTB Grandmaster Norm Tournament 5/15/13 (5)

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4 h5 5.c4 e6 6.Nc3 Ne7 7.Nge2 Nd7 8.Ng3 Bg6 9.Be2 dc4 10.Nxh5 Nxe5 11.de5 Qxd1+ 12.Kxd1 Bxh5 13.g4 Bg6 14.Bxc4 0-0-0+ 15.Ke1 Rd4 16.Be2 Nd5 17.Nxd5 Rxd5 18.Bf4 Bb4+ 19.Kf1 Bd2 20.Bg3 Rc5 21.b3 Rc2 22.Bd1 Rb2 23.Rh3 Rd8 24.Bh2 Rd3 25.Rxd3 Bxd3+ 26.Kg2 Bc3 27.Rc1 Bd2 28.Ra1 Bc3 29.Rc1 Bd4 30.Bg3 Rxa2 31.Bf3 Rb2 32.Bd1 a5 33.h5 Kd7 34.g5 Be3 0-1

IM Sarkar adds that 10.Nxh5 is "dubious, though a consistent follow-up, and his 9.Be2 was a slightly dubious novelty, maybe decided upon at the board." 

Djokovic Secures Status as Best Tennis Player in the World

Novak Djokovic claimed his third Wimbledon title, his third Grand Slam singles title in the past five Grand Slam events and his ninth Grand Slam singles title overall with a convincing 7-6 (1), 6-7 (10), 6-4, 6-3 win over Roger Federer. Djokovic has not only clearly established himself as the best tennis player in the world right now but he is staking a claim to be mentioned among the top players of the Open Era. His mental toughness during matches used to be questioned but Djokovic has refuted that criticism.

Federer is in an interesting stage of his career. He is in excellent physical condition and not plagued by injuries but because he is 33 years old there is a tendency to say that every new win adds to his legacy but that when he loses his age is a valid excuse. The reality is that Federer is the second ranked tennis player in the world and age had nothing to do with what happened in his match with Djokovic. In fact, prior to the Finals, none other than Bjorn Borg--arguably the greatest tennis player of the Open Era--declared that Federer was at the peak of his powers. Federer's 7-5, 7-5, 6-4 semifinal win over Andy Murray impressed Borg so much that he predicted that Federer would beat Djokovic: "That's the best I've seen him play for many years, the best for maybe 10 years. He's serving so well. It was great tennis. On Sunday, Federer will definitely be the favorite to win. He is playing well, moving well, he was doing everything he was supposed to. He is hitting the ball so cleanly and playing with a lot of confidence."

If Federer had beaten Djokovic, we would be subjected to an endless series of articles declaring that this result once again proves that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time. Federer's loss, though, will likely be dismissed because Djokovic is five years younger than Federer. By this way of thinking, Federer has an unbreakable hold on the greatest of all-time title: if he wins, then he further distances himself from the competition but if he loses that is no problem because he should not have been expected to win. I cannot recall any other athlete's legacy being treated this way.

Djokovic's win over Federer should be analyzed not in the context of the age difference between the players but rather in the larger context of Federer's career, which is that Federer has been remarkably durable and he has dominated lesser lights--a consistency for which he deserves credit--but he has not been dominant against the two other great players of his era, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. Federer's struggles against Nadal are well documented--Nadal leads the head to head series 23-10, including 9-2 in Grand Slam matches--but Djokovic's Wimbledon triumph improved his head to head record against Federer to 20-20. Djokovic has beaten Federer two out of three times in Grand Slam Finals and 10 out of 15 times in Finals overall, meaning that when both players are at their best Djokovic has been better. Why should it be taken for granted without any discussion or analysis that Federer is better than Nadal and Djokovic, let alone the great players from previous eras?

Federer has had a remarkable career. He holds many records that testify to his longevity, including most Grand Slam singles titles (17). He is the Emmitt Smith of tennis and there is no shame in that. Emmitt Smith was a great running back who lasted long enough to set the NFL's career rushing record, eclipsing Walter Payton--but no serious NFL commentator would rank Smith ahead of Payton or Jim Brown or at least a half dozen other NFL running backs. Borg is the Jim Brown/Sandy Koufax of tennis, setting a high standard that may never be matched and then retiring at the peak of his powers. Borg's Davis Cup record is impeccable; he holds the mark for youngest player to win a Davis Cup match (15 years old) and he also won a record 33 straight Davis Cup singles matches. Borg won at least one Grand Slam title for eight straight years (a record later matched by Pete Sampras and Roger Federer before being broken by Rafael Nadal, who accomplished the feat for 10 straight years). Borg also pulled off the Wimbledon/French Open double for three years in a row (a mark that may never be equaled).

