Main
Date: 29 Mar 2008 07:46:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
THESE ARE THE FACTS

>Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
be any great
player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of,
as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak." > --
Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005

On ch 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."

On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."

KINGSTON REPLIED

<April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." > -- Taylor Kingston

Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"

On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
cited.
among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.

KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG

<A correction: It was April 1985, page 36. > -- Taylor Kingston, ch
26, 2008

Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
to be found.

In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
Kingston (ca) 1806.

In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
top 50 postal players.

For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
points by a "conversion" formula.

However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
OTB rating was 1806.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?














 
Date: 07 Apr 2008 20:26:38
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 7, 5:01 pm, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:


> As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see
> that the majority of the points are below the line, because
> it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that
> roughly as many points are above as there are below.
>
> The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph
> of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to
> the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating.
> The correction is at most 50 points and is applied
> to FIDE ratings above 2200.


The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
but the darned labels were too small for me to
read!

It is my understanding that the relation
between FIDE ratings and USCF ratings may
have fluctuated over time, so it would be
unwise to leap to any conclusions regarding
say, the peak rating of Taylor Kingston way
back in the 1980s, based on such a graph.

I was surprised to read -- in Chess Lies
magazine, many years ago -- that the
common belief that FIDE ratings were
"normally" higher was mistaken; indeed, at
the time of that article this mainly applied to
GMs, and in fact when you got down to the
Expert level, there was a reversal. The
entry policies of some of the big-money
tourneys were, therefore, out of tune with
reality.


-- help bot





  
Date: 08 Apr 2008 07:17:34
From: Tony M
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:26:38 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:

> The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
>that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
>appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
>but the darned labels were too small for me to
>read!
>

Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....

Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.

Tony


 
Date: 05 Apr 2008 15:19:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 9:36 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 31, 8:44 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "KennethSloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.
>
> > > No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
> > > information - which is sometimes denial, and from whatyouhave written so
> > > far, indistinguishable from denial.
>
> > > What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
> > > its okay to shut up.
>
> > > PI
>
> > Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.
>
> > Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
> > specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
> > Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.
>
> > And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> YES! YES! YES!

Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg

As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green
diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating
and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating.

However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of
the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher.

This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE
Ratings.

Also, the extreme cases, where there is a big difference between the
USCF Rating and the FIDE Rating, it is usually that the FIDE Rating is
much higher.

Here is one example: John Warlick of the US Virgin Islands has a USCF
Rating of 1584.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12403829

However, his last published FIDE Rating is 2205.

(Mike Nolan should note this on the USCF Ratings website.)

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 07 Apr 2008 23:01:50
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d729ea82-e4eb-4465-a6e5-fbda80096803@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 31, 9:36 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 31, 8:44 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
>
> http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg
>
> As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green
> diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating
> and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating.
>
> However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of
> the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher.
>
> This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE
> Ratings.
>
>[...]
>
> Sam Sloan

No wonder you flunked out of college.

As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see
that the majority of the points are below the line, because
it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that
roughly as many points are above as there are below.

The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph
of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to
the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating.
The correction is at most 50 points and is applied
to FIDE ratings above 2200.



 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 20:36:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:15 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
> > patzer.
>
> Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how
> silly you look here, going at TK while missing
> the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes.
>
> -- help bot

The "nearly an IM" who allegedly holds a "GM norm" in correspondence
chess?


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 20:15:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected] > wrote:

> Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
> patzer.


Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how
silly you look here, going at TK while missing
the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes.


-- help bot



 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 17:18:17
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Can anyone find references to a Sloan-Kingston match
proposal during the month BEFORE 5 Jun 2005
17:23:27 -0700 ?
_
"...
... I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for
one thousand dollars cash money on the table.
No electronic devices and no going to the
restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston
really is.
..." - [email protected] (Fri, 10 Jun 2005
22:37:18 GMT) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
151.202.65.211)
_
_
"I really would like to kick in $500 for the 1st
Annual RGCP Invitational Grudge Match. I
figure that if we can collect another $500, as
Larry Parr suggests, the $1K figure will be
compelling enough to attract all but the
biggest windbags.
_
The matchup in this First Grudge Match
could be between Sam Sloan and Taylor
Kingston.
..." - [email protected] (16 Jun
2005 21:16:56 -0700) (NNTP-Posting-Host:
69.140.48.8)


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:50:00
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 7:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
7 ...
7 NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
7 at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
7 man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
7 with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
7 four-figure money for said encounter.
7
7 We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
7 refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
7 Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
7 possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.
7
7 Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
7 bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
7 ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
7 chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
7 2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:
7
7 "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I
7 have never claimed to be any great player, but I think
7 with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I
7 recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
7 ...
_
_
Some of what actually happened can be seen at:
_
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/1bd9cb0e4b7ec507/3c7446f2a12e9b1e?#3c7446f2a12e9b1e
_


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:48:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
> > > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
> > > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
> > > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
> > > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
> > > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
> > > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
> > > 20 or 30 years ago."
>
> > I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
> > The correct argument, which I have made, is that
> > no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
> > a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
> > no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>
> Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my
> statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and
> times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out:
>
> ** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread:
>
> Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM:
>
> > Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing
> > this kind of analysis.
> > Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot
> > understand these simple and obvious points.
>
> Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
> the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
> I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>
> Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
> You are a liar.
>
> *********************************************************
> Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM:
> About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about
> pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
> <http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/
> taylor_kingston_bio.html>:
> "He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a
> Class A OTB player."
> *********************************************************
>
> [I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how
> easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were
> interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK]
>
> Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM:
> Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.
>
> Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM:
> Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of
> July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on
> request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-
> addressed
> envelope."http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html
>
> Tom tinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM:
> The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the
> Top 50 Postal Players list:
> 45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806
>
> k Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM:
> Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile.
>
> *** end excerpts.
>
> I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite
> adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or
> that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was
> deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging
> his brain.
>
> It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
> for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
> accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
> them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
> in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
> rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

No. This whole thing comes up because you, Taylor Kingston, have a ten-
year history of attacking people and never contributing anything
positive to chess.

As an example there is a well known chess journalist who claims to be
a 2300 player but his actual rating is about 1850. (This is NOT Taylor
Kingston although it sounds like him).

However, we never mention it because he does not come here to attack
us. He just attacks us from his own website and does not come here, so
we say little or nothing about him here.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 18:40:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
God Sam! MIG is his name. He too radically improved from 1800 to 2300 just
by contacting Garry. He writes a trash column about chess players. I never
read it.

Phil Innes

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:608bbf18-c034-4fee-bece-f4e35ab1d671@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:52 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
>> > > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
>> > > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
>> > > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
>> > > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
>> > > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
>> > > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
>> > > 20 or 30 years ago."
>>
>> > I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
>> > The correct argument, which I have made, is that
>> > no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
>> > a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
>> > no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>>
>> Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my
>> statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and
>> times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out:
>>
>> ** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread:
>>
>> Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM:
>>
>> > Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing
>> > this kind of analysis.
>> > Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he
>> > cannot
>> > understand these simple and obvious points.
>>
>> Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
>> the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
>> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
>> I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."
>>
>> Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
>> You are a liar.
>>
>> *********************************************************
>> Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM:
>> About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about
>> pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
>> <http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/
>> taylor_kingston_bio.html>:
>> "He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a
>> Class A OTB player."
>> *********************************************************
>>
>> [I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how
>> easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were
>> interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK]
>>
>> Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM:
>> Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.
>>
>> Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM:
>> Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of
>> July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on
>> request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-
>> addressed
>> envelope."http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html
>>
>> Tom tinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM:
>> The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the
>> Top 50 Postal Players list:
>> 45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806
>>
>> k Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM:
>> Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile.
>>
>> *** end excerpts.
>>
>> I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite
>> adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or
>> that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was
>> deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging
>> his brain.
>>
>> It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
>> for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
>> accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
>> them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
>> in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
>> rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.
>
> No. This whole thing comes up because you, Taylor Kingston, have a ten-
> year history of attacking people and never contributing anything
> positive to chess.
>
> As an example there is a well known chess journalist who claims to be
> a 2300 player but his actual rating is about 1850. (This is NOT Taylor
> Kingston although it sounds like him).
>
> However, we never mention it because he does not come here to attack
> us. He just attacks us from his own website and does not come here, so
> we say little or nothing about him here.
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:46:31
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 8:33=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 31, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Taylor,
He won't even admit to losing! Contact Bill Hall or Jerry Nash. Here
is our pgn:

Here is the PGN


Mitchell <white >
vs
Sloan <black >


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Nc3 d5 6.f3 Bf5 7.fxe4 Nxe4
8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Bd3 h5 10.Bxe4 Qh4+ 11.Kf1 Qxe4 12.Qf3 Qxf3+ 13.Nxf3
Nc6
14.Bg5 Kf7 15.Ke2 Re8+ 16.Kd2 Re4 17.c3 Rg4 18.g3 Kg6 19.Bf4 Bd6
20.Ne5+ Nxe5 21.dxe5 Be7 22.h3 Rg5 23.Bxg5 Bxg5+ 24.Kd3 c5 25.Rhf1
Be7
26.Rae1 c4+ 27.Kc2 Kh6 28.Rf7 Re8 29.e6 b5 30.a3 a5 31.Rf5 Rd8
32.Ree5
g6 33.Rf7 1-0





 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:28:21
From: Chess Nuggets
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 1:09 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 5:55 pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> > > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> > > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> > > better than "weak."
>
> > Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
> > have been,
> > always will be. OK? All right now!
>
> Dude, you like need to get a grip; a "patzer"
> is someone rated lower than you or that you
> just beat; it isn't somebody rated 1800 USCF,
> 'cause they would probably just *demolish*
> someone as weak as you are! In fact, an
> 1800 beats 80% of patzers like you, and 95%
> of all players, including non-rated duffers.
>
> Okay, I just made those numbers up; but
> the thing is, TK said he was "a tad" better
> than weak, so he left his hind side covered
> with a Kevlar fanny-pack. Meanwhile back at
> the ranch, a poster known as nearly-IMnes
> made a bald-faced claim to royal titles and a
> 2450 rating that never even existed! Don't
> you feel dumb for missing that? Here, let me
> help you: click on this link and type in the
> name "Innes, Sir Phillip, Esquire"; find any
> titles? Or ratings?
>
> www.fide.corrupto.chess.org/ratings
>
> Nothing there, huh? Not to worry, here is
> another link:
>
> www.uscf.goichbergrules!.org/ratings
>
> Look for Sir Phillip of Brattleboro; he'll be
> near the very top of the rating list, just under
> Bobby Fischer (deceased). Sir Phil was
> given the nearly-an-IM title for defeating
> the famous master, Anon, in a long match.
> It turned out that Anon was actually Rob
> Mitchell, but that is a mere technicality.
>
> -- help not

Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
patzer.
EOF



 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:26:14
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Apr 1, 12:10=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > =A0 It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,=

> > for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
> > accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
> > them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
> > in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
> > rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.
>
> Taylor,
>
> All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
> up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. =A0I would sure like to
> see an actual chess style conflict as a result. =A0The build up has been
> great. =A0Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
> on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?

The relevance of your suggestion eludes me completely, Reverend. The
facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:34:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>The
>facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
>record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
>now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
>something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
>question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
>tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.

Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
Saddam settle things in the cage? We're talkin' bread and circus
here.


   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:03:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The
>> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
>> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
>> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
>> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
>> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
>> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
>
> Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
> Saddam settle things in the cage? We're talkin' bread and circus
> here.

That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them
eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it! :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 17 Apr 2008 14:50:14
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH!
hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!
spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny02.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for-
mail
From: "Chess One" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
References: <[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] > <KvlIg.
263$6E5.74@trndny05 >
<[email protected] > <PRnIg.
650$wI5.160@trndny04 >
<[email protected] > <mhIIg.
2104$aQ4.468@trndny06 >
<[email protected] > <3IZIg.
179$XK4.127@trndny07 >
<[email protected] > <9U0Jg.
2348$ag4.1077@trndny09 >
<[email protected] > <Ba2Jg.
929$Xw6.827@trndny02 >
<[email protected] >
Subject: Re: The Innes Pledge - Revised and Updated
Lines: 77
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-RFC2646: Format=3DFlowed; Original
Message-ID: <IwlJg.1832$Xw6.1329@trndny02 >
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:19:04 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.222.104.188
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny02 1156965544 64.222.104.188 (Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:19:04
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:19:04 EDT


"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ** this is so, evdiently you never had a girl friend from Andaluthia <g>

Andalus=EDa, with fields full of grain / I long to see you again and
again.

***
where is paradise,
my shadow, you that were there?
a silent question

cities without answers
rivers without speech, peaks
without echoes, nute seas

no one knows...

--------
ay ay ay ay!
Take this broken-waisted waltz

said Lorca.


In that case, I would suggest that you miscopied the penultimate
line, and that it should read "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?", which
would give it the meaning indicated by this translation. Your
rendering, "=BFQu=E9 misterios nos encerran?", has a word ("encerran")
that afaik does not exist in Spanish, and "nos" means "us" as opposed
to "los" meaning "them."

***
it is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the title,
and is
what language they took to themselves for themselves, not to thee, and
not
to thy understanding

> And I think this traditional song has what Lorca called, duende - though
> /la
> duende/ is little known, and has no English equivalent. All things good
> indeed, come to an end, while evil endures.

Hard to square that POV with the general trend of history, which
does
seem to indicate overall if intermittent progress toward improvement.

***
it is always difficult to admit the value of what is known to what is
unknown
as if we really had a preference, even knowing that the unknown is
unknowable
are our values changed?

Or are you explaining your continued presence here on rgcp?!

***
its a show about
my neighbor in a loneliness, a light,
walking the hour when every bed is a mouth,
alleys of dark trash, exhaustion
shaped into residences -- and what are the dogs
so sure of that they shout like citizens
driven from their minds in a stadium?

in his fist he holds a note
in his own handwriting,
the same message everyone carries
from place to place in the secret night,
the one that nobody asks you for
when you finally arrive, and the faces
turn to you playing the national anthem
and go blank, that's
what the show is about, that message.

Phil
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


    
Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:29:15
From:
Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual
On Apr 16, 11:09=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in
> > cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean"
> > gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here:
>
> > =A0http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk
>
> > and the group's reaction to it here:
>
> > =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr
>
> > =A0 I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics
> > to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from
> > 2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous
> > your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil
> > Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and
> > others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it
> > highly amusing, I am sure.
>
> Remind me to ask Taylor Parr who Neil Innes is. :-)

Oops, sorry Neil -- I meant Brennen, of course. We ran out of
straight coffee this morning, so I'm running on half-decaf. Also still
a bit jet-lagged after my week in California. Or maybe I was thinking
of Neil Innes, of Bonzo Dog Band/Monty Python and the Holy Grail/
Rutles fame.

> Seriously, we should have a website to preserve some of P Innes' most
> inane posts. We could open with the Nearly an IM 2450 nonsense, and
> then move onto.... well, we could vote on favorites.

To me the Andean gaffe has to be one of his best, especially since
it all evolved from Phil's stiff-necked refusal to admit that he had
made a tiny typo, "encerran" instead of "encierran." Instead of
admitting such a trivial error, that he misread or mistyped lyrics in
Spanish, a language he did not understand, Phil made the ludicrous
claim that the lyrics actually were not Spanish. Rather like hitting
his thumb with a hammer, and then explaining that his thumb is
actually not a thumb.


    
Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:09:48
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual
On Apr 16, 9:51 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in
> cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean"
> gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk
>
> and the group's reaction to it here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr
>
> I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics
> to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from
> 2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous
> your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil
> Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and
> others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it
> highly amusing, I am sure.

Remind me to ask Taylor Parr who Neil Innes is. :-)

Seriously, we should have a website to preserve some of P Innes' most
inane posts. We could open with the Nearly an IM 2450 nonsense, and
then move onto.... well, we could vote on favorites.


    
Date: 16 Apr 2008 07:51:50
From:
Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual

Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in
cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean"
gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here:

http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk

and the group's reaction to it here:

http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr

I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics
to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from
2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous
your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil
Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and
others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it
highly amusing, I am sure.

On Apr 16, 8:35=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 15, 10:07 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it?
>
> =A0 I know exactly what I'm arguing,
>
> **so state your point, and resist getting pissy! Let's see if you can do i=
t
> in what follows, since you may 'know' it, but you be unable to actually sa=
y
> it
>
> =A0Phil. But as usual, you try to
> shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your
> own self-inflicted wounds.
>
> ** so far, no point...
>
> > It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and
> > indeed
> > an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it.
>
> =A0 That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At
> issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not
> written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is
> 'not Spanish but Andean'
>
> **that is no quote! The /Spanish/ is Andean. And a native woman affirmed i=
t.
> You may not agree, but that is /your/ issue.
>
> ** you don't even understand what you are arguing with, you do not affirm =
if
> you admit these different Spanish creoles exist. your 'point' goes like
> this:
>
> =A0is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold
> Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan.
>
> ** as if I had said that, or it was some analogy - and on the basis of you=
r
> 'interpretation' you then argue some point with me =A0;)
>
> > Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up=

> > and
> > paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them!
>
> =A0 No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth.
>
> ** Really? I thought they were here to ensure no one spoke about chess and=

> to stir the shit? And so Taylor Kingston continues to not- notice froth
> makers, even if they utter disgusting reks based on his own apprehensio=
ns
> of some side issue from years ago. Not dissimilar to his fights with Evans=

> and Keene on chess.
>
> > So; if you have an issue, state it.
>
> =A0 Already have, several times, Phil.
>
> ** ROFL! Can't do it! Kingston wants to stir the shit based on his
> misunderstanding, so that at any time clowns who know no better can practi=
ce
> their abuse? That is what he has written here
>
> ** And you are a nasty son of a bitch Kingston! You have said so 'several
> times', but when asked what, you have nothing of substance to say - but ar=
e
> very ready to rubbish people.
>
> > If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative=
'
> > new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with
> > people
> > who know more than you do.
>
> > I don't want to play about with your strawmen
>
> =A0 No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your
> committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe.
>
> > - just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages
> > or Andean Spanish -
>
> =A0 Wow, talk about straw men.
>
> ** Look! you refuse to answer a straight question about what you think -
> caling that 'straw men'. =A0pfft!
>
> > That clear to you. Is that as clear as day?
>
> =A0 It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly
> painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It
> continually amazes me that you think this does you any good,
>
> ** maybe I don't want to appear pretty for all the other boys here,
> Kingston. You have just blathered yet again - avoided any substance while
> POSING that you are not only right, but have the right to rubbish others.
>
> =A0that you
> think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly
> recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of
> running jokes over and over again.
>
> > If not you are called again, so come on, out with it!
>
> ** Nothing of substance was revealed by Vaguer Kingston in this message,
> except his attitude, and how concerned he is to preserve it, at practially=

> anyone's expense. What's new with that?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only
> > about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten
> > it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro,
> > won't fly. Interested readers can consult this September 2006 thread:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr
>
> > which presents the facts accurately.
>
> > On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.=
..
> > > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> > > > tongues.
>
> > > "Navite"?
>
> > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kin=
d
> > > of
> > > stuff.
>
> > Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight.
>
> > > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
> > > about chess.
>
> > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who=

> > > > you think you are, Cortez?
>
> > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do y=
ou
> > > > get
> > > > it?
>
> > I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However,
> > that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics.
>
> > > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> > > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there wa=
s
> > > any
> > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> > Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
> > about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
> > was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."
>
> > > I rather thought you denied there was any
> > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> > I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil?
>
> > > I am sure your
> > > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to =
be
> > > a
> > > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happe=
nd
> > > to
> > > have a PhD in English!
>
> > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean
> > > Creole
> > > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an
> > > interesting
> > > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challengin=
g
> > > yet
> > > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any differen=
ce
> > > Taylor.
>
> > Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she
> > actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the
> > answer is "no" to both questions.
>
> > > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans o=
n
> > > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't
> > > prove
> > > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high=

> > > level
> > > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.
>
> > > It
> > > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
> > > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
>
> > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! An=
d
> > > I
> > > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off=

> > > on
> > > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for
> > > me,
> > > in
> > > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanis=
h,
> > > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ag=
o,
> > > and
> > > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now
> > > CHANGED
> > > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))
>
> > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your=

> > > words.
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > > ----------
>
> > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
> > > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
> > > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
> > > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
> > > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.
>
> > > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.
>
> > > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
> > > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
> > > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
> > > Puna") here:
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k
>
> > > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
> > > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
> > > comparison.
> > > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
> > > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?=

> > > The Pope? President Bush?
>
> > > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:[email protected]=
m...
>
> > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and=

> > > > >> > > Parr,
> > > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned.=

> > > > >> > > That
> > > > >> > > one
> > > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all
> > > > >> > > surprising,
> > > > >> > > when
> > > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> > > > >> > > Anderssen-
> > > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time,=

> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller=

> > > > >> > > was
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



    
Date: 15 Apr 2008 07:47:17
From:
Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual
On Apr 15, 10:07=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it?

I know exactly what I'm arguing, Phil. But as usual, you try to
shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your
own self-inflicted wounds.

> It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and indee=
d
> an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it.

That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At
issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not
written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is
'not Spanish but Andean' is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold
Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan.

> Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up a=
nd
> paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them!

No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth.

> So; if you have an issue, state it.

Already have, several times, Phil.

> If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative'
> new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with peop=
le
> who know more than you do.
>
> I don't want to play about with your strawmen

No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your
committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe.

> =A0 =A0 - just state whatever you think about the existence =A0of Andean l=
anguages
> or Andean Spanish -

Wow, talk about straw men.

> That clear to you. Is that as clear as day?

It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly
painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It
continually amazes me that you think this does you any good, that you
think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly
recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of
running jokes over and over again.

> If not you are called again, so come on, out with it!
>
> Phil Innes
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> =A0 Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only
> about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten
> it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro,
> won't fly. Interested readers can consult this September 2006 thread:
>
> =A0http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr
>
> which presents the facts accurately.
>
> On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...=

> > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> > > tongues.
>
> > "Navite"?
>
> > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind =
of
> > stuff.
>
> =A0 =A0Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight.
>
> > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
> > about chess.
>
> > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> > > you think you are, Cortez?
>
> > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you=

> > > get
> > > it?
>
> =A0 I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However,
> that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics.
>
> > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was
> > any
> > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> =A0 Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
> about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
> was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."
>
> > I rather thought you denied there was any
> > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> =A0 I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil?
>
> > =A0I am sure your
> > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be=
a
> > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend=

> > to
> > have a PhD in English!
>
> > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creo=
le
> > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an
> > interesting
> > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging
> > yet
> > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference=

> > Taylor.
>
> =A0 Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she
> actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the
> answer is "no" to both questions.
>
>
>
> > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on
> > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't
> > prove
> > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high
> > level
> > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.
>
> > It
> > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
> > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
>
> > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And =
I
> > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off o=
n
> > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me=
,
> > in
> > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,=

> > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago,=

> > and
> > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now
> > CHANGED
> > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))
>
> > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your
> > words.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > ----------
>
> > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
> > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
> > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
> > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
> > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.
>
> > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.
>
> > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
> > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
> > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
> > Puna") here:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k
>
> > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
> > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
> > comparison.
> > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
> > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
> > The Pope? President Bush?
>
> > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and
> > > >> > > Parr,
> > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned.
> > > >> > > That
> > > >> > > one
> > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprisin=
g,
> > > >> > > when
> > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> > > >> > > Anderssen-
> > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, a=
s
> > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller w=
as
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



     
Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:35:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 15, 10:07 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it?

I know exactly what I'm arguing,

**so state your point, and resist getting pissy! Let's see if you can do it
in what follows, since you may 'know' it, but you be unable to actually say
it


Phil. But as usual, you try to
shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your
own self-inflicted wounds.

** so far, no point...

> It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and
> indeed
> an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it.

That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At
issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not
written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is
'not Spanish but Andean'

**that is no quote! The /Spanish/ is Andean. And a native woman affirmed it.
You may not agree, but that is /your/ issue.

** you don't even understand what you are arguing with, you do not affirm if
you admit these different Spanish creoles exist. your 'point' goes like
this:

is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold
Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan.

** as if I had said that, or it was some analogy - and on the basis of your
'interpretation' you then argue some point with me ;)

> Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up
> and
> paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them!

No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth.

** Really? I thought they were here to ensure no one spoke about chess and
to stir the shit? And so Taylor Kingston continues to not- notice froth
makers, even if they utter disgusting reks based on his own apprehensions
of some side issue from years ago. Not dissimilar to his fights with Evans
and Keene on chess.

> So; if you have an issue, state it.

Already have, several times, Phil.

** ROFL! Can't do it! Kingston wants to stir the shit based on his
misunderstanding, so that at any time clowns who know no better can practice
their abuse? That is what he has written here

** And you are a nasty son of a bitch Kingston! You have said so 'several
times', but when asked what, you have nothing of substance to say - but are
very ready to rubbish people.

> If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative'
> new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with
> people
> who know more than you do.
>
> I don't want to play about with your strawmen

No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your
committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe.

> - just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages
> or Andean Spanish -

Wow, talk about straw men.

** Look! you refuse to answer a straight question about what you think -
caling that 'straw men'. pfft!


> That clear to you. Is that as clear as day?

It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly
painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It
continually amazes me that you think this does you any good,

** maybe I don't want to appear pretty for all the other boys here,
Kingston. You have just blathered yet again - avoided any substance while
POSING that you are not only right, but have the right to rubbish others.


that you
think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly
recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of
running jokes over and over again.

> If not you are called again, so come on, out with it!

** Nothing of substance was revealed by Vaguer Kingston in this message,
except his attitude, and how concerned he is to preserve it, at practially
anyone's expense. What's new with that?

Phil Innes



> Phil Innes
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only
> about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten
> it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro,
> won't fly. Interested readers can consult this September 2006 thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr
>
> which presents the facts accurately.
>
> On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> > > tongues.
>
> > "Navite"?
>
> > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind
> > of
> > stuff.
>
> Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight.
>
> > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
> > about chess.
>
> > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> > > you think you are, Cortez?
>
> > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you
> > > get
> > > it?
>
> I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However,
> that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics.
>
> > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was
> > any
> > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
> about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
> was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."
>
> > I rather thought you denied there was any
> > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil?
>
> > I am sure your
> > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be
> > a
> > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend
> > to
> > have a PhD in English!
>
> > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean
> > Creole
> > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an
> > interesting
> > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging
> > yet
> > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference
> > Taylor.
>
> Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she
> actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the
> answer is "no" to both questions.
>
>
>
> > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on
> > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't
> > prove
> > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high
> > level
> > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.
>
> > It
> > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
> > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
>
> > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And
> > I
> > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off
> > on
> > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for
> > me,
> > in
> > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,
> > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago,
> > and
> > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now
> > CHANGED
> > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))
>
> > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your
> > words.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > ----------
>
> > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
> > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
> > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
> > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
> > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.
>
> > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.
>
> > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
> > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
> > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
> > Puna") here:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k
>
> > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
> > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
> > comparison.
> > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
> > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
> > The Pope? President Bush?
>
> > > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and
> > > >> > > Parr,
> > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned.
> > > >> > > That
> > > >> > > one
> > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all
> > > >> > > surprising,
> > > >> > > when
> > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> > > >> > > Anderssen-
> > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time,
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller
> > > >> > > was
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




    
Date: 15 Apr 2008 06:46:03
From:
Subject: Phil plays a new Andean Gambit (was: What All the Evans Ratpackers

Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only
about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten
it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro,
won't fly. Interested readers can consult this September 2006 thread:

http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr

which presents the facts accurately.

On Apr 15, 8:14=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> > tongues.
>
> =A0 "Navite"?
>
> ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of=

> stuff.

Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight.

> I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
> about chess.
>
> > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> > you think you are, Cortez?
>
> > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you g=
et
> > it?

I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However,
that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics.

> =A0 The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was an=
y
> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.

Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."

> I rather thought you denied there was any
> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.

I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil?

> I am sure your
> opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a=

> Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend t=
o
> have a PhD in English!
>
> ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole=

> [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an interesti=
ng
> book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging ye=
t
> another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference
> Taylor.

Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she
actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the
answer is "no" to both questions.

> ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on
> chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't prov=
e
> anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high lev=
el
> GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.
>
> =A0It
> was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
> Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
>
> ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I
> think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on
> your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me, =
in
> order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,
> much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, a=
nd
> you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now CHANGE=
D
> your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))
>
> ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your
> words.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ----------
>
> As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
> English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
> Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
> a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
> dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.
>
> =A0 *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.
>
> =A0 Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
> Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
> to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
> Puna") here:
>
> =A0http://tinyurl.com/oj48k
>
> =A0 If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
> Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
> comparison.
> =A0 Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
> own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
> The Pope? President Bush?
>
>
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...=

>
> > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Par=
r,
> > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. Tha=
t
> > >> > > one
> > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,=

> > >> > > when
> > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> > >> > > Anderssen-
> > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was=

> > >> > > to
> > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > > Is that Andean?


     
Date: 15 Apr 2008 09:49:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Phil plays a new Andean Gambit (was: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed)
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

Taylor:
>>> � The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
>>> question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.

Phil:
>> ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was any
>> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.

Taylor:
> Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
>about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
>was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."

This never ceases to amaze me. Phil keeps making these gaffes and
boners, and then denies he committed 'em. He must know by now that
the first thing people will do is invoke Google and rub his nose in
his own words.

For him, the old New Yorker cartoon caption, "On the Internet, nobody
knows your a dog.", morphs into, "On the Internet, everybody knows
you're a fraud."


     
Date: 15 Apr 2008 10:07:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Kingston plays coy as usual
Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it?

It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and indeed
an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it.

Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up and
paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them!

So; if you have an issue, state it.

If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative'
new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with people
who know more than you do.

I don't want to play about with your strawmen

- just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages
or Andean Spanish -

That clear to you. Is that as clear as day?

If not you are called again, so come on, out with it!

Phil Innes

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only
about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten
it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro,
won't fly. Interested readers can consult this September 2006 thread:

http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr

which presents the facts accurately.

On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> > tongues.
>
> "Navite"?
>
> ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of
> stuff.

Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight.

> I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
> about chess.
>
> > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> > you think you are, Cortez?
>
> > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you
> > get
> > it?

I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However,
that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics.

> The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was
> any
> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.

Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."

> I rather thought you denied there was any
> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.

I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil?

> I am sure your
> opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a
> Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend
> to
> have a PhD in English!
>
> ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole
> [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an
> interesting
> book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging
> yet
> another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference
> Taylor.

Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she
actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the
answer is "no" to both questions.

> ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on
> chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't
> prove
> anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high
> level
> GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.
>
> It
> was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
> Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
>
> ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I
> think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on
> your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me,
> in
> order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,
> much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago,
> and
> you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now
> CHANGED
> your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))
>
> ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your
> words.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> ----------
>
> As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
> English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
> Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
> a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
> dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.
>
> *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.
>
> Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
> Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
> to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
> Puna") here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/oj48k
>
> If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
> Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
> comparison.
> Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
> own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
> The Pope? President Bush?
>
>
>
> > "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and
> > >> > > Parr,
> > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned.
> > >> > > That
> > >> > > one
> > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,
> > >> > > when
> > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> > >> > > Anderssen-
> > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > > Is that Andean?




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 23:05:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 10:14 am, [email protected] wrote:

> > > Peter Romanovsky was never World Correspondence Chess Champion.
>
> > Sorry. I got GM "Romanovsky" mixed up with
> > GM "Ragozin".

> Romanovsky was never a GM either. His two FIDE titles were IM (1950)
> and IA (international arbiter, 1951).


Boy, it takes hours of research just to please
the pedants around here. I could have written
"Mr. Romanovsky" and "Mr. Ragozin", but then
I could be attacked for not recognizing any
relevant titles. Not long ago, I messed up in
referring to nearly-IMnes as a Class A or B
player; then I went to the USCF Web site and
what-the-heck, he's listed as a real live Expert!
I am definitely slipping.


-- hep blot




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 17:45:19
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 7:49=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> tongues.

"Navite"?

> You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> you think you are, Cortez?
>
> Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get=

> it?

The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. It
was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.
As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.

*_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.

Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
Puna") here:

http://tinyurl.com/oj48k

If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
comparison.
Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
The Pope? President Bush?

> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and P=
arr,
> >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That
> >> > > one
> >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,
> >> > > when
> >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> >> > > Anderssen-
> >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was t=
o
> >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> >> =A0 Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



     
Date: 15 Apr 2008 08:14:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
> tongues.

"Navite"?

** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of
stuff. I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write
about chess.

> You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
> you think you are, Cortez?
>
> Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get
> it?

The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.

** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was any
difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. I am sure your
opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a
Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend to
have a PhD in English!

** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole
[if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an interesting
book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging yet
another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference
Taylor.

** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on
chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't prove
anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high level
GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything.

It
was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican,
Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian.

** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I
think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on
your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me, in
order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,
much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, and
you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now CHANGED
your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :))

** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your
words.

Phil Innes

----------

As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native
English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco,
Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming
a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional
dialect, when it was simply a typographical error.

*_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact.

Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand
Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening
to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la
Puna") here:

http://tinyurl.com/oj48k

If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on
Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for
comparison.
Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your
own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?
The Pope? President Bush?

> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That
> >> > > one
> >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,
> >> > > when
> >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
> >> > > Anderssen-
> >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was
> >> > > to
> >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 11:24:41
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 10:07=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 The question remains: *if* TK had bothered
> to look over the fake-brilliancy, could he or
> could he not have spotted the combination
> pxR? =A0 GM Soltis insisted he had carefully
> examined all his chosen games, but even so,
> it was just too deep for the "grandmaster"... .

In a phone conversation a few years ago, Soltis described himself to
me as a "technophobe." He did not have an e-mail address, so he may
not even have had a computer on which to run Fritz or some such
program to check the games for tactical inaccuracies. Still may not
today, for all I know.
Checking Duras-Teichmann with Fritz8, it instantly brands 43.Rf5 as
a mistake. Soltis wrote "Now [if] 43... gxf5 44. Nxf5+ Kh7 45. Nxh6
Kxh6 46.Qh4+ Kg7 47. Rf3 and wins," but Fritz immediately shows Black
saving himself by either 47...Nxe4 or 47...f6.
As I recall, at the time I reviewed the book I had Fritz4. Had I
played through the Duras-Teichmann game, I would have used it rather
than rely on my own analysis. While nowhere near as tactically fast or
adept as Fritz8, Fritz4 probably would have found the correct defense
for Black in short order. But Duras-Teichmann was merely #92 of the
100 games Soltis featured, and so I gave it little attention and did
not play through it.
I don't know of any reviewer who plays through *_every_* game of
every book he reviews, and when it's a collection of 100 or more, such
an expectation is quite unreasonable. One tries to play through a
representative sample. The author, on the other hand, is very much
under obligation to strive for accuracy on every move of every game.


    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 08:27:28
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 10:24=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Pa=
rr,
> > > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That o=
ne
> > > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, wh=
en
> > > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderss=
en-
> > > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to=

> > > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> > =A0 Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> Is that Andean?

It's post-Romantic anti-Baroque Schwarzwalder Kirschtort
Weltschmerzian, aka Bavarian Plattdeutsch.


    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:24:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>
> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!

Is that Andean?


     
Date: 14 Apr 2008 19:49:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite
tongues.You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who
you think you are, Cortez?

Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get
it?

Tell bot what to think next, cause he don't have no more ideas his own. Tell
him about 'Old English is Dead', and how to argue about it.

You 2 deserve each other, both can't play chess, and hate all who do. Of the
two, which of you is closer to the FSS is unclear, as Sam would say.

PI




"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 14, 9:16 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
>> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That
>> > > one
>> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,
>> > > when
>> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put
>> > > Anderssen-
>> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
>> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
>> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>>
>> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?
>>
>> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!
>
> Is that Andean?




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:16:48
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:13=A0am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 12:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?

Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen!


    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:14:19
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:13=A0am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 12:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 11:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?



    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:14:02
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:57=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:05 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > For the Immortal Game, it combines analysis by Dufresne,
> > > > Mieses, von Gottschall, Romanovsky, Neishtadt, Bachmann, Pachman,
> > > > Rojzman, and Steinitz, dating variously from 1879 to 1975.
>
> > > =A0 I believe Romanovsky was at one time the
> > > world champion in correspondence chess-- a
> > > tad better than weak, with an Elo rating of... .
>
> > =A0 Peter Romanovsky was never World Correspondence Chess Champion.
>
> =A0 Sorry. =A0I got GM "Romanovsky" mixed up with
> GM "Ragozin".
>
> =A0 -- help bot

Romanovsky was never a GM either. His two FIDE titles were IM (1950)
and IA (international arbiter, 1951).


    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:07:39
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:

> > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.
>
> Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?


It looks as though TK got a famous blindfold
player mixed up with two famous musicians;
Wolfgang von Bullwinkle was, of course, a
writer of ballads like "Battle of New Orleans".
The other one was a lesser composer of no
particular note (see nearly-IMnes' comments
for authoritative rankings of famous writers
since Sam Clemens).

The question remains: *if* TK had bothered
to look over the fake-brilliancy, could he or
could he not have spotted the combination
pxR? GM Soltis insisted he had carefully
examined all his chosen games, but even so,
it was just too deep for the "grandmaster"... .


-- help bot




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 06:57:15
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 9:05 am, [email protected] wrote:

> > > For the Immortal Game, it combines analysis by Dufresne,
> > > Mieses, von Gottschall, Romanovsky, Neishtadt, Bachmann, Pachman,
> > > Rojzman, and Steinitz, dating variously from 1879 to 1975.
>
> > I believe Romanovsky was at one time the
> > world champion in correspondence chess-- a
> > tad better than weak, with an Elo rating of... .
>
> Peter Romanovsky was never World Correspondence Chess Champion.


Sorry. I got GM "Romanovsky" mixed up with
GM "Ragozin".


-- help bot


    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 06:13:50
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 13, 12:46=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.

Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder?


     
Date: 15 Apr 2008 19:46:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Phil plays a new Andean Gambit (was: What All the Evans
On Apr 15, 11:49 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
> Taylor:
>
> >>> The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in
> >>> question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise.
>
> Phil:
>
> >> ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was any
> >> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish.
>
> Taylor:
>
> > Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking
> >about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric
> >was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..."
>
> This never ceases to amaze me. Phil keeps making these gaffes and
> boners, and then denies he committed 'em. He must know by now that
> the first thing people will do is invoke Google and rub his nose in
> his own words.

But Mike, as the "I'm not your boy!" incident shows, P Innes doesn't
recognize his own words.

> For him, the old New Yorker cartoon caption, "On the Internet, nobody
> knows your a dog.", morphs into, "On the Internet, everybody knows
> you're a fraud."



    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 06:05:46
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 14, 3:03=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > For the Immortal Game, it combines analysis by Dufresne,
> > Mieses, von Gottschall, Romanovsky, Neishtadt, Bachmann, Pachman,
> > Rojzman, and Steinitz, dating variously from 1879 to 1975.
>
> =A0 I believe Romanovsky was at one time the
> world champion in correspondence chess-- a
> tad better than weak, with an Elo rating of... .

Peter Romanovsky was never World Correspondence Chess Champion. Elo
estimates his 5-year peak in OTB play at 2480.

> Q: What does the world's foremost authority on
> chess, Rybka, think about the position? Or, we
> could ask the second-highest authority: the just-
> previous version of Rybka. =A0:>D

I can't speak for Rybka, but Fritz8 definitely endorses Steinitz's
analysis of 1879.



    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 00:03:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> > When I get back home I'll have a look at the H=FCbner analysis again.
> > I know that he strongly criticized a move many analysts, including
> > Keene, praised highly, the supposedly brilliant Bf4-d6 (don't have the
> > game handy so I can't give the move number).

> I must correct myself -- the Polish book does not have the H=FCbner
> analysis.


It would seem that Taylor Kingston *thinks* he
knows a lot of things which just aren't so. (That's
a whole lot scarier than the many things he does
not know, but where he has the good sense to
recognize his own ignorance.)


> For the Immortal Game, it combines analysis by Dufresne,
> Mieses, von Gottschall, Romanovsky, Neishtadt, Bachmann, Pachman,
> Rojzman, and Steinitz, dating variously from 1879 to 1975.


I believe Romanovsky was at one time the
world champion in correspondence chess-- a
tad better than weak, with an Elo rating of... .


> Unfortunately, it's all been translated into Polish, a language I
> can't read, and one Babelfish doesn't translate.


Let's just ask him. Nearly-IMnes, can you or
can you not translate Polish into English?



> It is clear, however, that the analytical consensus says both 18th
> moves were blunders. Both 18.Bf4-d6 and 18...Bc5xg1 get "??". Keene,
> in contrast, praises 18.Bd6 as "Closing the noose around the black
> king."


Consensus? A vote on the best move, in
which /popularity/ is the decider? How quaint.

Q: What does the world's foremost authority on
chess, Rybka, think about the position? Or, we
could ask the second-highest authority: the just-
previous version of Rybka. : >D


> Keene's move order then diverges from Lissowski and Macieja's. Keene
> gives 18...Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Bxg1 20.e5, whereas the Polish authors say
> 18...Bxg1 19.e5 Qxa1+ 20.Ke2. To my knowledge, the latter move order
> is correct. Accepting for the moment Keene's move order, for 19...Bxg1
> he merely comments tautologically "Black does not believe White's
> attack and captures the second rook," apparently oblivious to the fact
> that 19...Qa1-b2!! would have won for Black, nipping in the bud the
> Immortal Game's bid for immortality.


A lot of games from back then were unsound
garbage. Some writers excuse this by claiming
that at the time it was considered to be, what --
unsporting -- to defend rationally rather than both
sides going on their separate attacks at the
same time, willy-nilly.


> In mitigation, it should be noted that a far better player than
> Keene, world champion Emanuel Lasker, also praised 18.Bd6 in both his
> "Common Sense in Chess" and his "Manual of Chess." However, to argue
> against mitigation, it should also be noted that the unsoundness of
> 18.Bd6?? had been pointed out by Steinitz in "The Field" in 1879, i.e.
> about 15 years before Lasker wrote "Common Sense," 46 years before the
> "Manual," and 112 years before Keene's "Duels of the Mind."


A lot of writers "work from" other people's
analysis, overlooking a multitude of errors.

In one game of Jose Capablanca's, I noted
that of all the famous annotators -- including
GMs Alekhine and Capablanca, among many
others -- the one who came closest to being
right was Em. Lasker. So, was he simply
better, or did he perhaps have access to all
the other annotator's analysis when writing
his own? Who knows... .


> So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
> tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
> might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
> one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
> Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
> unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
> distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.


This falls right into Dr. IMnes' clever trap; now
he can -- for all eternity -- rant that TK did not
even bother to look at the games when writing
a book review of a games collection. So, what
did TK look at? The introductions, apparently,
as evinced by the fact that the intro. to the
game GM Soltis should *not* have included
was critiqued. Ah, but we are getting off-track
of the original issue-- just as planned by the
sinister ratpackers!

Look at all the time which has been spent
"defending" TK, instead of talking about Ray
Keene and his infamous writing. The ploy
worked, like a charm.