Perhaps most impressively, Borg still holds the all-time record for Grand Slam tournament winning percentage (he won 11 of the 27 Grand Slams he entered) and Grand Slam match winning percentage (89.8%). He reached the Finals in 16 of his 27 Grand Slam appearances (59.3%). To put those numbers in perspective, consider that Nadal has won 14 of the 42 Grand Slam events that he entered (33.3%), Federer has won 17 of the 65 Grand Slam events that he entered (26.2%) and Djokovic has won nine of the 43 Grand Slam events that he entered (20.9%). Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have each reached the Finals in less than 50% of the Grand Slams that they entered.

The tennis ranking system perhaps rewards durability over greatness/dominance but even in that category Federer has not established an edge over his two main rivals during the time that their careers overlapped. Federer holds the record for most overall weeks as the number one ranked player in the world (302) but he accomplished that before Nadal and Djokovic hit their primes. When those three players have been in or reasonably near their primes (from late 2008 to the present), Federer has held the number one ranking for 65 weeks but Nadal has been number one for 141 weeks and Djokovic has been number one for 154 weeks.

Federer is lauded for his tennis artistry and, subjectively, his game may be more aesthetically pleasing to some people's eyes than the games of Nadal and Djokovic--but all-time greatness should be determined based on results, not aesthetics, and by that standard Borg, Nadal and Djokovic deserve a lot of the praise that is showered in Federer's direction. Appreciating Federer's durability should not come at the expense of recognizing the accomplishments of other great tennis players.

American Enterprise Institute Scholars Question Methodology and Conclusions of Wells Report

The NFL-sponsored Wells Report accused New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) of participating in a plan to intentionally deflate NFL footballs in contravention of league rules. In Putting the Wells Report in Proper Perspective, I described the evidence used to punish the New England Patriots and Tom Brady as "flimsy even regarding McNally and Jastremski"  and "almost nonexistent regarding Brady."

A friend of mine who has math and law degrees directed my attention to Deflating "Deflategate," which describes the American Enterprise Institute's thorough debunking of the methodology and conclusions of the Wells report. Authors Kevin Hassett and Stan Veuger conclude:

Our study, written with our colleague Joseph Sullivan, examines the evidence and methodology of the Wells report and concludes that it is deeply flawed. (We have no financial stake in the outcome of Deflategate.)

The Wells report’s main finding is that the Patriots balls declined in pressure more than the Colts balls did in the first half of their game, and that the decline is highly statistically significant. For the sake of argument, let’s grant this finding for now. Even still, it alone does not prove misconduct. There are, after all, two possibilities. The first is that the Patriots balls declined too much. The second--overlooked by the Wells report--is that the Colts balls declined too little.
 
The latter possibility appears to be more likely.

The entire AEI report can be found here. My friend points to this passage as particularly relevant:

The problem here is that ideally, measurements would have been taken simultaneously for all balls, outdoors, at the end of the half, and with the same gauge that was used before the game. Instead, the balls were taken inside and measured there, but not measured simultaneously. The pressure was checked twice for the Patriots balls (once with each gauge), after which the Patriots balls were reinflated and the Colts ball pressure was measured. Only 4 of the Colts balls (instead of all 12) were measured because halftime ended and the officials ran out of time. The fact that the officials ran out of time is highly material: it implies that the Colts balls were inside a warm room for almost the entire halftime before they were measured and thus had a chance to warm up.

Based on using his mathematical training to evaluate AEI's scientific analysis and on using his legal training to identify the flaws the Wells report's logic, my friend reached the following conclusions, which he permitted me to quote as long as I did not reveal his name (the quoted remarks have been edited slightly for length and clarity, but without changing the analysis and conclusions) :

As I view things, there are several (potential) problems to consider here: 

i) From a legal standpoint is there adequate "foundation" to admit the original air pressure results into evidence?; in particular: 

ii) Were the original notations/recordings of the individual ball pressures, both before the game, and at halftime, accurate? (Note: I think all commentary I've seen as to this point the values are...each and all...a correct "recording" of the various values, but "in court," this would almost certainly be "tested.")

iii) The AEI report, quoting/referring to the Wells report, says there were two pressure tester devices (gauges) used, one with an NFL logo on it, one without. The NFL on site official (Anderson) remembers using the "Logo" gauge on the balls before the game. The AEI report says that the Wells report concluded, notwithstanding Anderson's (stated, according to AEI) memory, that Anderson used the non-Logo gauge to run the tests before the game. The AEI report (correctly) notes the significance in the gauge used to test the air pressure before the game because the "Logo" gauge "reports" pressure (apparently consistently, if I'm understanding the AEI report) at .4 pounds per test greater than that reported by the "non- Logo" gauge. For example, if a particular football had been tested using the "Logo" gauge as having 12.0 psi, then presumptively had the same ball been tested instead using the "non-Logo" gauge, then the pressure would have been reported at 11.6 psi.
 
iv) Were all the NFL personnel involved in testing the footballs at the game equally skilled in each relevant aspect in using the gauges? [For instance--and here I'm confessing specific lack of knowledge--if the gauges "report" psi either by displacing a "ruler" (like an car tire gauge) or by causing a thin pointer to spin on a clock style display ... (I'm not being argumentative here... I have not seen a photo or video of the device(s) used. Here's a link to images turned up via a yahoo search using search terms "NFL football pressure gauge":
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV0vt6H5V5j0AcXJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0dGo2bWE1BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQTAxMDRfMQRzZWMDcGl2cw--?p=nfl+football+pressure+gauge&fr=yfp-t-252&fr2=piv-web )

 .... then whether a particular "tester" accurately reads the gauge's reported result is potentially an issue. Not so much (or not at all) if the psi is "reported" via...for instance...an LCD device.]

v) Not trivially, it seems all the Patriots footballs tested at halftime were tested twice. An article by a team from Purdue at Columbus (an initial engineering report [yahoo search terms: "NFL football pressure purdue columbus" will yield a link to "Deflate Gate Examined"]) noted that "The football pump needle made a very poor seal when inflating the football. A noticeable amount of air was felt coming around the side of the needle when inflating the football. The amount of air leaving the football when removing the pump needle from the ball also released a small amount of air each time. The team estimated that with each removal of the valve 0.1 psi was released as we closely observed the behavior of the interaction between the needle and the football. Thus, it could be plausible that if a ball is inspected several times in succession without being inflated could be subjected to a significant loss in pressure and should be noted for further testing."
 
In other words, when the Patriots’ footballs were each tested twice at halftime, it is possible that the second test on most or all the balls reflected a lower value than the first test. Depending on how the “halftime/Patriots” psi results were reported (i.e., did the refs take the average of the two tests, and report this?) this has the potential to affect the overall likelihood that a reviewer might conclude that the Patriots footballs were improperly deflated.

vi) In light of something I frequently hear engineers say when trying to get a point across: "Do the math." Relevant here, because the AEI report (though rather obliquely and politely) seems to attack the accuracy of the simple math/statistics calculations contained in the Wells report.

OK, all that said, what does this all mean?

In front of a competent judge, the NFL could expect to have significant difficulty in getting the halftime psi results admitted into evidence.

Even if the results were admitted into evidence, I think it unlikely that they would be accorded much evidentiary weight.

In particular, I think a judicial fact-finding might look something like this (what follows is intentionally compressed):

Acting as finder of fact, the Court noted Defendant Brady’s objection to admitting into evidence the reported values of the psi testing of the Patriots’ and Colts’ footballs as measured before the game, and at halftime. The objection was a lack of foundation. The Court admitted the evidence, under the proviso that the Court would later evaluate them “for what they are worth.”

As it turns out, the Court finds they are not worth much.

In particular, the evidence shows that Referee Anderson tested all the footballs before the game using a gauge that reported values--each time, each test--0.4 psi higher than the other gauge used, in part, to measure the footballs during halftime. The Court finds the evidence does not demonstrate precisely which gauge or gauges were used to test each football during halftime. However, it is clear that both gauges were used. Also, it is clear that each “Patriot” football was tested for pressure twice during halftime, while only four “Colts” football were tested for pressure at halftime. Clearly, the Patriots’ footballs were tested first, and there was insufficient time to finish testing all twelve Colts’ footballs.