-- help bot




    
Date: 13 Apr 2008 09:46:46
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 11, 11:50=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:27=A0am, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > =A0 An amusing side note: Keene, annotating the Anderssen-Kieseritzky
> > > "Immortal Game" in his book "Duels of the Mind," commits a far greater=

> > > error than Soltis did with Duras-Teichmann. In fact that book,
> > > purporting to present the 12 greatest games of all time, is generally
> > > quite superficial compared to Soltis'.
>
> > TK,
>
> > Did you happen to see the reexamination of that Anderssen-Kieseritsky
> > game by Robert Huebner about 15-20 years ago? It was published in a
> > short-lived but high quality magazine edited by Patrick Wolff and Tim
> > Hanke, if I recall correctly. I forget the name of it --- something
> > like American Chess Quarterly.
>
> =A0 I have the H=FCbner analysis in a book titled (IIRC) "Zagadka
> Kieseritzky'ego," which is Polish for something like "The Riddle/
> Enigma/Strange Case of Kieseritzky." The book was kindly given to me
> by one of its co-authors, Tomasz Lissowski, but since it's in Polish I
> can't do much with it besides play through the games. H=FCbner devotes
> several pages to the "Immortal Game."
>
> > The maniacal thoroughness of Huebner's analysis has long been a kind
> > of standing joke among Informant readers. And this was no exception.
> > He found all sorts of interesting variations that hadn't been
> > mentioned by any of the hundreds of annotators who had come before
> > him.
>
> =A0 When I get back home I'll have a look at the H=FCbner analysis again.
> I know that he strongly criticized a move many analysts, including
> Keene, praised highly, the supposedly brilliant Bf4-d6 (don't have the
> game handy so I can't give the move number).

I must correct myself -- the Polish book does not have the H=FCbner
analysis. For the Immortal Game, it combines analysis by Dufresne,
Mieses, von Gottschall, Romanovsky, Neishtadt, Bachmann, Pachman,
Rojzman, and Steinitz, dating variously from 1879 to 1975.
Unfortunately, it's all been translated into Polish, a language I
can't read, and one Babelfish doesn't translate.
It is clear, however, that the analytical consensus says both 18th
moves were blunders. Both 18.Bf4-d6 and 18...Bc5xg1 get "??". Keene,
in contrast, praises 18.Bd6 as "Closing the noose around the black
king."
Keene's move order then diverges from Lissowski and Macieja's. Keene
gives 18...Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Bxg1 20.e5, whereas the Polish authors say
18...Bxg1 19.e5 Qxa1+ 20.Ke2. To my knowledge, the latter move order
is correct. Accepting for the moment Keene's move order, for 19...Bxg1
he merely comments tautologically "Black does not believe White's
attack and captures the second rook," apparently oblivious to the fact
that 19...Qa1-b2!! would have won for Black, nipping in the bud the
Immortal Game's bid for immortality.
In mitigation, it should be noted that a far better player than
Keene, world champion Emanuel Lasker, also praised 18.Bd6 in both his
"Common Sense in Chess" and his "Manual of Chess." However, to argue
against mitigation, it should also be noted that the unsoundness of
18.Bd6?? had been pointed out by Steinitz in "The Field" in 1879, i.e.
about 15 years before Lasker wrote "Common Sense," 46 years before the
"Manual," and 112 years before Keene's "Duels of the Mind."

So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr,
tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one
might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when
one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen-
Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as
unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to
distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle.


    
Date: 11 Apr 2008 16:53:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 11, 4:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Then as now, the priy target here in rgc
> > was Taylor Kingston, because he was reporting
> > criticisms made by Edward Winter-- a pedant
> > who seemed obsessed with Ray Keene, as the
> > king of hack writers on chess-- in Great Britain

> Now, there is an attempt at a complex sentence. What does any reader
> understand about it? Is it about Kingston, Keene or Winter?


None of the above; it was about the fine art of
deception-- killing the messenger so as to not
address the message. Didn't you get the rat-
pack memo?


> >. But instead of "killing the messenger"
> > (Taylor Kingston), all the rat pack was able to
> > accomplish was irritating the king of all hacks,
> > driving him away from rgc... .

> Fucking hell! I cried at this point.


That's odd. It was written as a comedy, not a
drama. I cried when Old Yeller had to be shot,
after saving everyone and his brother, time and
again.


> Did Kingston say he actually played through /any/ of the games in the book
> of best games, or did he not?


As far as I recall, he cleverly avoided discussing
just how few games he actually played over. As
I pointed out before, it is unnecessary to look for
poor games in order to try and appear ster
than the author; all it takes is... well, just read
the review and see exactly how it is done by a
pro!


> Evidently he did not play through the Duras
> game or notice its ending, but OK - 100 games is a lot.


Nonsense. We have no way of knowing if
TK played through any particular game, for
even "grandmaster" Soltis and a number of
other duffers had overlooked the pxR move.
Think about it-- can TK be expected to spot
a blunder missed repeatedly by weak
grandmasters? After all, TK's peak rating
was only 2300+... OOPS! I meant it was
only somewhere around 2262 USCF, after
conversion.


> But did he characterise the worth of the best? How?


You keep asking questions, like someone who
has never even seen the review you pretend to
critique. Why not just read the review yourself,
and tell us what *you* think about it.


> Since the job of a reviewer is to
> relate what is in the title to the public - so how should they decide to buy
> or not?


Only the best reviews can decide for you
whether a book is worth buying. Most of
the reviews I've seen are too biased, or too
shallow, or too focused on trying to make
the reviewer feel st to be of much use
there.


> It helps not to consult help bot, who is as vague in the above description
> of what happened as Kingston himself on the worth of the title.


Instead of rubbishing your superiors, you
ought to consider doing a bit of research
and then writing a sort of review of the
review. Better still, write a better review of
the book itself, to set an example for others
to follow; show how it is possible to review
the book, without the need to try and make
yourself feel or look superior. What I like is
/perspective/: pull way back and compare
this attempt by GM Soltis with others, then
tell us why we should throw away our hard-
earned money.

You don't need to be a genius; just try to
eliminate the /worst/ reviews and your Web
site could eventually become an archive of
good (maybe even great) chess book
reviews. What was it that other pretender
used to say? Oh yeah-- that his job was
"to drive traffic to the site"; of course, he
was only a nearly-a-2450 super-FM... .


-- help bot


    
Date: 11 Apr 2008 16:35:37
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103)
wrote (Sun, 6 Apr 2008 07:56:25 -0400):
7 ...
7 Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms
7 of the strength of chess they address - which was world
7 championship level. The proof of the pudding is in the
7 infamous best games review, when anyone of strength
7 actually looking at the games could see [Dumas].
7 ...
_
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.114.54.2)
wrote (Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:56:09 -0700 (PDT)):
7 What's this, a quotation from The Three Musketeers?
7
7 No, it is a reference to a review TK wrote of a games
7 collection by Soltis which included the faux brilliancy
7 Duras-Teichmann. Duras made a speculative exchange
7 sacrifice and Teichmann missed a fairly simple defensive
7 resource, which, however, numerous commentators on
7 the game had missed over the years. GM Soltis didn't
7 mention the refutation either --- if he had seen it he had
7 forgotten it.
7
7 Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his
7 reviewer's duties for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very
7 weak accusation, since TK had not undertaken to
7 analyze this game at all, and the saving resource was
7 a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There
7 was a long brouhaha about this which interested
7 readers may check out by Googling "Duras Teichmann
7 KIngston" or some such.
7
7 A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats,
7 forgetting that some of us have attention spans longer
7 than a canary's. For one thing, if failure to notice
7 Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess weakness,
7 that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who
7 wrote the book.
_
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.181.251.176)
wrote (Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:44:43 -0700 (PDT))
7 This particular canard actually originated with GM
7 Raymond Keene. Apparently attempting to deflect
7 attention from the shortcomings of some of his own
7 work, Keene claimed that I had "featured" the Duras-
7 Teichmann game in my review. Innes and Parr have
7 been repeating and embellishing this utterly
7 misleading claim ever since. Readers interested in
7 the facts can read the actual review here:
7
7 http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf
7
7 and decide for themselves to what extent that
7 game is "featured."
_
_
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103)
wrote (Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:12:47 -0400):
_
7 ...
7 O Larry, I wanted our Neil to correct my troll-bait
7 [(Dumas)]! ;(
7 ...
7 ... on inquiry in these newsgroups I was unable to
7 determine what /was/ actually reviewed about the
7 games themselves in order for TK to render any
7 opinion whatever on why Soltis collected them for
7 his book.
7
7 I mean, if in any best game collection, if a
7 reviewer does not appreciate the games
7 themselves, then, uh... what actually /is/
7 reviewed?
7
7 The typo rate per page? The pretty cover?
7
7 Some people think mention of the quality of the
7 games is 'shamefully silly', and indeed
7 argumentative, which is an opinion, sure, but
7 not that of actual chess players who ...
7 ...
_
_
I see no identification of any place where anyone
advocated such an opinion. Many many times
(as in the [email protected] quote above) a
link has been provided that would enable anyone
to see for themselves the extent to which game
quality is discussed in the review.
_
_
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103)
wrote (Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:40:00 -0400):
_
7 ...
7 I rather think [Keene] questioned if Taylor Kingston
7 had played through the games he 'reviewed', or
7 concentrated on the color of socks of a players wife?
7 ...
_
_
About two years ago, we saw:
_
"ray keene has returned the compliment by
examining the works of taylor kingston as
book reviewer ...
--------------
... the reviewer starts to focus on particular
games. what i found simply confirms my view
that many of these so called reviewers are
simply too weak as chessplayers to do a
proper job.and the people who employ them
dont recognise this fact-because they lack
chess strength as well.
_
one of the games from the soltis book taylor
kingston focussed on was duras v teichmann
ostend 1906. in his notes to this game soltis
commits a dreadful howler ... what does the
reviewer say about this? nothing!
_
... of course, its not fair to expect a reviewer
to find all the analytical mistakes in a book,
but when that reviewer decides to concentrate
on a particular game, picks it out by name and
then a) fails to understand that one side has an
overwhelming positional plus and b) could have
utterly refuted the opponents desperation attack
by taking a rook, then something is wrong
somewhere! perhaps the reviewer just wasnt up
to the job.
_
ray keene"
- [email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host:
64.222.125.192) (Sat, 22 Apr 2006 11:50:08 GMT)
_
This supposed focus and concentration was no more
than a brief reference to the failure of the introduction to
provide such information as the round in which the game
was played and the relative positions of the contestants.
_
"... there is ... a literary and historical problem:
a lack of context and setting for many of these
games. ... Occasionally, ... [Soltis] provides
good scene-setting, but in other cases, we
must content ourselves with the thumbnail
biographies.
_
... It's interesting that Oldrich Duras gave up
chess in 1914 after rying a wealthy
woman, but this has no relevance to his win
over Teichmann at Ostende 1906. I am
surprised and amused that Veselin Topalov
once tried bullfighting, but ...
In short, too often we don't learn ... THE
STORY OF THE PARTICULAR GAME.
_
A contrasting approach is found in Ludek
Pachman's Decisive Games in Chess
History (1975). ...
...
... Pachman sets the stage, puts us on the
scene. ..." - Taylor Kingston


    
Date: 11 Apr 2008 08:50:40
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 11, 5:27=A0am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 An amusing side note: Keene, annotating the Anderssen-Kieseritzky
> > "Immortal Game" in his book "Duels of the Mind," commits a far greater
> > error than Soltis did with Duras-Teichmann. In fact that book,
> > purporting to present the 12 greatest games of all time, is generally
> > quite superficial compared to Soltis'.
>
> TK,
>
> Did you happen to see the reexamination of that Anderssen-Kieseritsky
> game by Robert Huebner about 15-20 years ago? It was published in a
> short-lived but high quality magazine edited by Patrick Wolff and Tim
> Hanke, if I recall correctly. I forget the name of it --- something
> like American Chess Quarterly.

I have the H=FCbner analysis in a book titled (IIRC) "Zagadka
Kieseritzky'ego," which is Polish for something like "The Riddle/
Enigma/Strange Case of Kieseritzky." The book was kindly given to me
by one of its co-authors, Tomasz Lissowski, but since it's in Polish I
can't do much with it besides play through the games. H=FCbner devotes
several pages to the "Immortal Game."

> The maniacal thoroughness of Huebner's analysis has long been a kind
> of standing joke among Informant readers. And this was no exception.
> He found all sorts of interesting variations that hadn't been
> mentioned by any of the hundreds of annotators who had come before
> him.

When I get back home I'll have a look at the H=FCbner analysis again.
I know that he strongly criticized a move many analysts, including
Keene, praised highly, the supposedly brilliant Bf4-d6 (don't have the
game handy so I can't give the move number).


    
Date: 11 Apr 2008 05:27:07
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 10, 8:44=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:

> =A0 An amusing side note: Keene, annotating the Anderssen-Kieseritzky
> "Immortal Game" in his book "Duels of the Mind," commits a far greater
> error than Soltis did with Duras-Teichmann. In fact that book,
> purporting to present the 12 greatest games of all time, is generally
> quite superficial compared to Soltis'.
>

TK,

Did you happen to see the reexamination of that Anderssen-Kieseritsky
game by Robert Huebner about 15-20 years ago? It was published in a
short-lived but high quality magazine edited by Patrick Wolff and Tim
Hanke, if I recall correctly. I forget the name of it --- something
like American Chess Quarterly.

The maniacal thoroughness of Huebner's analysis has long been a kind
of standing joke among Informant readers. And this was no exception.
He found all sorts of interesting variations that hadn't been
mentioned by any of the hundreds of annotators who had come before
him.

LT


    
Date: 10 Apr 2008 22:43:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> This particular canard actually originated with GM Raymond Keene.
> Apparently attempting to deflect attention from the shortcomings of
> some of his own work, Keene claimed that I had "featured" the Duras-
> Teichmann game in my review. Innes and Parr have been repeating and
> embellishing this utterly misleading claim ever since. Readers
> interested in the facts can read the actual review here:


I had forgotten about that.

The ploy was that Ray Keene -- a man who claimed
to be the "world's foremost authority" on chess and
mind sports -- came here, to rgc, to address some
criticisms of his work. Well, surprise, surprise, he
in fact immediately took to making like any of the
Evans ratpackers, laying on with ad hominem in a
failed effort to smear the critics. Instead of showing
how pedants like Edward Winter were misguided or
just plain wrong, Mr. Keene merely showed us that
in addition to his failings as a writer, he also had
serious issues with constructive criticism from
other folks, who were not obsessed with him.

The truth is that a zebra cannot change his
stripes; if a hack writer has no other way out than
to smear his critics, he will invariably smear them
rather than stop his hack writing, or (gasp!) admit
that he makes lots of errors with spellings and
dates. But by the same token, pedants cannot
help bot continue their obsession with pointing
out each and every such error they can find. It's
a vicious circle; a sort of perpetual-motion engine
fueled by hack writing and pedantry.

Then as now, the priy target here in rgc
was Taylor Kingston, because he was reporting
criticisms made by Edward Winter-- a pedant
who seemed obsessed with Ray Keene, as the
king of hack writers on chess-- in Great Britain
anyway. But instead of "killing the messenger"
(Taylor Kingston), all the rat pack was able to
accomplish was irritating the king of all hacks,
driving him away from rgc... .


-- help bot






     
Date: 11 Apr 2008 16:40:00
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
Good Heavens - look at this vague stuff!

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0d59c1da-4ac5-4f1f-ab35-c5b0d0938819@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> This particular canard actually originated with GM Raymond Keene.
>> Apparently attempting to deflect attention from the shortcomings of
>> some of his own work, Keene claimed that I had "featured" the Duras-
>> Teichmann game in my review. Innes and Parr have been repeating and
>> embellishing this utterly misleading claim ever since. Readers
>> interested in the facts can read the actual review here:

I rather think he questioned if Taylor Kingston had played through the games
he 'reviewed', or concentrated on the color of socks of a players wife?

> I had forgotten about that.
>
> The ploy was that Ray Keene -- a man who claimed
> to be the "world's foremost authority" on chess and
> mind sports -- came here, to rgc, to address some
> criticisms of his work. Well, surprise, surprise, he
> in fact immediately took to making like any of the
> Evans ratpackers, laying on with ad hominem in a
> failed effort to smear the critics.

Come on, speak to some point of all! Spit it out.

> Instead of showing
> how pedants like Edward Winter were misguided or
> just plain wrong, Mr. Keene merely showed us that
> in addition to his failings as a writer, he also had
> serious issues with constructive criticism from
> other folks, who were not obsessed with him.

So far, so vague.

> The truth is that a zebra cannot change his
> stripes;

Zebras recruited to aid the writer. [Zebras? aren't they the fem 'cross your
heart' things? Z-bras?]

> if a hack writer has no other way out than
> to smear his critics, he will invariably smear them
> rather than stop his hack writing, or (gasp!) admit
> that he makes lots of errors with spellings and
> dates. But by the same token, pedants cannot
> help bot continue their obsession with pointing
> out each and every such error they can find. It's
> a vicious circle; a sort of perpetual-motion engine
> fueled by hack writing and pedantry.

Perhaps the final paragraph will address content?

> Then as now, the priy target here in rgc
> was Taylor Kingston, because he was reporting
> criticisms made by Edward Winter-- a pedant
> who seemed obsessed with Ray Keene, as the
> king of hack writers on chess-- in Great Britain

Now, there is an attempt at a complex sentence. What does any reader
understand about it? Is it about Kingston, Keene or Winter?

> anyway

Right. Anyway...

>. But instead of "killing the messenger"
> (Taylor Kingston), all the rat pack was able to
> accomplish was irritating the king of all hacks,
> driving him away from rgc... .

Fucking hell! I cried at this point.

Did Kingston say he actually played through /any/ of the games in the book
of best games, or did he not? Evidently he did not play through the Duras
game or notice its ending, but OK - 100 games is a lot. But did he
characterise the worth of the best? How? Since the job of a reviewer is to
relate what is in the title to the public - so how should they decide to buy
or not?

It helps not to consult help bot, who is as vague in the above description
of what happened as Kingston himself on the worth of the title.

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>




    
Date: 10 Apr 2008 21:49:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

WHY HE WON'T SIGN HIS NAME

>Why Greg Kennedy can't use his name.> -- John Walker

To the Rev. Walker,

Greg Kennedy does not use his own name because
he reappeared here as "no more chess" and "help bot"
after having departed our precincts in evident distress
several years ago.

After Greg posted about a half dozen new messages,
it was obvious that he was "baaaack," to quote an old
campaign letter of Jerry Hanken. He does not employ
his real name because his ego cannot abide that after
a major attempt to assume a new persona, he was
immediately twigged. You had his uneven attempts at
humor, evident ignorance of basic history and, above
all else, rambling blather and envy of Larry Evans,
Ray Keene, Garry Kasparov, and other grandmasters.
.
So what?

Enter ego. Greg vanished after a lot of
public bleeding on this forum. During his first
incarnation, he bitterly complained about his
employment circumstances in some Indiana factory, and
he got himself enmired over computer spellcheckers.

Spellcheckers?

All's fair in love and debate, and one of our
forensic conceits was to hang Greg out to dry
intellectually every time he mistook a fact of history
or misspelled a word. That's when he began to whine
about being deprived of opportunities in life because
he had to subsist in Indiana. Otherwise, to
paraphrase lon Brando in On the Waterfront, he
coulda been a contendah as a grandmaster. Bobby
Fischer had nuthin' that Greg Kennedy did not have
except the dumb luck to grow up in Brooklyn rather
than among wheat fields.

Or so Greg preposterously claimed.

And as for spelling, Greg kept telling us for
months he would soon discover a spellchecker that
would deprive this writer of a bogus disputational
device. Then Greg, like Montgomery Clift, would find
his place in the sun.

Greg retired from from this forum and did some reading.
He returned with a new name and palsied gesticulatons at
an phony style of amused detachment. But he lacked
intellectual weaponry. After about six postings, we all
guessed his identity.


Adapting James Joyce in Ulysses, GM Evans smiled
smiled with "agenbite of nitwit" to describe a Kennedy
posting. When caught in a lie, Greg simply ignores it
and produces more lies.
i
Greg has contacted me privately in the past,
and I continue to offer him the fruits of my
intellectual pursuits in the form of a directed
reading course. That's key -- knowing what to read.
My job thereafter would be to suggest what questions
he ought to ask himself about the texts. On his own
Greg would never guess the importance of, say, fin de
siecle Vienna for the history of the 20th century. He
has never heard the name of Carl Schorske and could
not imagine that he is one of the departure points for
any intellectual journey through the 20th century.

"From Rupert Brooke to dada in two years" --
Greg cannot begin to fathom the phrase. Even
Wiki won't help much. So we tell him, "Ponder Verdun."

Greg is too bitter about his person to explore.
Without quite realizing it, he is making the same
mistake today that he made in the 1960s,when he
spent his time reading underground comics rather
than Greats. He has one final chance to grasp at
intellectual improvement, and he is rejecting it.

Greg Kennedy cannot address us as Greg Kennedy
because his ego cannot oblige conceding that we
guessed his new identity almost immediately after he
reappeared here. He could not long hide a propensity
for discursive blather and brummagem alloyed with
stunning historical ignorance and telling malapropisms.

Although Greg is the type that will bite helping
minds, I still stand prepared within the confines of
time constraints to enlarge, embellish and burnish
his intellectual carriage.

Yours, Larry Parr



help bot wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Here we go again! Larry Tapper just defended Taylor Kingston's review of
> > >> the Soltis title, also excusing him from appreciating the chess.
> >
> > > Then perhaps we can add him to the long list of
> > > Taylor Kingston's apologists, which includes
> > > among others, Larry Parr-- who insisted that TK
> > > was in no way obligated to examine every game
> > > in writing a book review. Low standards-- that is
> > > what seems to be the trouble here.
> >
> > Every game? - I was hoping for any game - or sufficient games to
> > characterise the collection.
>
>
> Maybe a new, higher standard of excellence is
> needed? One where every book review has met
> certain predetermined hurdles. As for me, I see
> TK's reviews as middle-of-the-road-ish; the worst
> are those where a reviewer flat-out lies, and next
> come the ones where they pretend to have read
> the book they are supposed to be reviewing.
>
>
> > >> Since Taylor Kingston can also not address the issue of playing
> > >> conditions,
> > >> or atmosphere during the cold war, I wonder what is left to actually
> > >> agree with?
>
>
> It's not *always* about the Cold War! Get
> over it... move on with your life... Elvis died,
> BTW.
>
>
> > > The format is as follows: the reviewer gives some
> > > general information to convince the reader that he
> > > has in fact looked at the book being reviewed; next,
> > > he finds two or three minute errors therein, to try
> > > and convince the readers that he is ster than
> > > the book's author. Finally, the reviewer attempts
> > > to make it appear as though he is not only st,
> > > but thorough and objective. That's it, in a nut shell.
>
> > You should write with Adorjan - he has a collection of 'reviews' including
> > names of 'big' reviewers, who did not read past the blurb on the back cover,
> > or, possibly went as far as the introduction. You read one after the other -
> > some reviewers only read other reviews!
>
>
> I know; I've seen such reviews. But you need
> to focus in more on TK-- your ad hom. target.
>
>
> > But Taylor Kingston is /not/ like this. In fact his standard of writing
> > chess book reviews is superior to most others.
>
>
> That's what LP wrote; then he said a reviewer
> is *not* expected to examine every game in a
> games collection; next, LP invented an obvious
> ploy by which to attack TK anyway. (You guys
> need to try harder-- your ad hom. stuff is *way*
> too transparent.)
>
>
> > But when the title is about best games, then we /do/ need to hear about the
> > games - ie, why are they best?
>
>
> Because GM Soltis said so! He is a grand-
> master, you know, so he knows everything;
> don't even think of questioning your vast
> superiors, fella; you'll be tossed out of the
> Evans ratpack faster than you can say "ad
> hominem"!
>
>
> > >> Anything different than Taimanov saw?
> >
> > > Dunno. What did GM Taimanov imagine he saw?
> >
> > The KGB. And just to prove it, he now has his own KGB files.
>
>
> Okay, once I finish up with Smallville, I may
> buy it on DVD. It better be good; can the guy
> save the day every time? Even when he is
> fully exposed? ...to kryptonite, I mean.
>
>
> > Look, Larry Evans may or may not be correct; but he is not incorrect because
> > he makes singualr analysis of the games, and he is not incorrect because
> > another strong player, Nunn, has another opinion.
>
>
> Exactly! He was not correct or incorrect at
> all; he was loony-- nobody except Gary K.
> can go around saying that they, and they
> alone, are st enough and strong enough
> to see stuff that nobody else can see; that's
> 'cause he's ster than two short planks,
> see? And like, real good at chess, see?
>
>
> > But Taylor Kingston put himself in an impossible place in terms of
> > contradicting Evans, since he has neither as much chessic skill nor as much
> > first-hand knowledge of Soviet chess to either prove or disprove Evans.
>
>
> Wrong turn. You got lost somewhere between
> "elementary logic" and "total space cadet". Hey,
> if LE had written an opinion piece in which he
> merely speculated, the critics would have gone
> easy on him.
>
>
> > By his first supporting Evans, then arguing vicariously via Nunn, he adds
> > nothing to either context or chessic appreciation.
>
>
> Critics aren't particularly creative folks;
> their main job is just to point to the big
> holes-- kind of like a red safety cone.
>
>
> > I'm afraid this is become trite. See the Taimanov anecdote above, and as to
> > computer analysis, it can be horribly off - which is the subject of the MAMS
> > material. You cannot even understand your program, nevermind being able to
> > state it is superior to anything.
>
>
> It's chess *analysis* is what is superior. (The
> program itself stinks; for instance, there is no
> user interface, it shoots through plys so fast, I
> can't see what the second-best lines were, etc.)
>
> You guys need to come up a few hundred
> rating points and at least fifty IQ points or so;
> then you can maybe start thinking about
> "seeing" stuff nobody else is st enough
> to spot. Good luck with that. LOL!
>
>
> -- help bot


    
Date: 10 Apr 2008 20:20:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 10, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >> Here we go again! Larry Tapper just defended Taylor Kingston's review of
> >> the Soltis title, also excusing him from appreciating the chess.
>
> > Then perhaps we can add him to the long list of
> > Taylor Kingston's apologists, which includes
> > among others, Larry Parr-- who insisted that TK
> > was in no way obligated to examine every game
> > in writing a book review. Low standards-- that is
> > what seems to be the trouble here.
>
> Every game? - I was hoping for any game - or sufficient games to
> characterise the collection.


Maybe a new, higher standard of excellence is
needed? One where every book review has met
certain predetermined hurdles. As for me, I see
TK's reviews as middle-of-the-road-ish; the worst
are those where a reviewer flat-out lies, and next
come the ones where they pretend to have read
the book they are supposed to be reviewing.


> >> Since Taylor Kingston can also not address the issue of playing
> >> conditions,
> >> or atmosphere during the cold war, I wonder what is left to actually
> >> agree with?


It's not *always* about the Cold War! Get
over it... move on with your life... Elvis died,
BTW.


> > The format is as follows: the reviewer gives some
> > general information to convince the reader that he
> > has in fact looked at the book being reviewed; next,
> > he finds two or three minute errors therein, to try
> > and convince the readers that he is ster than
> > the book's author. Finally, the reviewer attempts
> > to make it appear as though he is not only st,
> > but thorough and objective. That's it, in a nut shell.

> You should write with Adorjan - he has a collection of 'reviews' including
> names of 'big' reviewers, who did not read past the blurb on the back cover,
> or, possibly went as far as the introduction. You read one after the other -
> some reviewers only read other reviews!


I know; I've seen such reviews. But you need
to focus in more on TK-- your ad hom. target.


> But Taylor Kingston is /not/ like this. In fact his standard of writing
> chess book reviews is superior to most others.


That's what LP wrote; then he said a reviewer
is *not* expected to examine every game in a
games collection; next, LP invented an obvious
ploy by which to attack TK anyway. (You guys
need to try harder-- your ad hom. stuff is *way*
too transparent.)


> But when the title is about best games, then we /do/ need to hear about the
> games - ie, why are they best?


Because GM Soltis said so! He is a grand-
master, you know, so he knows everything;
don't even think of questioning your vast
superiors, fella; you'll be tossed out of the
Evans ratpack faster than you can say "ad
hominem"!


> >> Anything different than Taimanov saw?
>
> > Dunno. What did GM Taimanov imagine he saw?
>
> The KGB. And just to prove it, he now has his own KGB files.


Okay, once I finish up with Smallville, I may
buy it on DVD. It better be good; can the guy
save the day every time? Even when he is
fully exposed? ...to kryptonite, I mean.


> Look, Larry Evans may or may not be correct; but he is not incorrect because
> he makes singualr analysis of the games, and he is not incorrect because
> another strong player, Nunn, has another opinion.


Exactly! He was not correct or incorrect at
all; he was loony-- nobody except Gary K.
can go around saying that they, and they
alone, are st enough and strong enough
to see stuff that nobody else can see; that's
'cause he's ster than two short planks,
see? And like, real good at chess, see?


> But Taylor Kingston put himself in an impossible place in terms of
> contradicting Evans, since he has neither as much chessic skill nor as much
> first-hand knowledge of Soviet chess to either prove or disprove Evans.


Wrong turn. You got lost somewhere between
"elementary logic" and "total space cadet". Hey,
if LE had written an opinion piece in which he
merely speculated, the critics would have gone
easy on him.


> By his first supporting Evans, then arguing vicariously via Nunn, he adds
> nothing to either context or chessic appreciation.


Critics aren't particularly creative folks;
their main job is just to point to the big
holes-- kind of like a red safety cone.


> I'm afraid this is become trite. See the Taimanov anecdote above, and as to
> computer analysis, it can be horribly off - which is the subject of the MAMS
> material. You cannot even understand your program, nevermind being able to
> state it is superior to anything.


It's chess *analysis* is what is superior. (The
program itself stinks; for instance, there is no
user interface, it shoots through plys so fast, I
can't see what the second-best lines were, etc.)

You guys need to come up a few hundred
rating points and at least fifty IQ points or so;
then you can maybe start thinking about
"seeing" stuff nobody else is st enough
to spot. Good luck with that. LOL!


-- help bot




    
Date: 10 Apr 2008 17:44:43
From:
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 8, 9:56=A0am, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 6, 7:56=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the st=
rength
> > of chess they address - which was world championship level. The proof of=
the
> > pudding is in the infamous best games review, when anyone of strength
> > actually looking at the games could see [Dumas].
>
> What's this, a quotation from The Three Musketeers?
>
> No, it is a reference to a review TK wrote of a games collection by
> Soltis which included the faux brilliancy Duras-Teichmann. Duras made
> a speculative exchange sacrifice and Teichmann missed a fairly simple
> defensive resource, which, however, numerous commentators on the game
> had missed over the years. GM Soltis didn't mention the refutation
> either --- if he had seen it he had forgotten it.
>
> Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his reviewer's duties
> for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very weak accusation, since TK had
> not undertaken to analyze this game at all, and the saving resource
> was a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There was a long
> brouhaha about this which interested readers may check out by Googling
> "Duras Teichmann KIngston" or some such.
>
> A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats, forgetting that
> some of us have attention spans longer than a canary's. For one thing,
> if failure to notice Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess
> weakness, that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who wrote
> the book.
>
> LT

This particular canard actually originated with GM Raymond Keene.
Apparently attempting to deflect attention from the shortcomings of
some of his own work, Keene claimed that I had "featured" the Duras-
Teichmann game in my review. Innes and Parr have been repeating and
embellishing this utterly misleading claim ever since. Readers
interested in the facts can read the actual review here:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review246.pdf

and decide for themselves to what extent that game is "featured."
I have wondered for some time: if Phil Innes is so concerned about
the accuracy of the annotations and scoring in Soltis' "The 100 Best
Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked," where is the review in which
he examines all 100 games and 265 pages in exhaustive detail? It seems
a tad unfair to accuse me of lack of thoroughness when he has
demonstrated no thoroughness himself.
In fact, while I don't wish to seem immodest, my review of Soltis'
"100" is far more thorough than any other I've seen. Interested
readers may feel free to post links to other reviews of that book, for
purposes of comparison.

An amusing side note: Keene, annotating the Anderssen-Kieseritzky
"Immortal Game" in his book "Duels of the Mind," commits a far greater
error than Soltis did with Duras-Teichmann. In fact that book,
purporting to present the 12 greatest games of all time, is generally
quite superficial compared to Soltis'.

I've been having a great time out here in sunny California, seeing
old friends, touring the Sonoma County wine country, San Francisco,
Pacific Grove, Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, etc., enjoying wonderful
food and wine. I may hike on Point Reyes tomorrow. Meanwhile, it's
nice to see that the rgc's regular ratpackers are still stuck in their
usual ruts.



    
Date: 09 Apr 2008 14:05:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 9, 8:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > He's at it again. Phillip "nearly-an-IM 2450" Innes
> > wants to play a game in which the chess-analysis
> > skills of Tyler Kingstone are pitted against GM
> > Larry Evans; ten rounds, must win by knockout.

> Here we go again! Larry Tapper just defended Taylor Kingston's review of the
> Soltis title, also excusing him from appreciating the chess.


Then perhaps we can add him to the long list of
Taylor Kingston's apologists, which includes
among others, Larry Parr-- who insisted that TK
was in no way obligated to examine every game
in writing a book review. Low standards-- that is
what seems to be the trouble here.


> Since Taylor Kingston can also not address the issue of playing conditions,
> or atmosphere during the cold war, I wonder what is left to actually agree
> with?


The format is as follows: the reviewer gives some
general information to convince the reader that he
has in fact looked at the book being reviewed; next,
he finds two or three minute errors therein, to try
and convince the readers that he is ster than
the book's author. Finally, the reviewer attempts
to make it appear as though he is not only st,
but thorough and objective. That's it, in a nut shell.


> > But in fact TK rejected the "reasoning" of Larry
> > Evans, not his chess analysis.

> Ok, not the chess, and not the background context, but "reasoning" about
> something else?


Reasoning in general. The whole idea of "I think
this move stinks, so =therefore= GM XYZ could
not have played it except deliberately, to throw
the game". (This idea is what really stinks.)


> > And the idiocy of
> > thinking that LE, and he alone, was st enough
> > and strong enough to "see" what he thought he
> > saw,

> Who is offering this opinion?


LE. Nobody else ever imagined that *only LE* was
st enough and strong enough-- probably because
so many other players were ster or stronger, or
both. LOL!


> Kingston?


No. Help bot. Mr. Kingston is in California,
riding the waves off Malibu. This time of year,
the great whites come up to chow down on
seals. Hey!


> Where are any complete sentences is
> this exercise in name-calling?


Not name-calling; it was a very generalized
smear, targeting just about every grandmaster,
except the few who were dumber or weaker
than say, 2400 USCF.


> To wit, what did Larry Evans say he saw?


He said he saw how st and clever he was.
What's worse, his cronies nodded their heads,
going right along! It reminds me of the folks
who surrounded Bobby Fischer, pretending to
be his "friends".


> Anything different than Taimanov saw?


Dunno. What did GM Taimanov imagine he saw?


> Since they certainly agree on the
> context - so is it chess analysis after all?


I think you might be referring to something
else; let's say, to Soviet cheating in general
or perhaps to control of all things by the big
whigs at Commie Central.


> > was rejected by GM John Nunn, who we
> > know was a stronger player at the time of this
> > disagreement.
>
> So it is chess analysis! :))


No, it's not. But *if it were*, poor old Larry
Evans would have been outclassed. Your
team needs to find a higher-rated "authority"
on which to base your nonsense; LE is way
off his peak, you know. (My recommend-
ation? Deep Rybka!)


> And what Kingston has done is because he cannot compete on chessic analysic
> with Evans, is to somehow 'understand' Nunn's chessic analysis. But how
> exactly has he achieved this?


It makes no difference; Dr, Nunn's assessment
was so simple, even a child could comprehend it.
(Let me know if you need further simplification.)


> > In fact, Larry Evans has retired
> > from rated play; his last known "strength" was
> > approaching the USCF 2400 level; very strong,
> > but hardly strong enough to make such a silly
> > claim.

> Hardly worth a comment that at the time of Evans own engagement with Soviet
> chess he was rather stronger than a master player, and was 5 times best able
> in this country to not talk it, but walk it!


Blah, blah, blah. You know perfectly well that
at the time of his article, LE had sunk below the
level some nearly-IMs claim-- 2450. So then,
the *chess analysis* was at the 2400 level
(except where LE might quote his superiors).

As we discovered decades ago, even a USCF
Class C player can best LE, if he is properly
equipped; that's why the old lion gave up on
chess analysis and stated that he would only
write about hate-politics from then on.


> Phantasms. I am talking about the quality of the chess in a book titled
> 'best...' and I put it to anyone who is actually interested in chess that in
> order to buy the book a reviewer needs to mention what those qualities are.
> If you didn't do that, then instead of reviewing chess books you should
> write in the sidebars about redecorating your chess den, or such like.


Fine. You and that other guy -- um, Larry Parr --
can agree to disagree, even if you are his boy!
As for me, I see lots of book reviews where the
reviewer has not had the time or the inclination to
really read through the book.

As I wrote above, Taylor Kingston strikes me as
one of those guys whose priy purpose in a
book review is to convince readers of how st
he is by pinpointing a few minute errors, here and
there. It goes without saying that in order to
accomplish this, he need not read the whole
book. And I've seen others who fit this description,
so it isn't just TK, by any means.


> > The way I remember the game is that one
> > of the two duffers moved his Rook en prise,
> > whereupon the other duffer convinced his
> > stupid self that it must be some really deep
> > sacrifice, so he did not take the free Rook
> > with his pawn. Then the first duffer went on
> > to win, and a lot of hack writers published
> > and republished this awful game as some
> > sort of brilliancy -- which brings us to Andy
> > Soltis, the latest in a long line of hacks and
> > duffers.

> Presumably Soltis is the same as his reviewers. The criticism stands, that
> its the game that is reviewed by others, not fixations on personalities.


Hey-- I'm not a TK apologist. But I like to put
things into perspective, so when it turns out that
some idiots are slamming a reviewer for missing
an elementary blunder, I find it more than a bit
odd that they condone GM Soltis' gaffe, in spite
of an introduction which expounded on how
much hark work and care went into his creation.

As we know, TK never wrote an introduction
for his book review, in which he claimed to have
spent countless hours of hard work, etc. See
what I mean? Perspective.


> Soltis made a mistake! And those people Kowardy Kennedy [can't write his own
> name - always trashing others] names as 'rat-pack' are actual chess players!
> And those people looked at the game score itself and noted the error.


Mistakes are only human. What grabbed my
attention was the blatant lying. It reminded me
of some other people I know... .


> Instead of Taylor Kingston simply admitting that he didn't actually play
> through the games, or that he played through 5 or some number, he instead
> went into the usual flurry of words which didn't answer anything much about
> playing through the games


So, you noticed that, too?


>- indeed, if he played through any of them? There
> is a slight danger of appearing a hypocrite therefore if you accuse Soltis
> of something you didn't do yourself.


If you really believe TK is a mere Class B
player, what good would it have done for him
to play through that particular game? Would
he not have *automatically* accepted the
blunder as a brilliant sacrifice, just like all
the other duffers?

The truth is, you gotta be really good before
you refuse to just accept Rook-hanger moves
as brilliancies, if played by some random
master. That's why I had no trouble; well,
that and the fact that I am very familiar with
Rook-hanger moves, from um, personal
experience.


-- help bot


     
Date: 10 Apr 2008 08:17:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 9, 8:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > He's at it again. Phillip "nearly-an-IM 2450" Innes
>> > wants to play a game in which the chess-analysis
>> > skills of Tyler Kingstone are pitted against GM
>> > Larry Evans; ten rounds, must win by knockout.
>
>> Here we go again! Larry Tapper just defended Taylor Kingston's review of
>> the
>> Soltis title, also excusing him from appreciating the chess.
>
>
> Then perhaps we can add him to the long list of
> Taylor Kingston's apologists, which includes
> among others, Larry Parr-- who insisted that TK
> was in no way obligated to examine every game
> in writing a book review. Low standards-- that is
> what seems to be the trouble here.

Every game? - I was hoping for any game - or sufficient games to
characterise the collection.

>
>> Since Taylor Kingston can also not address the issue of playing
>> conditions,
>> or atmosphere during the cold war, I wonder what is left to actually
>> agree
>> with?
>
>
> The format is as follows: the reviewer gives some
> general information to convince the reader that he
> has in fact looked at the book being reviewed; next,
> he finds two or three minute errors therein, to try
> and convince the readers that he is ster than
> the book's author.
> Finally, the reviewer attempts
> to make it appear as though he is not only st,
> but thorough and objective. That's it, in a nut shell.

You should write with Adorjan - he has a collection of 'reviews' including
names of 'big' reviewers, who did not read past the blurb on the back cover,
or, possibly went as far as the introduction. You read one after the other -
some reviewers only read other reviews!

But Taylor Kingston is /not/ like this. In fact his standard of writing
chess book reviews is superior to most others.

But when the title is about best games, then we /do/ need to hear about the
games - ie, why are they best?

>> > But in fact TK rejected the "reasoning" of Larry
>> > Evans, not his chess analysis.
>
>> Ok, not the chess, and not the background context, but "reasoning" about
>> something else?
>
>
> Reasoning in general. The whole idea of "I think
> this move stinks, so =therefore= GM XYZ could
> not have played it except deliberately, to throw
> the game". (This idea is what really stinks.)

Are you meaning to say that Taylor Kingston is only competing on the basis
of what he thinks, rather than what Larry Evans thinks? Its merely the
strength of assertion, and that is 'reasoning'?

>> > And the idiocy of
>> > thinking that LE, and he alone, was st enough
>> > and strong enough to "see" what he thought he
>> > saw,
>
>> Who is offering this opinion?
>
>
> LE. Nobody else ever imagined that *only LE* was
> st enough and strong enough-- probably because
> so many other players were ster or stronger, or
> both. LOL!

A nonsense. Taimanov told me that nobody, not Kasparov or Deep Blue could
solve his game 3 against Fischer. Yet he did, after considerable reflection.
I would not deny either the skill or timely reflections of Evans, nor his
sense of the atmosphere, to do the same as Taimanov - who, to add to LE's
sense of 'atmosphere', agreed with him.

>> To wit, what did Larry Evans say he saw?
>
>
> He said he saw how st and clever he was.
> What's worse, his cronies nodded their heads,
> going right along! It reminds me of the folks
> who surrounded Bobby Fischer, pretending to
> be his "friends".
>
>
>> Anything different than Taimanov saw?
>
>
> Dunno. What did GM Taimanov imagine he saw?

The KGB. And just to prove it, he now has his own KGB files.


>> Since they certainly agree on the
>> context - so is it chess analysis after all?
>
>
> I think you might be referring to something
> else; let's say, to Soviet cheating in general
> or perhaps to control of all things by the big
> whigs at Commie Central.

That is no doubt at all. And you also pass on chess analysis...

Look, Larry Evans may or may not be correct; but he is not incorrect because
he makes singualr analysis of the games, and he is not incorrect because
another strong player, Nunn, has another opinion.

But Taylor Kingston put himself in an impossible place in terms of
contradicting Evans, since he has neither as much chessic skill nor as much
first-hand knowledge of Soviet chess to either prove or disprove Evans.

By his first supporting Evans, then arguing vicariously via Nunn, he adds
nothing to either context or chessic appreciation. And that stance is on
very uncertain ground, in fact, no grounds at all other than a personality
one. <right >?

>
>> > was rejected by GM John Nunn, who we
>> > know was a stronger player at the time of this
>> > disagreement.
>>
>> So it is chess analysis! :))
>
>
> No, it's not. But *if it were*, poor old Larry
> Evans would have been outclassed. Your
> team needs to find a higher-rated "authority"
> on which to base your nonsense; LE is way
> off his peak, you know. (My recommend-
> ation? Deep Rybka!)

I'm afraid this is become trite. See the Taimanov anecdote above, and as to
computer analysis, it can be horribly off - which is the subject of the MAMS
material. You cannot even understand your program, nevermind being able to
state it is superior to anything.