A significant difficulty in assessing the evidentiary weight of the test results arises from the lack of clarity as to which “gauge” tested each football during halftime. If all of the Patriots’ footballs were tested with the same gauge that Referee Anderson used to test them before the game, then the comparative results between the pre-game and halftime tests are sensible in a “math-physics-engineering” sense. However, if some or all of the Patriots footballs were tested at halftime using the second gauge, then the halftime test results would generate results that would unfairly and incorrectly support a conclusion that the Patriots’ footballs had been improperly deflated after the pregame testing, but before the game started.

Moreover, while the evidence and simple high school chemistry teach that application of the Ideal Gas Law (pv=nrt) mandates a conclusion that both teams’ footballs would have been found to have “lost pressure” between the pregame testing and the testing at halftime, another problem for assessing the weight and meaning of this evidence arises because of the specific circumstances of the halftime testing. All the game balls were taken into the warm “testing” room at halftime for the required testing. Testing on the Patriots’ footballs began immediately. Testing on the Colts’ footballs began after all the Patriots’ footballs had been tested. The evidence establishes that all the footballs that “waited” to be tested underwent some increase in pressure due to being in a significantly warmer environment than that existing outside, during the game. However, this “re-inflation” was not uniform.

The end result is that the halftime testing was improperly skewed to support a conclusion that the Patriots’ footballs had been improperly deflated after the pregame testing. The Court finds that the total impact of this improper skewing is contained within a range of 0.6 to 1.0 psi as to each Patriots football. Adjusting the reported results to remove this improper skewing means the Patriots’ footballs did not demonstrate evidence of having been improperly deflated when they were tested at halftime.

To conclude this discussion of the pressure testing and the conclusions that might be drawn from it, the Court notes the criticism the AEI report (and Defendant Brady) level against the accuracy of the statistical calculations contained in the Wells report (and asserted in these proceedings by Plaintiff NFL). While the Court finds the AEI report’s conclusions in this regard to be well founded and accurate, the Court does not rely upon this point to reach its final decision. In other words, the Court assumes, arguendo, that the Wells report’s statistical calculations are accurate.

I have no advanced mathematical training and I am a second year law student, not a lawyer, but my friend's take on the AEI Report's numbers and how that evidence would be used in a hypothetical court setting comports quite well with my understanding of math and law. If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell does not rescind the four game suspension that he levied against Brady it seems as if a competent judge would rule in Brady's favor if Brady decided to sue the NFL for suspending him based on evidence that lacks proper foundation.

The mathematical and legal issues in this case are interesting but there are some deeper questions here as well pertaining to the NFL as a whole and to media coverage of the NFL:


1) Who "tipped" the NFL with (apparently false) information that the Patriots were deflating footballs and why did this person do so?

2) A false allegation of cheating is a punishable offense under FIDE (International Chess Federation) rules. Since there is no credible evidence that the Patriots cheated, will the "tipper" be punished in some fashion by the NFL?

3) Who holds media members like Bob Kravitz, Mike Wilbon and others accountable for their baseless speculations and for their overwrought calls for punishing the Patriots in general and Bill Belichick in particular? Even the Wells Report, which appears to be incomplete and flawed at best, exonerates Belichick from any wrongdoing. Freedom of the press is a cherished and essential American right but accountability of the press should exist in some fashion as well. If media organizations, editors and writers/commentators will not hold themselves accountable then the public should be aware that anything written or stated by media organizations is highly suspect, particularly if that information is delivered by someone who has a track record of being more interested in self-promotion (or the promotion of some other personal agenda) than in seeking out the truth.

Remembering Bryan Burwell

For many years, I enjoyed reading Bryan Burwell's articles about the NBA. He covered the league for a variety of publications. I never had the opportunity to meet him face to face--and I regret that I never will, since he passed away from cancer last December at just 59. Bernie Miklasz, a St. Louis sportswriter who was a colleague of Burwell's, penned a warm and loving tribute to his friend titled
Bryan Burwell Will Always Live in Our Hearts. Here is an excerpt:

Day in and day out, Bryan Burwell was the happiest person you could find in any press box, or in a media work room. In a profession of notorious grumps, he was good for morale. You'd show up, and grouse about something, and Burwell would turn and smile, offer support, and then get to work on repairing your mood.