Unless you offer information on being challenged as below, then you are
content to intellectually reside with your Rybka.

This is cargo-cult behavior, and you worship the machine, not knowing if it
contains advanced knowledge important for humankind from the space-brothers,
or is instead an unfamiliar electric toaster from Taiwan.

Phil Innes



>> And what Kingston has done is because he cannot compete on chessic
>> analysic
>> with Evans, is to somehow 'understand' Nunn's chessic analysis. But how
>> exactly has he achieved this?
>
>
> It makes no difference; Dr, Nunn's assessment
> was so simple, even a child could comprehend it.
> (Let me know if you need further simplification.)
>
>
>> > In fact, Larry Evans has retired
>> > from rated play; his last known "strength" was
>> > approaching the USCF 2400 level; very strong,
>> > but hardly strong enough to make such a silly
>> > claim.
>
>> Hardly worth a comment that at the time of Evans own engagement with
>> Soviet
>> chess he was rather stronger than a master player, and was 5 times best
>> able
>> in this country to not talk it, but walk it!
>
>
> Blah, blah, blah. You know perfectly well that
> at the time of his article, LE had sunk below the
> level some nearly-IMs claim-- 2450. So then,
> the *chess analysis* was at the 2400 level
> (except where LE might quote his superiors).
>
> As we discovered decades ago, even a USCF
> Class C player can best LE, if he is properly
> equipped; that's why the old lion gave up on
> chess analysis and stated that he would only
> write about hate-politics from then on.
>
>
>> Phantasms. I am talking about the quality of the chess in a book titled
>> 'best...' and I put it to anyone who is actually interested in chess that
>> in
>> order to buy the book a reviewer needs to mention what those qualities
>> are.
>> If you didn't do that, then instead of reviewing chess books you should
>> write in the sidebars about redecorating your chess den, or such like.
>
>
> Fine. You and that other guy -- um, Larry Parr --
> can agree to disagree, even if you are his boy!
> As for me, I see lots of book reviews where the
> reviewer has not had the time or the inclination to
> really read through the book.
>
> As I wrote above, Taylor Kingston strikes me as
> one of those guys whose priy purpose in a
> book review is to convince readers of how st
> he is by pinpointing a few minute errors, here and
> there. It goes without saying that in order to
> accomplish this, he need not read the whole
> book. And I've seen others who fit this description,
> so it isn't just TK, by any means.
>
>
>> > The way I remember the game is that one
>> > of the two duffers moved his Rook en prise,
>> > whereupon the other duffer convinced his
>> > stupid self that it must be some really deep
>> > sacrifice, so he did not take the free Rook
>> > with his pawn. Then the first duffer went on
>> > to win, and a lot of hack writers published
>> > and republished this awful game as some
>> > sort of brilliancy -- which brings us to Andy
>> > Soltis, the latest in a long line of hacks and
>> > duffers.
>
>> Presumably Soltis is the same as his reviewers. The criticism stands,
>> that
>> its the game that is reviewed by others, not fixations on personalities.
>
>
> Hey-- I'm not a TK apologist. But I like to put
> things into perspective, so when it turns out that
> some idiots are slamming a reviewer for missing
> an elementary blunder, I find it more than a bit
> odd that they condone GM Soltis' gaffe, in spite
> of an introduction which expounded on how
> much hark work and care went into his creation.
>
> As we know, TK never wrote an introduction
> for his book review, in which he claimed to have
> spent countless hours of hard work, etc. See
> what I mean? Perspective.
>
>
>> Soltis made a mistake! And those people Kowardy Kennedy [can't write his
>> own
>> name - always trashing others] names as 'rat-pack' are actual chess
>> players!
>> And those people looked at the game score itself and noted the error.
>
>
> Mistakes are only human. What grabbed my
> attention was the blatant lying. It reminded me
> of some other people I know... .
>
>
>> Instead of Taylor Kingston simply admitting that he didn't actually play
>> through the games, or that he played through 5 or some number, he instead
>> went into the usual flurry of words which didn't answer anything much
>> about
>> playing through the games
>
>
> So, you noticed that, too?
>
>
>>- indeed, if he played through any of them? There
>> is a slight danger of appearing a hypocrite therefore if you accuse
>> Soltis
>> of something you didn't do yourself.
>
>
> If you really believe TK is a mere Class B
> player, what good would it have done for him
> to play through that particular game? Would
> he not have *automatically* accepted the
> blunder as a brilliant sacrifice, just like all
> the other duffers?
>
> The truth is, you gotta be really good before
> you refuse to just accept Rook-hanger moves
> as brilliancies, if played by some random
> master. That's why I had no trouble; well,
> that and the fact that I am very familiar with
> Rook-hanger moves, from um, personal
> experience.
>
>
> -- help bot




    
Date: 08 Apr 2008 20:35:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected] > wrote:

> > ...Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the strength
> > of chess they address - which was world championship level.


He's at it again. Phillip "nearly-an-IM 2450" Innes
wants to play a game in which the chess-analysis
skills of Tyler Kingstone are pitted against GM
Larry Evans; ten rounds, must win by knockout.

But in fact TK rejected the "reasoning" of Larry
Evans, not his chess analysis. And the idiocy of
thinking that LE, and he alone, was st enough
and strong enough to "see" what he thought he
saw, was rejected by GM John Nunn, who we
know was a stronger player at the time of this
disagreement. In fact, Larry Evans has retired
from rated play; his last known "strength" was
approaching the USCF 2400 level; very strong,
but hardly strong enough to make such a silly
claim.


> Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his reviewer's duties
> for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very weak accusation, since TK had
> not undertaken to analyze this game at all, and the saving resource
> was a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There was a long
> brouhaha about this which interested readers may check out by Googling
> "Duras Teichmann KIngston" or some such.


Nearly-an-IM Innes was talking about really
good players, so it makes no difference if the
line was two moves deep or unplayed; these
guys -- the really good players -- I'm told, can
analyze without moving the pieces.

The way I remember the game is that one
of the two duffers moved his Rook en prise,
whereupon the other duffer convinced his
stupid self that it must be some really deep
sacrifice, so he did not take the free Rook
with his pawn. Then the first duffer went on
to win, and a lot of hack writers published
and republished this awful game as some
sort of brilliancy -- which brings us to Andy
Soltis, the latest in a long line of hacks and
duffers.


> A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats, forgetting that
> some of us have attention spans longer than a canary's. For one thing,
> if failure to notice Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess
> weakness, that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who wrote
> the book.


My memory has it that in his introduction,
Mr. Soltis (I have rescinded his title, sorry)
meticulously explained how much hard
work he put into selecting and examining
every single game -- including the one in
which two duffers missed an obvious Rook-
hang. I think it is obvious why the Evans
ratpackers are so fond of this hack; he is
so much like them, so dufferish and so
lazy and so dishonest; if only they could
get AS to become a full-fledged member,
even Randy Bauer would get a run for his
money in the grudge matches.


-- help bot


     
Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:55:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, Larry Tapper <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > ...Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the
>> > strength
>> > of chess they address - which was world championship level.
>
>
> He's at it again. Phillip "nearly-an-IM 2450" Innes
> wants to play a game in which the chess-analysis
> skills of Tyler Kingstone are pitted against GM
> Larry Evans; ten rounds, must win by knockout.

Here we go again! Larry Tapper just defended Taylor Kingston's review of the
Soltis title, also excusing him from appreciating the chess.

Since Taylor Kingston can also not address the issue of playing conditions,
or atmosphere during the cold war, I wonder what is left to actually agree
with?

> But in fact TK rejected the "reasoning" of Larry
> Evans, not his chess analysis.

Ok, not the chess, and not the background context, but "reasoning" about
something else?

> And the idiocy of
> thinking that LE, and he alone, was st enough
> and strong enough to "see" what he thought he
> saw,

Who is offering this opinion? Kingston? Where are any complete sentences is
this exercise in name-calling? To wit, what did Larry Evans say he saw?
Anything different than Taimanov saw? Since they certainly agree on the
context - so is it chess analysis after all?

> was rejected by GM John Nunn, who we
> know was a stronger player at the time of this
> disagreement.

So it is chess analysis! :))

And what Kingston has done is because he cannot compete on chessic analysic
with Evans, is to somehow 'understand' Nunn's chessic analysis. But how
exactly has he achieved this?

> In fact, Larry Evans has retired
> from rated play; his last known "strength" was
> approaching the USCF 2400 level; very strong,
> but hardly strong enough to make such a silly
> claim.

Hardly worth a comment that at the time of Evans own engagement with Soviet
chess he was rather stronger than a master player, and was 5 times best able
in this country to not talk it, but walk it!


>> Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his reviewer's duties
>> for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very weak accusation, since TK had
>> not undertaken to analyze this game at all, and the saving resource
>> was a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There was a long
>> brouhaha about this which interested readers may check out by Googling
>> "Duras Teichmann KIngston" or some such.
>
>
> Nearly-an-IM Innes was talking about really
> good players, so it makes no difference if the
> line was two moves deep or unplayed; these
> guys -- the really good players -- I'm told, can
> analyze without moving the pieces.

Phantasms. I am talking about the quality of the chess in a book titled
'best...' and I put it to anyone who is actually interested in chess that in
order to buy the book a reviewer needs to mention what those qualities are.
If you didn't do that, then instead of reviewing chess books you should
write in the sidebars about redecorating your chess den, or such like.

> The way I remember the game is that one
> of the two duffers moved his Rook en prise,
> whereupon the other duffer convinced his
> stupid self that it must be some really deep
> sacrifice, so he did not take the free Rook
> with his pawn. Then the first duffer went on
> to win, and a lot of hack writers published
> and republished this awful game as some
> sort of brilliancy -- which brings us to Andy
> Soltis, the latest in a long line of hacks and
> duffers.

Presumably Soltis is the same as his reviewers. The criticism stands, that
its the game that is reviewed by others, not fixations on personalities.

>> A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats, forgetting that
>> some of us have attention spans longer than a canary's. For one thing,
>> if failure to notice Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess
>> weakness, that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who wrote
>> the book.
>
>
> My memory has it that in his introduction,
> Mr. Soltis (I have rescinded his title, sorry)
> meticulously explained how much hard
> work he put into selecting and examining
> every single game -- including the one in
> which two duffers missed an obvious Rook-
> hang. I think it is obvious why the Evans
> ratpackers are so fond of this hack; he is
> so much like them, so dufferish and so
> lazy and so dishonest; if only they could
> get AS to become a full-fledged member,
> even Randy Bauer would get a run for his
> money in the grudge matches.

Soltis made a mistake! And those people Kowardy Kennedy [can't write his own
name - always trashing others] names as 'rat-pack' are actual chess players!
And those people looked at the game score itself and noted the error.

Instead of Taylor Kingston simply admitting that he didn't actually play
through the games, or that he played through 5 or some number, he instead
went into the usual flurry of words which didn't answer anything much about
playing through the games - indeed, if he played through any of them? There
is a slight danger of appearing a hypocrite therefore if you accuse Soltis
of something you didn't do yourself.

But if that's chess book reviewing for USCF's official outlet, ChessCafe,
then is it okay if we the actual players mention that its chess we are
interested in? And this sort of review is about personalities and politics
in chess, which is a different subject.

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot




    
Date: 08 Apr 2008 09:56:09
From: Larry Tapper
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 6, 7:56=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ...Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the stre=
ngth
> of chess they address - which was world championship level. The proof of t=
he
> pudding is in the infamous best games review, when anyone of strength
> actually looking at the games could see [Dumas].
>

What's this, a quotation from The Three Musketeers?

No, it is a reference to a review TK wrote of a games collection by
Soltis which included the faux brilliancy Duras-Teichmann. Duras made
a speculative exchange sacrifice and Teichmann missed a fairly simple
defensive resource, which, however, numerous commentators on the game
had missed over the years. GM Soltis didn't mention the refutation
either --- if he had seen it he had forgotten it.

Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his reviewer's duties
for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very weak accusation, since TK had
not undertaken to analyze this game at all, and the saving resource
was a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There was a long
brouhaha about this which interested readers may check out by Googling
"Duras Teichmann KIngston" or some such.

A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats, forgetting that
some of us have attention spans longer than a canary's. For one thing,
if failure to notice Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess
weakness, that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who wrote
the book.

LT



     
Date: 09 Apr 2008 08:12:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

"Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 6, 7:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ...Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the
> strength
> of chess they address - which was world championship level. The proof of
> the
> pudding is in the infamous best games review, when anyone of strength
> actually looking at the games could see [Dumas].
>

What's this, a quotation from The Three Musketeers?

No, it is a reference to a review TK wrote of a games collection by
Soltis which included the faux brilliancy Duras-Teichmann.

** O Larry, I wanted our Neil to correct my troll-bait! ;(

Duras made
a speculative exchange sacrifice and Teichmann missed a fairly simple
defensive resource, which, however, numerous commentators on the game
had missed over the years. GM Soltis didn't mention the refutation
either --- if he had seen it he had forgotten it.

Taylor Kingston was accused of being remiss in his reviewer's duties
for not noticing Soltis's lapse. A very weak accusation, since TK had
not undertaken to analyze this game at all, and the saving resource
was a couple of moves deep in an unplayed variation. There was a long
brouhaha about this which interested readers may check out by Googling
"Duras Teichmann KIngston" or some such.

A shamefully silly argument, which Innes now repeats, forgetting that
some of us have attention spans longer than a canary's. For one thing,
if failure to notice Teichmann's proper defense is proof of chess
weakness, that argument would apply fortiori to GM Soltis, who wrote
the book.

** I hesistate to mention Alabama Ken's discussion style, ie, 'not!'. But on
inquiry in these newsgroups I was unable to determine what /was/ actually
reviewed about the games themselves in order for TK to render any opinion
whatever on why Soltis collected them for his book.

I mean, if in any best game collection, if a reviewer does not appreciate
the games themselves, then, uh... what actually /is/ reviewed?

The typo rate per page? The pretty cover?

Some people think mention of the quality of the games is 'shamefully silly',
and indeed argumentative, which is an opinion, sure, but not that of actual
chess players who in order to buy the title, surely must want to know what
qualities of chess are present in the collection?

I don't think they are much interested in the colour of a player's wife's
socks.

Phil Innes

----------

LT




    
Date: 07 Apr 2008 20:14:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 6, 5:36 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Mr. Brennen seemed eager to put words
> > into my mouth, suggesting that *I* was
> > saying that nearly-IMnes was a mere
> > postman for Rybka.

> No, I asked a question to clarify what you wrote.


Oh, sure. Like when nearly-IMnes merely asks
a question of each of his victims, about whether
they endorse some pet peeve and by golly, if not
they better have a darned good reason! LOL

Look, fellas: the proper way to ask a "question"
is to remain neutral, and just ask a question; not
go bazonkers and foist a particular idea of your
own, with your own personal, and peculiar spin.

For instance, let's say you want to know what
an interviewee thinks about FIDE; here, you
could do what nearly-IMnes did, and ask "if
they agree" that the known killer and axe-
murderer Kirsan-the-Krazy should be tied down
and flayed with a dull knife, OR...

...or, you could just ask them about what
*they* think about FIDE, and report the
answer in a neutral fashion; you know, like a
real journalist would do.

You see, the key is to know and understand
what the term "question" really means, and to
keep that separate from terms like "foist" and
"force-feed" and "spin zoning" and the like. As
we have seen, wannabees like TK and PI feel
some special need for celebrity endorsement
of their pet peeves, and this makes it hard for
them to resist the temptation to apply spin.

In any case, I do not really know what
nearly-IMnes is up to in these correspondence
games; what I *do know* is that he got caught
lying about his rating and title, then later
reported having acquired the killer chess
program, Rybka; soon afterward, we started
being told about GM-norms. Do the math.


-- help bot




    
Date: 06 Apr 2008 02:36:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 6, 12:46 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> Mr. Brennen seemed eager to put words
> into my mouth, suggesting that *I* was
> saying that nearly-IMnes was a mere
> postman for Rybka.

No, I asked a question to clarify what you wrote.


    
Date: 05 Apr 2008 22:46:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 5, 5:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Obviously then, the Harkness rating, on which
> > Taylor Kingston's original claim was based, is
> > considered less fair and less accurate than the
> > USCF rating to which it was (inaccurately)
> > converted.

> To which is was inaccurately and indiscriminatorily

A Tory, eh? Why can't the fools just stand
aside and let the real experts miscalculate
these ratings conversions? Let the Whigs
or the Federalists do it.


> converted as a
> /presentation/ qualifying the presenter to evaluate Botvinnik and Keres in
> their OTB encounter, and against actual GM opinion who had played at that
> level and knew what was likely fatigue factor in play and stress level.

I don't know why it is that nearly-an-IMnes
can't ever seem to get the facts straight;
maybe he /works at/ getting everything
back-asswards? LOL

Here's what /really/ happened: a Class A
player named Sam Sloan insisted that Mr.
Kingston was a "weak player"; then, in a
direct response to that ad hominem ploy,
Taylor Kingston made a reference to his
"peak rating", which put him at the master
level in correspondence play. This little
spat was of no importance to the real
issues being discussed, since GM Nunn
trumped all and sundry "weak players"
by a good gin, and more to the point,
the priy issue had nothing to do with
chess strength whatsoever!


> It is indeed appalling to be confronted with high level opinion to which it
> is difficult to respond without claiming any level of knowledge, and TK took
> the rhetorically short route, and here is he confounded by the fact that his
> talk don't walk.

Idunno, but I think this is a vague reference
of some sort to the laying of claims to titles
and 2450 ratings one never had. To me,
this is a far cry from Taylor Kingston's crime:
that of erring (as he so often does) in some
endeavor beyond his meager grasp (here,
a simple ratings conversion).

It is good that something of some small
value has come out of all this ad hom: we
now know about a funky ratings conversion
bungle from way back in the 1980s, which
skewed some correspondence ratings a
bit.

Mr. Brennen seemed eager to put words
into my mouth, suggesting that *I* was
saying that nearly-IMnes was a mere
postman for Rybka. My response was
simply to reject all this nonsense about
speaking in tongues, for I believe Mr.
Brennen is best at telling us what *he*
thinks, not mangling what I may or may
not think. This goes right back to what I
talked about before in my lectures to
Poor IMnes and Taylor Kingston, about
their idiocies in foisting words into the
mouthes of "interviewees".

To sum it up: try to get up the gumption
to write your own ideas, under your own
monikers -- like I do!


-- help bot






     
Date: 06 Apr 2008 07:56:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3d99c2d8-8562-48f7-963e-2bbefca27755@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 5:54 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> converted as a
>> /presentation/ qualifying the presenter to evaluate Botvinnik and Keres
>> in
>> their OTB encounter, and against actual GM opinion who had played at that
>> level and knew what was likely fatigue factor in play and stress level.
>
> I don't know why it is that nearly-an-IMnes
> can't ever seem to get the facts straight;

Kennedy doesn't like my context, which is not his, since his is entirely to
do with personality, his own.

> maybe he /works at/ getting everything
> back-asswards? LOL
>
> Here's what /really/ happened: a Class A
> player named Sam Sloan insisted that Mr.
> Kingston was a "weak player"; then, in a
> direct response to that ad hominem ploy,

I'm afraid that Sloan's comments were not the first ones, nor the most
acuitous, they were merely the most volumous. But to call a lie ad hominem
is to mistake what that means. The lie is the /behavior/ of the person, and
the /behavior/ received the comment - ie, that it is untrue.

Actually, anyone 1806 'at peak' /is/ a weak player in terms of the strength
of chess they address - which was world championship level. The proof of the
pudding is in the infamous best games review, when anyone of strength
actually looking at the games could see [Dumas].

In terms of Kennedy's own prowess to determine weak from strong, when Rob
Mitchell posted a game here he was mocked, but no one noticed a complete
reversal of fortune in just 2 moves [!!] so that not only was the black
player not justified in resigning, he himself had a won game!

But the circus clowns here couldn't make adequate chessic comment about a
1650 game, nevermind Keres Botvinnik. [ROFL]

> Taylor Kingston made a reference to his
> "peak rating", which put him at the master
> level in correspondence play.

A master of origami? There was not mention of any deviance in his message,
and the inference is that he was talking otb master - otherwise I give you
permission to call me an almost-GM [ROFL!]

> This little
> spat was of no importance to the real
> issues being discussed, since GM Nunn
> trumped all and sundry "weak players"
> by a good gin, and more to the point,
> the priy issue had nothing to do with
> chess strength whatsoever!

How do weak players know what Nunn is saying chessically? Do they just
notice that Nunn contests Evans? If Nunn doesn't contest Evans analysis,
does it contest his experience of Soviet Era chess? I certainly hope not,
since Nunn would be 'weak' on quite another basis if he did.

>> It is indeed appalling to be confronted with high level opinion to which
it
>> is difficult to respond without claiming any level of knowledge, and TK
>> took
>> the rhetorically short route, and here is he confounded by the fact that
>> his
>> talk don't walk.
>
> Idunno, but I think this is a vague reference
> of some sort to the laying of claims to titles
> and 2450 ratings one never had. To me,
> this is a far cry from Taylor Kingston's crime:
> that of erring (as he so often does) in some
> endeavor beyond his meager grasp (here,
> a simple ratings conversion).

Kennedy invents a claim to title and rating I never made, and he knows I
didn't, and he does it because he can't answer the issue why anyone should
'convert' without mentioning a conversion, and it is ABNORMAL to do that in
chess, in fact, it is deceptive.

These are plain as your face facts. Who actually thinks mentioning being a
master is anything other than OTB? In what sort of society would anyone else
understand that as not being OTB?

Now - no one wants to 'get' Kingston, at least I don't, and the whole issue
could be left alone, except that Kingston publicly and privately will not do
that - and starts trashing people in public and in private. And this has
been going on for 5 years.

Below this Kennedy insists I write my /own/ ideas, while he literally can't
own his own name - and that is a measure of how screwed up he is.

But this as usual doesn't stop him telling other people that they don't
write like he wants them to, and that facts are things which are generally
agreed upon to be provable things by any group of people, which is the other
use of a newsgroup on usenet.

Phil Innes

> It is good that something of some small
> value has come out of all this ad hom: we
> now know about a funky ratings conversion
> bungle from way back in the 1980s, which
> skewed some correspondence ratings a
> bit.
>
> Mr. Brennen seemed eager to put words
> into my mouth, suggesting that *I* was
> saying that nearly-IMnes was a mere
> postman for Rybka. My response was
> simply to reject all this nonsense about
> speaking in tongues, for I believe Mr.
> Brennen is best at telling us what *he*
> thinks, not mangling what I may or may
> not think. This goes right back to what I
> talked about before in my lectures to
> Poor IMnes and Taylor Kingston, about
> their idiocies in foisting words into the
> mouthes of "interviewees".
>
> To sum it up: try to get up the gumption
> to write your own ideas, under your own
> monikers -- like I do!
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>




    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 17:21:37
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 6:48=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Sam,
>
> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.

Excuse me, Rev, do you realize what a gaffe you have just committed?
Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that Hellen Keller
was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding was a great President
(a claim Sam has actually made, in case you didn't know).
At least this relieves me of any further temptation to take you at
all seriously.


     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 17:45:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:21:37 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>On Apr 3, 6:48�pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Sam,
>>
>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.
>
> Excuse me, Rev, do you realize what a gaffe you have just committed?
>Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that Hellen Keller
>was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding was a great President
>(a claim Sam has actually made, in case you didn't know).
> At least this relieves me of any further temptation to take you at
>all seriously.

"fierce" doesn't necessarily equate to rigorous or accurate.


      
Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:19:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"?
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:21:37 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.
>> Excuse me, Rev, do you realize what a gaffe you have just committed?
>> Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that Hellen Keller
>> was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding was a great President
>> (a claim Sam has actually made, in case you didn't know).
>> At least this relieves me of any further temptation to take you at
>> all seriously.
>
> "fierce" doesn't necessarily equate to rigorous or accurate.

The use of the word "fierce" seems to have led to all sorts of
confusion. In hindsight, I think a more accurate word for my intent
would be "voluminous" in the sense of "of great volume, size, or
extent." However there seems to be another characteristic involved of
"tenacity." He does seem to keep at it doggedly despite setbacks.

Those that want to focus on the particulars of what he has researched
and when he has been right or wrong. Go ahead and do what you want. I
will not stand in your way.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


       
Date: 04 Apr 2008 14:32:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan's Research "Skills"?
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:19:51 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>The use of the word "fierce" seems to have led to all sorts of
>confusion. In hindsight, I think a more accurate word for my intent
>would be "voluminous" in the sense of "of great volume, size, or
>extent." However there seems to be another characteristic involved of
>"tenacity." He does seem to keep at it doggedly despite setbacks.

>Those that want to focus on the particulars of what he has researched
>and when he has been right or wrong. Go ahead and do what you want. I
>will not stand in your way.

I've always equated Sam to one of the tabloids. He puts out some
bizarre stuff, but every now and then scoops the big boys.


     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 17:43:48
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 6:48 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research.
>
> Excuse me, Rev, do you realize what a gaffe you have just committed?
> Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that Hellen Keller
> was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding was a great President
> (a claim Sam has actually made, in case you didn't know).
> At least this relieves me of any further temptation to take you at
> all seriously.

As you wish Taylor. If the arguments got too tough to handle, I
understand.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 14:16:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 7:53 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Wrong. Here in the USCF, the term in common use among active chess
> players is that Elo Rating means FIDE Rating.


It is self-evident that the term "FIDE rating" means
FIDE rating, while terms like "Elo rating" do not refer to
FIDE specifically, but back to Dr. Elo and his system.
This is about as elementary as logic gets, Mr. Sloan;
do try to keep up.


> USCF Ratings long ago stopped being calculated under the Elo System.
> The Elo Formula stopped being used around 20-30 years ago. Nowadays,
> the USCF Rating System is the Glicko System or the Glickman System.


Be that as it may, Taylor Kingston's peak rating
was a Harkness rating -- not Elo, not FIDE, not
USCF, nor Glicko, Glickman, or Peter Pan.

You Evans ratpackers never cease to amaze in
how you must go at things back-asswards! The
/real/ weakness in TK's rating is that a) it was
earned remotely, and b) since his OTB rating is
around 400 points lower, there is a possibility of
foul play. (Thank goodness my remote-play
rating was never 400 points better than my OTB
performances, for there are oodles of jealous ad
hominists running about who would LEAP at the
chance to accuse me of cheating. Personally, I
think Sanny's scoring of draws -- and even some
of my wins -- as losses for me, has kept these
petty fools at bay.)


Ah, but no amount of ad hominem can make
up for the fact that Larry Evans' article was
seriously flawed in a number of different ways.

Mr. Evans' superior, Dr. Nunn, noted that the
whole approach was wrong-headed, while
everybody and his brother guffawed at the idea
of waiting until so late in the game to make a
subtle error, rather than just tossing a piece or
pawn early on. Even accounts by the alleged
"victims" themselves never fully agreed with the
vivid imagination of Larry Evans. Yet his worst
gaffe may have been anointing a certain
Russian player as the proof of puddings, only
to fall flat on his face when that player later
renounced the idea entirely, stating that the
state would clearly have preferred Vassily
Smyslov -- not Mikhail Botvinnik -- as champ.
LOL!

Oh well, it made for a good story... .


-- help bot









    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 05:07:33
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 6:53 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Wrong. Here in the USCF, the term in common use among active chess
> players is that Elo Rating means FIDE Rating.
>
> USCF Ratings long ago stopped being calculated under the Elo System.
> The Elo Formula stopped being used around 20-30 years ago. Nowadays,
> the USCF Rating System is the Glicko System or the Glickman System.

I don't think the USCF rating system is the Glicko system.



    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 04:53:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 8:48 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:

> These days, the term "rating" is understood,
> by itself, to indicate what once may have
> required clarification, as in "Elo rating". Here
> in the U.S.A., players participating in local
> events would automatically infer a reference
> to be to one's USCF rating, unless specified
> as FIDE -- except with regard to folks who
> compete internationally, like say, GM Anand.
>
> On an international forum such as this one,
> it would be just plain silly to assume any
> number relates specifically to any particular
> rating system, but then, that never stopped
> silly people from being what they are.
>
> I think it is interesting that the USCF
> adopted Dr. Elo's rating system earlier than
> FIDE; by all rights, *if* it were the case that
> only one of these two could claim the name
> "Elo", it would therefore obviously be the
> first-adopter, the USCF... .
>
> -- help bot

Wrong. Here in the USCF, the term in common use among active chess
players is that Elo Rating means FIDE Rating.

USCF Ratings long ago stopped being calculated under the Elo System.
The Elo Formula stopped being used around 20-30 years ago. Nowadays,
the USCF Rating System is the Glicko System or the Glickman System.

Sam Sloan


     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 15:48:42
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
samsloan wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:48 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> These days, the term "rating" is understood,
>> by itself, to indicate what once may have
>> required clarification, as in "Elo rating". Here
>> in the U.S.A., players participating in local
>> events would automatically infer a reference
>> to be to one's USCF rating, unless specified
>> as FIDE -- except with regard to folks who
>> compete internationally, like say, GM Anand.
>>
>> On an international forum such as this one,
>> it would be just plain silly to assume any
>> number relates specifically to any particular
>> rating system, but then, that never stopped
>> silly people from being what they are.
>>
>> I think it is interesting that the USCF
>> adopted Dr. Elo's rating system earlier than
>> FIDE; by all rights, *if* it were the case that
>> only one of these two could claim the name
>> "Elo", it would therefore obviously be the
>> first-adopter, the USCF... .
>>
>> -- help bot
>
> Wrong. Here in the USCF, the term in common use among active chess
> players is that Elo Rating means FIDE Rating.
>
> USCF Ratings long ago stopped being calculated under the Elo System.
> The Elo Formula stopped being used around 20-30 years ago. Nowadays,
> the USCF Rating System is the Glicko System or the Glickman System.
>
> Sam Sloan

Sam,

Just for the record, I acknowledge your fierce skills at research. I
may not always agree with your conclusions. On the subject of Elo
ratings, I am an old timer. When I played in a lot of tournaments, Elo
ratings were priily used by the USCF, and FIDE was just catching on.
I do not know all the various names that the different rating systems
have gone by over time. If they are now the Glickman system, or
whatever, fine. I was always more concerned with figuring out how to
win the next game than what ratings were all about. They were a
distraction.

As for the FIDE rating system, privately I do not call it the Elo
system. I call it the Afromeev system. If the USCF would catch on and
start letting us rate our dogs they would have a great new source of
revenue! (Warning for the humor impaired, road bump behind...)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 02 Apr 2008 19:03:00
From: help bot
Subject: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed
On Apr 2, 6:11 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> "..The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in 1960, and the system
> quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than
> the Harkness system. Elo's system was adopted by FIDE in 1970. Elo
> described his work in some detail in the book The Rating of
> Chessplayers, Past and Present, published in 1978.


Obviously then, the Harkness rating, on which
Taylor Kingston's original claim was based, is
considered less fair and less accurate than the
USCF rating to which it was (inaccurately)
converted. Surely, such ratings can safely be
ignored, now that we have fairer and more
accurate ratings by which to measure a player's
chess skill. Yes, now that we have fair and
balanced ratings, we can see that Mr. Kingston
took a nosedive upon having to look after two
children, and he is no longer a force to be
reckoned with in the chess world. This fact is
verified by *the smell of fear* one detects in the
air any time Sam Sloan issues a challenge.


Where would these Evans ratpackers be
without Sam Sloan to defend their, um, honor?
Shirley, even Larry Parr would not dare to risk
backing nearly-an-IM Innes, nor Rob Mitchell.
The fate of the world falls to agent Sam Sloan
then, as always; the man with a gold-tone gun.


-- agent Thirty-three and a third



     
Date: 05 Apr 2008 17:54:20
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:120ceca7-6fd0-46af-9d78-0f7dad731e63@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 6:11 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "..The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in 1960, and the system
>> quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than
>> the Harkness system. Elo's system was adopted by FIDE in 1970. Elo
>> described his work in some detail in the book The Rating of
>> Chessplayers, Past and Present, published in 1978.
>
>
> Obviously then, the Harkness rating, on which
> Taylor Kingston's original claim was based, is
> considered less fair and less accurate than the
> USCF rating to which it was (inaccurately)
> converted.

To which is was inaccurately and indiscriminatorily converted as a
/presentation/ qualifying the presenter to evaluate Botvinnik and Keres in
their OTB encounter, and against actual GM opinion who had played at that
level and knew what was likely fatigue factor in play and stress level.

That is the crux of it, the fons et origo. Let us not forget motivation in
any discussion, since to do so is to argue like the Gods, and those who
suppose far too much of God than they can essay.

It is indeed appalling to be confronted with high level opinion to which it
is difficult to respond without claiming any level of knowledge, and TK took
the rhetorically short route, and here is he confounded by the fact that his
talk don't walk.

Phil Innes

> Surely, such ratings can safely be
> ignored, now that we have fairer and more
> accurate ratings by which to measure a player's
> chess skill. Yes, now that we have fair and
> balanced ratings, we can see that Mr. Kingston
> took a nosedive upon having to look after two
> children, and he is no longer a force to be
> reckoned with in the chess world. This fact is
> verified by *the smell of fear* one detects in the
> air any time Sam Sloan issues a challenge.
>
>
> Where would these Evans ratpackers be
> without Sam Sloan to defend their, um, honor?
> Shirley, even Larry Parr would not dare to risk
> backing nearly-an-IM Innes, nor Rob Mitchell.
> The fate of the world falls to agent Sam Sloan
> then, as always; the man with a gold-tone gun.
>
>
> -- agent Thirty-three and a third
>




    
Date: 02 Apr 2008 18:48:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 6:21 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> On Apr 2, 5:11 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The phrase "Elo rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating
> > as calculated by FIDE.
>
> The correct definition of the term is the one above.


That was a general description, not a definition.
It appears to be a single sentence, sumily
YANKED out of context for some sinister purpose.


> I have never
> heard of anybody other than Taylor Kingston use the term "Elo Rating"
> even to mean USCF rating


This just goes to show that ignorant newbies
ought not to pontificate on the subject of chess,
about which they obviously know very little.

These days, the term "rating" is understood,
by itself, to indicate what once may have
required clarification, as in "Elo rating". Here
in the U.S.A., players participating in local
events would automatically infer a reference
to be to one's USCF rating, unless specified
as FIDE -- except with regard to folks who
compete internationally, like say, GM Anand.

On an international forum such as this one,
it would be just plain silly to assume any
number relates specifically to any particular
rating system, but then, that never stopped
silly people from being what they are.

I think it is interesting that the USCF
adopted Dr. Elo's rating system earlier than
FIDE; by all rights, *if* it were the case that
only one of these two could claim the name
"Elo", it would therefore obviously be the
first-adopter, the USCF... .


-- help bot




    
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:21:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 5:11 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> The phrase "Elo rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating
> as calculated by FIDE.

The correct definition of the term is the one above. I have never
heard of anybody other than Taylor Kingston use the term "Elo Rating"
even to mean USCF rating, much less the Chess Review Postal Chess
Rating System which is calculated under an entirely different formula
dating back to about 1940.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:11:18
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I am
> a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,

Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.




  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 18:37:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:57f4cf73-7ba6-488b-a7d5-442111efb120@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I
>> am
>> a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,
>
> Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
> only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
> least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.

Thank you Rev. I never mentioned ICC. And I am not gay, thank you, though if
you are, its ok!

That's 2 things to consider, if you are disposed to do that sort of thing,
ie, consider stuff.

What are you a Reverend of, exactly? The Church of Misanthropy? Come on,
tell us, or cut your fuck-them routine with people.

What a wet-blanket you are! I have played everyone here in these groups who
wanted a game and didn't want special conditions, like the great Sloan,
since the Miles effect might kick in, and I would kick him - then everyone
would shout 'unfair'.

I didn't even know about this rating crap until someone else said so - but
since you cut the context, then neither do you care for what I said, right?

I mean, everyone can see you stole a sentence, negating its context, in
order to suppose something.

pfft!

PI

>
>




   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:11:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:37:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>
>"The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:57f4cf73-7ba6-488b-a7d5-442111efb120@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I
>>> am
>>> a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,
>>
>> Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
>> only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
>> least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.
>
>Thank you Rev. I never mentioned ICC. And I am not gay, thank you, though if
>you are, its ok!
>
>That's 2 things to consider, if you are disposed to do that sort of thing,
>ie, consider stuff.
>
>What are you a Reverend of, exactly? The Church of Misanthropy? Come on,
>tell us, or cut your fuck-them routine with people.
>
>What a wet-blanket you are! I have played everyone here in these groups who
>wanted a game and didn't want special conditions, like the great Sloan,
>since the Miles effect might kick in, and I would kick him - then everyone
>would shout 'unfair'.
>
>I didn't even know about this rating crap until someone else said so - but
>since you cut the context, then neither do you care for what I said, right?
>
>I mean, everyone can see you stole a sentence, negating its context, in
>order to suppose something.
>
>pfft!
>
>PI

FWIW, the Rev Walker did not make the post to which you reply.

Phil, you really ought to invest in a good offline newsreader. All
these misplaced or misidentified replies make you appear addled.


    
Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:36:41
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:37:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:57f4cf73-7ba6-488b-a7d5-442111efb120@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I
>>>> am
>>>> a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,
>>> Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
>>> only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
>>> least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.
>> Thank you Rev. I never mentioned ICC. And I am not gay, thank you, though if
>> you are, its ok!
>>
>> That's 2 things to consider, if you are disposed to do that sort of thing,
>> ie, consider stuff.
>>
>> What are you a Reverend of, exactly? The Church of Misanthropy? Come on,
>> tell us, or cut your fuck-them routine with people.
>>
>> What a wet-blanket you are! I have played everyone here in these groups who
>> wanted a game and didn't want special conditions, like the great Sloan,
>> since the Miles effect might kick in, and I would kick him - then everyone
>> would shout 'unfair'.
>>
>> I didn't even know about this rating crap until someone else said so - but
>> since you cut the context, then neither do you care for what I said, right?
>>
>> I mean, everyone can see you stole a sentence, negating its context, in
>> order to suppose something.
>>
>> pfft!
>>
>> PI
>
> FWIW, the Rev Walker did not make the post to which you reply.
>
> Phil, you really ought to invest in a good offline newsreader. All
> these misplaced or misidentified replies make you appear addled.

It is true, I said nothing there. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. I
don't know.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


     
Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:48:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 11, 10:21 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> Notice the Nearly an IM 2450 P Innes is also using the term "ELO" to
> refer to USCF ratings.


In this case, nearly-IMnes was referring to two
specific players: himself, and the OTB rating of
NB. The sinister Evans ratpackers can still use
the ploy that correspondence chess ratings are
or were somehow different, especially in view
of TK's own choice of the term "Harkness", as
opposed to "Elo", when describing his original
peak rating, before conversion.

It is Sam Sloan who insists that the term "Elo"
does not and cannot refer to a USCF rating.

This rift among the Evans ratpackers adds
to the confusion that already exists as part of
head-rat Larry Parr's sinister plot to undermine
criticism of Larry Evans. Apparently, the pack
has not formulated a sensible plan in which
each rat plays a role in *supporting*, not
undermining, the overall game plan. Chaos--
that's what you get when your members are
allowed to freelance willy-nilly, often as not,
contradicting one another's spur-of-the-
moment attacking moves or defensive
ploys; it's a disorganized mess.

I think Ray Keene ought to have been put
in charge; he's a chess grandmaster, and
it's likely he could have formulated some
sort of game plan in which the strengths of
various rats could have been well-utilized.

Nearly-IMnes, for instance, is /relatively/
good at obfuscation, while Sam Sloan is
better at... whatever he is better at. Larry
Parr would probably make a good proof-
reader. Rob Mitchell could be put in
charge of all the "me too" postings, to
lend the appearance of heft. The main
charge, of course, should be led by Ray
Keene himself; every attack should
begin with a comment about how all the
critics are too weak as chess players to
understand the issue in question, etc.

Ah, but I forgot-- Ray Keene was scared
away from rgc; he apparently couldn't
handle the intellectual heat.


-- help bot




     
Date: 11 Apr 2008 19:21:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 11, 8:25 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Louis Blair
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
> >master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
> >offer
> >an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
> >so to
> >speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
> >linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
> >situation
> >over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
> >the
> >worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
> >three" if
> >a board position cannot be resolved.
> >Phil
>
> Har, de har har.
>
> Phil, if you could reverse time and take back one, just one, post you
> made in the past, which one would it be?? Lemme guess. Ha, ha.
>
> You can run but you can't hide.

Notice the Nearly an IM 2450 P Innes is also using the term "ELO" to
refer to USCF ratings.


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:52:15
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 1:39=A0am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
> > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
> > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
> > a date. =A0His argument is that his reference to a past
> > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
> > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
> > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
> > 20 or 30 years ago."
>
> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my
statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and
times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out:

** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread:

Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM:
> Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing
> this kind of analysis.
> Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot=

> understand these simple and obvious points.

Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great
player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."

Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
You are a liar.

*********************************************************
Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM:
About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about
pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.
<http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/
taylor_kingston_bio.html >:
"He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a
Class A OTB player."
*********************************************************

[I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how
easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were
interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK]

Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM:
Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.

Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM:
Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of
July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on
request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-
addressed
envelope." http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html

Tom tinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM:
The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the
Top 50 Postal Players list:
45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806

k Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM:
Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile.

*** end excerpts.

I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite
adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or
that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was
deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging
his brain.

It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 12:17:15
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Apr 1, 3:07=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> But, but, what about =A0artistic creation, forged in struggle and the
> heat of combat, the passion that whips the blood?

I want nothing to do with Sam Sloan's blood. You don't know where
it's been.


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:10:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
[email protected] wrote:

...
> It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
> for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
> accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
> them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
> in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
> rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

Taylor,

All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. I would sure like to
see an actual chess style conflict as a result. The build up has been
great. Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:27:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:10:23 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>...
>> It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
>> for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
>> accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
>> them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
>> in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
>> rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.
>
>Taylor,
>
>All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
>up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. I would sure like to
>see an actual chess style conflict as a result. The build up has been
>great. Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
>on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?


I second the motion. We want to see blood.

Given there's some difference in the respective OTB ratings, some time
odds in the game might be appropriate (the odds-giver just waits "x"
amount of time before making his first move).

I was once challenged to such a match by the late Tom Klem, but we
could never come to agreement on who would proctor it.


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:24:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 7:51 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
I never heard of any American talking Elo and meaning postal. Never,
> not in 25 years.
>
> Phil Innes

Spending time with chessplayers might help, Philsy.



  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 17:45:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 1, 7:51 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I never heard of any American talking Elo and meaning postal. Never,
>> not in 25 years.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Spending time with chessplayers might help, Philsy.

I am not gay Neil. No offense to anyone here who is. As to chessplayers,
what would you know of them, fat-arse?

Cordially, Phil

>




 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:23:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:10 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ELO DIDN'T GO POSTAL
>
> <This rather removes any idea that he [Kingston] intended to be
> honest himself, since again, I never heard of any American talking
> Elo and meaning postal. Never, not in 25 years.> -- Phil Innes
>
> Phil Innes says that he has never heard of
> anyone talking about an "Elo" rating and meaning
> postal. Well, we all have heard one person so
> describe himself, the inimitable Taylor Kingston.

And ICCF. You are no doubt aware that ICCF calls their rating search
program "Eloquery."


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:10:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
ELO DIDN'T GO POSTAL

<This rather removes any idea that he [Kingston] intended to be
honest himself, since again, I never heard of any American talking
Elo and meaning postal. Never, not in 25 years. > -- Phil Innes

Phil Innes says that he has never heard of
anyone talking about an "Elo" rating and meaning
postal. Well, we all have heard one person so
describe himself, the inimitable Taylor Kingston.