And you didn't have to be a media star, or a colleague, or a longterm friend to get Burwell's attention or empathy. He always treated nervous young journalists with respect and caring, giving them so much of his time you'd think these kids were Pulitzer Prize winners. Burwell didn't care about your status, or where you ranked on the ladder of journalism. If you shared a press box with Burwell, you were his equal. And if you needed his advice, he would patiently and generously offer it. There was no time limit on his kindness.

Until the end of his life, Bryan maintained the kind of enthusiasm that often wanes when sportswriters and broadcasters have been in the industry for a decade or two. Well, it was impossible to diminish his joy or take away his laughter...

Burwell saw the best in everyone, but he had the courage to take a stand and express a strong and unpopular opinion. And as you probably can understand, it wasn't always easy being an outspoken African American sports columnist who didn't hesitate to take a stand. I cringe at the memory of some of the emails he received; you can only imagine. He would show a few to me every now and then and it made me crazy with anger. But you know what? The nastiness couldn't take Burwell down. The viciousness probably stung him more than he'd let on, but he'd brush it off and continue being Burwell. A first-class man, all the way.

Astounded by his relentless civility, I once asked him: Why do you respond to people who are so vile and hateful? I'll never forget Bryan's answer. "Because they took the time to write," Burwell said. "That's the first thing. The other thing is, I can't change the world we live in. But by having a conversation, I can try to change one heart at a time."

And he meant it. Burwell put that into practice, every single day.

Putting the Wells Report in Proper Perspective

When Bob Kravitz, Mike Wilbon and other reporters called for the NFL to heavily punish New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichick based on unsubstantiated accusations about the Patriots deflating footballs prior to the 2015 AFC Championship Game, I criticized them for reckless reporting. I stand by what I wrote; it is wrong to call for someone to be fired based on a mere accusation and it is even more wrong to do so when that person is subsequently completely exonerated. The NFL's investigation of this matter, known as the Wells Report, has been publicly released. The Wells Report explicitly states that neither Belichick nor the Patriots organization had anything to do with deflating footballs. Kravitz, Wilbon and the rest of the reporters who engaged in reckless speculation and accusation owe Belichick and the Patriots a public apology.

After months of investigation of the matter, here is the conclusion reached by the Wells Report: "...it is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls."

Put more simply, there is no evidence that anyone from the Patriots actually deflated the footballs but it is possible--given the time frame involved and where the footballs were prior to the game--that enough time existed for the footballs to be intentionally deflated. If the footballs were intentionally deflated, this was most likely done by McNally and Jasremski. Based on the fact that McNally and Jastremski referred to Brady in text messages and that Brady called Jastremski after this became a major news story, it is "more probable than not" that Brady "was at least generally aware" of footballs being intentionally deflated.

From a purely legal standpoint, it is true that in criminal trials defendants are convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time. The idea that you cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is a common misunderstanding of people who do not have legal training. However, the circumstantial evidence in the Wells Report--which was not prepared for a criminal trial or using the standards required for a criminal trial--is flimsy even regarding McNally and Jastremski and is almost nonexistent regarding Brady.

The NFL's response to this flimsy evidence is to suspend Tom Brady for four games, fine the Patriots $1,000,000 and deprive the Patriots of two draft picks. The Patriots have already suspended McNally and Jastremski indefinitely.

Frank Schwab has written a must-read takedown of the NFL's overreaction to the Wells Report. Schwab starts by noting that the NFL historically has taken very little interest even in proven game day manipulation of footballs:

Last season, the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings were caught, on a cold day, using sideline heaters to warm up footballs. That's against the rules. You can argue that it's not the same level as deflating footballs in a bathroom, but it has the same effect: something outside of the rules to make the football easier to grip and catch. The Panthers and Vikings were...warned. That's it...

Also, in 2012 the San Diego Chargers used towels with an adhesive substance on their game balls and didn't give them up to the NFL immediately when ordered to do so. If you think the Panthers-Vikings thing was just some honest mistake, it's a lot harder to convince anyone that there was no intent by the Chargers to gain an advantage. And the Chargers' punishment? A $20,000 fine. That's it.