Moreover, as the argument has developed over the
years, NMnot Kingston will have to go to his grave
pecking away at his keyboard, alleging that when he,
a lifelong "A" player, described himself as "2300+
Elo," he was really saying that some 20 or 30 years
back, or at some unmentioned point in the past, he was
actually referring to a Harkness postal rating!

One feels sorry for NMnot Kingston by now,
and this writer genuinely wishes that TK had
never gotten himself in a slanging contest with Sam
Sloan, who never gives up and chews like a pit bull
until people finally blurt out something they regret.

That is what happened in the case of NMnot
Kingston prancing and mincing about these precincts,
telling everyone that he would not play Sam Sloan
because of the latter's personal habits, etc.

No one believed NMnot Kingston. Why he could
not have written the truth, galling though it was to a
degree, we will never know. He should simply have
said that Sam would beat him in a match, and the
thought of losing to that bastard was emotionally and
egoistically insupportable.

And that would have been that. Sam would have
been satisfied, and NMnot Kingston would have picked
up quite a few brownie points from his water carriers for
having the honesty to speak frankly.

But no-o-o-o-o. Something inside Kingston would
not permit such forthrightness. Instead, he put on
the airs of a contumacious prancer who was too far
above Sam to play the man.

The scectacle was like something out of Scaramouche.

Yours, Larry Parr




Chess One wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >> > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.
> >>
> >> No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
> >> information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written
> >> so
> >> far, indistinguishable from denial.
> >>
> >> What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't
> >> know,
> >> its okay to shut up.
> >>
> >> PI
> >
> > Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.
> >
> > Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
> > specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
> > Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.
>
> If he knows something, then he hides his light soemwhere or other. Its just
> a standing joke in the rest of the world that USCF ratings are Elo-100, or
> even more in some locations. One rather evident correlation are those US
> players to go to Hungary for norm tournaments.
>
> If Ken Sloan has information then he can produce it. If he can't and what he
> cannot do is serial, then I presume the opposite to what you say, which
> cannot avoid fatuous 'nobody' and 'everybody' references.
>
> The last time I asked Ken Sloan for information was in respect of the
> disgraced board member who achieved a master's rating floor and nary ever
> played a master, just 1800ish typed, in fact, just about half a dozen of
> them.
>
> So I asked Ken Sloan 3 things, since he has something to do with USCF
> ratings:-
>
> 1) How come no-one in the ratings department noticed some guy playing down
> 400 points for hundreds of games against the same opponents?
>
> 2) Even when the Masters title was awarded [by a different office] how come
> no-one actually looked at the playing record - should they have, or are
> rating floors and titles given out under *special* circumstances for chess
> politicicans?
>
> 3) How many /other/ instances are there of this type?
>
> Ken Sloan provided no information on any of these subjects - and I think the
> challenge is necessary, since he and Delegate Johnson were setting about
> rubbishing the Quality Control of other chess rating groups - in abstract
> fashion of course - and in your own psychophantic newsgroup!
>
> No answers were received from Ken Sloan, only 'responses', like 'not!' as in
> the above.
>
> Now - this is no theoretical matter since Ken Sloan may know everything
> about ratings - yet is he competent to administer or communicate about
> ratings?
>
> I would say from my 3 questions the answers are demonstrably, no and no.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.
> >
> > Sam Sloan


 
Date: 01 Apr 2008 06:02:04
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
IT MUST BE APRIL FOOL'S DAY

>he correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading. >

David Kane has returned.

Let us review his latest attempt to defend
Taylor Kingston's claim -- as a lifelong Class A
player -- to be "2300+ Elo," though others have
proved that Kingston never had an Elo rating.

The argument is that most of you would know what
the top 50 OTB rating list would look like, say, 20 or
30 years back.

"Oh, yeah," our Kanester may be reasonably
construed as now arguing, "if someone claims to be
2300+ Elo, then that claim would mean less to the
average listener or reader of a posting than the
fellow also mentioning that he was No. 45 or so in the
country at some totally undetermined period in the
past. Oh, yeah, this Kingston character must really
be talking about a Harkness postal rating in 1985 when
he says he is '2300+ Elo."

Heh, heh, heh.

The alternative argument goes like this:
"Someone you don't really know walks into your club
and announces that at his peak -- a period that may be
two or three decades ago, since he doesn't bother to
tell you -- he was 2300+ Elo. The average listener
would assume he was talking about OTB rather than some
postal rating employing a different scale about 20 or
30 years back. The average listener would have no
idea what the OTB rating for No. 45 in the country
would have been decades earlier, THOUGH AS IT TURNS
OUT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 2300 ELO IN THE YEAR
1975!! On the other hand, the average listener or
reader has a very fair idea what the phrase, '2300+
Elo," means in terms of playing strength."

After all, that is why NMnot Taylor Kingston
retailed his lie after being under relentless pressure
from Sam Sloan. He wanted people to think he was
"2300+ Elo," which is why he told us he was "2300+ Elo."

In the world of our Kanester, a Bob Hux would
identify himself as 2580 Elo rather than say, "I was
once No. 1 at 2085 or so on a postal rating list using
the Harkness scale back about 1985."

In the world of our Kanester, all kinds of postal
players are going around announcing they are really
2400 or 2500 Elo on an ancient Harkness rating.

Heh, heh, heh.

But, to be sure, Kanester knows better. As
Larry Tapper once observed early on, the entire lie
was not NMnot Kingston's brightest moment.

Yours, Larry Parr



David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
> > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
> > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
> > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
> > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
> > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
> > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
> > 20 or 30 years ago."
>
> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>
> Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
> the moron prize and state that he was so
> ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
> placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
> You?


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 23:49:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
> > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
> > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
> > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
> > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
> > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
> > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
> > 20 or 30 years ago."
>
> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>
> Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
> the moron prize and state that he was so
> ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
> placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
> You?


I believe they all are deserving of such a prize,
just as Louis Blair /deserved/ untold millions in
prizes for his submissions in the Prove Parr
Lies contests. But you have to have some
sort of limits, you know.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The way I understand it, Taylor Kingston
claims to have started off well below his true
strength, then racked up a huge plus-score to
land with a *peak* rating which he typically
erred in converting by something like 50 points.

But if you throw out the hand-selected starting
rating and were to re-rate his actual results, I
imagine his 2300+ number is not beyond the
realm of possibilities. But then, you would
have to do the same thing with everyone else
in the rating pool, so let's just fugettaboudit.

It's all a misdirection trick, to divert attention
from Larry Evans' gaffe. GM Evans, you may
recall, once claimed that he, *and he alone,* was
st enough and strong enough to "see" what
he thought he saw in one of his many delusions.

Upon due consideration by saner -- and stronger
-- folks like GM Nunn, this imaginary "evidence"
was found to lack any real substance, and the
whole approach was simply rejected.

Oh well, it made for a good story. Much like
the story about a supposedly evil player who,
according to the deluded mind of Larry Evans,
had won a chess game by refusing to resign
and his opponent later suffering a heart attack.
That particular delusion was finally laid to rest
by Edward Winter, who relied on research
rather than delusions, or "memory", which as
Mr. Evans himself has observed, plays tricks
on him.

As I see it, poor Larry Parr is a mind-slave
who seems incapable of rationally assessing
such "stories"; he is forced to attack those
who point out the many flaws in his mentor's
"stories", for ad hominem is all that remains
after reason is utterly abandoned. It's a pity
that Larry Evans cannot seem to find anything
to write about in the realms of non-fiction... .


-- help bot








 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 21:33:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
"WE HAVE PROVEN THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE.
YOU NEVER HAD AN ELO RATING AT ALL.. END OF STORY."
-- Sam Sloan to Taylor Kingston

<It really ain't to do with Elo and rather more to do with ego. > --
Phil Innes

Dear Phil and Sam,

Taylor Kingston is still trying to brazen it out.

To begin with, there is the strawman that he and
a couple of his confreres offer up because, after all,
this writer never argued differently.

The strawman: a few decades back a postal rating
of 1800 or so was equal on an old scale developed by a
man named Ken Harkness, who is long-forgotten by
most chess players, to 2300+ Elo or thereabouts.
(I, for one, have never quarreled over whether 1806 on the
old Harkness postal scale is equal to 2250+ or 2300+ Elo.)

The issue, as you and most others understand,
is what the average reader of a posting, who knows
nothing about postal rating scales 20 or 30 years ago,
will think when someone claims, quite baldly, to be
"2300+ Elo" in playing strength without citing postal chess.

Taylor Kingston is still peddling his ancient
lie because he made the mistake of getting involved in
a long-term dispute with Slammin' Sammy Sloan, who
once he starts chewing on your pants leg will never
let go. He just chews and chews and chews and chews.

Still worse, as you may recollect, NMnot Kingston
adopted that ludicrous pose about being too far above
Sam in terms of bathing habits to play the man a chess
match. NO ONE BELIEVED THAT -- not even, I daresay,
a couple of the toadies.

Why couldn't NMnot have written something like
this? "I don't want to play a chess match with Sam
Sloan because, knowing a bit about the man's ability
and the fact that he just defeated Bill Brock in a match,
I figure he will also defeat me over-the-board. I don't want
to take a chance on losing to that bastard. Period."

If NMnot Kingston had wished, he could have
written the following, and NONE OF US would have
disputed a word:

"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I never claimed
to be any great player, but I think with a peak postal rating
of 1806 at a time when this number corresponded roughly with
2200-2300 on today's Elo or USCF scales and a top postal
ranking of, as I recall, No. 46 in the country, I was a tad better
than 'weak' if one judges strength on deep study of positions at
home. Before the emergence of computers, I showed some
UNDERSTANDING of positions in my better games."

Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
20 or 30 years ago."

However, that is not his current argument.

The man, at some level, is hoping that someone
will buy his line. Not even Larry Tapper, who often carries
the man's water, initially imagined that this absurd claim
represented NMnot Kingston's finest moment.

The problem is not with my assessment of NMnot
Kingston. The problem is with his own assessment
of himself.

Taylor Kingston felt an urge to up his general
self-esteem as a player and wrote, quite baldly and
without irony, that he was "2300+ Elo." It was the
equivalent, as we have noted, of a Robert Hux, a
top-ranked US postal player of many years back,
writing that he was 2580 Elo without offering any
other specification except a national ranking from an
unmentioned period in his past of, possibly, several
decades back.

The irony is that my judgment of NMnot
Kingston's playing strength was more generous
than his own because, after all, he felt a need to
lie about his rating when goaded by Slammin' Sammy.

Yours, Larry Parr




J.D. Walker wrote:
> Dear Mr. Parr,
>
> It is well past time for me to duck out of this particular discussion.
> Thank you for indulging my desire to try and establish one concrete fact
> in the midst of the acrimonious differences that are as yet unresolved.
>
> Now I must turn my attention to my newly assumed duties at the Ranch
> Drive-in and also I must prepare a brief speech for the lunch meeting I
> am going to have with the aliens from outer space tomorrow.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
>
> ===
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER
> >
> > Dear Rev. Walker,
> >
> > I suppose that the really important issue here
> > is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
> > on my behalf.
> >
> > Having said that, I was asked whether there was
> > some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
> > dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
> > that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
> > 1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
> > I never wrote differently.
> >
> > If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
> > had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
> > a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
> > claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
> > by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
> > this whole matter.
> >
> > Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.
> >
> > There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
> > top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
> > add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
> > that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!
> >
> > In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
> > an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
> > very own Taylor Kingston.
> >
> > NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
> > at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
> > man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
> > with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
> > four-figure money for said encounter.
> >
> > We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
> > refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
> > Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
> > possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.
> >
> > Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
> > bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
> > ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
> > chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
> > 2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:
> >
> > "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I
> > have never claimed to be any great player, but I think
> > with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I
> > recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
> >
> > Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
> > the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
> > that the average reader would know that he was talking
> > about postal ratings because at some undefined point
> > several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
> > about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
> > name the average player has never heard).
> >
> > According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
> > the average person hearing someone assert that he was
> > "2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
> > claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
> > the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
> > decades back.
> >
> > Horsefeathers.
> >
> > Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
> > whizdinger.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
> >
> >
> >
> > samsloan wrote:
> >> On 31, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 31, 3:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
> >>>> master.
> >>> Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
> >>> the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
> >>> postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
> >>> trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
> >>> attempt to say black is white.
> >>> And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
> >>> that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
> >>> sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.
> >> Your English is not too goodo, is it?
> >>
> >> We said that postal ratings mean nothing. You said that you had a
> >> 2300+ Elo Rating.
> >>
> >> We have proven that your statement is not true. You never had an Elo
> >> rating at all.
> >>
> >> End of Story.
> >>
> >> Sam Sloan


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 22:39:26
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>
> Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
> 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
> at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
> a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
> undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
> NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
> really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
> 20 or 30 years ago."

I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
The correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
the moron prize and state that he was so
ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
You?





   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 11:24:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
>> 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
>> at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
>> a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
>> undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
>> NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
>> really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
>> 20 or 30 years ago."
>
> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>
> Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
> the moron prize and state that he was so
> ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
> placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
> You?

You should go for it yourself! For example, when //was// 2300+ Elo

[which I ask you to note is what Taylor Kingston wrote in the first place]

in the top 50 OTB in the US ~ Do you know what year that was?

And while you are at it, how much '+' is necessary to achieve being #46?

Taylor Kingston did not indicate a 'when' and since he is about 60 years
old, you may have to look back 40 years.

Why you should assume postal rating is strange to me, since anyone asked
their rating has to qualify it, no? Like, with opening books and postal, I
am ... But that's not chess rating - its postal chess rating, and to chess
players that's no small difference.

Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I am
a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level, which I didn't ask for -
but its a joke for me to only say the rating without qualifying it as
postal, no?

Thirdly, if /you/ truly think it was always a postal reference, then /you/
are the odd-man out here, and understand differently than chess players, who
you accuse of being morons, &c.

Phil Innes




    
Date: 01 Apr 2008 15:26:23
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
>>> 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
>>> at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
>>> a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
>>> undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
>>> NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
>>> really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
>>> 20 or 30 years ago."
>>
>> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
>> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
>> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
>> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
>> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>>
>> Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
>> the moron prize and state that he was so
>> ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
>> placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
>> You?
>
> You should go for it yourself! For example, when //was// 2300+ Elo

Sorry, I don't qualify.

>
> [which I ask you to note is what Taylor Kingston wrote in the first place]
>
> in the top 50 OTB in the US ~ Do you know what year that was?
>
> And while you are at it, how much '+' is necessary to achieve being #46?
>
> Taylor Kingston did not indicate a 'when' and since he is about 60 years old,
> you may have to look back 40 years.
>
> Why you should assume postal rating is strange to me, since anyone asked their
> rating has to qualify it, no? Like, with opening books and postal, I am ...
> But that's not chess rating - its postal chess rating, and to chess players
> that's no small difference.

For the millionth time, there is no need to assume that it was postal. The
point was that it was *obviously not* OTB. Personally, I think being
a postal master qualifies as "not weak", so his point was made perfectly
well. I suppose that others could feel differently, but in any case it
doesn't change the fact that Kingston was perfectly honest.

I will grant that you, Parr and Sloan all have extremely weak skills where
written English is concerned. That sad fact has nothing to do with
TK's honesty.



> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I am a
> 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level, which I didn't ask for - but
> its a joke for me to only say the rating without qualifying it as postal, no?
>
> Thirdly, if /you/ truly think it was always a postal reference, then /you/ are
> the odd-man out here, and understand differently than chess players, who you
> accuse of being morons, &c.
>
> Phil Innes
>



     
Date: 01 Apr 2008 18:58:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
>>>> 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
>>>> at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
>>>> a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
>>>> undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
>>>> NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
>>>> really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
>>>> 20 or 30 years ago."
>>>
>>> I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
>>> The correct argument, which I have made, is that
>>> no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
>>> a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
>>> no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.
>>>
>>> Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
>>> the moron prize and state that he was so
>>> ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
>>> placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
>>> You?
>>
>> You should go for it yourself! For example, when //was// 2300+ Elo
>
> Sorry, I don't qualify.

Shut you mouth then Murray, since if you don't know, you don't understand
the issue, and since you won't look before you offer your opinion, then you
are a what?

>>
>> [which I ask you to note is what Taylor Kingston wrote in the first
>> place]
>>
>> in the top 50 OTB in the US ~ Do you know what year that was?
>>
>> And while you are at it, how much '+' is necessary to achieve being #46?
>>
>> Taylor Kingston did not indicate a 'when' and since he is about 60 years
>> old, you may have to look back 40 years.
>>
>> Why you should assume postal rating is strange to me, since anyone asked
>> their rating has to qualify it, no? Like, with opening books and postal,
>> I am ... But that's not chess rating - its postal chess rating, and to
>> chess players that's no small difference.
>
> For the millionth time, there is no need to assume that it was postal. The
> point was that it was *obviously not* OTB.

Get to the point of what was obvious to YOU.

> Personally, I think being
> a postal master qualifies as "not weak", so his point was made perfectly
> well. I suppose that others could feel differently, but in any case it
> doesn't change the fact that Kingston was perfectly honest.

? Millions of Murrays think nothing ?

> I will grant that you, Parr and Sloan all have extremely weak skills where
> written English is concerned. That sad fact has nothing to do with
> TK's honesty.

You are a supercilious fool, Murray. And content to prosecute others on the
same basis you display here, that is, no basis, and spout such idiocies as
accusing Parr of having weak skills at English - whereas he clearly has
superior diction to any other writer here these past 10 years. Even his
harshest critics, people who disagree strongly, don't dog that one.

You see ~ in your desperation to sacrifice someone, anyone! to your
submerged animus, you abandon all sense entirely.

You do not realise it, but you are on trial here in this newsgroup, because
of such idiotic reks. Reks which your supporters deem not to notice,
but instead get off on because noticing ain't their intent - they want
blood, any fucker's blood.

You are an entire waste of time to discuss any issue with, since you have
not the slightest intent of discussing anything with anyone that is not in
some low-brow collusion with your own dispeptic temperment. Should anyone
say something with which you disagree, you attack not their comment from
your own expereicne, you attack them. Heil?

What do you want in writing to me, Murray? Absolution? Understanding?
Domination? All those?

Phil Innes

>> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I
>> am a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level, which I didn't ask
>> for - but its a joke for me to only say the rating without qualifying it
>> as postal, no?
>>
>> Thirdly, if /you/ truly think it was always a postal reference, then
>> /you/ are the odd-man out here, and understand differently than chess
>> players, who you accuse of being morons, &c.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>




      
Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:05:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:58:31 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:


>Shut you mouth then Murray, since if you don't know, you don't understand
>the issue, and since you won't look before you offer your opinion, then you
>are a what?

>? Millions of Murrays think nothing ?

>You are a supercilious fool, Murray. And content to prosecute others on the
>same basis you display here, that is, no basis, and spout such idiocies as
>accusing Parr of having weak skills at English - whereas he clearly has
>superior diction to any other writer here these past 10 years. Even his
>harshest critics, people who disagree strongly, don't dog that one.

>What do you want in writing to me, Murray? Absolution? Understanding?
>Domination? All those?
>
>Phil Innes


Uhh, Phil, I hate to spoil a fine rant, but I didn't make the comments
to which you reply. In fact, I'm barely represented in this thread,
having made only one small response to Sloan.

However, you might be able to cut and paste your insults to a more
appropriate locale. I doubt anyone will notice.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 19:26:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER

Dear Rev. Walker,

I suppose that the really important issue here
is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
on my behalf.

Having said that, I was asked whether there was
some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.

On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
I never wrote differently.

If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
this whole matter.

Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.

There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!

In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
very own Taylor Kingston.

NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
four-figure money for said encounter.

We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.

Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:

"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I
have never claimed to be any great player, but I think
with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I
recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"

Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
that the average reader would know that he was talking
about postal ratings because at some undefined point
several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
name the average player has never heard).

According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
the average person hearing someone assert that he was
"2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
decades back.

Horsefeathers.

Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
whizdinger.

Yours, Larry Parr



samsloan wrote:
> On 31, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > On 31, 3:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
> > > master.
> >
> > Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
> > the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
> > postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
> > trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
> > attempt to say black is white.
> > And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
> > that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
> > sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.
>
> Your English is not too goodo, is it?
>
> We said that postal ratings mean nothing. You said that you had a
> 2300+ Elo Rating.
>
> We have proven that your statement is not true. You never had an Elo
> rating at all.
>
> End of Story.
>
> Sam Sloan


  
Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:06:57
From: Sanny
Subject: Guy Macon -> >
> > When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> > participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> > else is reading the thread. =A0(And no, I am not reading it either.
> > I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
> I am curious. =A0Why do you think no one else is reading it? =A0The reason=

> it hasn't gone to email is because it is part of a discussion that has
> been going on for years that involves a number of people. =A0You may be
> right that few are reading it, I do not know. =A0But why make an ignorant
> comment like that when you haven't read the thread and you are normally
> a more careful person about your statements?

I know Guy Macon has no interest in the subject. But he enjoys
criticizing others. He says many wrong things to everyone on this
newsgroup as he is a Great Electrical Engineer.

I am reading each word in this message group and will again say
"Taylor Kingston is CORRECT".

Still I am curious to know what JD Walker Calculation shows.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


   
Date: 04 Apr 2008 22:02:44
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Sanny the Spammer



Sanny the Spammer wrote:

>I know Guy Macon has no interest in the subject. But he enjoys
>criticizing others. He says many wrong things to everyone on this
>newsgroup as he is a Great Electrical Engineer.

Am I wrong when I call you a spammer?

>Play Chess at: http://www.[deleted].com/Chess.html

More spam.



  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 15:39:32
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 5:55=A0pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > > >>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> > > >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> =A0 Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have do=
ne with
> > > >>>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not o=
nly
> > > >>>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dial=
ogue.
> > > >>>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
> > > >>>>> =A0 What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your=
posts
> > > >>>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> > > >>>>> cordial.
> > > >>>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was you=
r old
> > > >>>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would b=
e your
> > > >>>>>>>> established rating at that time.
> > > >>>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinki=
ng. =A0I
> > > >>>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. =A0The scale you p=
resented
> > > >>>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1=
986...
> > > >>>>> =A0 Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings =
as they
> > > >>>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1=
985,
> > > >>>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well bef=
ore
> > > >>>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> > > >>>>> =A0 Thus there was only about one year between the time of my pe=
ak
> > > >>>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you thi=
nk the
> > > >>>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic=

> > > >>>>> drift =A0in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationar=
y, then
> > > >>>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
> > > >>>>> =A0 And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might=
have
> > > >>>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in wha=
t
> > > >>>>> direction or to what degree.
> > > >>>>> =A0 Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify t=
he great
> > > >>>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you repl=
ied so
> > > >>>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourse=
lf
> > > >>>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeat=
ed
> > > >>>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, =
do not
> > > >>>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
> > > >>>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop i=
t.
> > > >>>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the o=
ld
> > > >>>> rating system. =A0You have shown me that you were #45 in the nati=
on as a
> > > >>>> postal player at that time. =A0I think this is a worthy achieveme=
nt and I
> > > >>>> have said so. =A0Congratulations Taylor!
> > > >>>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+=
and
> > > >>>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. =A0The evidence you have=
shown me
> > > >>>> for that is unconvincing. =A0So I am content to agree to disagree=
on that
> > > >>>> matter.
> > > >>> =A0 The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what =
the
> > > >>> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I do=
ubt
> > > >>> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free t=
o
> > > >>> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics an=
d
> > > >>> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have=
no
> > > >>> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then pl=
ease
> > > >>> don't bother.
> > > >>> =A0 A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still ac=
tive
> > > >>> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
> > > >>> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversio=
n to
> > > >>> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-=
1983
> > > >>> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
> > > >>> =A0 If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" =
list
> > > >>> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. =
I am
> > > >>> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Che=
ss
> > > >>> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
> > > >>> =A0 I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Par=
r, who
> > > >>> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it=

> > > >>> suits his purpose.
> > > >> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argum=
ent
> > > >> forward. =A0Is this really what you want to do? =A0I ask this befor=
e diving
> > > >> back into the fray that you said was tedious.
>
> > > > =A0 I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple w=
ay
> > > > to answer your question.
>
> > > Ok, let us proceed, but please no more complaints about tedium and a
> > > waste of time, because you wanted to pursue this.
>
> > > I sense that you still do not grasp the nature of my objection. =A0You=

> > > have now stated that Mr. tinak is responsible for the estimate that=

> > > your peak Elo rating would have been 2262.
>
> > =A0 I wouldn't call him "responsible" for it. He kindly contributed
> > relevant information to the 2005 discussion, quoting from Chess Life
> > and the USCF.
>
> > > =A0I would like to know a lot
> > > more about about Mr. tinak's methodology for backdating estimates o=
f
> > > Elo ratings for players in the old rating system. =A0How would he use =
his
> > > scale for a rating that was one year, two years, three years and so on=

> > > older than the conversion date?
>
> > =A0 =A0Mr. tinak =A0was not concerned with such things, as far as I c=
ould
> > tell. I already supplied you with with what he said at the time. He
> > basically just reported that the USCF said Harkness rating X converted
> > to Elo rating Y.
>
> > > Is this published somewhere? =A0Why don't we be fair about this and go=

> > > ahead and convert all the old ratings from prior years to their curren=
t
> > > Elo equivalents? =A0And we would have to have a sound methodology to d=
o
> > > this. =A0Of course this would be tedious and a waste of time. =A0But i=
t
> > > would be fair, and we wouldn't be catering to exceptional special inte=
rests.
> > > The April conversion you presented would obviously break down for olde=
r
> > > ratings in that system. =A0Where are the scales and methodology for fa=
irly
> > > and accurately assigning Elo equivalents for all old ratings?
>
> > =A0 You are asking questions of much broader scope than the initial
> > issue, questions about which I have neither knowledge nor interest.
> > Feel free to undertake whatever research you like.
>
> My regular news server just died, so I am back to good old
> Google... =A0:/
>
> Ok, then Mr. tinak is not responsible. =A0And we seem to be now
> saying that there is not a formal process to backdate Elo equivalents
> for old ratings. =A0And, there is no current policy by the USCF to
> provide a backdated rating estimation service to the membership at
> this point. =A0Thus, on your own initiative, you used information
> supplied informally by Mr. tinak and the April 1986 conversion
> scale to arrive at your own conclusion and make the resultant
> statement that you had an Elo rating of 2262 (as adjusted and non-
> specific).
>
> Am I on the right track here as to an interpretation of these facts?

I have no idea what track, or tracks, you are on. Roll on as you see
fit, but do not ask me to join you.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 16:05:12
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
>>>>>>>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
>>>>>>>>> What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
>>>>>>>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
>>>>>>>>> cordial.
>>>>>>>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
>>>>>>>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
>>>>>>>>>>>> established rating at that time.
>>>>>>>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
>>>>>>>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
>>>>>>>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
>>>>>>>>> Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
>>>>>>>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
>>>>>>>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
>>>>>>>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
>>>>>>>>> Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
>>>>>>>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
>>>>>>>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
>>>>>>>>> drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
>>>>>>>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
>>>>>>>>> And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
>>>>>>>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
>>>>>>>>> direction or to what degree.
>>>>>>>>> Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
>>>>>>>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
>>>>>>>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
>>>>>>>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
>>>>>>>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
>>>>>>>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
>>>>>>>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
>>>>>>>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
>>>>>>>> rating system. You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
>>>>>>>> postal player at that time. I think this is a worthy achievement and I
>>>>>>>> have said so. Congratulations Taylor!
>>>>>>>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
>>>>>>>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. The evidence you have shown me
>>>>>>>> for that is unconvincing. So I am content to agree to disagree on that
>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>> The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
>>>>>>> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
>>>>>>> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
>>>>>>> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
>>>>>>> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
>>>>>>> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
>>>>>>> don't bother.
>>>>>>> A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
>>>>>>> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
>>>>>>> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
>>>>>>> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
>>>>>>> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
>>>>>>> If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
>>>>>>> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
>>>>>>> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
>>>>>>> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
>>>>>>> I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who
>>>>>>> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
>>>>>>> suits his purpose.
>>>>>> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
>>>>>> forward. Is this really what you want to do? I ask this before diving
>>>>>> back into the fray that you said was tedious.
>>>>> I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple way
>>>>> to answer your question.
>>>> Ok, let us proceed, but please no more complaints about tedium and a
>>>> waste of time, because you wanted to pursue this.
>>>> I sense that you still do not grasp the nature of my objection. You
>>>> have now stated that Mr. tinak is responsible for the estimate that
>>>> your peak Elo rating would have been 2262.
>>> I wouldn't call him "responsible" for it. He kindly contributed
>>> relevant information to the 2005 discussion, quoting from Chess Life
>>> and the USCF.
>>>> I would like to know a lot
>>>> more about about Mr. tinak's methodology for backdating estimates of
>>>> Elo ratings for players in the old rating system. How would he use his
>>>> scale for a rating that was one year, two years, three years and so on
>>>> older than the conversion date?
>>> Mr. tinak was not concerned with such things, as far as I could
>>> tell. I already supplied you with with what he said at the time. He
>>> basically just reported that the USCF said Harkness rating X converted
>>> to Elo rating Y.
>>>> Is this published somewhere? Why don't we be fair about this and go
>>>> ahead and convert all the old ratings from prior years to their current
>>>> Elo equivalents? And we would have to have a sound methodology to do
>>>> this. Of course this would be tedious and a waste of time. But it
>>>> would be fair, and we wouldn't be catering to exceptional special interests.
>>>> The April conversion you presented would obviously break down for older
>>>> ratings in that system. Where are the scales and methodology for fairly
>>>> and accurately assigning Elo equivalents for all old ratings?
>>> You are asking questions of much broader scope than the initial
>>> issue, questions about which I have neither knowledge nor interest.
>>> Feel free to undertake whatever research you like.
>> My regular news server just died, so I am back to good old
>> Google... :/
>>
>> Ok, then Mr. tinak is not responsible. And we seem to be now
>> saying that there is not a formal process to backdate Elo equivalents
>> for old ratings. And, there is no current policy by the USCF to
>> provide a backdated rating estimation service to the membership at
>> this point. Thus, on your own initiative, you used information
>> supplied informally by Mr. tinak and the April 1986 conversion
>> scale to arrive at your own conclusion and make the resultant
>> statement that you had an Elo rating of 2262 (as adjusted and non-
>> specific).
>>
>> Am I on the right track here as to an interpretation of these facts?
>
> I have no idea what track, or tracks, you are on. Roll on as you see
> fit, but do not ask me to join you.

( My news server is back!)

Okay, if you wish. Leaving aside the question of the validity of
backdating a conversion, there is another issue. I, and I suspect many
others, see ratings, at their best, as accurate measures of playing
strength that are regulated, computed, and published by a governing
body. In our case the USCF. From this viewpoint, if we look to see
what ratings the USCF has published related to your claims, we see an
1806 rating at one point along with a title of postal chess master, and
a ranking of #45 in the country. Another key published rating would be
the one that came immediately out of the conversion to the new rating
system. From what I have heard that would be 2037. I have seen no
evidence that says the USCF has computed and published an Elo rating of
2300+ or 2262 for you, postal or otherwise.

The claim for such a rating is a product of your own informal
calculations. That is why I suggested that it was in your own mind.
Perhaps that was a tactless way to phrase it, but the intent is to point
out that it was not officially sanctioned by the USCF.

Go ahead and correct me if I am wrong...
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math




> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:

When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)



     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 17:44:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:


>When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
>participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
>else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
>I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)


I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.


      
Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:21:43
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math



Mike Murray wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
>>participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
>>else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
>>I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
>
>I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
>have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.

Ah. I stand corrected. Thanks!



      
Date: 03 Apr 2008 18:26:07
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>
>> When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
>> participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
>> else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
>> I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
>
> I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
> have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.

Mike,

Now that I have been so thoroughly discredited for saying something
non-nasty to Sam Sloan, feel free to jump in -- anybody. Take the
discussion in some new and interesting direction. Meanwhile, I will
take my totally discredited self over here to this dark corner and
observe without being noticed. :)

By the way, my conclusion from all of that was that Taylor Kingston
really did get an Elo rating of 2300+ that was later modified to 2262.
It was awarded by the TKCF.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 16:34:14
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Guy Macon wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 5:55 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>
> When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
> I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>

I am curious. Why do you think no one else is reading it? The reason
it hasn't gone to email is because it is part of a discussion that has
been going on for years that involves a number of people. You may be
right that few are reading it, I do not know. But why make an ignorant
comment like that when you haven't read the thread and you are normally
a more careful person about your statements?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 14:55:35
From: j.d.walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 2:32 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
> > >>>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> > >>>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
> > >>>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
> > >>>>> What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
> > >>>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> > >>>>> cordial.
> > >>>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
> > >>>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
> > >>>>>>>> established rating at that time.
> > >>>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
> > >>>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
> > >>>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
> > >>>>> Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
> > >>>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
> > >>>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
> > >>>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> > >>>>> Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
> > >>>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
> > >>>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
> > >>>>> drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
> > >>>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
> > >>>>> And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
> > >>>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
> > >>>>> direction or to what degree.
> > >>>>> Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
> > >>>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
> > >>>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
> > >>>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
> > >>>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
> > >>>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
> > >>>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
> > >>>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
> > >>>> rating system. You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
> > >>>> postal player at that time. I think this is a worthy achievement and I
> > >>>> have said so. Congratulations Taylor!
> > >>>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
> > >>>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. The evidence you have shown me
> > >>>> for that is unconvincing. So I am content to agree to disagree on that
> > >>>> matter.
> > >>> The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
> > >>> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
> > >>> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
> > >>> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
> > >>> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
> > >>> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
> > >>> don't bother.
> > >>> A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
> > >>> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
> > >>> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
> > >>> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
> > >>> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
> > >>> If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
> > >>> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
> > >>> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
> > >>> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
> > >>> I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who
> > >>> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
> > >>> suits his purpose.
> > >> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
> > >> forward. Is this really what you want to do? I ask this before diving
> > >> back into the fray that you said was tedious.
>
> > > I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple way
> > > to answer your question.
>
> > Ok, let us proceed, but please no more complaints about tedium and a
> > waste of time, because you wanted to pursue this.
>
> > I sense that you still do not grasp the nature of my objection. You
> > have now stated that Mr. tinak is responsible for the estimate that
> > your peak Elo rating would have been 2262.
>
> I wouldn't call him "responsible" for it. He kindly contributed
> relevant information to the 2005 discussion, quoting from Chess Life
> and the USCF.
>
> > I would like to know a lot
> > more about about Mr. tinak's methodology for backdating estimates of
> > Elo ratings for players in the old rating system. How would he use his
> > scale for a rating that was one year, two years, three years and so on
> > older than the conversion date?
>
> Mr. tinak was not concerned with such things, as far as I could
> tell. I already supplied you with with what he said at the time. He
> basically just reported that the USCF said Harkness rating X converted
> to Elo rating Y.
>
> > Is this published somewhere? Why don't we be fair about this and go
> > ahead and convert all the old ratings from prior years to their current
> > Elo equivalents? And we would have to have a sound methodology to do
> > this. Of course this would be tedious and a waste of time. But it
> > would be fair, and we wouldn't be catering to exceptional special interests.
> > The April conversion you presented would obviously break down for older
> > ratings in that system. Where are the scales and methodology for fairly
> > and accurately assigning Elo equivalents for all old ratings?
>
> You are asking questions of much broader scope than the initial
> issue, questions about which I have neither knowledge nor interest.
> Feel free to undertake whatever research you like.

My regular news server just died, so I am back to good old
Google... :/

Ok, then Mr. tinak is not responsible. And we seem to be now
saying that there is not a formal process to backdate Elo equivalents
for old ratings. And, there is no current policy by the USCF to
provide a backdated rating estimation service to the membership at
this point. Thus, on your own initiative, you used information
supplied informally by Mr. tinak and the April 1986 conversion
scale to arrive at your own conclusion and make the resultant
statement that you had an Elo rating of 2262 (as adjusted and non-
specific).

Am I on the right track here as to an interpretation of these facts?
--

Cordially, The Rev...


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 14:48:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
On Apr 3, 10:30 am, [email protected] wrote:

> > I disagree and I will leave it at that. Have fun with your argument.
>
> Rev, you really don't think 99.29% is very close to 98.88%? Oh well.
> In any event, I am quite content if we can agree to differ cordially.
>
> I look forward to your applying similar standards and logic to the
> following:
>
> 1. Sam Sloan's claim to have won the World Championship of Chinese
> Chess
> 2. Sam Sloan's claim to have been "a rated chess master"
> 3. Phil Innes' claim to have had a rating of 2450
> 4. Larry Parr's claim to have won an "international Swiss"
> tournament.
> 5. Parr's and Sloan's claim that USCF OTB ratings are not Elo
> ratings.
> 6. Parr's and Sloan's attributing fabricated statements to people
> who never said or wrote anything like them.
>
> These are claims that have far less factual support than any I have
> made about any of my ratings, rank, or titles -- in most cases,
> nothing approaching real factual support whatever. If you are
> sincerely concerned about accuracy and honesty in chess-related
> matters and statements made on this forum, it would seem that
> consistency requires you to devote equal attention to them.


I believe someone has not been paying attention
in class; the Reverend has always taken sides
with the Evans ratpack, and is most likely just
another one of their stooges. In fact, I seem to
recall prior instances wherein efforts were made
to encourage the Reverend to give "equal time"
to their idiocies, but never with any success.

Indeed, I pointed him to some threads in which
he might find the truth about some issues he
felt compelled to leap into in mid-stream, but he
seemed anything *but* interested in finding the
truth. And when Mr. Kingston pointed him to
some articles by posting the links here in rgc,
he again went into stealth mode, or silent
retreat, rather than investigating the facts, as I
did. That one was, as I recall, about the Larry
Evans article on the supposed throwing of
games. Mr. Knowitall butted in to give his two
cents worth (a fair value, IMO), but would not
do the required research to get at the facts of
the case.


-- help bot


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 14:36:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:


> I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent
> professionals. That it was not a quick hack job.

You know, Mr. Sloan just gave a glowing
endorsement of this guy. So, how is he
repaid? By an instantaneous embarrassment
such as the above statement, which presumes
to equate the USCF to competent organizations
like, say, IBM.

It never ceases to amaze just how little some
people know, while presuming to don an air of
expertise! For the record, nobody -- and I mean
nobody -- can begin to compare to the record of
the USCF when it comes to separating
themselves from competence and listing to the
side of "hack jobs". Need I remind readers
that Sam Sloan himself was incapable of
accomplishing anything while on the board,
due to the fact that it is controlled by self-
serving power-mongers like Bill Goichberg?

Well, if indeed the conversion was handled in
a competent, rational way, it would only serve
to tarnish the "stellar" record of the USCF, to
bring the USCF down to a level closer to the
more common incompetents. Why sacrifice
the "prestige"? I say, cover it up so we can
remain number one -- the best of the worst.



-- help bot






  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 14:32:18
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 4:34=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>>> =A0 Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done w=
ith
> >>>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> >>>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue=
.
> >>>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
> >>>>> =A0 What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your pos=
ts
> >>>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> >>>>> cordial.
> >>>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was your ol=
d
> >>>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would be yo=
ur
> >>>>>>>> established rating at that time.
> >>>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. =
=A0I
> >>>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. =A0The scale you prese=
nted
> >>>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986.=
..
> >>>>> =A0 Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as t=
hey
> >>>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,=

> >>>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
> >>>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> >>>>> =A0 Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
> >>>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think t=
he
> >>>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
> >>>>> drift =A0in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, t=
hen
> >>>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
> >>>>> =A0 And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might hav=
e
> >>>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
> >>>>> direction or to what degree.
> >>>>> =A0 Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the g=
reat
> >>>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied =
so
> >>>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
> >>>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
> >>>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do n=
ot
> >>>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
> >>>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
> >>>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
> >>>> rating system. =A0You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation a=
s a
> >>>> postal player at that time. =A0I think this is a worthy achievement a=
nd I
> >>>> have said so. =A0Congratulations Taylor!
> >>>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and=

> >>>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. =A0The evidence you have sho=
wn me
> >>>> for that is unconvincing. =A0So I am content to agree to disagree on =
that
> >>>> matter.
> >>> =A0 The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
> >>> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
> >>> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
> >>> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
> >>> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
> >>> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please=

> >>> don't bother.
> >>> =A0 A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active=

> >>> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
> >>> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to=

> >>> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983=

> >>> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
> >>> =A0 If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list=

> >>> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am=

> >>> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
> >>> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
> >>> =A0 I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, w=
ho
> >>> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
> >>> suits his purpose.
> >> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
> >> forward. =A0Is this really what you want to do? =A0I ask this before di=
ving
> >> back into the fray that you said was tedious.
>
> > =A0 I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple way
> > to answer your question.
>
> Ok, let us proceed, but please no more complaints about tedium and a
> waste of time, because you wanted to pursue this.
>
> I sense that you still do not grasp the nature of my objection. =A0You
> have now stated that Mr. tinak is responsible for the estimate that
> your peak Elo rating would have been 2262.

I wouldn't call him "responsible" for it. He kindly contributed
relevant information to the 2005 discussion, quoting from Chess Life
and the USCF.

> =A0I would like to know a lot
> more about about Mr. tinak's methodology for backdating estimates of
> Elo ratings for players in the old rating system. =A0How would he use his
> scale for a rating that was one year, two years, three years and so on
> older than the conversion date?

Mr. tinak was not concerned with such things, as far as I could
tell. I already supplied you with with what he said at the time. He
basically just reported that the USCF said Harkness rating X converted
to Elo rating Y.

> Is this published somewhere? Why don't we be fair about this and go
> ahead and convert all the old ratings from prior years to their current
> Elo equivalents? =A0And we would have to have a sound methodology to do
> this. =A0Of course this would be tedious and a waste of time. =A0But it
> would be fair, and we wouldn't be catering to exceptional special interest=
s.

> The April conversion you presented would obviously break down for older
> ratings in that system. =A0Where are the scales and methodology for fairly=

> and accurately assigning Elo equivalents for all old ratings?

You are asking questions of much broader scope than the initial
issue, questions about which I have neither knowledge nor interest.
Feel free to undertake whatever research you like.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 13:21:04
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 4:06=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> =A0 Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done wit=
h
> >>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> >>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
> >>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
> >>> =A0 What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts=

> >>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> >>> cordial.
> >>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was your old
> >>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would be your=

> >>>>>> established rating at that time.
> >>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. =
=A0I
> >>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. =A0The scale you present=
ed
> >>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...=

> >>> =A0 Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as the=
y
> >>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
> >>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
> >>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> >>> =A0 Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
> >>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the=

> >>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
> >>> drift =A0in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, the=
n
> >>> again we will have to agree to differ.
> >>> =A0 And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
> >>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
> >>> direction or to what degree.
> >>> =A0 Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the gre=
at
> >>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so=

> >>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
> >>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
> >>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not=

> >>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
> >> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
>
> >> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
> >> rating system. =A0You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as =
a
> >> postal player at that time. =A0I think this is a worthy achievement and=
I
> >> have said so. =A0Congratulations Taylor!
>
> >> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
> >> later amended that to 2262 or some such. =A0The evidence you have shown=
me
> >> for that is unconvincing. =A0So I am content to agree to disagree on th=
at
> >> matter.
>
> > =A0 The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
> > USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
> > it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
> > give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
> > calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
> > calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
> > don't bother.
>
> > =A0 A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
> > at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
> > thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
> > Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
> > list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
> > =A0 If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
> > included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
> > unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
> > Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
> > =A0 I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who=

> > has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
> > suits his purpose.
>
> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
> forward. =A0Is this really what you want to do? =A0I ask this before divin=
g
> back into the fray that you said was tedious.

I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple way
to answer your question.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 13:34:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 4:06 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
>>>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
>>>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>>>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
>>>>> What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
>>>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
>>>>> cordial.
>>>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
>>>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
>>>>>>>> established rating at that time.
>>>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
>>>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
>>>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
>>>>> Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
>>>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
>>>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
>>>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
>>>>> Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
>>>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
>>>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
>>>>> drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
>>>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
>>>>> And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
>>>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
>>>>> direction or to what degree.
>>>>> Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
>>>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
>>>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
>>>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
>>>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
>>>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
>>>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
>>>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
>>>> rating system. You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
>>>> postal player at that time. I think this is a worthy achievement and I
>>>> have said so. Congratulations Taylor!
>>>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
>>>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. The evidence you have shown me
>>>> for that is unconvincing. So I am content to agree to disagree on that
>>>> matter.
>>> The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
>>> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
>>> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
>>> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
>>> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
>>> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
>>> don't bother.
>>> A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
>>> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
>>> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
>>> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
>>> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
>>> If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
>>> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
>>> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
>>> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
>>> I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who
>>> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
>>> suits his purpose.
>> Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
>> forward. Is this really what you want to do? I ask this before diving
>> back into the fray that you said was tedious.
>
> I'm not asking you to dive anywhere. I merely propose a simple way
> to answer your question.

Ok, let us proceed, but please no more complaints about tedium and a
waste of time, because you wanted to pursue this.

I sense that you still do not grasp the nature of my objection. You
have now stated that Mr. tinak is responsible for the estimate that
your peak Elo rating would have been 2262. I would like to know a lot
more about about Mr. tinak's methodology for backdating estimates of
Elo ratings for players in the old rating system. How would he use his
scale for a rating that was one year, two years, three years and so on
older than the conversion date?

Is this published somewhere? Why don't we be fair about this and go
ahead and convert all the old ratings from prior years to their current
Elo equivalents? And we would have to have a sound methodology to do
this. Of course this would be tedious and a waste of time. But it
would be fair, and we wouldn't be catering to exceptional special interests.

The April conversion you presented would obviously break down for older
ratings in that system. Where are the scales and methodology for fairly
and accurately assigning Elo equivalents for all old ratings?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 12:52:29
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 3:20=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> =A0 Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
> >>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> >>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
> >> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
>
> > =A0 What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
> > "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> > cordial.
>
> >>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was your old
> >>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would be your
> >>>> established rating at that time.
> >> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. =A0I=

> >> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. =A0The scale you presented=

> >> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
>
> > =A0 Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
> > stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
> > and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
> > publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> > =A0 Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
> > rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
> > rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
> > drift =A0in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
> > again we will have to agree to differ.
> > =A0 And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
> > taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
> > direction or to what degree.
>
> > =A0 Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great=

> > waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
> > quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
> > adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
> > suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
> > encourage me to continue the discussion.
>
> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
>
> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
> rating system. =A0You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
> postal player at that time. =A0I think this is a worthy achievement and I
> have said so. =A0Congratulations Taylor!
>
> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
> later amended that to 2262 or some such. =A0The evidence you have shown me=

> for that is unconvincing. =A0So I am content to agree to disagree on that
> matter.

The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
don't bother.

A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who
has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
suits his purpose.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 13:06:10
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:20 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
>>>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
>>>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>>>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
>>> What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
>>> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
>>> cordial.
>>>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
>>>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
>>>>>> established rating at that time.
>>>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
>>>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
>>>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
>>> Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
>>> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
>>> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
>>> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
>>> Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
>>> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
>>> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
>>> drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
>>> again we will have to agree to differ.
>>> And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
>>> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
>>> direction or to what degree.
>>> Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
>>> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
>>> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
>>> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
>>> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
>>> encourage me to continue the discussion.
>> Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.
>>
>> You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
>> rating system. You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
>> postal player at that time. I think this is a worthy achievement and I
>> have said so. Congratulations Taylor!
>>
>> You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
>> later amended that to 2262 or some such. The evidence you have shown me
>> for that is unconvincing. So I am content to agree to disagree on that
>> matter.
>
> The estimate of 2262 was given by Mr. tinak, based on what the
> USCF itself published, and it seems quite reasonable to me -- I doubt
> it is off by more than a few points, if at all. Please feel free to
> give what you consider the accurate figure, and your statistics and
> calculations that demonstrate why it is more accurate. If you have no
> calculations, but just vague notions about "fluctuations," then please
> don't bother.
>
> A simple way to settle this would be to find a player still active
> at the time of the conversion whose Harkness rating was 1806 or
> thereabouts, and see what it became immediately upon the conversion to
> Elo. Several such should not be hard to find; checking the end-of-1983
> list, I see at least 5 players within 6 points of 1806.
> If USCF published "before" and "after" lists, and the "after" list
> included no new results, then it would be a cut-and-dried matter. I am
> unable to do this right now, not having the relevant issues of Chess
> Life, but perhaps a reader can help.
> I would however insist on an honest reader, i.e. not Larry Parr, who
> has already shown that he will withhold relevant information if it
> suits his purpose.

Hmm, I thought we agreed to disagree, but you are pushing the argument
forward. Is this really what you want to do? I ask this before diving
back into the fray that you said was tedious.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 06 Apr 2008 03:30:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 5, 8:39 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 1:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.
>
> > What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you
> > finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
> > just a tad backwards, Sam?

I have not written a book about Harding. I plan to reprint a book that
was written in 1927 by a close associate of Harding, with a short
introductory chapter by me which I have not written yet and which I am
researching right now.

Also, the pages about Harding on my (former) website were not written
by me but by my former classmate in Fifth Grade at JEB Stuart School
in Richmond, Virginia, who has an interest in Harding.

However, my research thus far indicates that Harding was by no means
the Worst President America Ever Hard and that he was one of the
better presidents and he cannot be blamed for the Teapot Dome Scandal,
which was called even back then "A Tempest in a Teapot".

My book, when it comes out, which will be a long time, at least three
weeks, from now (because I spend a lot of time researching my books)
will become available at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234

Sam Sloan


    
Date: 05 Apr 2008 18:39:03
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.
>
> What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you
> finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
> just a tad backwards, Sam?

Gotta love those 'fierce' research skills. Did Reverend Walker mean to
type "farce" instead of "fierce?"


    
Date: 05 Apr 2008 02:55:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 5, 2:53 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Kingston is offering readers of this forum the
> standard Court Historian mush about Harding or, for
> that matter, Cleveland and Coolidge, that reigned
> supreme intellectually until the last 15 to 20 years.
> The most interesting development has been renewed
> interest in Harding's essential civility and live-and-let-live
> philosophy from writers on both the right and left.
>
> My list of presidential acceptables includes
> Jefferson and Madison (both favored state
> nullification of federal law) Monroe, Jackson (for
> disestablishing the Bank of the United States),James
> Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (gold standard and
> champion vetoer of spending) Harding and Coolidge.


It comes as no surprise that Mr. Parr would
find some way to equate "mush" with
intellectual supremacy.

The real question is not who now meets with
after-the-fact stamps of approval on some
random issues, like say the gold standard,
but which of these men did Larry Parr actually
vote for at the time?


-- help bot


     
Date: 05 Apr 2008 17:07:22
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:342023b9-00df-4e0a-a0cb-ee252585e4a5@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 2:53 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Kingston is offering readers of this forum the
>> standard Court Historian mush about Harding or, for
>> that matter, Cleveland and Coolidge, that reigned
>> supreme intellectually until the last 15 to 20 years.
>> The most interesting development has been renewed
>> interest in Harding's essential civility and live-and-let-live
>> philosophy from writers on both the right and left.
>>
>> My list of presidential acceptables includes
>> Jefferson and Madison (both favored state
>> nullification of federal law) Monroe, Jackson (for
>> disestablishing the Bank of the United States),James
>> Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (gold standard and
>> champion vetoer of spending) Harding and Coolidge.
>
>
> It comes as no surprise that Mr. Parr would
> find some way to equate "mush" with
> intellectual supremacy.
>
> The real question is not who now meets with
> after-the-fact stamps of approval on some
> random issues, like say the gold standard,
> but which of these men did Larry Parr actually
> vote for at the time?

Possibly Madison?

I see that the ex-president and now farmer-again, exerted his influence
against westward expansion into the fullness of the Ohio Valley, since he
thought that the people did not possess the skills nor discipline to do
other than waste that fantastically rich land as they had done to all the
Eastern coastal regions. At the time, this was a brave opinion indeed!

Madison cited 'the perennial culture' which these days we term
'permaculture' and which maintained land in England throughout the feudal
period in England for 400 years, so that a massive increase in population
hardly effected the resource base of the country.

Madison didn't win his case, though it was a close call. Madison, 100 years
pre-dustbowl, was right, eh?

These days I personally would vote for Madison, or any person possessing a
sense greater in terms of time than his own electorial possibilities during
that reign, and who would take the most wholesome view of things over time.

Many of these 'ancient greats' sensed what could go amiss in the great
experiment in the Republic, and sought to avert those issues by referencing
people to their individual and corporate actions. It is not their shame if
they failed, but would be if they attempted nothing from a cynical view of
their fellow man. Every man made president, despite their own rhetoric must
be father of the nation, and no man will waste aught, especially not his
country, if he is a man at all.

[apologies to Taylor Kingston, and mathematicians, and chess players, since
none of those subjects appears above - though perhaps chess engenders this
sort of view of the whole thing, and men do not act against their best
interests as much as act blindly to what are their true interests?]

Phil Innes


>
> -- help bot




    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 23:53:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
KINGSTON'S DOME

>It was Harding's responsibility to know of these
things, and to dismiss and prosecute the malefactors
Instead he played poker, philandered, knew nothing,
and did nothing, while sitting at the head of the most
corrupt administration since Grant's. That makes him a
very bad President. > -- Taylor Kingston

One can argue that Harding paid little attention
to the household accounts of a federal government,
which in those days spent little; one also can argue
that there was corruption in his administration -- yet
conclude that he was one of our finest presidents.

One needs to point out that the corruption
during the Harding administration was largely personal
rather than systemic. The distinction between the two
kinds of corruption is key.

Personal corruption involves millions of bucks.
Systemic corruption involves breaking no laws and
making off with tens of billions. The latter is the kind
of corruption that infests taxpayers these days.

The Harding administration was notable for
undoing most of the evils committed by Woodrow Wilson,
including issuing a general amnesty, ending outrages
such as the Palmer Raids, endeavouring to return our
military to its barracks, negotiating major arms
reductions at the Washington Naval Conference, and
cutting the size of government.

What a Taylor Kingston sneers at, a H. L.
Mencken praised highly. As noted, Harding was
frequently a butt of Mencken's acid pen, but H. L.
eventually concluded of Harding and Coolidge that
these men had no new ideas and left us alone. That
was and is high praise for any president.

Beware of great men touting new ideas for vast
exercises in public idealism. These fascist-socialist
types often bring war and bankruptcy.

Kingston is offering readers of this forum the
standard Court Historian mush about Harding or, for
that matter, Cleveland and Coolidge, that reigned
supreme intellectually until the last 15 to 20 years.
The most interesting development has been renewed
interest in Harding's essential civility and live-and-let-live
philosophy from writers on both the right and left.

My list of presidential acceptables includes
Jefferson and Madison (both favored state
nullification of federal law) Monroe, Jackson (for
disestablishing the Bank of the United States),James
Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (gold standard and
champion vetoer of spending) Harding and Coolidge.

Yours, Larry Parr




[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 4, 6:10?pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 4, 1:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.
> >
> > > ? What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you
> > > finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
> > > just a tad backwards, Sam?
> >
> > > > The
> > > > whole thing was about the fact that the Secretary of Interior under
> > > > Harding, Albert Fall, leased oil fields in the Teapot Dome Area of
> > > > Wyoming to Sinclair Oil and another big oil company, in return for
> > > > which Fall received two loans, one of which had to be repaid.
> >
> > > ? In other words, Fall took a bribe. This is quite illegal for a
> > > Secretary of the Interior. He went to prison for it.
> >
> > > > The oil fields are still producing to this day.
> >
> > > ? I guess if Fall hadn't taken the bribe, they would have gone dry by
> > > now? Sam pretty much always misses the point, doesn't he?
> >
> > > > This seems to be a very small deal. There must have been a thousand
> > > > scandals bigger than this one. The leases themselves were entirely
> > > > legal. The only thing questionable was the loans, which were kept
> > > > secret and Harding did not and could not have known about them.
> >
> > > ? What Harding knew, or should have known, was Fall's character before
> > > he appointed him to the Cabinet. But with Harding, political cronyism
> > > often counted more than character. The appointments of Fall, Daugherty
> > > (Attorney General) and Hays (Postmaster General), not mention other
> > > lesser appointments, were pure cronyism.
> >
> > Had you consulted no less an authority than Sam Sloan, you would have
> > known that Harding also appointed Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of
> > State, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Andrew Mellon as
> > Secretary of the Treasury and J. Edgar Hoover as Director of the FBI.
> >
> > http://www.anusha.com/harding.htm
> >
> > Can you think of a more distinguished group than that?
>
> He also appointed Albert Fall as Secretary of the Interior, Harry
> Daugherty as Attorney General, and Will Hays as Postmaster General.
> It's hard to think of a less distinguished group than that.
>
> > Harding was the first Republican president to support the right of
> > women to vote. He hailed this prospect at his acceptance speech in
> > 1920. He was a leader in bringing about postwar economic development
> > after WWI.
>
> He mainly stood around and looked handsome. He was not a good
> leader.
>
> > He took responsibility and held governmental officials
> > accountable.
>
> He was the dupe and puppet of crooks. I have sympathy for him; he is
> definitely a tragic figure in American history. But sympathy doesn't
> make him a good president.


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 15:40:19
From:
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 6:10=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 1:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.
>
> > =A0 What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you=

> > finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
> > just a tad backwards, Sam?
>
> > > The
> > > whole thing was about the fact that the Secretary of Interior under
> > > Harding, Albert Fall, leased oil fields in the Teapot Dome Area of
> > > Wyoming to Sinclair Oil and another big oil company, in return for
> > > which Fall received two loans, one of which had to be repaid.
>
> > =A0 In other words, Fall took a bribe. This is quite illegal for a
> > Secretary of the Interior. He went to prison for it.
>
> > > The oil fields are still producing to this day.
>
> > =A0 I guess if Fall hadn't taken the bribe, they would have gone dry by
> > now? Sam pretty much always misses the point, doesn't he?
>
> > > This seems to be a very small deal. There must have been a thousand
> > > scandals bigger than this one. The leases themselves were entirely
> > > legal. The only thing questionable was the loans, which were kept
> > > secret and Harding did not and could not have known about them.
>
> > =A0 What Harding knew, or should have known, was Fall's character before=

> > he appointed him to the Cabinet. But with Harding, political cronyism
> > often counted more than character. The appointments of Fall, Daugherty
> > (Attorney General) and Hays (Postmaster General), not mention other
> > lesser appointments, were pure cronyism.
>
> Had you consulted no less an authority than Sam Sloan, you would have
> known that Harding also appointed Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of
> State, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Andrew Mellon as
> Secretary of the Treasury and J. Edgar Hoover as Director of the FBI.
>
> http://www.anusha.com/harding.htm
>
> Can you think of a more distinguished group than that?

He also appointed Albert Fall as Secretary of the Interior, Harry
Daugherty as Attorney General, and Will Hays as Postmaster General.
It's hard to think of a less distinguished group than that.

> Harding was the first Republican president to support the right of
> women to vote. He hailed this prospect at his acceptance speech in
> 1920. He was a leader in bringing about postwar economic development
> after WWI.

He mainly stood around and looked handsome. He was not a good
leader.

> He took responsibility and held governmental officials
> accountable.

He was the dupe and puppet of crooks. I have sympathy for him; he is
definitely a tragic figure in American history. But sympathy doesn't
make him a good president.


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 15:10:29
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 1:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 4, 1:49 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.
>
> What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you
> finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
> just a tad backwards, Sam?
>
> > The
> > whole thing was about the fact that the Secretary of Interior under
> > Harding, Albert Fall, leased oil fields in the Teapot Dome Area of
> > Wyoming to Sinclair Oil and another big oil company, in return for
> > which Fall received two loans, one of which had to be repaid.
>
> In other words, Fall took a bribe. This is quite illegal for a
> Secretary of the Interior. He went to prison for it.
>
> > The oil fields are still producing to this day.
>
> I guess if Fall hadn't taken the bribe, they would have gone dry by
> now? Sam pretty much always misses the point, doesn't he?
>
> > This seems to be a very small deal. There must have been a thousand
> > scandals bigger than this one. The leases themselves were entirely
> > legal. The only thing questionable was the loans, which were kept
> > secret and Harding did not and could not have known about them.
>
> What Harding knew, or should have known, was Fall's character before
> he appointed him to the Cabinet. But with Harding, political cronyism
> often counted more than character. The appointments of Fall, Daugherty
> (Attorney General) and Hays (Postmaster General), not mention other
> lesser appointments, were pure cronyism.

Had you consulted no less an authority than Sam Sloan, you would have
known that Harding also appointed Charles Evans Hughes as Secretary of
State, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Andrew Mellon as
Secretary of the Treasury and J. Edgar Hoover as Director of the FBI.

http://www.anusha.com/harding.htm

Can you think of a more distinguished group than that?

Harding was the first Republican president to support the right of
women to vote. He hailed this prospect at his acceptance speech in
1920. He was a leader in bringing about postwar economic development
after WWI. He took responsibility and held governmental officials
accountable. He is the first president to require budgets in all
departments of the government - especially the War Dept. There was
much graft and corruption in defense spending, and Harding brought it
under control with budgets.

Funny thing is that the general public thinks that Woodrow Wilson was
one of the best presidents and Warren G. Harding was the very worst,
but serious students of history know that Woodrow Wilson was one of
the very worst presidents at least until the last year and a half when
he let his wife Edith Galt run the country.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/092389196X

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234

Sam Sloan


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 11:58:31
From:
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 1:49=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal.

What? *First* you write a book about Harding, and then *_LATER_* you
finally do any research on the Teapot Dome Scandal?? Um, isn't this
just a tad backwards, Sam?

> The
> whole thing was about the fact that the Secretary of Interior under
> Harding, Albert Fall, leased oil fields in the Teapot Dome Area of
> Wyoming to Sinclair Oil and another big oil company, in return for
> which Fall received two loans, one of which had to be repaid.

In other words, Fall took a bribe. This is quite illegal for a
Secretary of the Interior. He went to prison for it.

> The oil fields are still producing to this day.

I guess if Fall hadn't taken the bribe, they would have gone dry by
now? Sam pretty much always misses the point, doesn't he?

> This seems to be a very small deal. There must have been a thousand
> scandals bigger than this one. The leases themselves were entirely
> legal. The only thing questionable was the loans, which were kept
> secret and Harding did not and could not have known about them.

What Harding knew, or should have known, was Fall's character before
he appointed him to the Cabinet. But with Harding, political cronyism
often counted more than character. The appointments of Fall, Daugherty
(Attorney General) and Hays (Postmaster General), not mention other
lesser appointments, were pure cronyism.

> I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until years
> after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the Worst
> President Ever.

"This *_one_* scandal"?? Our Sam once again demonstrates his
"fierce" research skills. Just grabbing the first source I have handy
on Harding, the 1988 World Book Encyclopedia, I see this in the
Harding entry:

"Harding brought so many of his friends to Washington they became
known as 'the Ohio gang.' Some were untrustworthy, but he enjoyed them
socially and gave them important jobs. A tide of corruption soon began
to rise ... [The Teapot Dome scandal is then described.]
"Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty was tried in 1926 on charges
concerning his administration of the Alien Property Custodian's
office ...
"Jesse W. Smith, a friend of Daugherty, committed suicide in 1923.
It had been revealed that Smith was arranging settlements between the
Department of Justice and law violators. Misuse of funds in the
Veterans' bureau resulted in the suicide of Charles F. Cramer, legal
adviser of the agency, and the imprisonment of Charles K. Forbes, the
director."
Checking another source, the 1972 Encyclopaedia Brittannica, we see
the Property Custodian and Veterans' Bureau scandals described as
"wholesale looting."

> There was also the small matter that Harding was sleeping with a
> teenaged girl while president.

Supporting the point I made earlier, that Harding devoted more time
to philandering and other such pursuits than to proper governance.

World Book sums up Harding as follows:

"Historians almost unanimously rank Harding as one of the weakest
Presidents ... He failed because he was weak-willed and a poor judge
of character."


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 10:49:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 10:07 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:11 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And why was Harding such a bad president anyway? It has long been said
> > that Harding was the worst president America ever had.
>
> > What did Harding do wrong? You cannot name one bad thing Harding ever
> > did.
>
> Sam, a President of the United States is judged not just by what he
> himself does, but by what he allows the members of his administration
> to do. If he is a bad supervisor, if he allows members of his cabinet
> and staff to commit crimes and engage in corrupt practices, then he is
> a failure as a president, whether or not he personally committed any
> improper act.
> Harding was perhaps the most clueless man ever to occupy the White
> House, as he himself admitted. The term "figurehead" applies to him in
> spades. He was no more in charge of the country than a hood ornament
> drives a car. He held the office of President, but he came nowhere
> close to fulfilling the duties of a President. He brought in a bunch
> of his Ohio cronies who proceeded to loot the country right under his
> nose.
> It was Harding's responsibility to know of these things, and to
> dismiss and prosecute the malefactors. Instead he played poker,
> philandered, knew nothing, and did nothing, while sitting at the head
> of the most corrupt administration since Grant's. That makes him a
> very bad President.

I just did a little bit of research into the Teapot Dome Scandal. The
whole thing was about the fact that the Secretary of Interior under
Harding, Albert Fall, leased oil fields in the Teapot Dome Area of
Wyoming to Sinclair Oil and another big oil company, in return for
which Fall received two loans, one of which had to be repaid.

This seems to be a very small deal. There must have been a thousand
scandals bigger than this one. The leases themselves were entirely
legal. The only thing questionable was the loans, which were kept
secret and Harding did not and could not have known about them.

I fail to see how this one scandal, that did not come out until years
after Harding had died, could cause him to be labeled as the Worst
President Ever.

The oil fields are still producing to this day.

There was also the small matter that Harding was sleeping with a
teenaged girl while president. However, lots of presidents have done
that. Harding was not the only one.

My latest book PROVES that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had two
active mistresses while president, one of whom was often seen in the
President's White House bedroom late at night with only her nightgown
on. Although the president could not walk, he was still capable of
other things.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/092389196X

My book about Warren G. Harding, among the Greatest of American
Presidents, will soon be out at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234

Sam Sloan


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 08:07:36
From:
Subject: What Harding did wrong (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On Apr 4, 7:11=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> And why was Harding such a bad president anyway? It has long been said
> that Harding was the worst president America ever had.
>
> =A0What did Harding do wrong? You cannot name one bad thing Harding ever
> did.

Sam, a President of the United States is judged not just by what he
himself does, but by what he allows the members of his administration
to do. If he is a bad supervisor, if he allows members of his cabinet
and staff to commit crimes and engage in corrupt practices, then he is
a failure as a president, whether or not he personally committed any
improper act.
Harding was perhaps the most clueless man ever to occupy the White
House, as he himself admitted. The term "figurehead" applies to him in
spades. He was no more in charge of the country than a hood ornament
drives a car. He held the office of President, but he came nowhere
close to fulfilling the duties of a President. He brought in a bunch
of his Ohio cronies who proceeded to loot the country right under his
nose.
It was Harding's responsibility to know of these things, and to
dismiss and prosecute the malefactors. Instead he played poker,
philandered, knew nothing, and did nothing, while sitting at the head
of the most corrupt administration since Grant's. That makes him a
very bad President.


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:28:28
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math



help bot wrote:

>I get the distinct impression that all this
>talk about Taylor Kingston having been a
>correspondence master is really getting
>under the skin of posters like, say, Guy
>Macon.

Nope. It would be pretty silly to let the fact that
someone is better at chess than I am bother me.

Then again, any "distinct impressions" you get
are likely to be more about picking a fight than
they are about truth.

I did have a question that was resolved when I found
documentation that USCF postal chess adopted the Elo
rating system many years after USCH OTB chess did.





    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 05:41:50
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 8:26 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
> > <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
> >> When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> >> participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> >> else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
> >> I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
> > I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
> > have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.
>
> Mike,
>
> Now that I have been so thoroughly discredited for saying something
> non-nasty to Sam Sloan, feel free to jump in -- anybody. Take the
> discussion in some new and interesting direction. Meanwhile, I will
> take my totally discredited self over here to this dark corner and
> observe without being noticed. :)
>
> By the way, my conclusion from all of that was that Taylor Kingston
> really did get an Elo rating of 2300+ that was later modified to 2262.
> It was awarded by the TKCF.

Rev. Walker,

Your performance here disappoints. I have previously found your
contributions overwhelmingly on point, fair and quite justified in
their detailed analysis. You've strayed in this one; I prefer your
former self.

What I suspect you perceive to be fierce inspection comes
across as petty and unfair when viewed in the context of
the original discussion and the actual specifics. The original
discussion focused on a review of a book and Mr. Parr's
distortion of it into Mr. Kingston's ability to analyze. As an
offhand comment to address the distraction, Mr. Kingston
mentioned a ranking and rating which was directly on point--
postal, where extended, deep analysis in needed to succeed,
and other distractions of OTB play are not as prevalent (but
agreed, did not clarify that aspect. See below). The
essential message of the comment was spot on--he has
demonstrated a measured competence that refutes the initial
(off topic) slur.

You spent an enormous amount of effort trying to define,
yes, in a disrespectful manner, in some precise way,
just what an accurate number might be at the time. This
approach is out of place for the context in which the comment
was made. Furthermore, what Mr. Kingston did--accepting a
knowledgeable contributor's assessment (T.M. and 2262)--is
what most would do. That is, a conversion formula from the
same general time was used to get _an approximation_ to
what the number would be (just as 2300+ is an approximation).
To focus on that aspect to the degree you did--without offering
any evidence that the methodolgy was deficient, would
result in an assessment that showed Mr. Kingston in a worse
light or that Mr. Kingston had any idea that is was unjustifiably
favorable for him--is well, petty and not the way honorable
and fair people discuss issues. Labeling it as TKCF further
demonstrates the ugliness of your argumentation.

I suspect you think you had "gotcha" moment and wished to
pursue it. Mr. Kingston has acknowledged that his 2300+
was too high. Mr. Parr and Mr. Sloan put undue weight on
the use of ELO as if something was implied in some
nefarious manner. I haven't determined from the threads, in
any of their reincarnations, whether Harkness was, or was
not actually calculated using an ELO based method (given
the time frame and rating systems of the USCF at the time,
I would be surprised if it wasn't, however). This could be
something I've missed. If there were nefarious intent behind
the label, I'm willing to accept the explanation offered at the
time, which was to give Mr. Parr enough rope to hang himself.
Mr. Kingston had, and has, demonstrated a competence with
writing and thinking skills to support that position, just as Mr.
Parr has demonstrated his strong linguistic skills,
unfortunately too often to distort and contort, as if arguing the
indefensible was some sort of game. Their history of writings
in this group, which you may not have followed over the years,
would support such a device by Mr. Kingston. It is accurate
to say we can't know.

Why you would apply this detailed investigation of the
accuracy of a number he accepts, when in the original
context his comment was very appropriate, and his ongoing
actions are just efforts at repudiating the endless insincere
reincarnations that Mr. Parr generates? Again, this is not the
way honorable and fair people carry on a discussion intended
to resolve an issue by reason.

K

PS You were serious with your 'fierce' comment about Sloan?
I was sure you were being facetious. I'm surprised.


> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.



    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 05:22:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Warren G. Harding, America's Greatest President?
On Apr 4, 7:03 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 4, 7:11 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Be on the lookout for my book about Warren G. Harding, the Greatest of
> > American Presidents,
>
> Right, and Teapot Dome was the republic's shining moment, surpassing
> in glory even such triumphs as Pearl Harbor and Watergate.

I think this inane thread dredging up an non-event from three years
ago is a strong contender.



    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 05:03:13
From:
Subject: Warren G. Harding, America's Greatest President?
On Apr 4, 7:11=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Be on the lookout for my book about Warren G. Harding, the Greatest of
> American Presidents,

Right, and Teapot Dome was the republic's shining moment, surpassing
in glory even such triumphs as Pearl Harbor and Watergate.

Sam, April 1st was last Tuesday.


     
Date: 03 May 2008 20:23:30
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Warren G. Harding, America's Greatest President?
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:03:13 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>On Apr 4, 7:11=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Be on the lookout for my book about Warren G. Harding, the Greatest of
>> American Presidents,
>
> Right, and Teapot Dome was the republic's shining moment, surpassing
>in glory even such triumphs as Pearl Harbor and Watergate.
>
> Sam, April 1st was last Tuesday.


The book just this minute finally came out.

$29.95 plus free shipping from Amazon, available at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891234

464 pages

Although best known for its accounts of hot sex with the President in
the White House Laundry Room, a large part of the book is concerned
with efforts of the mother to obtain child support for her
illegitimate child, who was left destitute after the untimely death of
her father, who had been President of the United States.

Sam Sloan


    
Date: 04 Apr 2008 04:11:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 11:42 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> TKCF -- TAYLOR KINGSTON CHESS FEDERATION?
>
> >Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that
>
> Hellen Keller was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding
> was a great President (a claim Sam has actually made, in case
> you didn't know). At least this relieves me of any further temptation
> to take you at all seriously.> -- Taylor Kingston to John Walker
>
> >If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand...
>
> By the way, my conclusion from all of that was that Taylor
> Kingston really did get an Elo rating of 2300+ that was later
> modified to 2262. It was awarded by the TKCF..> -- John Walker's
> reply
>
> Warren Harding was one of our greatest
> presidents, possibly second only to that wondrous
> gold-standard Democrat, Grover Cleveland, or to Thomas
> Jefferson, who to his credit, supported state
> nullification of federal law.
>
> Okay, the court historians, who have thankfully
> dwindled in numbers and influence, long laughed at
> Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and, yes, Cleveland. None
> of these men favored grand public enterprises. Rather
> they supported the idea of men pursuing their
> interests in a free society buoyed by sound currency.
> No heroic wars, no massed mounds of dead bodies --
> just men pursuing private interests without a massive
> central regime spying on them.
>
> Taylor Kingston would do well to learn this much
> at least: there is a lot of positive left and right
> revisionism re Harding. Among other points, he was
> a notable anti-militarist, and his call for "Normalcy" was
> a call for undoing the numerous governmental horrors that
> sprang up during World War I. "War is the health of the state,"
> as the phrase goes.
>
> Harding was also fortunate in his key biographer,
> Francis Russell, whose "Shadow of Blooming Grove"
> is by and large favorable to Harding's presidency.
>
> Finally, to give this little account some chess
> currency, Gaston B. Means and a ghostwriter put out a
> book, The Strange Death of Warren Harding, suggesting
> that Harding was murdered. Some of you -- probably
> about the same percentage as have heard the name Ken
> Harkness before -- will know that Means was the rogue
> who worked with Norman Whitaker in their successful
> attempt to mulct money, about $100,000, from Evalyn
> Walsh McLean, owner of the Hope Diamond and publisher
> of the Washington Post, by convincing her they could
> retrieve the Lindbergh baby.
>
> And, yes, questions remain about Harding's
> death, though the Means book is not highly regarded.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr

Larry, you could not possibly have known this, because I had not told
anybody until now, but I am just about to publish a book about one of
our greatest presidents, none other than Warren G. Harding.

A book has just come out with a chapter on Harding.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/092389196X

Now, I am working on a book about Harding, written by one of his very
closest associates, Nan Britton.

And why was Harding such a bad president anyway? It has long been said
that Harding was the worst president America ever had.

What did Harding do wrong? You cannot name one bad thing Harding ever
did.

The book that will come out will appear at:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891218

Meanwhile, I am looking for some good pictures. Do you have any?

Did you know (because I did not know until I started working on these
books) that Evalyn Walsh McLean, owner of the Hope Diamond, was also
the personal best friend of Florence Harding and a frequent guest at
the White House? These people, along with Gaston B. Means, were often
together while Harding was president. Now, connect that with the fact
that International Chess Master Norman T. Whitaker was playing chess
at the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco directly across the street
from the Palace Hotel at the very moment when President Harding died
in a hotel room at that Hotel. Later, Whitaker got involved with
Evalyn Walsh McLean, best friend of Florence Harding, and personally
drove her in his car from Aiken, South Carolina to El Paso Texas, a
distance of 1586 miles, because it was believed that the Lindbergh
baby was being held for ransom across the river in Juarez, Mexico.

The last time I met Whitaker (before he died) I finally got up the
nerve to ask him about this. (I never had the courage to do this
before, "By the way, Norm, how did the old Lindbergh Kidnapping go?")
I did not write it down and do not remember what he said, except he
started talking about all the dirty tricks Means had done. Whitaker
was driving his VW at the time and I really wish I had taken notes on
what he said, but alas I did not.

I now believe that Whitaker was probably not in on the scam and
probably really believed that the Lindbergh Baby was being held in
Juarez, and thus was not guilty. Why would he drive 1586 miles, a trip
of two or three days, if he knew that it was just a scam?

Be on the lookout for my book about Warren G. Harding, the Greatest of
American Presidents, as related by his very closest associate, coming
soon at a bookstore near you.

Sam Sloan


     
Date: 04 Apr 2008 06:43:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:


>And why was Harding such a bad president anyway? It has long been said
>that Harding was the worst president America ever had.

Not any more.

> What did Harding do wrong? You cannot name one bad thing Harding ever
>did.

Here's something that needs an answer: just how good a poker player
*was* Harding, anyway?


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 22:02:46
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
KENNEDY RANTS

<The /real/ weakness in TK's rating is that a) it was
earned remotely, and b) since his OTB rating is around
400 points lower, there is a possibility of foul play. > -- help bot

Dear Rev. Walker,

You will have noticed gadfly Greg Kennedy by now,
an embittered Indiana factory worker who currently posts
under the name of help bot. He once accused GM Evans
of "brainwashing" the American public into accepting
Fischer's conditions against Karpov in 1975 when, in
point of fact, Evans was virtually the only voice in Chess
Life opposing Fischer's conditions..

The man accuses you of being an Evans ratpacker
(more anon on this phrase) and implies that NNnot
Taylor Kingston cheated at postal chess, given the gap
between the latter's OTB and postal performances.

To begin, Greg will write anything that pops
into his head. Unfortunately, there is a gap between
his brain, which can hold information normally enough,
and his mind, which remains semi-developed.

Greg resents his betters at chess. That sums up his life.

Several years back, he blamed Indiana itself for
the lacunae in his literary and historical knowledge.
He spoke of how he read comic books during the 1960s,
and the idea was that if he had lived in Brooklyn
rather than the "cultural wasteland" and Indiana, he
might have been another Bobby or might have had a
teacher who would have directed him toward, say, the
Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes rather than Ratman
chess comics or whatever.

Greg's position was, as epitomized by GM Larry
Evans, "I coulda been a contendah." The poor guy will never
forgive the five-time U.S. champion for that comment. He still
bears and bares his stigmata almost daily on this forum.

At the time that I published several long essays
on Edward Winter's attacking methods, Greg initially
told us that he could not get through them. Two or
three days later, having forgotten his initial lie, he said
he stayed up the entire night reading my efforts.

In recent discussions here, we learned that Greg
did not know the basic historical political geography
of Europe. He was even unaware that Steinitz was an
American citizen before, during and after the period
he was world chess champion.

As for Greg's stuff about you being an Evans
ratpacker, he is imitating the phrase, "Winterian
ratpacker" that I invented several years back. It is
Greg's practice to imitate the polemical phrases and
ploys of others. He can never speak entirely for himself.

Now, then, what about Greg's nasty implication
that NMnot Kingston cheated at postal chess? The
truth is likely the precise opposite: few human
beings in the history of postal chess labored and
labored and ... -a-b-o-r-e-d more assiduously at his
chess positions than NMnot Kingston.

That makes sense to me. An OTB class "A"
player, who has an ego, wants to prove a few things to
himself re his intellectual endowment. NMnot Kingston
works like a zealous army ant and, to be perfectly
fair, possibly also brings insight and creativity to
his lucubrations. End result: he overachieves in
postal chess and then ... quits.

The entire sequence is natural based on what we
know about chess people and far from discreditable to
NMnot Kingston.

KINGSTON'S STUPID LIE

My quarrel with Taylort Kingston is that he
intended to deceive readers when claiming to be "2300+
Elo." The deception was not of the kind that tries to
turn 1806 postal into 2300+ Elo but of the kind that would
elevate him in the eyes of readers. It was a stupid lie
that brought relief only for a few hours until he was
outed by the indefatigably tenacious Sam Sloan.

NMnot Kingston has shown character weakness
under extreme emotional pressure on this forum when
praising himself under other names and when refusing
to play Sam Sloan for the reason obvious to everyone.

But the man has given no evidence of being a
serial cheat. Rather the opposite, in fact. He
zealously works to do well in his chess writing -- a
point I have made again and again over the years.
I don't his probity under normal circumstances.

Yours, Larry Parr



.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 21:42:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
TKCF -- TAYLOR KINGSTON CHESS FEDERATION?

>Praising Sam Sloan's research skills is like saying that
Hellen Keller was a fine movie critic, or that Warren Harding
was a great President (a claim Sam has actually made, in case
you didn't know). At least this relieves me of any further temptation
to take you at all seriously. > -- Taylor Kingston to John Walker

>If the arguments got too tough to handle, I understand...
By the way, my conclusion from all of that was that Taylor
Kingston really did get an Elo rating of 2300+ that was later
modified to 2262. It was awarded by the TKCF.. > -- John Walker's
reply

Warren Harding was one of our greatest
presidents, possibly second only to that wondrous
gold-standard Democrat, Grover Cleveland, or to Thomas
Jefferson, who to his credit, supported state
nullification of federal law.

Okay, the court historians, who have thankfully
dwindled in numbers and influence, long laughed at
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and, yes, Cleveland. None
of these men favored grand public enterprises. Rather
they supported the idea of men pursuing their
interests in a free society buoyed by sound currency.
No heroic wars, no massed mounds of dead bodies --
just men pursuing private interests without a massive
central regime spying on them.

Taylor Kingston would do well to learn this much
at least: there is a lot of positive left and right
revisionism re Harding. Among other points, he was
a notable anti-militarist, and his call for "Normalcy" was
a call for undoing the numerous governmental horrors that
sprang up during World War I. "War is the health of the state,"
as the phrase goes.

Harding was also fortunate in his key biographer,
Francis Russell, whose "Shadow of Blooming Grove"
is by and large favorable to Harding's presidency.

Finally, to give this little account some chess
currency, Gaston B. Means and a ghostwriter put out a
book, The Strange Death of Warren Harding, suggesting
that Harding was murdered. Some of you -- probably
about the same percentage as have heard the name Ken
Harkness before -- will know that Means was the rogue
who worked with Norman Whitaker in their successful
attempt to mulct money, about $100,000, from Evalyn
Walsh McLean, owner of the Hope Diamond and publisher
of the Washington Post, by convincing her they could
retrieve the Lindbergh baby.

And, yes, questions remain about Harding's
death, though the Means book is not highly regarded.

Yours, Larry Parr


J.D. Walker wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
> > <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> >> participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> >> else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
> >> I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
> >
> >
> > I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
> > have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.
>
> Mike,
>
> Now that I have been so thoroughly discredited for saying something
> non-nasty to Sam Sloan, feel free to jump in -- anybody. Take the
> discussion in some new and interesting direction. Meanwhile, I will
> take my totally discredited self over here to this dark corner and
> observe without being noticed. :)
>
> By the way, my conclusion from all of that was that Taylor Kingston
> really did get an Elo rating of 2300+ that was later modified to 2262.
> It was awarded by the TKCF.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 19:05:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
WE DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF LURKERS

The issue is whether people are reading the
thread between the Rev. Walker and Taylor Kingston.

Guy Macon may be right that few, if any, are
reading it, but if one recollects that most famous of
threads on the distinction between capitalized and
lower-case "T's" and "t's" for the words "The" and
"the," as in the phrases, "The Historian" and "the
Historian," we can never be too sure what the
readership at will tolerate. The apparent fact
that Neil Brennen and I were being read on this
subject indicates the subterranean standards of
most readers.

There are mornings and evenings -- afternoons,
too -- when a warm, albeit bittersweet feeling of love
requited and unrequited coddles the soul as one
recalls the "The" thread.

I am not saying that Rev. Walker and NMnot
Kingston will one day entertain the fondest of
memories for the discussion of retroactive stabilizing
factors in converting Harkness-USCF-Elo-Glicko-Gekko
-Gooko systems. But it is possible that they will feel fuzzy
and furry and dewy-eyed.

Conclusion: this is a PUBLIC forum. If you don't like
the topic, tune out. Nobody forces anyone to read anything.

Yours, Larry Parr



Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>
> >When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> >participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> >else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
> >I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
>
> I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
> have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 18:16:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 8:44 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:24:55 +0000, Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >When I see a pattern like the one above, I wonder why the two
> >participants don't simply go to email, seein as how nobody
> >else is reading the thread. (And no, I am not reading it either.
> >I missed when clicking on a post in a thread I do read.)
>
> I have been following it. You really have no idea how many people may
> have been following it but have not (yet) seen fit to jump in.


Speaking on behalf of the throngs of readers who
are following this thread, I would like to toss aside
the petty issues of what TK's official Harkness
rating converted to and how, and instead focus on
the crucial issue of "what was TK's peak strength?".

We know, for instance, that TK himself hand-
picked a number for his starting rating, and that
this in turn influenced all later calculations under
the Harkness system; but who cares what that
number was? What really matters is his actual
performance, as indicated by his results alone.

My guess is that since we are talking about a
*peak*, having started much lower had a strong
effect in terms of distorting the numbers down-
ward; that is, had TK started nearer his actual
strength, his *peak rating* would very likely
have been higher still. Another way to put it is
that TK's actual performance rating was likely
to be higher than his published numbers, as
he had to work his way up so far, from such a
low starting point, in a limited number of
games.

As everyone knows, this lag effect can take
years to overcome; for instance, looking at my
GetClub rating, one can see that I am still far,
far below my actual strength, and were I to
suddenly retire, people might think I was a
mere 1500 player! (Of course, I am in reality
even stronger than the other Class A players,
like nearly-an-IMnes and Paulie Graf, etc.)

I get the distinct impression that all this
talk about Taylor Kingston having been a
correspondence master is really getting
under the skin of posters like, say, Guy
Macon. I knew nearly-IMnes was jealous,
but now other dregs seem to be coming out
of the woodwork to whine that TK is getting
too much attention. Now, Mr. Sloan I can
understand, for he was an only child, used
to getting ALL the attention. But why is it
that so many others here have so many
issues relating to *petty jealousy*?


-- help bot







  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 11:02:09
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 12:04=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
> > the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> > inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>
> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.

What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
"cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
cordial.

> >> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was your old
> >> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would be your
> >> established rating at that time.
>
> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. =A0I
> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. =A0The scale you presented
> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...

Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
again we will have to agree to differ.
And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
direction or to what degree.

Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
encourage me to continue the discussion.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 12:20:23
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:04 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
>>> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
>>> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>> I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.
>
> What shall I call that: a non-apology apology? You sign your posts
> "cordially," but the "in your own mind" rek was anything but
> cordial.
>
>>>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
>>>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
>>>> established rating at that time.
>> You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
>> proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
>> appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...
>
> Actually the April CL traditionally reported postal ratings as they
> stood at the end of the preceding year, i.e. in this case12/31/1985,
> and the conversion methodology would also have been set well before
> publication. My peak rating was established in December 1984.
> Thus there was only about one year between the time of my peak
> rating and the time the conversion algorithm was set. If you think the
> rating system underwent anything but the most trivial systematic
> drift in that brief span, whether inflationary or deflationary, then
> again we will have to agree to differ.
> And so far you have done nothing but assert that drift might have
> taken place -- you have not bothered to show that it did, in what
> direction or to what degree.
>
> Certainly any fluctuations were far too trivial to justify the great
> waste of time involved in our discussion. The fact that you replied so
> quickly, shows that you still have not bothered to inform yourself
> adequately about the background of this issue, despite my repeated
> suggestions. These things, combined with your uncordial rek, do not
> encourage me to continue the discussion.

Let me sumize my findings from this discussion before I drop it.

You have shown me that you were a postal chess master under the old
rating system. You have shown me that you were #45 in the nation as a
postal player at that time. I think this is a worthy achievement and I
have said so. Congratulations Taylor!

You have claimed that your peak Elo rating at this time was 2300+ and
later amended that to 2262 or some such. The evidence you have shown me
for that is unconvincing. So I am content to agree to disagree on that
matter.

I have tried to present my statements in a straightforward and courteous
way. If you feel that I have failed in that, I am sorry. It was not my
intent. Have a fine day.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 08:46:24
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 11:28=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 11:02 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> =A0 Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, j=
ust
> >>>>> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
> >>>> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"=

> >>>> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kin=
d
> >>>> of double talk is this? =A0:)
> >>> =A0 No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement tha=
t
> >>> rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
> >>> mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
> >>> =A0 However, the 1806=3D2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation=

> >>> over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
> >>> point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*=

> >>> changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
> >>> in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.
> >> You told me that the rating that resulted from the >actual conversion<
> >> that was executed by the USCF on a specific date was 2037. =A0The 1806
> >> figure was not input to that process.
>
> >> What you have done with the 1806 figure is in your own mind.
>
> > =A0 Ahem, Rev, it is decidedly *_not_* a product of my mind, it was
> > published by the USCF. If, as I suggested earlier, you had carefully
> > read the thread where all this started, for which I supplied you with
> > a link, you would have found this post by Tom tinak from 7 June
> > 2005:
>
> > From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> > Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as
> > OTB.
> > For established ratings:
>
> > Old =A0 =A0New
> > 1629 =A0 2100
> > 1738 =A0 2200
> > 1848 =A0 2300
> > 1958 =A0 2400
>
> > So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> > =A0 =A0*** end tinak quote ***
>
> > =A0 Feel free to check tinak's post here:http://tinyurl.com/326b36
> > =A0 I would also suggest you check the April 1986 Chess Life.
>
> >> =A0If it is
> >> really so important to you, perhaps you could get the USCF board to
> >> approve your personal conversion.
>
> > =A0 Looks like they already did.
>
> Okay,

Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.

> lets look at it from this point of view then. =A0What was your old
> rating in April 1986 when that was published? =A0That would be your
> established rating at that time.

Rev, with all due respect, this is getting a bit tedious. You
continue to ask questions that have already been addressed, and fail
to avail yourself of information already published. If you are going
to presume to criticize me in this matter, it behooves you to be
thoroughly informed.
As I said earlier in this very thread, I don't know exactly what my
rating was after withdrawing from postal chess and forfeiting 4 or 5
games 23 years ago. I did not keep a record of that, and I have none
of the CL issues from 1985 or 1986 that would say. In any event, my
rating at that time has never been part of this issue. Again, if you
would use the link I provided, you will see that the issue has always
been about my *peak* postal rating, not the points forfeited by
retirement.




   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 09:04:06
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 11:28 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 11:02 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
>>>>>>> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
>>>>>> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
>>>>>> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
>>>>>> of double talk is this? :)
>>>>> No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement that
>>>>> rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
>>>>> mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
>>>>> However, the 1806=2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation
>>>>> over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
>>>>> point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*
>>>>> changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
>>>>> in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.
>>>> You told me that the rating that resulted from the >actual conversion<
>>>> that was executed by the USCF on a specific date was 2037. The 1806
>>>> figure was not input to that process.
>>>> What you have done with the 1806 figure is in your own mind.
>>> Ahem, Rev, it is decidedly *_not_* a product of my mind, it was
>>> published by the USCF. If, as I suggested earlier, you had carefully
>>> read the thread where all this started, for which I supplied you with
>>> a link, you would have found this post by Tom tinak from 7 June
>>> 2005:
>>> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
>>> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as
>>> OTB.
>>> For established ratings:
>>> Old New
>>> 1629 2100
>>> 1738 2200
>>> 1848 2300
>>> 1958 2400
>>> So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>>> *** end tinak quote ***
>>> Feel free to check tinak's post here:http://tinyurl.com/326b36
>>> I would also suggest you check the April 1986 Chess Life.
>>>> If it is
>>>> really so important to you, perhaps you could get the USCF board to
>>>> approve your personal conversion.
>>> Looks like they already did.
>> Okay,
>
> Then will you withdraw your comment that "What you have done with
> the 1806 figure is in your own mind"? That statement was not only
> inaccurate, but had a certain tone unconducive to cordial dialogue.
>

I am sorry, but it seems that my assessment still holds.

>> lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
>> rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
>> established rating at that time.

You offered April 1986 material as a way to explain your thinking. I
proceeded to begin to examine your offering. The scale you presented
appears to apply to ratings that were established as of April 1986...

> Rev, with all due respect, this is getting a bit tedious. You
> continue to ask questions that have already been addressed, and fail
> to avail yourself of information already published. If you are going
> to presume to criticize me in this matter, it behooves you to be
> thoroughly informed.

You should not take it as criticism. It is simply an attempt to examine
what you have stated and get to the heart of it.

> As I said earlier in this very thread, I don't know exactly what my
> rating was after withdrawing from postal chess and forfeiting 4 or 5
> games 23 years ago. I did not keep a record of that, and I have none
> of the CL issues from 1985 or 1986 that would say. In any event, my
> rating at that time has never been part of this issue. Again, if you
> would use the link I provided, you will see that the issue has always
> been about my *peak* postal rating, not the points forfeited by
> retirement.

I take it this is a round-about way of saying that your established
rating in April 1986 was not 1806. You want to take that scale and
apply it to a previous period. I believe this is generally unjustified.

Let me give an example. The old postal rating system was around for
quite awhile. During that time the rating scale changed and was
adjusted to accommodate those changes. So a postal master from a period
that preceded your peak period may have had a much different rating.
Possibly much lower. If that player then attempted to use the
conversion scale from April 1986 to convert his peak rating from the
early days, he would not get the sort of result he might like.

So in this matter of backdating the April 1986 rating conversion, how
can it be fairly applied?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 08:20:08
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 11:02=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> =A0 Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, jus=
t
> >>> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
> >> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
> >> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
> >> of double talk is this? =A0:)
>
> > =A0 No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement that
> > rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
> > mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
> > =A0 However, the 1806=3D2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation
> > over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
> > point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*
> > changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
> > in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.
>
> You told me that the rating that resulted from the >actual conversion<
> that was executed by the USCF on a specific date was 2037. =A0The 1806
> figure was not input to that process.
>
> What you have done with the 1806 figure is in your own mind.

Ahem, Rev, it is decidedly *_not_* a product of my mind, it was
published by the USCF. If, as I suggested earlier, you had carefully
read the thread where all this started, for which I supplied you with
a link, you would have found this post by Tom tinak from 7 June
2005:

=46rom the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as
OTB.
For established ratings:

Old New
1629 2100
1738 2200
1848 2300
1958 2400

So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

*** end tinak quote ***

Feel free to check tinak's post here: http://tinyurl.com/326b36
I would also suggest you check the April 1986 Chess Life.

> =A0If it is
> really so important to you, perhaps you could get the USCF board to
> approve your personal conversion.

Looks like they already did.



   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 08:28:05
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 11:02 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
>>>>> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
>>>> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
>>>> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
>>>> of double talk is this? :)
>>> No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement that
>>> rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
>>> mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
>>> However, the 1806=2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation
>>> over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
>>> point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*
>>> changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
>>> in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.
>> You told me that the rating that resulted from the >actual conversion<
>> that was executed by the USCF on a specific date was 2037. The 1806
>> figure was not input to that process.
>>
>> What you have done with the 1806 figure is in your own mind.
>
> Ahem, Rev, it is decidedly *_not_* a product of my mind, it was
> published by the USCF. If, as I suggested earlier, you had carefully
> read the thread where all this started, for which I supplied you with
> a link, you would have found this post by Tom tinak from 7 June
> 2005:
>
> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as
> OTB.
> For established ratings:
>
> Old New
> 1629 2100
> 1738 2200
> 1848 2300
> 1958 2400
>
> So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> *** end tinak quote ***
>
> Feel free to check tinak's post here: http://tinyurl.com/326b36
> I would also suggest you check the April 1986 Chess Life.
>
>> If it is
>> really so important to you, perhaps you could get the USCF board to
>> approve your personal conversion.
>
> Looks like they already did.
>

Okay, lets look at it from this point of view then. What was your old
rating in April 1986 when that was published? That would be your
established rating at that time.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 07:52:11
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 10:11=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
> > as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
>
> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
> of double talk is this? =A0:)

No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement that
rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
However, the 1806=3D2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation
over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*
changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.

> Earlier you said that you viewed this discussion as a public court room.
> =A0 This juror, or member of the public, is definitely leaning away from
> agreeing with your conclusion about your rating at this point.

Well, Rev, facts are facts, whatever anyone's opinion may be. And
whatever you may think about this particular issue, you will find that
my record of adherence to factual accuracy on this forum is light-
years ahead of those who have been attacking me on this issue.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 08:02:21
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:11 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
>>> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.
>> Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
>> that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
>> of double talk is this? :)
>
> No double-talk at all, Rev. I was agreeing with your statement that
> rating systems fluctuate over time, due to inflation and other
> mathematical imperfections. That is very true.
> However, the 1806=2260 equivalence refers NOT to any fluctuation
> over time, but to the *_actual_* conversion USCF did at a *_single_*
> point in time. The conversion being a *_one-time thing_*, it *_never_*
> changes, anymore than the pound-kilogram ratio changes. Any variance
> in ratings over time after that is quite irrelevant.
>

You told me that the rating that resulted from the >actual conversion<
that was executed by the USCF on a specific date was 2037. The 1806
figure was not input to that process.

What you have done with the 1806 figure is in your own mind. If it is
really so important to you, perhaps you could get the USCF board to
approve your personal conversion.

>> Earlier you said that you viewed this discussion as a public court room.
>> This juror, or member of the public, is definitely leaning away from
>> agreeing with your conclusion about your rating at this point.
>
> Well, Rev, facts are facts, whatever anyone's opinion may be. And
> whatever you may think about this particular issue, you will find that
> my record of adherence to factual accuracy on this forum is light-
> years ahead of those who have been attacking me on this issue.


--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 07:30:07
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
On Apr 3, 9:56=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 9:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Taylor,
>
> >> After further reflection, I wanted to address one statement you made
> >> that strikes me as untrue. =A0You stated: "The fact that my rating at t=
he
> >> time of its peak was measured by a different system does not change its=

> >> strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a
> >> person's weight. "
>
> >> Rating systems are much different than international standards of
> >> weights and measures. =A0It is a very nice feature of systems of weight=
s
> >> and measures that there are conversion formulas that readily apply
> >> regardless of the year that we choose to apply them. =A0This feature do=
es
> >> not necessarily hold true for rating systems. =A0I am not an expert her=
e,
> >> but we all know that the rating systems are subject to a number of
> >> factors that cause them to change over time. =A0Inflation, deflation,
> >> rating floors, membership changes, activity changes, politics, and even=

> >> sandbagging. =A0Rating systems are nowhere near as stable as the
> >> international system of weights and measures.
>
> > =A0 Very true, though not really relevant to our discussion.
>
> I am glad that you see that it is very true. =A0The relevance is that you
> continue to use that analogy as you did this morning. =A0As a refresher,
> the statement: "The fact that my rating at the time of its peak was
> measured by a different system does not change its strength, any more
> than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a person's weight. " is
> an invalid analogy.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that a=

> >> conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
> >> yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. =A0This =
is
> >> why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a conversion
> >> factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating.
>
> > =A0 With all due respect, Reverend, your "different time frame" does not=

> > apply. We are talking here basically about a *single* point in time,
> > December 1984. That was the date of my peak postal rating. I ceased to
> > play after that, withdrawing from my remaining games. It was therefore
> > also the point at which I lost about 200-250 rating points due to
> > forfeitures. All this was instantaneous as far as ratings were
> > concerned.
> > =A0 The conversion of USCF postal ratings from Harkness to Elo was also
> > a single, one-time event, in 1987. There is no "other time frame" to
> > consider at all.
>
> > =A0 Are you saying that had USCF converted to Elo right at the moment of=

> > my peak rating in December 1984, rather than in 1987, that it somehow
> > would have changed my 1806 to something substantially lower than
> > 2260-2270? I think not.
>
> > =A0 And let's look at in a slightly different way, a way that has
> > nothing to do with rating formulas. My peak rating put me at #45 on
> > the USCF postal list, out of about 6,350 active players (and I don't
> > know how many other inactive). Just counting active players, that put
> > me in the top 0.7%, ahead of 99.29% of the group.
> > =A0 Checking the OTB ratings distribution on page 68 of the January 1984=

> > Chess Life, we see that it lists a total of 27,822 players. Of these,
> > 311 players, 1.1117%, are rated 2300 and up, ahead of 98.88% of the
> > group.
> > =A0 99.29% is *very* close to 98.88% (slightly better, in fact). I
> > consider this rather strong evidence that in 1984, a postal rating of
> > 1806 Harkness and an OTB rating of 2300 Elo were very much equivalent,
> > in terms of relative strength within their respective groups.
>
> I disagree and I will leave it at that. =A0Have fun with your argument.

Rev, you really don't think 99.29% is very close to 98.88%? Oh well.
In any event, I am quite content if we can agree to differ cordially.

I look forward to your applying similar standards and logic to the
following:

1. Sam Sloan's claim to have won the World Championship of Chinese
Chess
2. Sam Sloan's claim to have been "a rated chess master"
3. Phil Innes' claim to have had a rating of 2450
4. Larry Parr's claim to have won an "international Swiss"
tournament.
5. Parr's and Sloan's claim that USCF OTB ratings are not Elo
ratings.
6. Parr's and Sloan's attributing fabricated statements to people
who never said or wrote anything like them.

These are claims that have far less factual support than any I have
made about any of my ratings, rank, or titles -- in most cases,
nothing approaching real factual support whatever. If you are
sincerely concerned about accuracy and honesty in chess-related
matters and statements made on this forum, it would seem that
consistency requires you to devote equal attention to them.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 07:46:27
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:56 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 9:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Taylor,
>>>> After further reflection, I wanted to address one statement you made
>>>> that strikes me as untrue. You stated: "The fact that my rating at the
>>>> time of its peak was measured by a different system does not change its
>>>> strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a
>>>> person's weight. "
>>>> Rating systems are much different than international standards of
>>>> weights and measures. It is a very nice feature of systems of weights
>>>> and measures that there are conversion formulas that readily apply
>>>> regardless of the year that we choose to apply them. This feature does
>>>> not necessarily hold true for rating systems. I am not an expert here,
>>>> but we all know that the rating systems are subject to a number of
>>>> factors that cause them to change over time. Inflation, deflation,
>>>> rating floors, membership changes, activity changes, politics, and even
>>>> sandbagging. Rating systems are nowhere near as stable as the
>>>> international system of weights and measures.
>>> Very true, though not really relevant to our discussion.
>> I am glad that you see that it is very true. The relevance is that you
>> continue to use that analogy as you did this morning. As a refresher,
>> the statement: "The fact that my rating at the time of its peak was
>> measured by a different system does not change its strength, any more
>> than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a person's weight. " is
>> an invalid analogy.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that a
>>>> conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
>>>> yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. This is
>>>> why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a conversion
>>>> factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating.
>>> With all due respect, Reverend, your "different time frame" does not
>>> apply. We are talking here basically about a *single* point in time,
>>> December 1984. That was the date of my peak postal rating. I ceased to
>>> play after that, withdrawing from my remaining games. It was therefore
>>> also the point at which I lost about 200-250 rating points due to
>>> forfeitures. All this was instantaneous as far as ratings were
>>> concerned.
>>> The conversion of USCF postal ratings from Harkness to Elo was also
>>> a single, one-time event, in 1987. There is no "other time frame" to
>>> consider at all.
>>> Are you saying that had USCF converted to Elo right at the moment of
>>> my peak rating in December 1984, rather than in 1987, that it somehow
>>> would have changed my 1806 to something substantially lower than
>>> 2260-2270? I think not.
>>> And let's look at in a slightly different way, a way that has
>>> nothing to do with rating formulas. My peak rating put me at #45 on
>>> the USCF postal list, out of about 6,350 active players (and I don't
>>> know how many other inactive). Just counting active players, that put
>>> me in the top 0.7%, ahead of 99.29% of the group.
>>> Checking the OTB ratings distribution on page 68 of the January 1984
>>> Chess Life, we see that it lists a total of 27,822 players. Of these,
>>> 311 players, 1.1117%, are rated 2300 and up, ahead of 98.88% of the
>>> group.
>>> 99.29% is *very* close to 98.88% (slightly better, in fact). I
>>> consider this rather strong evidence that in 1984, a postal rating of
>>> 1806 Harkness and an OTB rating of 2300 Elo were very much equivalent,
>>> in terms of relative strength within their respective groups.
>> I disagree and I will leave it at that. Have fun with your argument.
>
> Rev, you really don't think 99.29% is very close to 98.88%? Oh well.
> In any event, I am quite content if we can agree to differ cordially.
>
> I look forward to your applying similar standards and logic to the
> following:
>
> 1. Sam Sloan's claim to have won the World Championship of Chinese
> Chess
> 2. Sam Sloan's claim to have been "a rated chess master"
> 3. Phil Innes' claim to have had a rating of 2450
> 4. Larry Parr's claim to have won an "international Swiss"
> tournament.
> 5. Parr's and Sloan's claim that USCF OTB ratings are not Elo
> ratings.
> 6. Parr's and Sloan's attributing fabricated statements to people
> who never said or wrote anything like them.
>
> These are claims that have far less factual support than any I have
> made about any of my ratings, rank, or titles -- in most cases,
> nothing approaching real factual support whatever. If you are
> sincerely concerned about accuracy and honesty in chess-related
> matters and statements made on this forum, it would seem that
> consistency requires you to devote equal attention to them.

You would have a valid point if it were my job to police rgcp. I am
here on my own dime, and hope to occasionally find some amusement here.
If you are serious about wanting someone to take on the task of
investigating these various issues, try to define it as a job
description and indicating how much you are going to pay for the
services. You might find someone to do the work for you.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 06:57:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 3, 7:23 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 7:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > >>>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> > >>>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> > >>>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> > >>>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> > >>>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
> > >>>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
> > >>>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> > >>>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
> > >>>>> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
> > >>>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
> > >>>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> > >>>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
> > >>>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> > >>>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
> > >>>>> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
> > >>>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> > >>>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
> > >>>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
> > >>>>> Elo ratings.
> > >>>>> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
> > >>>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
> > >>>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
> > >>>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
> > >>>> Taylor,
> > >>>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
> > >>>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
> > >>>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
> > >>>> ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
> > >>> I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
> > >>> I know.
> > >>> I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
> > >>> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
> > >>> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
> > >>> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
> > >>> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
> > >>> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
> > >>> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
> > >>> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
> > >>> If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
> > >>> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
> > >>> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
> > >>> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
> > >> Taylor,
>
> > >> Thank you. We can work with the figure 2037. I also am not sure that
> > >> this will do any good, but there is a chance. I too am a retired chess
> > >> player so I understand some of the issues. I have to withdraw my claim
> > >> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. Nevertheless my
> > >> current inactive rating is 2235.
>
> > > That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
> > > only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:
>
> > >http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
> > >> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
> > >> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.
>
> > > Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
> > > opinions.
>
> > >> Until I
> > >> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
> > >> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. Here goes...
>
> > >> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
> > >> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
> > >> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."
>
> > > As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
> > > Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
> > > recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
> > > 1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
> > > Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
> > > at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
> > > change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
> > > changes a person's weight.
>
> > The fact that your peak rating was measured by a different system means
> > that it was not an Elo rating. Later when ratings went through the
> > formal conversion process they became Elo ratings for the USCF postal
> > players. Your assumption that you can informally backdate the
> > conversion process and apply it yourself is something that I have
> > trouble accepting as a 25 year data processing professional.
>
> Well, I've been a data-processing professional for nearly 28 years,
> Rev. Maybe you just need a a little more experience? :-)
>
> > If you
> > want to say that your peak rating was 1806 in the first USCF postal
> > rating system, I have no trouble with that.
>
> Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.

Taylor Kingston, you are like a broken record, now lecturing to Dr.
Walker, who obviously knows more about it than you do, and who has
made his views clear numerous times, most recently by stating:

"These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that
a conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. This
is why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a
conversion factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating."

You are making yourself look even more foolish than usual.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 06:12:16
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
On Apr 2, 9:58=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> After further reflection, I wanted to address one statement you made
> that strikes me as untrue. =A0You stated: "The fact that my rating at the
> time of its peak was measured by a different system does not change its
> strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a
> person's weight. "
>
> Rating systems are much different than international standards of
> weights and measures. =A0It is a very nice feature of systems of weights
> and measures that there are conversion formulas that readily apply
> regardless of the year that we choose to apply them. =A0This feature does
> not necessarily hold true for rating systems. =A0I am not an expert here,
> but we all know that the rating systems are subject to a number of
> factors that cause them to change over time. =A0Inflation, deflation,
> rating floors, membership changes, activity changes, politics, and even
> sandbagging. =A0Rating systems are nowhere near as stable as the
> international system of weights and measures.

Very true, though not really relevant to our discussion.

> These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that a
> conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
> yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. =A0This is
> why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a conversion
> factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating.

With all due respect, Reverend, your "different time frame" does not
apply. We are talking here basically about a *single* point in time,
December 1984. That was the date of my peak postal rating. I ceased to
play after that, withdrawing from my remaining games. It was therefore
also the point at which I lost about 200-250 rating points due to
forfeitures. All this was instantaneous as far as ratings were
concerned.
The conversion of USCF postal ratings from Harkness to Elo was also
a single, one-time event, in 1987. There is no "other time frame" to
consider at all.

Are you saying that had USCF converted to Elo right at the moment of
my peak rating in December 1984, rather than in 1987, that it somehow
would have changed my 1806 to something substantially lower than
2260-2270? I think not.

And let's look at in a slightly different way, a way that has
nothing to do with rating formulas. My peak rating put me at #45 on
the USCF postal list, out of about 6,350 active players (and I don't
know how many other inactive). Just counting active players, that put
me in the top 0.7%, ahead of 99.29% of the group.
Checking the OTB ratings distribution on page 68 of the January 1984
Chess Life, we see that it lists a total of 27,822 players. Of these,
311 players, 1.1117%, are rated 2300 and up, ahead of 98.88% of the
group.
99.29% is *very* close to 98.88% (slightly better, in fact). I
consider this rather strong evidence that in 1984, a postal rating of
1806 Harkness and an OTB rating of 2300 Elo were very much equivalent,
in terms of relative strength within their respective groups.



   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 10:59:32
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:086f72d8-2051-4e29-99de-fb15ba36e525@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...


> Are you saying that had USCF converted to Elo right at the moment of
>my peak rating in December 1984, rather than in 1987, that it somehow
>would have changed my 1806 to something substantially lower than
>2260-2270? I think not.

That's precisely what he is saying. Whether he just doesn't
understand what he is saying, or whether he is just not honest
enough to say it, is unclear.

The burden of proof is on him to show that some other conversion
would have been better than the one actually used by the USCF
a few years later. Don't hold your breath.



   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 06:56:26
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Taylor,
>>
>> After further reflection, I wanted to address one statement you made
>> that strikes me as untrue. You stated: "The fact that my rating at the
>> time of its peak was measured by a different system does not change its
>> strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a
>> person's weight. "
>>
>> Rating systems are much different than international standards of
>> weights and measures. It is a very nice feature of systems of weights
>> and measures that there are conversion formulas that readily apply
>> regardless of the year that we choose to apply them. This feature does
>> not necessarily hold true for rating systems. I am not an expert here,
>> but we all know that the rating systems are subject to a number of
>> factors that cause them to change over time. Inflation, deflation,
>> rating floors, membership changes, activity changes, politics, and even
>> sandbagging. Rating systems are nowhere near as stable as the
>> international system of weights and measures.
>
> Very true, though not really relevant to our discussion.

I am glad that you see that it is very true. The relevance is that you
continue to use that analogy as you did this morning. As a refresher,
the statement: "The fact that my rating at the time of its peak was
measured by a different system does not change its strength, any more
than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a person's weight. " is
an invalid analogy.

>> These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that a
>> conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
>> yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. This is
>> why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a conversion
>> factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating.
>
> With all due respect, Reverend, your "different time frame" does not
> apply. We are talking here basically about a *single* point in time,
> December 1984. That was the date of my peak postal rating. I ceased to
> play after that, withdrawing from my remaining games. It was therefore
> also the point at which I lost about 200-250 rating points due to
> forfeitures. All this was instantaneous as far as ratings were
> concerned.
> The conversion of USCF postal ratings from Harkness to Elo was also
> a single, one-time event, in 1987. There is no "other time frame" to
> consider at all.
>
> Are you saying that had USCF converted to Elo right at the moment of
> my peak rating in December 1984, rather than in 1987, that it somehow
> would have changed my 1806 to something substantially lower than
> 2260-2270? I think not.
>
> And let's look at in a slightly different way, a way that has
> nothing to do with rating formulas. My peak rating put me at #45 on
> the USCF postal list, out of about 6,350 active players (and I don't
> know how many other inactive). Just counting active players, that put
> me in the top 0.7%, ahead of 99.29% of the group.
> Checking the OTB ratings distribution on page 68 of the January 1984
> Chess Life, we see that it lists a total of 27,822 players. Of these,
> 311 players, 1.1117%, are rated 2300 and up, ahead of 98.88% of the
> group.
> 99.29% is *very* close to 98.88% (slightly better, in fact). I
> consider this rather strong evidence that in 1984, a postal rating of
> 1806 Harkness and an OTB rating of 2300 Elo were very much equivalent,
> in terms of relative strength within their respective groups.
>

I disagree and I will leave it at that. Have fun with your argument.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 05:23:20
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 9:37=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 7:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]=
om...
> >>>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is=

> >>>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo a=
nd
> >>>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Player=
s"
> >>>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rate=
d
> >>>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
> >>>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
> >>>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> >>>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
> >>>>> =A0 Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited a=
nd
> >>>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rati=
ng
> >>>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> >>>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept T=
he
> >>>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> >>>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
> >>>>> =A0 This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF=

> >>>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> >>>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,=

> >>>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all=

> >>>>> Elo ratings.
> >>>>> =A0 In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that=
the
> >>>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
> >>>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiit=
e.
> >>>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
> >>>> Taylor,
> >>>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tel=
l
> >>>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
> >>>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched post=
al
> >>>> ratings to the Elo system? =A0Was it 1806 then, or something else?
> >>> =A0 I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling wh=
at
> >>> I know.
> >>> =A0 I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
> >>> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
> >>> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited=

> >>> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.=

> >>> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
> >>> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
> >>> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would=

> >>> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
> >>> =A0 =A0If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show =
my
> >>> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
> >>> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been=

> >>> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
> >> Taylor,
>
> >> Thank you. =A0We can work with the figure 2037. =A0I also am not sure t=
hat
> >> this will do any good, but there is a chance. =A0I too am a retired che=
ss
> >> player so I understand some of the issues. =A0I have to withdraw my cla=
im
> >> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. =A0Nevertheless =
my
> >> current inactive rating is 2235.
>
> > =A0 That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
> > only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:
>
> >http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
> >> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with th=
e
> >> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.
>
> > =A0 Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
> > opinions.
>
> >> =A0Until I
> >> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
> >> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. =A0Here goes...
>
> >> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
> >> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
> >> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."
>
> > =A0 As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
> > Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
> > recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
> > 1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
> > Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
> > at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
> > change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
> > changes a person's weight.
>
> The fact that your peak rating was measured by a different system means
> that it was not an Elo rating. =A0Later when ratings went through the
> formal conversion process they became Elo ratings for the USCF postal
> players. =A0Your assumption that you can informally backdate the
> conversion process and apply it yourself is something that I have
> trouble accepting as a 25 year data processing professional.

Well, I've been a data-processing professional for nearly 28 years,
Rev. Maybe you just need a a little more experience? :-)

> =A0If you
> want to say that your peak rating was 1806 in the first USCF postal
> rating system, I have no trouble with that.

Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.


   
Date: 03 Apr 2008 07:11:40
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 9:37 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 7:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>>>>>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>>>>>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>>>>>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>>>>>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>>>>>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>>>>>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
>>>>>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>>>>>>> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
>>>>>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
>>>>>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
>>>>>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
>>>>>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
>>>>>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
>>>>>>> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
>>>>>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
>>>>>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
>>>>>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
>>>>>>> Elo ratings.
>>>>>>> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
>>>>>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
>>>>>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
>>>>>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
>>>>>> Taylor,
>>>>>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
>>>>>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
>>>>>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
>>>>>> ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
>>>>> I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
>>>>> I know.
>>>>> I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
>>>>> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
>>>>> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
>>>>> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
>>>>> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
>>>>> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
>>>>> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
>>>>> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
>>>>> If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
>>>>> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
>>>>> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
>>>>> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
>>>> Taylor,
>>>> Thank you. We can work with the figure 2037. I also am not sure that
>>>> this will do any good, but there is a chance. I too am a retired chess
>>>> player so I understand some of the issues. I have to withdraw my claim
>>>> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. Nevertheless my
>>>> current inactive rating is 2235.
>>> That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
>>> only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:
>>> http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>>>> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
>>>> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.
>>> Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
>>> opinions.
>>>> Until I
>>>> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
>>>> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. Here goes...
>>>> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
>>>> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
>>>> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."
>>> As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
>>> Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
>>> recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
>>> 1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
>>> Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
>>> at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
>>> change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
>>> changes a person's weight.
>> The fact that your peak rating was measured by a different system means
>> that it was not an Elo rating. Later when ratings went through the
>> formal conversion process they became Elo ratings for the USCF postal
>> players. Your assumption that you can informally backdate the
>> conversion process and apply it yourself is something that I have
>> trouble accepting as a 25 year data processing professional.
>
> Well, I've been a data-processing professional for nearly 28 years,
> Rev. Maybe you just need a a little more experience? :-)
>

I worked as an independent software contractor for small to mid-size
corporations, and a large non-profit. Conversions between systems of
various sorts were a staple of my professional diet. If you screw up
someone's payroll or general ledger you don't survive in that business.

These conversions were most often for transaction based systems that
were time sensitive. They involved considerable analysis, planning,
coding, testing, scheduling, backups and close supervision during the
cut-over to the new system.

I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent
professionals. That it was not a quick hack job. If that is the case
then most likely they had to deal with a number of oddball situations
that are normal for complex systems.

>> If you
>> want to say that your peak rating was 1806 in the first USCF postal
>> rating system, I have no trouble with that.
>
> Good. And to translate that 1806 to Elo, it becomes 2260-2270, just
> as 100 kilograms becomes 220 pounds.

Now in the other message I replied to you admitted it was "very true"
that this analogy was incorrect, yet you continue to use it. What kind
of double talk is this? :)

Earlier you said that you viewed this discussion as a public court room.
This juror, or member of the public, is definitely leaning away from
agreeing with your conclusion about your rating at this point.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 03 Apr 2008 11:41:53
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: [email protected]>

>
> I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent
> professionals.

oops.


--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


     
Date: 03 Apr 2008 09:45:53
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: [email protected]>
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>>
>> I am assuming that the USCF conversion was done by competent
>> professionals.
>
> oops.
>
>

LOL!!! :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 03 Apr 2008 04:42:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy
On Apr 2, 8:58 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I admit that someone like Ken Sloan may have a more detailed and
> accurate view of this. I'd welcome hearing it if he cares to share it.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Ken Sloan does not need to come here. You need to go there. Professor
Ken Sloan and Professor k Glickman have extensive and detailed
websites which deal with the studies they have done on this particular
subject.

Ken Sloan does not need to answer questions posted by every passing
Tom, Dick and Harry who posts here, who is too lazy to do a simple
Internet search for the extensive studies done on this subject.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 18:10:49
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 7:34=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com=
...
> >>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> >>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and=

> >>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"=

> >>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> >>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
> >>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
> >>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> >>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
> >>> =A0 Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and=

> >>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating=

> >>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> >>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The=

> >>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> >>> Present, page 12 (1978).
> >>> =A0 This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
> >>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> >>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
> >>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
> >>> Elo ratings.
> >>> =A0 In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that t=
he
> >>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
> >>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.=

> >>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
> >> Taylor,
>
> >> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
> >> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
> >> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal=

> >> ratings to the Elo system? =A0Was it 1806 then, or something else?
>
> > =A0 I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what=

> > I know.
> > =A0 I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
> > several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
> > withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
> > and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
> > Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
> > against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
> > conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
> > have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
> > =A0 =A0If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my=

> > post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
> > to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
> > printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
>
> Taylor,
>
> Thank you. =A0We can work with the figure 2037. =A0I also am not sure that=

> this will do any good, but there is a chance. =A0I too am a retired chess
> player so I understand some of the issues. =A0I have to withdraw my claim
> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. =A0Nevertheless my
> current inactive rating is 2235.

That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:

http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/


> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.

Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
opinions.

> =A0Until I
> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. =A0Here goes...
>
> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."

As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
changes a person's weight.

> That sounds true to me from what I have heard and it does you credit. =A0A=

> postal master is worthy of respect. =A0

Well, I'm glad someone thinks so.

> Although they develop a somewhat
> different set of skills to excel at correspondence chess, they are
> important skills. =A0(Note: I am purposely leaving aside considerations of=

> engine enhanced correspondence chess for this discussion.)

That would be quite irrelevant in my case. I had no chess-playing
computer until about 1993, no PC at all until about 1995, and there
was none as good in the early 1980s as a human postal master, in any
case.

> However you made a different statement that set red flags waving in a
> number of people's minds. =A0Hmm, how to solve this... =A0I pass the ball
> back to you.

Rev, it set a red flag waving only in the minds of Sam Sloan and
Larry Parr, and only because of their antipathy toward me. The Double
Standard is their heraldic banner. They care nothing about accuracy
and honesty as ethical principles; they only use the semblance of
caring as a rhetorical dodge.
Once again, I urge you to examine the 2005 thread, which you can
find here:

http://tinyurl.com/326b36

to understand the background adequately. I should forewarn you, it
requires a bit of careful study. A few minutes' cursory scan will not
do. Unfortunately, that is usually all anyone ever gives such things

My statements often set red flags waving for Parr and Sloan, even
when they are as indisputable as "1 +1 =3D 2." This has been going on
for years. Sam and Larry have as much respect for honesty and factual
truth as a drunken sailor has for a maiden's virtue. It has become
quite a hobby for several of us here to point out their many lies,
inaccuracies, delusions, fallacies, half-truths, etc.
And when they can't find anything I've actually said to attack, Parr
and Sloan invent things I never said. See for example Sloan's recent
comments about my Keres-Botvinnik articles, which demonstrate that he
has never actually read them. I can supply several other examples,
including a time Parr criticized me for something I never said or
wrote, but which in fact was written by his adored paragon GM Larry
Evans. I greatly enjoyed the irony, believe me.


   
Date: 02 Apr 2008 18:37:12
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>>>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>>>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>>>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>>>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>>>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>>>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
>>>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>>>>> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
>>>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
>>>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
>>>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
>>>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
>>>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
>>>>> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
>>>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
>>>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
>>>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
>>>>> Elo ratings.
>>>>> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
>>>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
>>>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
>>>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
>>>> Taylor,
>>>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
>>>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
>>>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
>>>> ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
>>> I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
>>> I know.
>>> I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
>>> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
>>> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
>>> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
>>> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
>>> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
>>> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
>>> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
>>> If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
>>> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
>>> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
>>> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
>> Taylor,
>>
>> Thank you. We can work with the figure 2037. I also am not sure that
>> this will do any good, but there is a chance. I too am a retired chess
>> player so I understand some of the issues. I have to withdraw my claim
>> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. Nevertheless my
>> current inactive rating is 2235.
>
> That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
> only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:
>
> http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
>
>> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
>> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.
>
> Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
> opinions.
>
>> Until I
>> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
>> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. Here goes...
>>
>> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
>> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
>> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."
>
> As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
> Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
> recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
> 1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
> Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
> at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
> change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
> changes a person's weight.
>

The fact that your peak rating was measured by a different system means
that it was not an Elo rating. Later when ratings went through the
formal conversion process they became Elo ratings for the USCF postal
players. Your assumption that you can informally backdate the
conversion process and apply it yourself is something that I have
trouble accepting as a 25 year data processing professional. If you
want to say that your peak rating was 1806 in the first USCF postal
rating system, I have no trouble with that.

>> That sounds true to me from what I have heard and it does you credit. A
>> postal master is worthy of respect.
>
> Well, I'm glad someone thinks so.
>
>> Although they develop a somewhat
>> different set of skills to excel at correspondence chess, they are
>> important skills. (Note: I am purposely leaving aside considerations of
>> engine enhanced correspondence chess for this discussion.)
>
> That would be quite irrelevant in my case. I had no chess-playing
> computer until about 1993, no PC at all until about 1995, and there
> was none as good in the early 1980s as a human postal master, in any
> case.
>
>> However you made a different statement that set red flags waving in a
>> number of people's minds. Hmm, how to solve this... I pass the ball
>> back to you.
>
> Rev, it set a red flag waving only in the minds of Sam Sloan and
> Larry Parr, and only because of their antipathy toward me. The Double
> Standard is their heraldic banner. They care nothing about accuracy
> and honesty as ethical principles; they only use the semblance of
> caring as a rhetorical dodge.
> Once again, I urge you to examine the 2005 thread, which you can
> find here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/326b36
>
> to understand the background adequately. I should forewarn you, it
> requires a bit of careful study. A few minutes' cursory scan will not
> do. Unfortunately, that is usually all anyone ever gives such things
>
> My statements often set red flags waving for Parr and Sloan, even
> when they are as indisputable as "1 +1 = 2." This has been going on
> for years. Sam and Larry have as much respect for honesty and factual
> truth as a drunken sailor has for a maiden's virtue. It has become
> quite a hobby for several of us here to point out their many lies,
> inaccuracies, delusions, fallacies, half-truths, etc.
> And when they can't find anything I've actually said to attack, Parr
> and Sloan invent things I never said. See for example Sloan's recent
> comments about my Keres-Botvinnik articles, which demonstrate that he
> has never actually read them. I can supply several other examples,
> including a time Parr criticized me for something I never said or
> wrote, but which in fact was written by his adored paragon GM Larry
> Evans. I greatly enjoyed the irony, believe me.

Well based on this, I guess I am not going to get anywhere with my
attempt. I wish everyone well. Enjoy your argument. :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


    
Date: 05 Apr 2008 17:46:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 7:34 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>>>>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess
>>>>>>>> Players"
>>>>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>>>>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>>>>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>>>>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
>>>>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>>>>>> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
>>>>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF
>>>>>> Rating
>>>>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
>>>>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
>>>>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
>>>>>> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
>>>>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
>>>>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
>>>>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
>>>>>> Elo ratings.
>>>>>> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
>>>>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is
>>>>>> whiite.
>>>>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
>>>>> Taylor,
>>>>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
>>>>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
>>>>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched
>>>>> postal
>>>>> ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
>>>> I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
>>>> I know.
>>>> I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
>>>> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
>>>> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
>>>> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
>>>> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
>>>> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
>>>> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
>>>> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
>>>> If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
>>>> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
>>>> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
>>>> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.
>>> Taylor,
>>>
>>> Thank you. We can work with the figure 2037. I also am not sure that
>>> this will do any good, but there is a chance. I too am a retired chess
>>> player so I understand some of the issues. I have to withdraw my claim
>>> of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. Nevertheless my
>>> current inactive rating is 2235.
>>
>> That must have been some time ago. The current USCF ratings show
>> only two J.D. Walkers, rated only 313 and 1654:
>>
>> http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>>
>>
>>> Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
>>> facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics.
>>
>> Rev, there is nothing acceptable to Parr and Sloan except their own
>> opinions.
>>
>>> Until I
>>> learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
>>> peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. Here goes...
>>>
>>> "I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
>>> 2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
>>> awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."
>>
>> As it applies to me, that is not an accurate statement, Rev.
>> Firstly, I can give it more precision by replacing "fairly inactive in
>> recent years" with "entirely inactive in postal chess since December
>> 1984". Secondly, you refer to my "peak Elo rating," but my peak postal
>> Elo rating was more like 2260-2270, not 2037. The fact that my rating
>> at the time of its peak was measured by a different system does not
>> change its strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms
>> changes a person's weight.
>>
>
> The fact that your peak rating was measured by a different system means
> that it was not an Elo rating. Later when ratings went through the formal
> conversion process they became Elo ratings for the USCF postal players.
> Your assumption that you can informally backdate the conversion process
> and apply it yourself is something that I have trouble accepting as a 25
> year data processing professional. If you want to say that your peak
> rating was 1806 in the first USCF postal rating system, I have no trouble
> with that.

The problem is not some technical one of conversions, however apt, it is the
undifferentiated aspect of /presenting/ a rating without calling it a
transformed [howevever accurate] postal one, as evidential ability to
compete or even understand that of a grandmaster's in evaluating Soviet
player's behavior.

Without the context we merely have a sly or evasive sort of boasting, as if
I chould call myuself a GM from unlooked for postal norms, within it, we
have something less duplitious and actively contentious on the worth of an
1800 postal to evaluate the worth of the chessic art of Botvinnik Keres.

Phil Innes


>>> That sounds true to me from what I have heard and it does you credit. A
>>> postal master is worthy of respect.
>>
>> Well, I'm glad someone thinks so.
>>
>>> Although they develop a somewhat
>>> different set of skills to excel at correspondence chess, they are
>>> important skills. (Note: I am purposely leaving aside considerations of
>>> engine enhanced correspondence chess for this discussion.)
>>
>> That would be quite irrelevant in my case. I had no chess-playing
>> computer until about 1993, no PC at all until about 1995, and there
>> was none as good in the early 1980s as a human postal master, in any
>> case.
>>
>>> However you made a different statement that set red flags waving in a
>>> number of people's minds. Hmm, how to solve this... I pass the ball
>>> back to you.
>>
>> Rev, it set a red flag waving only in the minds of Sam Sloan and
>> Larry Parr, and only because of their antipathy toward me. The Double
>> Standard is their heraldic banner. They care nothing about accuracy
>> and honesty as ethical principles; they only use the semblance of
>> caring as a rhetorical dodge.
>> Once again, I urge you to examine the 2005 thread, which you can
>> find here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/326b36
>>
>> to understand the background adequately. I should forewarn you, it
>> requires a bit of careful study. A few minutes' cursory scan will not
>> do. Unfortunately, that is usually all anyone ever gives such things
>>
>> My statements often set red flags waving for Parr and Sloan, even
>> when they are as indisputable as "1 +1 = 2." This has been going on
>> for years. Sam and Larry have as much respect for honesty and factual
>> truth as a drunken sailor has for a maiden's virtue. It has become
>> quite a hobby for several of us here to point out their many lies,
>> inaccuracies, delusions, fallacies, half-truths, etc.
>> And when they can't find anything I've actually said to attack, Parr
>> and Sloan invent things I never said. See for example Sloan's recent
>> comments about my Keres-Botvinnik articles, which demonstrate that he
>> has never actually read them. I can supply several other examples,
>> including a time Parr criticized me for something I never said or
>> wrote, but which in fact was written by his adored paragon GM Larry
>> Evans. I greatly enjoyed the irony, believe me.
>
> Well based on this, I guess I am not going to get anywhere with my
> attempt. I wish everyone well. Enjoy your argument. :)
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.