What about the Patriots' supposed "failure to cooperate" with the investigation? The authors/investigators of the Wells Report did not have subpoena power nor did they have the power to receive any testimony under oath. No one was under any obligation to say anything to the authors/investigators and--legally--no one can assume that someone is guilty because he fails to say something. As far as I know, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination still applies to the NFL and its employees. Nevertheless, Schwab documents that the Patriots did cooperate:

They turned over text message records of employees, security tapes, secured interviews with dozens of their employees. "The failure to cooperate" is the NFL's pandering at its worst. The "failure to cooperate" is this: The Patriots say McNally was made available for four interviews but the investigators were turned down when a fifth interview was requested. Brady met with investigators, answered all their questions, but refused to provide text messages and emails. That's it. That's the extent of "failure to cooperate." There are no other examples of any lack of Patriots cooperation in the report.

Brady's alleged guilt/complicity is supposedly proven because he made some phone calls to Jastremski after the deflated football issue became a public story. The Wells Report says nothing about the content of those phone calls but implies that because Brady had not called Jastremski in the preceding few months this means that Brady knew about Jastremski's (alleged) activities. Think about that tortured logic for a minute. Pretend that you are Tom Brady and you know absolutely nothing about footballs being deflated. Then, the alleged deflation of footballs by your team becomes a national news story and you are being accused of deflating the footballs. Would you not call the equipment manager and try to find out what happened? That scenario is just as plausible as the one that the Wells Report offers. In fact, look at it the other way and pretend that you are Tom Brady and you are the mastermind of the football deflation. Would you make traceable phone calls to your accomplice just days after the story broke, after not calling him for months? If you were able to set up the whole conspiracy without using a phone, would you not either lay low or else communicate in a less traceable way? If there was a conspiracy, wouldn't each party know that the best thing to do is to keep quiet? Would that message really be best delivered in a traceable phone call?

Tampering with footballs is wrong but the NFL has never seriously policed this issue, as noted above. If the NFL intends to severely punish violators it should (1) make that clear beforehand and (2) have very credible evidence before issuing severe punishments. In this case, all the Wells Report proved is that it is theoretically possible for one person to use a needle to deflate a dozen footballs in less than two minutes. The Wells Report offers no credible evidence that this actually happened, let alone that Brady was complicit in this happening.

David Friedman Scores 6-0 in DCC Championship to Capture 10th Title

The Dayton Chess Club Championship has been held since 1959. After winning the event a record nine times (1997, 1999-2000, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011-12), this year I sought to capture one more title to double the original mark of five set by Richard Ling in the late 1960s/early 1970s. This year's field included three other former champions: Les Whorton (2012), John Dowling (2004-05, 2008) and David Guehl (1979-80). I was the second seeded player (2151) behind John Miller (2163), followed by Whorton (2110), Dowling (2078) and my former student Elton Cao (1792).

After my third round victory over Dowling, I owned clear first place with the only perfect score, setting up a round four showdown with Miller, who had two wins plus a half point bye. I defeated Miller to move a full point ahead of the rest of the field with two rounds to go. I have a long history with Whorton, my fifth round opponent; I have faced him 39 times at regular time controls, more than any other opponent other than four-time Ohio Champion (1958, 1975-76, 2005)/two-time DCC Champion (2005-06) Ross Sprague (who I faced 52 times at regular time controls). I defeated Whorton en route to a 3-0 start in the 2014 DCC Championship but I did not finish that event well. My most memorable game with Whorton is probably our encounter in round six of the 2012 DCC Championship. Whorton had White and only needed a draw to clinch clear first but I won in 42 moves to join Whorton (and Richard Mercer) in the winner's circle. This time, a win would clinch me clear first while Whorton needed a win to pull even with one round to go. I had to maintain the delicate balance between not taking too many risks and not playing so conservatively that I drifted into a passive position, while Whorton had to take calculated risks to complicate the position.

Here are the moves from my game versus Whorton, along with some brief annotations:

[Event "DCC Championship 5/2/15 (6)"]  [White "Friedman, David"] [Black "Whorton, Les"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B33"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Qb6 5. Nb3 Nf6 6. Nc3 e6 7. Be3 Qc7 8. a3 This is a good prophylactic move, denying Black use of the b4 square. Be7 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O Rd8 11. f4 d5 12. e5 Nd7!? (...Ne4) 13. Nb5 White is slightly better. Qb8 14. Bd3 g6 15. Qg4 b6 16. h4!? (N5d4 is more solid) Nc5= 17. Nxc5!? (N5d4) bxc5 18. h5! Fortune favors the brave! I only needed a draw to remain a point ahead of the field with one round to go but this is the best and sharpest continuation. c4?? (Kg7) 19. hxg6+- cxd3 20. gxf7+!? (gxh7+ +-) Kh8?? (Kxf7 is Black's only chance, though White is better after Qh5+) 21. Rf3 Ba6 22.Rg3 Rg8 23. fxg8(Q)+ Qxg8 24. Nc7

Now the only remaining questions were if I would finish with a perfect score and if a perfect score would be enough to push my rating above 2200. I completed the tournament with a 44 move victory as Black against Bruce Bryant, who earned an upset win against Dowling in round five. Not including Alex Goldin, a Grandmaster who once ranked in the top 100 in the world who did not reside in Dayton but inexplicably elected to play in a tournament otherwise comprised of dedicated amateurs, the last time a DCC Champion achieved a perfect score was 1984 (Jim Jordan). Ling is the only player who is confirmed to have posted two perfect scores in DCC Championship play (1965, 1973). My new rating of 2190 is a career-high and just 10 points short of the National Master title that I have been chasing for quite some time.

Cao scored 4/6 to claim clear second, while Miller and Whorton drew to join a four way tie for third place.

Here is the complete list of DCC Champions, along with available score information (to the best of my knowledge, this score information has never been previously published in one place). I will continue to update the scores until they are complete, much like I did in History of the Ohio Chess Congress. The score data prior to 1988 is courtesy of the Ohio Chess Bulletin, the Dayton Chess Club Review and Bill Wall's History of the Dayton Chess Club. Wall's article is excellent in many respects, though I did find at least one error; he states that Blossom scored 5-0 in the 1987 DCC Championship but both the original wall chart and the crosstable published in the September-October 1987 Ohio Chess Bulletin show that Blossom scored 5/6 before defeating Burk in a one game playoff.

The 1988-2015 data comes from my own records (I participated in every event except for 1996) and from USCF crosstables.