    
Date: 02 Apr 2008 18:58:22
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math -- invalid analogy

Taylor,

After further reflection, I wanted to address one statement you made
that strikes me as untrue. You stated: "The fact that my rating at the
time of its peak was measured by a different system does not change its
strength, any more than a switch from pounds to kilograms changes a
person's weight. "

Rating systems are much different than international standards of
weights and measures. It is a very nice feature of systems of weights
and measures that there are conversion formulas that readily apply
regardless of the year that we choose to apply them. This feature does
not necessarily hold true for rating systems. I am not an expert here,
but we all know that the rating systems are subject to a number of
factors that cause them to change over time. Inflation, deflation,
rating floors, membership changes, activity changes, politics, and even
sandbagging. Rating systems are nowhere near as stable as the
international system of weights and measures.

These various instabilities in the rating systems are the reason that a
conversion process applied at one point in time will not necessarily
yield comparable results if applied in a different time frame. This is
why I object to the concept that one can casually apply a conversion
factor taken from a conversion process to an old rating.

I admit that someone like Ken Sloan may have a more detailed and
accurate view of this. I'd welcome hearing it if he cares to share it.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 16:35:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 6:48 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> > > that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> > > published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> > > or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> > > Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>
> > > Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>
> > Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> > rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>
> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> Present, page 12 (1978).
>
> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
> Elo ratings.

Where in the above quote does Professor Elo say anything about Postal
Chess Rating Systems?

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 16:19:32
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 7:00=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> >>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> >>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> >>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> >>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> >>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
> >>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
> >> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> >> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>
> > =A0 Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
> > in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
> > System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> > first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
> > Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> > Present, page 12 (1978).
>
> > =A0 This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
> > system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> > system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
> > and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
> > Elo ratings.
>
> > =A0 In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the=

> > South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
> > defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
> > But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
>
> Taylor,
>
> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
> ratings to the Elo system? =A0Was it 1806 then, or something else?

I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
I know.
I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.


   
Date: 02 Apr 2008 16:34:14
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:00 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>>>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>>>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>>>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>>>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>>>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>>>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
>>>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>>> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
>>> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
>>> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
>>> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
>>> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
>>> Present, page 12 (1978).
>>> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
>>> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
>>> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
>>> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
>>> Elo ratings.
>>> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
>>> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
>>> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
>>> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?
>> Taylor,
>>
>> It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
>> us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
>> through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
>> ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
>
> I'm not sure what that would clear up, but I don't mind telling what
> I know.
> I don't recall exactly what it was after my retirement. I had
> several games still going on, about four or five as I recall, when I
> withdrew from postal play in early 1985. By rule, those were forfeited
> and I lost rating points just as if they had been lost in actual play.
> Under the Harkness system, K was 50, that is, if you won or lost
> against an opponent of equal rating, you won/lost 50 points. So as a
> conservative estimate, if my opponents were also near my 1806, I would
> have dropped at least 200 points, to around 1600.
> If anyone has the April 1986 Chess Life, it will probably show my
> post-retirement Harkness rating. I do know that when it was converted
> to the Elo system in 1987, it became 2037 Elo, as that figure has been
> printed on my Chess Life mailing label ever since.

Taylor,

Thank you. We can work with the figure 2037. I also am not sure that
this will do any good, but there is a chance. I too am a retired chess
player so I understand some of the issues. I have to withdraw my claim
of a peak of OTB 2300+ Elo because I can't find proof. Nevertheless my
current inactive rating is 2235.

Let me try to construct a statement that I would see consistent with the
facts I have heard, that might be acceptable to the critics. Until I
learn otherwise I will assume for the sake of illustration that your
peak Elo rating since the conversion is 2037. Here goes...

"I have been fairly inactive in recent years with a peak Elo rating of
2037, but I was much more active under the old rating system and was
awarded the title of USCF Postal Master."

That sounds true to me from what I have heard and it does you credit. A
postal master is worthy of respect. Although they develop a somewhat
different set of skills to excel at correspondence chess, they are
important skills. (Note: I am purposely leaving aside considerations of
engine enhanced correspondence chess for this discussion.)

However you made a different statement that set red flags waving in a
number of people's minds. Hmm, how to solve this... I pass the ball
back to you.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:48:08
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 6:02=A0pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> > that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> > published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> > or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> > Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>
> > Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>
> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.

Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
Present, page 12 (1978).

This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
Elo ratings.

In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?


   
Date: 02 Apr 2008 16:00:36
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
>> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.
>
> Quite so, Dave. To quote Dr. Elo himself, "In the papers cited and
> in many others, the author has described the system as The USCF Rating
> System or The International Rating System ... In this book for the
> first time we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage and accept The
> Elo System as the title." -- The Rating of Chess Players Past and
> Present, page 12 (1978).
>
> This passage made clear that Dr. Elo himself considered the USCF
> system, the FIDE system, and the Elo system, all one and the same
> system, insofar as they all used the same mathematical method. They,
> and the ratings of any other country that uses his formulae, are all
> Elo ratings.
>
> In denying this, Sloan and Parr might as well be telling us that the
> South won the Civil War, men and women are the same sex, Dewey
> defeated Truman in 1948, water flows uphill, and that black is whiite.
> But hey, they do that all the time, don't they?

Taylor,

It occurs to me that it might clear matters up a bit if you could tell
us what your postal rating was, under the old system, when it went
through the conversion process used by the USCF when it switched postal
ratings to the Elo system? Was it 1806 then, or something else?
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:25:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 5:02 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> > that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> > published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> > or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> > Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>
> > Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>
> Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
> rating system using the method is an Elo rating.

Good. Assuming that we agree on that (although I do not agree with it)
then Taylor Kingston never had an Elo Rating, because the Chess Review
Postal Chess Rating System under which Taylor Kingston claims to have
had a masters rating was NOT in any way calculated under the
mathematical rating system developed by Professor Elo.

Sam Sloan



  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:02:44
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 5:32=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> Players from 1970 until about 1984.

Apparently Sam thinks his electric bill does not involve wattage
unless it's measured by James Watt himself. Or voltage unless it's
toted up by Alessandro Volta. I'd like to see him use this argument
with Con Ed.
I guess our supersonic aircraft do not really fly at Mach 1, Mach 2,
etc., because Ernst Mach is no longer with us. And I guess we need no
longer fear radioactivity, since all those roentgens mean nothing now
that Wilhelm Roentgen has passed away.

> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>
> Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings,

Sam, I love it when you flaunt your ignorance, not to mention your
obstinate stupidity.

Now, tell us why you lied to the Libertarian Party of New York in
your 2006 speech. Because you figured you could get away with it,
right? Put one over on the rubes?

Larry, what drugs are you and Sloan on, that you think USCF ratings
are not Elo ratings?
Arpad Elo invented his rating system specifically for the USCF, at
the USCF's request. It has been used by the USCF for OTB chess since
1960, and for postal chess since 1987. Your USCF rating, Sloan's USCF
rating, my USCF ratings, everyone's USCF ratings are ALL Elo ratings.

If we are going to talk about things people here have claimed but
never had, let's start with:


1. Your claim to have won an "international Swiss" tournament in
1970.
2. Sloan's claim to have won " the world championship of Chinese
chess" in 1988.
3. Sloan's claim to have been a "rated chess master" when he has
never had a USCF rating of 2200 or better.
4. Sloan's claim to have been a USCF expert in 2006, when his
rating
was well below the required 2000.


Unlike my rating, ranking, and title, which all were real matters
of
public record, these are all pure fabrication. Yet you have never
denounced them at all, to my knowledge. Isn't this just a tad
inconsistent?
Of course, you will either ignore this challenge, or spin some
ludicrously contrived logic to justify your mendacity, and the
mendacity of Sloan. In Parr's Distorted Dictionary, the operative
definitions are:


Truth: Any statement Larry Parr likes or agrees with, regardless of
its factual accuracy.
Honesty: A character trait possessed only by those Larry Parr likes
or agrees with, no matter how many lies they may tell.
Lie: Any statement Larry Parr disagrees with, or made by someone
Larry Parr dislikes.




  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 14:32:25
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
Players from 1970 until about 1984.

Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings, Yahoo Ratings, ICC Ratings,
USChessLive Ratings or FICS Ratings.

Elo Ratings are definitely not correspondence ratings.

Sam Sloan


   
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:11:24
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>Players from 1970 until about 1984.

>Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

>Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings, Yahoo Ratings, ICC Ratings,
>USChessLive Ratings or FICS Ratings.

>Elo Ratings are definitely not correspondence ratings.

>Sam Sloan


Wikipedia contradicts you here:

"..The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in 1960, and the system
quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than
the Harkness system. Elo's system was adopted by FIDE in 1970. Elo
described his work in some detail in the book The Rating of
Chessplayers, Past and Present, published in 1978.

....both the USCF and FIDE have switched to formulas based on the
logistic distribution. However, in deference to Elo's contribution,
both organizations are still commonly said to use "the Elo system"...

The phrase "Elo rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating
as calculated by FIDE. However, this usage is confusing and often
misleading, because Elo's general ideas have been adopted by many
different organizations, including the USCF (before FIDE), the
Internet Chess Club (ICC), Yahoo! Games, and the now defunct
Professional Chess Association (PCA). Each organization has a unique
implementation, and none of them precisely follows Elo's original
suggestions. It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above
ratings as Elo ratings, and none of them as the Elo rating..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system


    
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:21:59
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:32:25 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
>> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
>> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
>> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
>> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>
>> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.
>
>> Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings, Yahoo Ratings, ICC Ratings,
>> USChessLive Ratings or FICS Ratings.
>
>> Elo Ratings are definitely not correspondence ratings.
>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Wikipedia contradicts you here:
>
> "..The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in 1960, and the system
> quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than
> the Harkness system. Elo's system was adopted by FIDE in 1970. Elo
> described his work in some detail in the book The Rating of
> Chessplayers, Past and Present, published in 1978.
>
> ....both the USCF and FIDE have switched to formulas based on the
> logistic distribution. However, in deference to Elo's contribution,
> both organizations are still commonly said to use "the Elo system"...
>
> The phrase "Elo rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating
> as calculated by FIDE. However, this usage is confusing and often
> misleading, because Elo's general ideas have been adopted by many
> different organizations, including the USCF (before FIDE), the
> Internet Chess Club (ICC), Yahoo! Games, and the now defunct
> Professional Chess Association (PCA). Each organization has a unique
> implementation, and none of them precisely follows Elo's original
> suggestions. It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above
> ratings as Elo ratings, and none of them as the Elo rating..."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Now that Afromeev's dog is rumored to have an Elo rating, is it also
used in dog shows? :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


   
Date: 02 Apr 2008 15:02:38
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b5125301-2e39-417a-9c64-da9917bb91db@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
> that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
> published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
> or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
> Players from 1970 until about 1984.
>
> Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
rating system using the method is an Elo rating.



  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 14:07:49
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 2:16=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NO DECEIT INTENDED!
>
> A guy who never had an Elo rating claims once to have been rated 2300+
> Elo.

Larry, what drugs are you and Sloan on, that you think USCF ratings
are not Elo ratings?
Arpad Elo invented his rating system specifically for the USCF, at
the USCF's request. It has been used by the USCF for OTB chess since
1960, and for postal chess since 1987. Your USCF rating, Sloan's USCF
rating, my USCF ratings, everyone's USCF ratings are ALL Elo ratings.

If we are going to talk about things people here have claimed but
never had, let's start with:

1. Your claim to have won an "international Swiss" tournament in
1970.
2. Sloan's claim to have won " the world championship of Chinese
chess" in 1988.
3. Sloan's claim to have been a "rated chess master" when he has
never had a USCF rating of 2200 or better.
4. Sloan's claim to have been a USCF expert in 2006, when his rating
was well below the required 2000.

Unlike my rating, ranking, and title, which all were real matters of
public record, these are all pure fabrication. Yet you have never
denounced them at all, to my knowledge. Isn't this just a tad
inconsistent?
Of course, you will either ignore this challenge, or spin some
ludicrously contrived logic to justify your mendacity, and the
mendacity of Sloan. In Parr's Distorted Dictionary, the operative
definitions are:

Truth: Any statement Larry Parr likes or agrees with, regardless of
its factual accuracy.
Honesty: A character trait possessed only by those Larry Parr likes
or agrees with, no matter how many lies they may tell.
Lie: Any statement Larry Parr disagrees with, or made by someone
Larry Parr dislikes.


   
Date: 04 Apr 2008 17:56:26
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1d9497d8-d394-4392-a0ec-e5604146b5ef@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 2, 2:16 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> NO DECEIT INTENDED!
>
> A guy who never had an Elo rating claims once to have been rated 2300+
> Elo.

Larry, what drugs are you and Sloan on, that you think USCF ratings
are not Elo ratings?
Arpad Elo invented his rating system specifically for the USCF, at
the USCF's request. It has been used by the USCF for OTB chess since
1960, and for postal chess since 1987. Your USCF rating, Sloan's USCF
rating, my USCF ratings, everyone's USCF ratings are ALL Elo ratings.

---
**Despite the errors above, and Elo's dismay on the deployment of his system
in the USA...

If we are going to talk about things people here have claimed but
never had, let's start with:

**Who says we are going to talk about? What did Elo have to say about postal
chess and Harkness ratings in relation to Elo ratings?

**That is where you confound yourself in public. And because you merilly
mish-mash them all together, you still appear miffed that someone should
take your statement as OTB rather than postal. Otherwise you and Greg-bog
should address me as GM [norm].

;)

Phil Innes


ps: as a computer dude, can you manage usenet protocol, instead of google?

---



1. Your claim to have won an "international Swiss" tournament in
1970.
2. Sloan's claim to have won " the world championship of Chinese
chess" in 1988.
3. Sloan's claim to have been a "rated chess master" when he has
never had a USCF rating of 2200 or better.
4. Sloan's claim to have been a USCF expert in 2006, when his rating
was well below the required 2000.

Unlike my rating, ranking, and title, which all were real matters of
public record, these are all pure fabrication. Yet you have never
denounced them at all, to my knowledge. Isn't this just a tad
inconsistent?
Of course, you will either ignore this challenge, or spin some
ludicrously contrived logic to justify your mendacity, and the
mendacity of Sloan. In Parr's Distorted Dictionary, the operative
definitions are:

Truth: Any statement Larry Parr likes or agrees with, regardless of
its factual accuracy.
Honesty: A character trait possessed only by those Larry Parr likes
or agrees with, no matter how many lies they may tell.
Lie: Any statement Larry Parr disagrees with, or made by someone
Larry Parr dislikes.




  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 11:16:25
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
NO DECEIT INTENDED!

A guy who never had an Elo rating claims once to have been rated 2300+
Elo. Needless to say, no deceit was intended.

[email protected] wrote:
> NO PASSAGE OF ARMS
>
> <If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is a damn
> shame.> -- John Walker
>
> Dear Rev. Walker,
>
> Taylor Kingston ain't ever gonna play Sam Sloan a
> chess match. No way. No how.
>
> A few years back, a gent offered a thousand
> dollars for such a match, and more money could have
> been raised. Sam, of course, champed at the bit and
> later defeated Bill Brock for the moolah. It was a
> good match with lots of ill feeling, but the natural
> match was and still is Sloan-Kingston. But our NMnot
> claims he is too refined for such a passage of Caissic arms.
>
> NMnot Kingston continues with the strawman
> nonsense about my denigrating his play. I have no
> problem whatsoever in stating that he had a Harkness
> postal rating of over 1800, which might translate into
> something like 2200-2350 USCF today. I don't insist
> on conversion numbers because they are not the issue.
>
> NMnot Kingston's problem is NOT with this
> writer; it is with himself.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, over-the-boartd has nearly all the
> prestige in chess. NMnot evidently agreed and told us
> he was "2300+ Elo" while also noting he was ranked #46
> in the nation at some totally undetermined point in the past
> of, say, two or three decades.
>
> On the other hand, we all have a fair idea what
> someone is saying when baldly claiming to be "2300+
> Elo." NMnot Kingston had a fair idea also. Later, he
> offered a series of justifications, which have changed
> over the years AFTER he was outed by the tenacious
> Sam Sloan.
>
> Imagine postal players routinely claiming to be
> 2300 or 2400 or 2500 Elo when stating their strengths
> to people who don't even know that they play postal.
> Postal players are, in the main, far too honest to
> transact business in such fashion. Many would be
> embarrassed. So is Taylor Kingston, but he intends
> to brazen it out aided by a few of his water carriers.
>
> And remember: he would not play Sam Sloan for
> a thousand or more bucks because of his exquisitely
> attuned olfactory capabilities. Or he balked because,
> quite simply, he abhorred the very thought of losing
> to someone who humiliated him publicly.
>
> It's Ego. Not Elo.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
> J.D. Walker wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 1:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Mike Murray wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> > >>>> The
> > >>>> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
> > >>>> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
> > >>>> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
> > >>>> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
> > >>>> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
> > >>>> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
> > >>> Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
> > >>> Saddam settle things in the cage?
> > >
> > > Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
> > > Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
> > > that.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QS5Io_yUg
> > >
> > >>> We're talkin' bread and circus here.
> > >
> > >> That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them
> > >> eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it! :)
> > >
> > > Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
> > > consider him a role model.
> >
> > Michael Richards then? :)
> >
> > > Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
> > > feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
> > > to do.
> >
> > And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? I do not
> > think so. If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
> > a damn shame.
> > --
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 09:35:47
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.play-by-email/msg/f522186f00af59a2


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 19:32:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)

NO PASSAGE OF ARMS

<If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is a damn
shame. > -- John Walker

Dear Rev. Walker,

Taylor Kingston ain't ever gonna play Sam Sloan a
chess match. No way. No how.

A few years back, a gent offered a thousand
dollars for such a match, and more money could have
been raised. Sam, of course, champed at the bit and
later defeated Bill Brock for the moolah. It was a
good match with lots of ill feeling, but the natural
match was and still is Sloan-Kingston. But our NMnot
claims he is too refined for such a passage of Caissic arms.

NMnot Kingston continues with the strawman
nonsense about my denigrating his play. I have no
problem whatsoever in stating that he had a Harkness
postal rating of over 1800, which might translate into
something like 2200-2350 USCF today. I don't insist
on conversion numbers because they are not the issue.

NMnot Kingston's problem is NOT with this
writer; it is with himself.

Rightly or wrongly, over-the-boartd has nearly all the
prestige in chess. NMnot evidently agreed and told us
he was "2300+ Elo" while also noting he was ranked #46
in the nation at some totally undetermined point in the past
of, say, two or three decades.

On the other hand, we all have a fair idea what
someone is saying when baldly claiming to be "2300+
Elo." NMnot Kingston had a fair idea also. Later, he
offered a series of justifications, which have changed
over the years AFTER he was outed by the tenacious
Sam Sloan.

Imagine postal players routinely claiming to be
2300 or 2400 or 2500 Elo when stating their strengths
to people who don't even know that they play postal.
Postal players are, in the main, far too honest to
transact business in such fashion. Many would be
embarrassed. So is Taylor Kingston, but he intends
to brazen it out aided by a few of his water carriers.

And remember: he would not play Sam Sloan for
a thousand or more bucks because of his exquisitely
attuned olfactory capabilities. Or he balked because,
quite simply, he abhorred the very thought of losing
to someone who humiliated him publicly.

It's Ego. Not Elo.

Yours, Larry Parr


J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 1:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mike Murray wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> The
> >>>> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
> >>>> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
> >>>> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
> >>>> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
> >>>> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
> >>>> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
> >>> Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
> >>> Saddam settle things in the cage?
> >
> > Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
> > Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
> > that.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QS5Io_yUg
> >
> >>> We're talkin' bread and circus here.
> >
> >> That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them
> >> eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it! :)
> >
> > Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
> > consider him a role model.
>
> Michael Richards then? :)
>
> > Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
> > feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
> > to do.
>
> And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? I do not
> think so. If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
> a damn shame.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 11:59:57
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Apr 1, 2:27=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 1:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mike Murray wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> The
> >>>> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
> >>>> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
> >>>> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
> >>>> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
> >>>> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that=

> >>>> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
> >>> Come on, Taylor. =A0Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
> >>> Saddam settle things in the cage? =A0
>
> > =A0 Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
> > Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
> > that.
>
> > =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DS0QS5Io_yUg
>
> >>> We're talkin' bread and circus here.
>
> >> That's the spirit! =A0Bread and circus... =A0Christians vs lions... Let=
them
> >> eat cake... =A0The whole shebang... =A0Mel Gibson would do it! =A0 :)
>
> > =A0 Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
> > consider him a role model.
>
> Michael Richards then? =A0:)
>
> > =A0 Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
> > feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
> > to do.
>
> And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? =A0I do not
> think so. =A0If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
> a damn shame.

I see it differently. The desire for this sort of thing is an
atavistic hold-over from the days when legal issues were settled by
combat, e.g. in the days of medieval knighthood. The presumption was
that God would give victory to the more righteous party. However,
victory usually went to the more violent, ruthless, better-muscled
party, regardless of his virtue (or lack thereof).
Today we have legal processes which determine guilt more accurately
than this crude and suspect form of divination. While my differences
with Sloan are not a matter for legal action, we have a sort of
loosely constituted court of public opinion here. I am happy to
present my evidence and let people make up their own minds, and leave
it at that.


   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 12:07:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 11:59:57 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:


>> And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? �I do not
>> think so. �If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
>> a damn shame.

> I see it differently. The desire for this sort of thing is an
>atavistic hold-over from the days when legal issues were settled by
>combat, e.g. in the days of medieval knighthood. The presumption was
>that God would give victory to the more righteous party. However,
>victory usually went to the more violent, ruthless, better-muscled
>party, regardless of his virtue (or lack thereof).
> Today we have legal processes which determine guilt more accurately
>than this crude and suspect form of divination. While my differences
>with Sloan are not a matter for legal action, we have a sort of
>loosely constituted court of public opinion here. I am happy to
>present my evidence and let people make up their own minds, and leave
>it at that.

But, but, what about artistic creation, forged in struggle and the
heat of combat, the passion that whips the blood?


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:23:38
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
On Apr 1, 1:03=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> The
> >> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
> >> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
> >> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
> >> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
> >> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
> >> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
>
> > Come on, Taylor. =A0Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
> > Saddam settle things in the cage? =A0

Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DS0QS5Io_yUg

> > We're talkin' bread and circus here.

> That's the spirit! =A0Bread and circus... =A0Christians vs lions... Let th=
em
> eat cake... =A0The whole shebang... =A0Mel Gibson would do it! =A0 :)

Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
consider him a role model.

Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
to do.


   
Date: 01 Apr 2008 11:27:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>>>> The
>>>> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
>>>> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
>>>> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
>>>> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
>>>> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
>>>> tin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
>>> Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
>>> Saddam settle things in the cage?
>
> Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
> Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
> that.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QS5Io_yUg
>
>>> We're talkin' bread and circus here.
>
>> That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them
>> eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it! :)
>
> Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
> consider him a role model.

Michael Richards then? :)

> Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
> feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
> to do.

And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? I do not
think so. If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
a damn shame.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 20:57:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Dear Mr. Parr,

It is well past time for me to duck out of this particular discussion.
Thank you for indulging my desire to try and establish one concrete fact
in the midst of the acrimonious differences that are as yet unresolved.

Now I must turn my attention to my newly assumed duties at the Ranch
Drive-in and also I must prepare a brief speech for the lunch meeting I
am going to have with the aliens from outer space tomorrow.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


===

[email protected] wrote:
> OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER
>
> Dear Rev. Walker,
>
> I suppose that the really important issue here
> is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
> on my behalf.
>
> Having said that, I was asked whether there was
> some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
> dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.
>
> On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
> that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
> 1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
> I never wrote differently.
>
> If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
> had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
> a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
> claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
> by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
> this whole matter.
>
> Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.
>
> There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
> top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
> add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
> that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!
>
> In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
> an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
> very own Taylor Kingston.
>
> NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
> at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
> man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
> with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
> four-figure money for said encounter.
>
> We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
> refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
> Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
> possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.
>
> Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
> bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
> ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
> chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
> 2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:
>
> "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I
> have never claimed to be any great player, but I think
> with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I
> recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'"
>
> Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
> the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
> that the average reader would know that he was talking
> about postal ratings because at some undefined point
> several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
> about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
> name the average player has never heard).
>
> According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
> the average person hearing someone assert that he was
> "2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
> claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
> the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
> decades back.
>
> Horsefeathers.
>
> Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
> whizdinger.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
>
>
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On 31, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On 31, 3:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
>>>> master.
>>> Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
>>> the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
>>> postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
>>> trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
>>> attempt to say black is white.
>>> And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
>>> that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
>>> sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.
>> Your English is not too goodo, is it?
>>
>> We said that postal ratings mean nothing. You said that you had a
>> 2300+ Elo Rating.
>>
>> We have proven that your statement is not true. You never had an Elo
>> rating at all.
>>
>> End of Story.
>>
>> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 19:15:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: [email protected]>
On 31, 3:26 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Now...I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the time frame for "I had
> a 1906 postal rating BEFORE CHESS COMPUTERS EXISTED."


A careless error; try "...before chess computers
THAT STRONG existed".

It is presumably impossible to do anything but
the most basic tactics checking using computers
from that era -- except for individuals who had
access to super-computers and who could write
their own code. A look inside the pages of old
issues of Chess Life should reveal the top-rated
machines for each year, but who can say
whether TK even owned the weakest tactics-
checking device ever made?


-- help bot


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 18:54:58
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 11:43 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

> This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
> rating systems and context. It is unnecessary. If you can supply us
> with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
> Harkness and Elo systems. In other words, your statement incorrectly
> implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
> upon. Not so. The certificate could save us a long weary debate. I
> think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
> evidence of postal chess mastership. What comes after that in this
> debate, I cannot say.


I wonder why it is that so many people delude
themselves into thinking that rgc is a "debate"
forum or competition. As I see it, there has yet
to be a single competition here apart from the
"off-site" grudge matches, the last of which
was won handily by the Evans ratpackers, as
represented by Sam Sloan.

These newsgroups are merely for discussion,
not debate.


-- helpful bot



 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 18:41:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 9:44 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.
>
> Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
> specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
> Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.
>
> And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.


Hey, even if, as you say, Ken Sloan is the
Mike Tyson of chess ratings, I can still find
problems with his (correct me if I'm wrong)
work; there used to be, and probably still is,
a Web site where one can retrieve a list of
all the USCF-rated chess players, by state.

This list is very handy in determining, for
instance, not only where one stands
compared to "the competition", but could
also be used to select team members by
ratings to meet a predetermined limit, etc.

But if I am not mistaken, the keepers of
the keys to these lists have long allowed
deceased persons to remain "active" for
years after they are no longer, um, at
their former strength; even years after
their play has lost its, er, liveliness. What's
up with that? Are these chess-ratings gods
incapable of telling the living from the dead?

Do they not realize how humbling it is to
be listed as not only weaker than Emory
Tate, but also several dead chess players
I know I can at least draw (now)? I know, I
know... they will transfer the blame to the
dishonest folks who fail to notify the USCF
so they can continue getting that amazing
magazine, Chess Lies, for free.

But I somehow expect more from the gods;
I expect head-butts to be met, tit-for-tat, with
rabid ear-biting. I expect the dead to be
promptly removed from the lists, and I
expect them to fix it so my rating stops
dropping off a cliff! I mean, don't these
gods know that I am the top-rated player
in the world (at GetClub)? Uh... nevermind
about my rating-- back to the un-dead. Is it
not true that with regard to these rating lists,
Kenneth Sloan has fallen short of the gods
(Zeus, Apollo, Elvis, The Beatles, Hera,
Rybka, etc.)?

Oh, sure-- anyone can /look like/ a god
when compared to nearly-IMnes, an idiot,
as you say. But just as with the folks at
www.chessmetrics.com, the rating of
dead chess players reveals a certain
un-god-like quality which to my mind, ranks
these folks a tad lower than Elvis.


-- help bot




 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 18:33:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 8:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 31, 3:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
> > master.
>
> Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
> the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
> postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
> trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
> attempt to say black is white.
> And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
> that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
> sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.

Your English is not too goodo, is it?

We said that postal ratings mean nothing. You said that you had a
2300+ Elo Rating.

We have proven that your statement is not true. You never had an Elo
rating at all.

End of Story.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 12 Apr 2008 20:25:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Apr 12, 1:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > What I find most amusing is the fact that
> > some of these nearly-IMs types are afraid to
> > play Sam Sloan-- notorious rabbit-basher
> > (he once crushed the Supreme Court 7-0).
> > Now, why would someone who wins 500
> > games -- without using computer help -- be
> > afraid of little old SS?

> because i could gain 3 points for a win against sloan, that is, if he dared
> show up and actually play chess like a normal human being


Mr. Sloan is a *normal* human being? That's
news to me. What about all the fame and glory
and money? Oh, and did I mention that women
are fascinated by strong chess players? Yup. I
read all about it; I think it probably is somehow
connected to the fame and money part.


>- in fact, like
> the rest of us -- but no, our Sammy /needs/ and edge, and because he is
> *special* in his own mind, he avoids the world of chess players


Competing in the World Open is hardy considered
ducking the competition. Meanwhile, where were
you? Ah yes, playing Mr. Mitchell, by remote.


> in terms of playing rob, i usually get no points for winning, but could lose
> 25, and 250 games like that is not nothing - you should try it help-guts,
> since maybe you'll learn sumpin more than beating the other sammy's
> worthless engine?


I estimate that Sanny's contraption is now
around one-thousand points stronger than Mr.
Mitchell, your favorite sparring partner. Rob
da robber Mitchell may well have started off
with a big advantage, but Sanny has made a
few "improvements": not getting fool's-mated;
not hanging pieces every few turns, etc.


> mr help-not does not mention the range of other players i have played


Post a *working* link so we can see what
that is.


> and
> OBVIOUSLY if i used Rybka i would not be 2270, but 3270 like the really big
> cats!


That's what I thought. The reason nobody
cheated against me (I know because I would
have been beaten like a carrot) is that I was
in the shallow end of the pool!


> like the elo 1990 players with 2700 cc ratings

A Honda Gold Wing, eh? I think they're
too darned heavy, but some folks like all
that power and bulk. Give me a Suzuki
650 any day of the week-- under 500 lbs.
If I wanted to see something fat and
bulky, I would just go and find a mirror.


> this does not occur to help-not, since it is an inconvenient fact


Stealing from Al Gore now? For shame.


> i apologise for knowing 30 moves in some lines


If those lines include Damiano's insanity
and the Macho Grob, you could make a
lot of money and become world-famous by
stomping SS in a match.


> which is merely the result
> of lifetime study, but am often bemused at move 5 in others - eg, i am
> playing some french-canadian whose handle is 2746, and essayed a KG, and
> found my way into a 'not the cunningham' defence


Don't even mention that awful stuff to me!
I was playing somebody and putting my
old chess books on ebay at the same time;
turns out I had a King's Gambit book in my
face and I tried to follow the authors' best
lines, but wound up *busted*. Then it came
back to me-- what I already knew but had
somehow forgotten: most of these authors
are clueless duffers! I lucked out in that my
opponent was a horrible patzer; hey-- I think
this may have been one of my games on
ChessWorld.


> [you all know about that? it was originally an 'extra' gambit for white also
> offering the g pawn, but not so good as white's other 4th move ...
>
> 1 e4 e5
> 2. f4 ef
> 3. nf3 Be7
> 4 and the choices for the KB are Be2 [Cunningham] or 4. Bc4


Which one would The Fonz play, Ritchie?


> and can black resist the check? not in my game, he went for it with 4. ...
> Bh4+
>
> 5. Kf1
>
> and the problem with that check emerges, because it is difficult for black
> to develop his KN
>
> Normally now comes 5. ...d6, but my opponent made another move, c6, and we
> are in totally new territory at move 5 - and this is fun!


Sure it is-- you're still in the game. In my
case the authors (yes, two of them) had me
*busted* right down their main line! I went
on to win in brilliant fashion, as is my habit,
but that book never made it past the
shredder, and then the birdcage, to get
what it had coming to it.


> I currently have
> to decide a few moves later since the bishop has retreated whether to plonk
> out d4 or the more modest d3, which allows e4 occupation by a pawn or the
> QN]

I'll never play that opening again; I have
issued an embargo, a moratorium, and
even high import tariffs. Then I had the
Pope excommunicate the King and Mr.
Gambit to boot.



> but if you don't play at all, then there can be another reason for attitude,
> which is rather chess virginal, imo, and them virgins do tend to be
> hysterical about what might happen, and with whom... and they, or someone
> else, needs to get over themselves


Prezactly. Stop obsessing over how silly
you'll look if you lose to SS, and try to focus
on the money, the fame, and of course all of
those beautiful women. That's how Paul
Morphy got over his irrational fear of Howard
Staunton.


-- help bot




  
Date: 12 Apr 2008 07:07:36
From: help bot
Subject: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Apr 12, 5:47 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > understandable that a weak player would not
> > know this, having been stuck down in the Class
> > B section all his life;

> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws, but a large number of his
> rated games were played against the same, much lower rated, opponent.
> In the case of his rated games with White, out of 289 at least 126
> were played against the same player. The total could be higher but I
> got bored counting. I'll let you guess who the unfortunate opponent
> was.
>
> Perhaps P Innes should change his screen-name to Rabbit-basher.


I played a few games against Mr. Mitchell on
ChessWorld myself; he kept hanging pieces
and later complained that he had too many
games going at once.

Since nearly-an-IMnes got a hold of the new
Rybka program, he has been bragging about
achieving a GM-norm-- in remote play, of
course; what a coinkydink! LOL

What I find most amusing is the fact that
some of these nearly-IMs types are afraid to
play Sam Sloan-- notorious rabbit-basher
(he once crushed the Supreme Court 7-0).
Now, why would someone who wins 500
games -- without using computer help -- be
afraid of little old SS? I say it is because
without help, they know they are simply
outclassed. Further proof -- as if any were
needed -- lies in the fact that all the Evans
ratpackers are content to send SS to
defend their, um, "honor" in the grudge
matches. Why not insist on sending a
nearly-an-IM 2450, to be sure of victory?
Cause they don't have one, that's why!


-- help bot














   
Date: 12 Apr 2008 13:48:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 12, 5:47 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > understandable that a weak player would not
>> > know this, having been stuck down in the Class
>> > B section all his life;
>
>> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
>> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws, but a large number of his
>> rated games were played against the same, much lower rated, opponent.
>> In the case of his rated games with White, out of 289 at least 126
>> were played against the same player. The total could be higher but I
>> got bored counting. I'll let you guess who the unfortunate opponent
>> was.
>>
>> Perhaps P Innes should change his screen-name to Rabbit-basher.
>
>
> I played a few games against Mr. Mitchell on
> ChessWorld myself; he kept hanging pieces
> and later complained that he had too many
> games going at once.
>
> Since nearly-an-IMnes got a hold of the new
> Rybka program, he has been bragging about
> achieving a GM-norm-- in remote play, of
> course; what a coinkydink! LOL
>
> What I find most amusing is the fact that
> some of these nearly-IMs types are afraid to
> play Sam Sloan-- notorious rabbit-basher
> (he once crushed the Supreme Court 7-0).
> Now, why would someone who wins 500
> games -- without using computer help -- be
> afraid of little old SS?

because i could gain 3 points for a win against sloan, that is, if he dared
show up and actually play chess like a normal human being - in fact, like
the rest of us -- but no, our Sammy /needs/ and edge, and because he is
*special* in his own mind, he avoids the world of chess players <snigger >

in terms of playing rob, i usually get no points for winning, but could lose
25, and 250 games like that is not nothing - you should try it help-guts,
since maybe you'll learn sumpin more than beating the other sammy's
worthless engine?

mr help-not does not mention the range of other players i have played, and
OBVIOUSLY if i used Rybka i would not be 2270, but 3270 like the really big
cats! like the elo 1990 players with 2700 cc ratings

this does not occur to help-not, since it is an inconvenient fact

> I say it is because
> without help, they know they are simply
> outclassed. Further proof -- as if any were
> needed -- lies in the fact that all the Evans
> ratpackers are content to send SS to
> defend their, um, "honor" in the grudge
> matches. Why not insist on sending a
> nearly-an-IM 2450, to be sure of victory?
> Cause they don't have one, that's why!

if you want to play chess, step up, don't mouth off your HUGE ego, same to
Sloan. if you catch me using a computer like Rybka [I have 5 programs, never
even look at them, but I also have ALL Convekta's software, all there DB
material on openings, since Chessville sells it] then by all means, as a
player, point it out!

i apologise for knowing 30 moves in some lines, which is merely the result
of lifetime study, but am often bemused at move 5 in others - eg, i am
playing some french-canadian whose handle is 2746, and essayed a KG, and
found my way into a 'not the cunningham' defence

[you all know about that? it was originally an 'extra' gambit for white also
offering the g pawn, but not so good as white's other 4th move ...

1 e4 e5
2. f4 ef
3. nf3 Be7
4 and the choices for the KB are Be2 [Cunningham] or 4. Bc4

and can black resist the check? not in my game, he went for it with 4. ...
Bh4+

5. Kf1

and the problem with that check emerges, because it is difficult for black
to develop his KN

Normally now comes 5. ...d6, but my opponent made another move, c6, and we
are in totally new territory at move 5 - and this is fun! I currently have
to decide a few moves later since the bishop has retreated whether to plonk
out d4 or the more modest d3, which allows e4 occupation by a pawn or the
QN]

but if you don't play at all, then there can be another reason for attitude,
which is rather chess virginal, imo, and them virgins do tend to be
hysterical about what might happen, and with whom... and they, or someone
else, needs to get over themselves

phil innes

>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




   
Date: 12 Apr 2008 15:55:12
From:
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:07:36 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Apr 12, 5:47 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > understandable that a weak player would not
>> > know this, having been stuck down in the Class
>> > B section all his life;
>
>> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
>> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws, but a large number of his
>> rated games were played against the same, much lower rated, opponent.
>> In the case of his rated games with White, out of 289 at least 126
>> were played against the same player. The total could be higher but I
>> got bored counting. I'll let you guess who the unfortunate opponent
>> was.
>>
>> Perhaps P Innes should change his screen-name to Rabbit-basher.
>
>
> I played a few games against Mr. Mitchell on
>ChessWorld myself; he kept hanging pieces
>and later complained that he had too many
>games going at once.
>
> Since nearly-an-IMnes got a hold of the new
>Rybka program, he has been bragging about
>achieving a GM-norm-- in remote play, of
>course; what a coinkydink! LOL
>
> What I find most amusing is the fact that
>some of these nearly-IMs types are afraid to
>play Sam Sloan-- notorious rabbit-basher
>(he once crushed the Supreme Court 7-0).
>Now, why would someone who wins 500
>games -- without using computer help -- be
>afraid of little old SS? I say it is because
>without help, they know they are simply
>outclassed. Further proof -- as if any were
>needed -- lies in the fact that all the Evans
>ratpackers are content to send SS to
>defend their, um, "honor" in the grudge
>matches. Why not insist on sending a
>nearly-an-IM 2450, to be sure of victory?
>Cause they don't have one, that's why!
>
>
> -- help bot
>
Ive played mr Innes a couple of times and there is
no way that he was using his computer. After running
the game through my computer it showed several errors
on both sides. If he was using 'help' on chessworld he
should have done better in the 'chessville open'
http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/tournamentviewone.asp?TournamentID=87833


As for playing Mr Sloan I can certainly understand why
anyone wouldn't want to be in the same room with
this guy...

J.Lohner


  
Date: 12 Apr 2008 02:49:00
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 11, 7:11 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103)
> wrote (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:49:09 -0400):
> _
> 7 ...
> 7 ... It is Brennan's invention that I ever said 2450 - rather
> 7 than say what an IM was then rated, and that I approached
> 7 it in Europe - ...
> 7 ...
> _
> _
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
> Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
> cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!
> trndny06.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for-mail
> From: "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
> References: <[email protected]> <IqOdnY6x85BuWU_dRVn-
> [email protected]> <K4N2d.1067$HH5.638@trndny05> <1o2dnaK7f7R_rNHcRVn-
> [email protected]> <rpA3d.3162$HH5.2100@trndny05> <X_Sdnft-jb3L9dLcRVn-
> [email protected]> <90W3d.12449$%42.6255@trndny08> <pIudnUP9EtHfxM3cRVn-
> [email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander
> Lines: 64
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
> Message-ID: <lI14d.5480$4j1.2242@trndny06>
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.223.121.67
> X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
> X-Trace: trndny06 1095804817 64.223.121.67 (Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:13:37
> EDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:13:37 EDT
>
> Dear Art,
>
> to address only the chess portrait:-
>
> For my money this is the most authentic of
>
>
>
> > all
> > > the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
> > pounds
> > > and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He
> > is
> > > conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
> > > (Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving
> > a
> > > knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one
> > > of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
> > > likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
> > > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn
> > > sacrifice."
>
> > > **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
> > > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
> > > player is said to /gambit/ the material.
>
> > > **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
> > from
> > > what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can
> > > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
> > White
> > > has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
> > > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
> > continuing
> > > to win the game.
>
> > Dear Phil -
> > There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
> > but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess play.
>
> I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the
> painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
> black,
> but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
> hold
> these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].
>
> My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
> master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
> offer
> an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
> so to
> speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
> linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
> situation
> over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
> the
> worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
> three" if
> a board position cannot be resolved.
>
> Phil
>
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Art Neuendorffer
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

This should be kept on a webpage somewhere, for easy reference.


  
Date: 12 Apr 2008 02:47:14
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 11, 8:53 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
It is quite
> understandable that a weak player would not
> know this, having been stuck down in the Class
> B section all his life;

Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws, but a large number of his
rated games were played against the same, much lower rated, opponent.
In the case of his rated games with White, out of 289 at least 126
were played against the same player. The total could be higher but I
got bored counting. I'll let you guess who the unfortunate opponent
was.

Perhaps P Innes should change his screen-name to Rabbit-basher.


  
Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:53:48
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 11, 8:11 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:

> 7 ... It is Brennan's invention that I ever said 2450 - rather
> 7 than say what an IM was then rated, and that I approached
> 7 it in Europe - ...

> Subject: Re: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander


> > > knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one
> > > of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
> > > likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
> > > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn
> > > sacrifice."

> > > **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
> > > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
> > > player is said to /gambit/ the material.

This point is correct.


> > > **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
> > > from what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can
> > > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me

This also makes perfect sense.


> > > in fact White has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
> > > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of continuing
> > > to win the game.

But somebody clearly lost the thread. A sane man
cannot seriously maintain that the position is
indeterminable, and then go on to describe exactly
what is happening on the board.

In addition, if this duffer were even a half-decent
chess player, he would know that mere material
advantage is always trumped by checkmate.


> > Dear Phil -
> > There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
> > but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess play.