DCC Champions, 1959-2015
1959	J. Fink 5.5/6
1960	H. Fleat 6.5/7
1961	R. Ling 5.5/6
1962	V. Zukaitis
1963	D. Wolford
1964	D. Wolford
1965	R. Ling 5/5
1966	R. Ling
1967	R. Ling 3/4 (match)
1968	R. Buchanan 4/5
1969	D. Wolford 4/5
1970	V. Burk 4.5/5
1971	C. Unruh 5/5
1972	D. Wolford 5/5
1973	R. Ling 5/5
1974	B. Espedal 6/6
1975	A. Casden 6/6
1976	A. Mantia 5.5/6
1977	A. Mantia 5.5/6
1978	V. Burk 5/6
1979	D. Guehl 5/6
1980	D. Guehl 5.5/6
1981	B. Beard 5.5/6
1982	V. Burk 5/6
1983	V. Burk 5.5/6
1984	J. Jordan 6/6
1985	G. Vitko 5/6
1986	A. Hood 4.5/6
	J. Jordan 4.5/6
	E. Wikle 4.5/6
1987	D. Blossom 5/6
1988	T. Chou 5.5/6
1989	A. Miravete 5.5/6
1990	R. Springer 5/6
1991	M. Chiminiello 5/6
1992	V. Burk 4.5/6
	A. Mantia 4.5/6
	J. Langreck 4.5/6
1993	J. Vehre 5.5/6
1994	A. Mantia 5/6
1995	F. Titus 4/5
1996	C. Atkins 5.5/6
1997	D. Friedman 5/6
1998	M. Fowler 5/6
1999	D. Friedman 5.5/6
2000	D. Friedman 5/6
2001	E. Wikle 5/6
2002	D. Friedman 5/6
	E. Wikle 5/6
2003	C. Atkins 5.5/6
	E. Wikle 5.5/6
2004	E. Wikle 4.5/6
	D. Friedman 4.5/6
	J. Dowling 4.5/6
2005	R. Sprague 4.5/6
	M. Kalafatas 4.5/6
	J. Dowling 4.5/6
	B. Coraretti 4.5/6
2006	R. Sprague 5.5/6
2007	D. Friedman 5.5/6
2008	E. Wikle 4.5/6
	C.Atkins 4.5/6
	J. Dowling 4.5/6
2009	D. Friedman 5/6
2010	A. Goldin 6/6
2011	D. Friedman 5/6
2012	D. Friedman 4.5/6
R. Mercer 4.5/6             L. Whorton 4.5/6 2013     W. Sedlar 5/6 2014     W. Sedlar 5.5/6 2015     D. Friedman 6/6 2016     W. Sedlar 5.5/6 2017     E. Cao 6/6 2018     J. Henderson 5.5/6 2019     S. Rush 6/6 Notes: The December 1966 Ohio Chess Bulletin explains that to determine the 1967 champion the DCC held a six player round robin challengers' tournament including the highest rated (based on club ladder, not USCF) members who accepted invitations. Ed Lawrence scored 4.5/5 to earn the right to face two-time defending champion Richard Ling in a match. Ling lost the first game but eventually won the match, 3-1. Lawrence, who wrote about the championship for the OCB, opined, "After four times as champion, Ling could retire confident that no one will match his record." Ling did not play in the 1968-1970 DCC Championships but he returned to action in the 1971 DCC Championship. In 1973 he added one more title to his resume and his mark stood untied until 1992 and unbroken until 2007. In the 1973 event, Ling and Bud Lytle each scored 5-0 before Ling defeated Lytle in a playoff match. Dale Burk's given name was Vernon, so that is why he is listed as "V. Burk" on the trophy; Chiminiello (1991) changed his surname to Kalafatas (2005). 5/24/15 Update: Tony Mantia graciously provided additional information about the 1976, 1981-83 and 1990 DCC Championships. Guehl and Ling tied for second in 1976, a full point behind Mantia. In 1982, Burk tied with Riley Driver and Richard Ling for first place but prevailed in a playoff by winning against Ling and drawing against Driver. 4/29/17 Update: I have added the results from the 2016 and 2017 DCC Championships. 4/30/18 Update: I have added the results from the 2018 DCC Championship. 4/13/19 Update: I have added the results from the 2019 DCC Championship. 9/9/24 Update: Per the December 1978 Dayton Chess Club Review, the 1979 DCC Championship (held in 1978) had 25 participants and was not USCF rated, which set it apart from "the past few Club Championship tournaments." Dave Guehl, Tony Mantia, and Joe Wehener each scored 5/6. Guehl drew a playoff game versus Wehener and won a playoff game versus Mantia. Wehener won a playoff game versus Mantia, and then Guehl defeated Wehener in a sudden death one game playoff.
Most Wins: David Friedman: 10 Earle Wikle: 6 Richard Ling, Dale Burk: 5 Dave Wolford, Tony Mantia: 4 Repeat Champions (including shared titles; except for special circumstances affecting the 1986 and 1992 championships, most first place ties were resolved by playoffs until the late 1990s when it was decided to simply list tied winners as co-champions): Dave Wolford (1963-64) Richard Ling (1965-67) Tony Mantia (1976-77) David Guehl (1979-80) Dale Burk (1982-83) David Friedman (1999-2000) Earle Wikle (2001-04) John Dowling (2004-05) Ross Sprague (2005-06) David Friedman (2011-12) Will Sedlar (2013-14) At Least Three Championships in a Four Year Span (including shared titles): Richard Ling (1965-67) David Friedman (1997, 1999-2000) Earle Wikle (2001-04) David Friedman (2009, 2011-12) Will Sedlar (2013-14, 16) At Least One Championship in Three Different Decades: Dale Burk (1970s, 1980s, 1990s) David Friedman (1990s, 2000s, 2010s) Won Championship With Perfect Score (data incomplete for some years): Richard Ling 1965 (5/5) Charles Unruh 1971 (5/5) Dave Wolford 1972 (5/5) Richard Ling 1973 (5/5) Bruce Espedal 1974 (6/6) Alan Casden 1975 (6/6) Jim Jordan 1984 (6/6) Alex Goldin 2010 (6/6) David Friedman 2015 (6/6) Elton Cao 2017 (6/6) Stephen Rush 2019 (6/6)