> I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the
> painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
> black, but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
> hold these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

> My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
> master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
> offer an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
> so to speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
> linear.

Here we see a crystal-clear reference to "Elo"
with regard to both Neil Brennen's *and* Phil
Innes' ratings; I certainly hope our nearly-an-IM
has remembered to stick with his original story
through all the gnashing of teeth over Taylor
Kingston's "Elo" rating claim snafu.

Oh-- and the scale *is* linear. It is quite
understandable that a weak player would not
know this, having been stuck down in the Class
B section all his life; but you would think a
nearly-an-IM with a rating of 2450 would have
at some point traversed through enough of
these ratings classes to know that only the
K-factor changes. The volatility of one's
rating is cut via use of a smaller K-factor; how
do *I* know this? I read about it, somewhere.
(Maybe Gary Kasparov was complaining about
how he was "stuck in a rut", in the 2800s?)


-- help bot







  
Date: 11 Apr 2008 17:11:44
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.85.103)
wrote (Sat, 5 Apr 2008 12:49:09 -0400):
_
7 ...
7 ... It is Brennan's invention that I ever said 2450 - rather
7 than say what an IM was then rated, and that I approached
7 it in Europe - ...
7 ...
_
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!
trndny06.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for-mail
From: "Chess One" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
References: <[email protected] > <IqOdnY6x85BuWU_dRVn-
[email protected] > <K4N2d.1067$HH5.638@trndny05> <1o2dnaK7f7R_rNHcRVn-
[email protected] > <rpA3d.3162$HH5.2100@trndny05> <X_Sdnft-jb3L9dLcRVn-
[email protected] > <90W3d.12449$%42.6255@trndny08> <pIudnUP9EtHfxM3cRVn-
[email protected] >
Subject: Re: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander
Lines: 64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Message-ID: <lI14d.5480$4j1.2242@trndny06 >
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.223.121.67
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: trndny06 1095804817 64.223.121.67 (Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:13:37
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:13:37 EDT

Dear Art,

to address only the chess portrait:-

For my money this is the most authentic of
> all
> > the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
> pounds
> > and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He
> is
> > conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
> > (Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving
> a
> > knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one
> > of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
> > likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
> > taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn
> > sacrifice."
> >
> > **The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
> > chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
> > player is said to /gambit/ the material.
> >
> > **It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
> from
> > what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can
> > discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
> White
> > has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
> > apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
> continuing
> > to win the game.
>
> Dear Phil -
> There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
> but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess play.

I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil

> > -------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
>
>
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


   
Date: 11 Apr 2008 18:25:49
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:11:44 -0700 (PDT), Louis Blair
<[email protected] > wrote:

>My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
>master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
>offer
>an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
>so to
>speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
>linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
>situation
>over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
>the
>worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
>three" if
>a board position cannot be resolved.

>Phil

Har, de har har.

Phil, if you could reverse time and take back one, just one, post you
made in the past, which one would it be?? Lemme guess. Ha, ha.

You can run but you can't hide.


  
Date: 02 Apr 2008 18:24:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 2, 12:02 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> So you are suggesting P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 is a mere
> 'postman?' (early 2000s slang for a correspondence 'player' who uses a
> chess engine to choose their moves)


Not at all! Most of these cheaters have ego
problems which force them into taking some
control from the program; for instance, they
might decide to override it in the opening; and
it may be necessary to eradicate ultra-obvious
computer moves to avoid detection.

Many, many years ago, I recall reading here
that certain posters only used computers for
what they liked to call "tactics checking",
which is to say, to keep them from hanging
pieces. But if you are willing to shield your-
self from the hanging of "pieces", why not
pawns? why not from weak squares? or even
a loss of tempo? And why not then grab a
pawn or two you would otherwise have never
seen was hanging?


> Still, even as a postman, the GM norm P Innes allegedly scored has to
> have been awarded by somebody. Since it doesn't appear to be ICCF, it
> had to have been in some 'vapor' tournament online. Perhaps it's the
> same group that made Goran Tomic an "Internet Grandmaster?"


Try www.chessworld.net, where I handily
defeated Rob da robber Mitchell in a non-
grudge match of sorts. I kept taking free
pieces, but then he insisted he had too
many games going at once, and he wanted
a rematch. He also wanted me to play
Rybka-IMnes, but I claimed it would not be
fair since my chessworld rating was not
nearly high enough to avoid victimizing
poor Mr. IMnes' rating -- even if Rybka won
(unlikely; just look at how I've handled the
GetClub program-- the most improved
chess program ever).


-- help bot


   
Date: 05 Apr 2008 12:49:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:168a2ba3-dfa3-4bd5-b77c-3b90b3626402@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 12:02 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So you are suggesting P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 is a mere
>> 'postman?' (early 2000s slang for a correspondence 'player' who uses a
>> chess engine to choose their moves)
>
>
> Not at all! Most of these cheaters have ego
> problems which force them into taking some

BY ANY OTHER NAME

The two nitwits continue to trash strong players. It is Brennan's invention
that I ever said 2450 - rather than say what an IM was then rated, and that
I approached it in Europe - and he continues his sick invention by now
'suggesting' that was correspondance.

Neither Brennan nor Kennedy could take 15 years away from chess and still
play at 2200 USCF after just 2 seasons [and in Vermont!] but they can still
pretend not to understand things - since they 'pretend' to not understand
everything.

Kennedy is always keen to suggest that I play postal by using computers, yet
no computer engine would make my moves, nor does anyone here in these groups
I have played [20 people?] think so either.

But what use are facts to either of these two? If you did facts you couldn't
be stupid! But if you make up your own facts about other people then you can
scandalise them.

WHO DUNNIT?

Brennan has written shit about people who know things ever since he showed
up in chess newsgroups, and Kennedy the coward only writes about named
people to put them down.

Look at their endless shit! 5 years apiece, longer for Kennedy, and together
they drive off chess players, subvert conversation to their own sick
emotional needs to trash people.

Both like to mess with people's names! Brennan even mock-copies their names
in his sartirical little efforts.

In fact, their behaviors are much the same as the FSS <right? >

;)

Phil Innes

> control from the program; for instance, they
> might decide to override it in the opening; and
> it may be necessary to eradicate ultra-obvious
> computer moves to avoid detection.
>
> Many, many years ago, I recall reading here
> that certain posters only used computers for
> what they liked to call "tactics checking",
> which is to say, to keep them from hanging
> pieces. But if you are willing to shield your-
> self from the hanging of "pieces", why not
> pawns? why not from weak squares? or even
> a loss of tempo? And why not then grab a
> pawn or two you would otherwise have never
> seen was hanging?
>
>
>> Still, even as a postman, the GM norm P Innes allegedly scored has to
>> have been awarded by somebody. Since it doesn't appear to be ICCF, it
>> had to have been in some 'vapor' tournament online. Perhaps it's the
>> same group that made Goran Tomic an "Internet Grandmaster?"
>
>
> Try www.chessworld.net, where I handily
> defeated Rob da robber Mitchell in a non-
> grudge match of sorts. I kept taking free
> pieces, but then he insisted he had too
> many games going at once, and he wanted
> a rematch. He also wanted me to play
> Rybka-IMnes, but I claimed it would not be
> fair since my chessworld rating was not
> nearly high enough to avoid victimizing
> poor Mr. IMnes' rating -- even if Rybka won
> (unlikely; just look at how I've handled the
> GetClub program-- the most improved
> chess program ever).
>
>
> -- help bot




    
Date: 14 Apr 2008 00:12:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Apr 13, 5:01 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> >http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/tournamentviewone.asp?Tournament...
>
> > A link cannot end with dot, dot, dot. It
> >simply isn't done, my boy! There are strict
> >rules and regulations; the Net Police can
> >explain all the details.
>
> This must be caused by your newsreader because under Agent
> the link is perfectly normal.


I believe you are right. Scrolling upward, I
note that none of the postings exceed the
line-length of the several which include your
long link; there seems to be a set limit, even
though the right half of my screen is filled
with white space. Let's try shrinking down
the text size, and see what happens... .

No-- it still does the same thing. Anyway, I
think I could eventually find a page with Dr.
IM Innes' tournament results at ChessWorld,
if I try hard enough. I am particularly perplexed
by the claim of only four draws, in conjunction
with twenty losses and several hundreds of
wins. How can someone draw only four
games out of hundreds, but lose five times
that number and win all the rest? It's as if a
policy had been decided, in which every draw
was "killed" by booting up Rybka, setting the
contempt factor to near-infinity, and letting her
rip! Or maybe it's nearly-IMnes' playing style?


-- help bot






  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 21:02:45
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:47 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 10:45 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My apologies, Reverend Walker. I had no idea P Innes the alleged
> > correspondence chess player and self-described "nearly an IM" would
> > believe we are one and the same. Unfortunately, since P Innes is
> > incapable of admitting error, expect several more such confused posts
> > from him.
>
> I think it is more likely PI will just avoid discussing
> his latest gaffe altogether.
>
> > BTW, did anyone notice P Innes doesn't know the difference between the
> > Internet Chess Club (ICC) and the International Correspondence Chess
> > Federation (ICCF)?
>
> Well, what do you expect? Only real chess
> players would know the difference. In a recent
> rant, Mr. Parr flatly and with a straight face
> insisted that OTB chess had much more
> prestige than correspondence chess, and he
> wasn't talking about the relatively recent
> changes brought about by the introduction of
> killer chess engines. It seems that some
> folks just don't know very much about chess.
>
> > Meanwhile, we await evidence he secured a GM norm
> > from anyone.
>
> I take the nearly-an-IMnes at his word; he said
> he got hold of Rybka a good while back, and
> that is proof enough for me that he is capable
> of achieving GM norms now; it also explains
> why he never made such a claim /before/ Rybka
> was released, in spite of his being nearly-an-IM
> with a rating of 2450, and all that. Just look at
> the (presumed) facts: nearly IMnes never once
> claimed to have scored a GM norm in remote
> play until shortly /after/ acquiring Rybka, then
> presto: he is making such claims. Do you
> suppose this is merely a coinkydink?

So you are suggesting P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 is a mere
'postman?' (early 2000s slang for a correspondence 'player' who uses a
chess engine to choose their moves)

Still, even as a postman, the GM norm P Innes allegedly scored has to
have been awarded by somebody. Since it doesn't appear to be ICCF, it
had to have been in some 'vapor' tournament online. Perhaps it's the
same group that made Goran Tomic an "Internet Grandmaster?"

> Let's face it, as crushing as it may sound to
> egotistical correspondence GMs, there's a new
> sheriff in town, and they need to start packing
> before a whole posse of killer chess engines
> hunts them to near-extinction.
>
> -- help bot



   
Date: 13 Apr 2008 23:29:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Apr 13, 9:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >> >> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
> >> >> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws

> > Look above you-- right ^up there^. The claim is
> > that Dr. IM Innes has won 500 games, drawn an
> > incredible 4 games, and somehow lost twenty.
> > If this is correct (and it may well not be-- what
> > are the odds of exactly 500 wins?)


> I didn't write '500', but if that's true for last week the number must be
> 505 by this week.


Ducks the question; I note that nearly-2450
IMnes does not explain how he managed to
draw only four games, while losing twenty and
winning too many to count. Conclusion? PI
does not know how to draw a drawn game! (A
lot of weak players have this same problem,
like, um, Sanny's contraption at GetClub.)


> Maybe you can get all Paris in a bottle?


Don't you mean an urn? Once Achilles was
dead, who needed him anyway.


> Shit! I do not have a 2450 rating


Shift to the present tense duly noted. So, do
you still maintain that you once had an "ELO
rating" of 2450, along with your nearly-an-IM
imaginary title? De Nile ain't just a river in
Egypt!


> never had. In presenting to another
> newsgroup who didn't know if a high number was better than a low one, and as
> an aside to discussing a painting with chess stuff in it, I wrote without
> careful parenthesis what an IM was [30 years ago] and that for a season or
> two I approached that level of play.


Wrong. You never mentioned "for a season or
two" and in fact you specifically tossed out the
misspelled term "ELO rating", along with your
delusional nearly-an-IM title claim. Fact is, you
neglected to toss in *any* qualifier at all, which
might allow you to get off lightly for your bald-
faced lying. You were reckless, and you got
caught.

Here's some free advice: when you find yourself
in a deep hole, just stop and put the shovel down!



> > Add in the fact that in spite of all this
> > bragging about master or nearly-IM 2450
> > strength, the official records indicate that
> > SS, TK, and PI are all in the Class A or
> > Class B range OTB. Me, I have trouble
> > figuring out how such chess geniuses
> > can play so "poorly", what with all their
> > knowledge and skill.

> > Look at the numbers: 2450 vs. 2044--ten
> > years ago!


I must have been *really tired* when I wrote
that PI, with his 2044 USCF rating, was in the A
or B Class. Obviously, that made him an Expert
back in 1995. (I imagine if we plotted a graph
in our minds, with a data point at 2450 from
his claimed "twenty years ago" and another
point at 2044 from the year 1995, then drew a
line between the two points, he /could be/ in
the Class B section by now-- maybe.

It hardly surprises me when nearly-IMnes'
apologists refer to other "bogus" ratings he
earned in remote play. If we drop the remote
ratings and the delusional 2450 rating, all that
remains is "2044 USCF" -- a far cry from 2450
"ELO".


-- help bot




   
Date: 12 Apr 2008 19:48:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor
On Apr 12, 11:55 am, [email protected] wrote:

> >> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
> >> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws


> Ive played mr Innes a couple of times and there is
> no way that he was using his computer.


Look above you-- right ^up there^. The claim is
that Dr. IM Innes has won 500 games, drawn an
incredible 4 games, and somehow lost twenty.
If this is correct (and it may well not be-- what
are the odds of exactly 500 wins?) then it is a
near-match to what we might expect from a
semi-competent computer cheat. Except for
the four draws issue, which I cannot account
for easily; maybe nearly-IMnes fires up his
computer when it looks like he's going to
draw, because he would rather lose trying
to win? Set contempt-factor to maximum;
prepare to warp out... .


> After running
> the game through my computer it showed several errors
> on both sides.


Ah, but then, we know that Rybka makes
errors too. More to the point, not every
computer cheat uses the program to select
every move, in every game. The record
described above may not even include such
games as you describe; is there not an
option to play "unrated" games at CW?

On top of this, it is not a stretch to imagine
that PI could be an incompetent operator; he
is, after all, incompetent everywhere else.


> If he was using 'help' on chessworld he
> should have done better in the 'chessville open'


Question: when did nearly-IMnes first start
playing on ChessWorld, and when exactly
did he post here in rgc that he had acquired
Rybka? We already know that his bragging
about achieving a GM-norm came after he
got hold of the Rybka program, so there is
no reason to suspect him of lying about
that (except that he does have a nasty
*habit* of lying). Still, if PI did use computer
aid, he would naturally achieve a GM-norm
shortly after acquiring Rybka; see the time-
line and try to connect the dots. Is it more
likely that PI never achieved a GM-norm
until just after Rybka, or is it more likely
that Rybka never achieved a nearly-an-GM
remote-play norm until she "met" Phil Innes?


http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/tournamentviewone.asp?Tournament...


A link cannot end with dot, dot, dot. It
simply isn't done, my boy! There are strict
rules and regulations; the Net Police can
explain all the details.


> As for playing Mr Sloan I can certainly understand why
> anyone wouldn't want to be in the same room with
> this guy...


What about a glass wall in between the
two players, who move on separate boards?
The point is, there is a whole lot of bragging
going on around here, but even when other
people offer to pony up the prize money,
two people have consistently chickened
out: TK and PI. Now, one of these guys
seems willing to play SS remotely, which
as we know grants him the opportunity to
cheat using his "invincible" Rybka program.

Add in the fact that in spite of all this
bragging about master or nearly-IM 2450
strength, the official records indicate that
SS, TK, and PI are all in the Class A or
Class B range OTB. Me, I have trouble
figuring out how such chess geniuses
can play so "poorly", what with all their
knowledge and skill.

Look at the numbers: 2450 vs. 2044--ten
years ago! If we re-arrange the numerals
a bit we almost get there: 2440. But why
stop there? How about 4420? It may
sound ridiculous now, but just wait until
they work out all the bugs... .


-- help bot


    
Date: 13 Apr 2008 21:01:38
From:
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor


>http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/tournamentviewone.asp?Tournament...
>
>
> A link cannot end with dot, dot, dot. It
>simply isn't done, my boy! There are strict
>rules and regulations; the Net Police can
>explain all the details.
>
>

This must be caused by your newsreader because under Agent
the link is perfectly normal.



    
Date: 13 Apr 2008 09:03:25
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Nearly-IMnes and the K-factor

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 12, 11:55 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> >> Speaking of which, P Innes sports a 2271 rating on Chessworld, and a
>> >> record of 500 wins, 20 losses, and 4 draws
>
>
>> Ive played mr Innes a couple of times and there is
>> no way that he was using his computer.
>
>
> Look above you-- right ^up there^. The claim is
> that Dr. IM Innes has won 500 games, drawn an
> incredible 4 games, and somehow lost twenty.
> If this is correct (and it may well not be-- what
> are the odds of exactly 500 wins?)

ROFL - as elsewhere, absolutely nothing depends on answering questions posed
by hysterics, even if objective, direct witnesses attest what they evaluate
of it.

I didn't write '500', but if that's true for last week the number must be
505 by this week.

> then it is a
> near-match to what we might expect from a
> semi-competent computer cheat. Except for
> the four draws issue, which I cannot account
> for easily; maybe nearly-IMnes fires up his
> computer when it looks like he's going to
> draw, because he would rather lose trying
> to win? Set contempt-factor to maximum;
> prepare to warp out... .

Maybe, maybe, maybe. But nothing depends on any answer for Kennedy. Maybe
people are cheating him, cheating each other, maybe the legal system is
corrupt, maybe Rybka errs... :)

Maybe you can get all Paris in a bottle?

Shit! I do not have a 2450 rating, never had. In presenting to another
newsgroup who didn't know if a high number was better than a low one, and as
an aside to discussing a painting with chess stuff in it, I wrote without
careful parenthesis what an IM was [30 years ago] and that for a season or
two I approached that level of play.

Why some insultnik who can't write his own name can't understand that I
could still play at 2200 level OTB 20 years after giving up the game is
literally beyond belief.

This is the trouble with letting Rybka do your thinking for you - you
become an idiot-savant without the savant.

Phil Innes



>
>> After running
>> the game through my computer it showed several errors
>> on both sides.
>
>
> Ah, but then, we know that Rybka makes
> errors too. More to the point, not every
> computer cheat uses the program to select
> every move, in every game. The record
> described above may not even include such
> games as you describe; is there not an
> option to play "unrated" games at CW?
>
> On top of this, it is not a stretch to imagine
> that PI could be an incompetent operator; he
> is, after all, incompetent everywhere else.
>
>
>> If he was using 'help' on chessworld he
>> should have done better in the 'chessville open'
>
>
> Question: when did nearly-IMnes first start
> playing on ChessWorld, and when exactly
> did he post here in rgc that he had acquired
> Rybka? We already know that his bragging
> about achieving a GM-norm came after he
> got hold of the Rybka program, so there is
> no reason to suspect him of lying about
> that (except that he does have a nasty
> *habit* of lying). Still, if PI did use computer
> aid, he would naturally achieve a GM-norm
> shortly after acquiring Rybka; see the time-
> line and try to connect the dots. Is it more
> likely that PI never achieved a GM-norm
> until just after Rybka, or is it more likely
> that Rybka never achieved a nearly-an-GM
> remote-play norm until she "met" Phil Innes?
>
>
> http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/tournamentviewone.asp?Tournament...
>
>
> A link cannot end with dot, dot, dot. It
> simply isn't done, my boy! There are strict
> rules and regulations; the Net Police can
> explain all the details.
>
>
>> As for playing Mr Sloan I can certainly understand why
>> anyone wouldn't want to be in the same room with
>> this guy...
>
>
> What about a glass wall in between the
> two players, who move on separate boards?
> The point is, there is a whole lot of bragging
> going on around here, but even when other
> people offer to pony up the prize money,
> two people have consistently chickened
> out: TK and PI. Now, one of these guys
> seems willing to play SS remotely, which
> as we know grants him the opportunity to
> cheat using his "invincible" Rybka program.
>
> Add in the fact that in spite of all this
> bragging about master or nearly-IM 2450
> strength, the official records indicate that
> SS, TK, and PI are all in the Class A or
> Class B range OTB. Me, I have trouble
> figuring out how such chess geniuses
> can play so "poorly", what with all their
> knowledge and skill.
>
> Look at the numbers: 2450 vs. 2044--ten
> years ago! If we re-arrange the numerals
> a bit we almost get there: 2440. But why
> stop there? How about 4420? It may
> sound ridiculous now, but just wait until
> they work out all the bugs... .
>
>
> -- help bot




  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 20:47:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 10:45 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> My apologies, Reverend Walker. I had no idea P Innes the alleged
> correspondence chess player and self-described "nearly an IM" would
> believe we are one and the same. Unfortunately, since P Innes is
> incapable of admitting error, expect several more such confused posts
> from him.


I think it is more likely PI will just avoid discussing
his latest gaffe altogether.


> BTW, did anyone notice P Innes doesn't know the difference between the
> Internet Chess Club (ICC) and the International Correspondence Chess
> Federation (ICCF)?


Well, what do you expect? Only real chess
players would know the difference. In a recent
rant, Mr. Parr flatly and with a straight face
insisted that OTB chess had much more
prestige than correspondence chess, and he
wasn't talking about the relatively recent
changes brought about by the introduction of
killer chess engines. It seems that some
folks just don't know very much about chess.


> Meanwhile, we await evidence he secured a GM norm
> from anyone.


I take the nearly-an-IMnes at his word; he said
he got hold of Rybka a good while back, and
that is proof enough for me that he is capable
of achieving GM norms now; it also explains
why he never made such a claim /before/ Rybka
was released, in spite of his being nearly-an-IM
with a rating of 2450, and all that. Just look at
the (presumed) facts: nearly IMnes never once
claimed to have scored a GM norm in remote
play until shortly /after/ acquiring Rybka, then
presto: he is making such claims. Do you
suppose this is merely a coinkydink?

Let's face it, as crushing as it may sound to
egotistical correspondence GMs, there's a new
sheriff in town, and they need to start packing
before a whole posse of killer chess engines
hunts them to near-extinction.


-- help bot






  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 19:45:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 1, 6:36 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:37:44 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:57f4cf73-7ba6-488b-a7d5-442111efb120@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I
> >>>> am
> >>>> a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,
> >>> Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
> >>> only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
> >>> least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.
> >> Thank you Rev. I never mentioned ICC. And I am not gay, thank you, though if
> >> you are, its ok!
>
> >> That's 2 things to consider, if you are disposed to do that sort of thing,
> >> ie, consider stuff.
>
> >> What are you a Reverend of, exactly? The Church of Misanthropy? Come on,
> >> tell us, or cut your fuck-them routine with people.
>
> >> What a wet-blanket you are! I have played everyone here in these groups who
> >> wanted a game and didn't want special conditions, like the great Sloan,
> >> since the Miles effect might kick in, and I would kick him - then everyone
> >> would shout 'unfair'.
>
> >> I didn't even know about this rating crap until someone else said so - but
> >> since you cut the context, then neither do you care for what I said, right?
>
> >> I mean, everyone can see you stole a sentence, negating its context, in
> >> order to suppose something.
>
> >> pfft!
>
> >> PI
>
> > FWIW, the Rev Walker did not make the post to which you reply.
>
> > Phil, you really ought to invest in a good offline newsreader. All
> > these misplaced or misidentified replies make you appear addled.
>
> It is true, I said nothing there. Perhaps it was an honest mistake. I
> don't know.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

My apologies, Reverend Walker. I had no idea P Innes the alleged
correspondence chess player and self-described "nearly an IM" would
believe we are one and the same. Unfortunately, since P Innes is
incapable of admitting error, expect several more such confused posts
from him.

BTW, did anyone notice P Innes doesn't know the difference between the
Internet Chess Club (ICC) and the International Correspondence Chess
Federation (ICCF)? Meanwhile, we await evidence he secured a GM norm
from anyone.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 17:24:14
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston is Correct
On 31, 3:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
> master.

Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
attempt to say black is white.
And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.

> That is not the issue. It is a diversion
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0THE REAL ISSUE
>
> On June 5, 2005 -- after suffering brutal battering from ball-busting
> Sam Sloan

Here, via secret web-cam, we show the "ball-busting" Sam Sloan's
reaction to having his ludicrous nonsense refuted here on rgc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DPbcctWbC8Q0

> There was no reference to postal chess. No caveat. It was an outright
> lie.

And here, we have a capsule sumy of Larry Parr's general method
of argument on this issue over the past three years, which is to
repeat the same bull over and over and over and over and over and
over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DdG7lbJ7Dljs

> > On 31, 2:39 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > =A0http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> > > > =A0 I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official=

> > > > 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> > > > Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
>
> > > I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
> > > doubts then
>
> > > 1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.
>
> > > 2. Or He is ill.
>
> > > 3. He is a Troll
>
> > > 4. He has some sort of Complexes.
>
> > > One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
> > > 1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.
>
> > > So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
> > > Year 1985!!!
>
> > > And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
> > > Kingston.
>
> > > Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???



 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:16:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston is Correct
On 31, 3:04 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
> > old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
> > equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
> > correlation between the two systems at all.
>
> Atleast both were Ratings for Chess Games. So they have a big
> Correlation.
>
> >He claims that this is the equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating.
>
> Yes This still needs to be proved. I am not a Chess Player So I do not
> have much information about the rating Systems.
>
> Bye
> Sanny

I am glad you admit that you are not a chess player. We had already
figured that out.

I doubt that there was even one player who had both an Elo Rating and
a Chess Review Postal Chess Rating.

Since there was nobody rated under both systems, there was no possible
correlation between them.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:10:30
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston is Correct
ANOTHER RED HERRING

I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
master. That is not the issue. It is a diversion

THE REAL ISSUE

On June 5, 2005 -- after suffering brutal battering from ball-busting
Sam Sloan over his playing strength -- Class A player Taylor Kingston
posted the following statement:

"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
be
any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top
rank
of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than weak."

There was no reference to postal chess. No caveat. It was an outright
lie.

samsloan wrote:
> On 31, 2:39 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Rev, have a look here:
> >
> > > http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
> >
> > > I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> > > 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> > > Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
> >
> > I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
> > doubts then
> >
> > 1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.
> >
> > 2. Or He is ill.
> >
> > 3. He is a Troll
> >
> > 4. He has some sort of Complexes.
> >
> > One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
> > 1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.
> >
> > So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
> > Year 1985!!!
> >
> > And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
> > Kingston.
> >
> > Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???
> >
> > Say in Year 2020 Master start getting a Rating of 4000+ And they start
> > saying 2500+ rated player is not a Master? That is wrong. When we are
> > talking about 1985 We have to Consider the Ratings based on that time.
> >
> > Bye
> > Sanny
> >
> > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
> Sanny, you know nothing about this subject. You have no idea what you
> are writing about. Stop changing the title to this thread.
>
> Taylor Kingston started this by claiming that he had a 2300+ Elo
> Rating. Elo Ratings are rating calculated by Profesor Arpad Elo in his
> office in Wisconsin . Elo Ratings are prestigious. Only a few top
> level players in the world had Elo ratings. Taylor Kingston was not
> one of those top level players. Taylor Kingston lied.
>
> Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
> old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
> equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
> correlation between the two systems at all.
>
> Now, will you kindly butt out of this conversation which is way over
> your head.
>
> Sam Sloan


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:04:42
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston is Correct

> Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
> old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
> equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
> correlation between the two systems at all.

Atleast both were Ratings for Chess Games. So they have a big
Correlation.

>He claims that this is the equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating.

Yes This still needs to be proved. I am not a Chess Player So I do not
have much information about the rating Systems.

Bye
Sanny


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 11:54:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston is Correct
On 31, 2:39 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Rev, have a look here:
>
> > http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> > I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> > 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> > Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
>
> I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
> doubts then
>
> 1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.
>
> 2. Or He is ill.
>
> 3. He is a Troll
>
> 4. He has some sort of Complexes.
>
> One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
> 1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.
>
> So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
> Year 1985!!!
>
> And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
> Kingston.
>
> Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???
>
> Say in Year 2020 Master start getting a Rating of 4000+ And they start
> saying 2500+ rated player is not a Master? That is wrong. When we are
> talking about 1985 We have to Consider the Ratings based on that time.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Sanny, you know nothing about this subject. You have no idea what you
are writing about. Stop changing the title to this thread.

Taylor Kingston started this by claiming that he had a 2300+ Elo
Rating. Elo Ratings are rating calculated by Profesor Arpad Elo in his
office in Wisconsin . Elo Ratings are prestigious. Only a few top
level players in the world had Elo ratings. Taylor Kingston was not
one of those top level players. Taylor Kingston lied.

Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
correlation between the two systems at all.

Now, will you kindly butt out of this conversation which is way over
your head.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 11:43:17
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 12:21=A0pm, "Tom tinak" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> > ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
> > being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
> > his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
> > follows:
>
> > "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."
>
> The documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to being a master
> appears in Chess Life, April 1985, page P1 (the 1985 Annual Rating List
> insert)
>
> It reads:
> "To recognize their special achievement, senior masters (those rated 1900
> and above) and masters (those rated 1700-1898) are listed first
> alaphebetically."
> (looks like a typo where 1898 should be 1899)

Actually, I don't think it was a typo. Under that rating system, the
minimum amount a rating could change was by two points, and all
changes were multiples of two. The number of points to be won/lost in
a decisive game ranged from 2 to 100, depending on the rating
difference, but always in increments of two.
Looking at the 1983 list, I don't see a single odd-number rating,
and looking back at my own rating history (I kept a chart) the rating
was always an even number.

> In the "Postal Masters (1700-1899)" section is:
>
> "Kingston, Taylor T CA 1806"
>
> =A0- Tom tinak

Thanks again for posting this, Tom. I really must get that April
1984 issue somehow. Anyone got one for sale?



 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 11:39:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Taylor Kingston is Correct
> =A0 Rev, have a look here:
>
> =A0http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> =A0 I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too

I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
doubts then

1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.

2. Or He is ill.

3. He is a Troll

4. He has some sort of Complexes.

One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.

So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
Year 1985!!!

And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
Kingston.

Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???

Say in Year 2020 Master start getting a Rating of 4000+ And they start
saying 2500+ rated player is not a Master? That is wrong. When we are
talking about 1985 We have to Consider the Ratings based on that time.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html





 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 18:14:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math



[email protected] wrote:

>talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings

BINGO! With that info I found this:

"1997 CORRESPONDENCE RATING LIST Correspondence ratings have
been converted to the Elo system, as of July 1, 1987."

Source: http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist0198.html

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >




  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 14:26:12
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: [email protected]>
2408 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings
>
> BINGO! With that info I found this:
>
> "1997 CORRESPONDENCE RATING LIST Correspondence ratings have
> been converted to the Elo system, as of July 1, 1987."
>
> Source: http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist0198.html
>

Now...I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the time frame for "I had
a 1906 postal rating BEFORE CHESS COMPUTERS EXISTED."



--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 14:24:54
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: [email protected]>
2408 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings
>
> BINGO! With that info I found this:
>
> "1997 CORRESPONDENCE RATING LIST Correspondence ratings have
> been converted to the Elo system, as of July 1, 1987."
>
> Source: http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist0198.html
>

You've been contributing to this thread, and you didn't already know that?

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 10:44:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 10:26 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:

Glasgow, Lanarks, Scotland.
>
> If Mr. Edgar did indeed devise the Harkness rating system, and he was an
> editor of Chess Review before it merged with Chess Life, then it seems
> reasonable that the Chess Review postal rating system that Sam Sloan
> refers to above, may well have been the Harkness System. You may wish
> to rethink your statement that "Kenneth Harkness had nothing to do with
> the postal rating system..." Mr. Sloan.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

According to The Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess, Harkness
Biography, Page 1, Harkness was the editor of Chess Review magazine
from May 1941 until August 1948. He did not become the business
manager of the USCF until 1952. He left the USCF in August 1959.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 17:42:52
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


[email protected] wrote:

>The switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
>system took place around 1987, as has been explained several
>times in this group.

If so, there are a *lot* of people who have the dates
wrong, and not just Sam Soan, either. For example:

"...the Harkness system, developed in the 1950's for the USCF
by Ken Harkness (who also developed the swiss system for
tournaments)... in 1959, Elo was approached by the USCF president,
Jerry Spann, about coming up with a more reliable system (than
the Harkness system which was in place) of calculating ratings.
The USCF adotped the ELO system in 1960 and by FIDE in 1970.
Until 1980 he did all the rating calculations for FIDE, first
with a paper and pencil, then, when the calculator was invented,
he used a Hewlett-Packard calculator."

Source: http://chessgrrl.bravejournal.com/entry/1366

"...the historic 1972 world championship match and the
Fischer boom. The Federation took calculated advantage
of cold war tensions and individual genius to achieve
the greatest membership expansion in its history.
Fischer�s triumph also led to international acceptance
of the Elo system which had mathematically predicted
his astonishing victories despite widespread disbelief."
(Tim Redman, 1999 announcement of his candidacy for the
USCF Executive Board)
Source: http://www.georgejohn.bcentralhost.com/GeorgeJohn/Chess/uscf/politics/tr1.html

Chess History and Chronology by Bill Wall (Jan 21, 2008)

1959 RATINGS; 1st time the elo system of rating players used.
1960 RATING; Elo rating system adopted by uscf.
1964 RATINGS; 1st international rating list by elo. Fischer and Petrosian (2690).
1970.09 RATINGS; 1st international ratings. Used the Elo system.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/history.txt

Also see:
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/chesmayne/brief_notes_on_the_history_of_chess_1900_3.htm
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/chesmayne/brief_notes_on_the_history_of_chess_1900_4.htm





http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/history.txt



 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 10:40:51
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 12:40=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 31, 11:43 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Taylor,
>
> >> This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
> >> rating systems and context. =A0It is unnecessary. =A0If you can supply =
us
> >> with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss th=
e
> >> Harkness and Elo systems. =A0In other words, your statement incorrectly=

> >> implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
> >> upon. =A0Not so. =A0 The certificate could save us a long weary debate.=
=A0I
> >> think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
> >> evidence of postal chess mastership. =A0What comes after that in this
> >> debate, I cannot say.
>
> > =A0 Rev, have a look here:
>
> > =A0http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> > =A0 I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> > 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> > Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
> > fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
> > for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
> > =A0 I also include scans of the ch 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
> > USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
> > on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
> > my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
> > rating.
> > =A0 Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
> > them.
> > =A0 If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
> > this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
> > unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
> > documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0Regards, Taylor Kingston
>
> Thanks Taylor. =A0You have convinced me that you were a postal master as
> you claimed. =A0I had to download the rating list and enlarge it to see
> your entry. =A0The scan was low DPI, but I could just make it out.
>
> How that fits into the rest of the argument remains to be seen. =A0:)

No, it does not remain to be seen at all. It's all been seen
already, nearly three years ago, in this thread:

http://tinyurl.com/326b36

Parr and Sloan just keep repeating their worthless smears, lies and
half-truths even though they were thoroughly refuted back then. You
will notice that despite Parr's claim that I was attempting to deceive
people, several posters immediately knew I was talking about postal
ratings, and none but Parr and Sloan claimed I meant OTB, Sloan
because he always shoots his mouth off before engaging his brain, and
Parr because he always smears anyone who contradicts him.

Some sample quotes from that thread:

Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
You are a liar. (In reply to me)

Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM:
About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about
pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.

<http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/
taylor_kingston_bio.html >:

"He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a
Class A OTB player."


Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM:
Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.

Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM:
"Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of
July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on
request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-
addressed
envelope." http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html


Tom tinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM:
The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the
Top 50 Postal Players list:

45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806

k Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM:
Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile.

There were also supportive messages from Stan Booz and Louis Blair.

Now if it's quite all right with everyone, I have more important
matters to attend.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 10:00:42
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 12:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 31, 11:43=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Taylor,
>
> > This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
> > rating systems and context. =A0It is unnecessary. =A0If you can supply u=
s
> > with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the=

> > Harkness and Elo systems. =A0In other words, your statement incorrectly
> > implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
> > upon. =A0Not so. =A0 The certificate could save us a long weary debate. =
=A0I
> > think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
> > evidence of postal chess mastership. =A0What comes after that in this
> > debate, I cannot say.
>
> =A0 Rev, have a look here:
>
> =A0http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> =A0 I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
> fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
> for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
> =A0 I also include scans of the ch 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
> USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
> on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
> my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
> rating.
> =A0 Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
> them.
> =A0 If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
> this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
> unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
> documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0Regards, Taylor Kingston

I have added a page from the July 1985 Postal Chess Bulletin,
showing one of my better games. It also clearly identifies me as a
Postal Master.
One hopes that Larry Parr is suitably ashamed of himself for trying
to give the impression I was not a postal master. One hopes, but one
doubts.
Below is a link to a video showing Larry's spiritual predecessor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlAur_I077NA


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 09:49:04
From: Sanny
Subject: Send me the Formula.

> I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
> or the postal chess rating system.

May be "Harkness" do not have any relation with Postal Chess. But he
devised the Ranking System. And the formulas are being used in many
Countries.

So I think Postal Chess used formmulas simmilar to Harkness rating
system and they found the relation of Postal Chess Ranking and USFC
and FIDE Ranking.

Can someone give me the real Formulas. I will recalculate the
Mathematical relatoin between Postal Chess and other Rankings. I have
good Maths So I can do that.

Just send me the Formulas used by both Ranking System.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 09:13:23
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 11:43=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Taylor,
>
> This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
> rating systems and context. =A0It is unnecessary. =A0If you can supply us
> with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
> Harkness and Elo systems. =A0In other words, your statement incorrectly
> implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
> upon. =A0Not so. =A0 The certificate could save us a long weary debate. =
=A0I
> think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
> evidence of postal chess mastership. =A0What comes after that in this
> debate, I cannot say.

Rev, have a look here:

http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/

I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
I also include scans of the ch 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
rating.
Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
them.
If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.

Regards, Taylor Kingston


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 09:40:07
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On 31, 11:43 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Taylor,
>>
>> This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
>> rating systems and context. It is unnecessary. If you can supply us
>> with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
>> Harkness and Elo systems. In other words, your statement incorrectly
>> implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
>> upon. Not so. The certificate could save us a long weary debate. I
>> think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
>> evidence of postal chess mastership. What comes after that in this
>> debate, I cannot say.
>
> Rev, have a look here:
>
> http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/
>
> I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
> 1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
> Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
> fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
> for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
> I also include scans of the ch 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
> USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
> on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
> my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
> rating.
> Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
> them.
> If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
> this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
> unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
> documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.
>
> Regards, Taylor Kingston

Thanks Taylor. You have convinced me that you were a postal master as
you claimed. I had to download the rating list and enlarge it to see
your entry. The scan was low DPI, but I could just make it out.

How that fits into the rest of the argument remains to be seen. :)
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 09:03:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 10:26 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On 31, 9:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
> >> system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
> >> this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
> >> rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
> >> That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
> >> different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
> >> your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
> >> height is the same whether given in feet or meters.
>
> >> The classes under the Harkness system were:
>
> >> Senior Master: 1900+
> >> Master: 1700-1898
> >> Expert: 1500-1698
> >> Class A: 1300-1498
> >> Class B: 1000-1298
> >> Class C: 700-998
> >> Class D: 700 and below
>
> > Mr. Kingston,
>
> > Why do you keep using the words "Harkness system". Kenneth Harkness
> > had nothing to do with the postal rating system. The USCF did not
> > have postal chess when Harkness was there. The rating system was the
> > Chess Review rating system which the USCF acquired when it bought out
> > Chess Review in 1969.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927
>
> > You are displaying your ignorance again.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> From Wikipedia, and possibly written by Sam Sloan:
>
> "Kenneth Harkness (b. November 12, 1896 in Glasgow, Scotland, d. October
> 4, 1972 in Yugoslavia) was a chess organizer. He was Business Manager of
> the United States Chess Federation from 1952 to 1959. He was also the
> editor of Chess Review, which merged into Chess Life.
>
> Kenneth Harkness died on a train in Yugoslavia, where he was on his way
> to Skopje to be an arbiter at the Chess Olympiad. He had lived in Boca
> Raton, Florida. He became an International Arbiter in 1972. He was a
> member of the FIDE Permanent Rules Commission.
>
> Harkness was responsible for bringing Swiss system tournaments to the
> United States, and also introduced the Harkness rating system, which was
> a precursor to the Elo rating system. One method of tiebreaks in Swiss
> systems, where players tied on points are ranked by the sum of the
> opponents scores minus the top score and the bottom score, is named
> after him. For his services, Harkness is in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame.
>
> Harkness co-authored a book, An Invitation to Chess with Irving Chernev,
> as well as being responsible for a number of the first American chess
> rulebooks.
>
> Kenneth Harkness was a pseudonym. His real name was Stanley Edgar."
>
> I did a bit of checking and the 1901 census of Scotland does indeed show
> a 4 year old Stanley Edgar living with parents John and Grace in
> Glasgow, Lanarks, Scotland.
>
> If Mr. Edgar did indeed devise the Harkness rating system, and he was an
> editor of Chess Review before it merged with Chess Life, then it seems
> reasonable that the Chess Review postal rating system that Sam Sloan
> refers to above, may well have been the Harkness System. You may wish
> to rethink your statement that "Kenneth Harkness had nothing to do with
> the postal rating system..." Mr. Sloan.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

Yes. I wrote the above. That is all by me.

The director of postal chess at Chess Review was Jack Straley Battell.
When the USCF bought Chess Review in 1969, Battell moved to Newburgh
where the USCF was headquartered and continued to work on postal
chess.

I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
or the postal chess rating system.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 10:47:07
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Mon, 31 2008 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:


>The director of postal chess at Chess Review was Jack Straley Battell.
>When the USCF bought Chess Review in 1969, Battell moved to Newburgh
>where the USCF was headquartered and continued to work on postal
>chess.

>I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
>or the postal chess rating system.

>Sam Sloan

You may be wrong, Sam.

The first instance of Chess Review's rating of postal players occurred
in January, 1942. At that time, Battell appeared nowhere on the
masthead and Managing Editor was Kenneth Harkness.

"For a long time we have promised to rate our correspondence players.
We have finally got around to doing it and the results appear on the
next page...Our rating system is fair and accurate, will eventually
portray a player's ability compared with others. The number of points
with which you are credited or debited for each finished game depends
upon the rating of your opponent..." ("Chess Review", January, 1942,
Page 18).


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 08:38:06
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 11:26=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > SINGLE QUESTION FROM A READER
>
> > Larry,
>
> >> I understand that you have many issues in this argument. =A0However, I =
put a single question to you in hopes of moving the argument away from this =
"deja vu all-over-again" stage that it has been stuck in since I began readi=
ng this news group. =A0Taylor claims that documentary evidence of his =A0cla=
im to be a postal master is on page 36 of the same issue you just quoted fro=
m. =A0Since you, evidently, are blessed with
> > actual possession of the issue mentioned, could you please check and
> > see if he is listed there and in what capacities and report back to
> > us? Then perhaps we can
> > move on and you can air the essence of your argument with more focus.
>
> > P.S. =A0I was going to post this to the newsgroup, but thought better of=

> > it. If it helps, think of me as a bored and possibly inept debate
> > judge listening to both sides and thinking, "can't we move this along
> > and get to a point.....">
>
> > ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
> > being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
> > his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
> > follows:
>
> > "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."
>
> Thanks, Larry. =A0The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
> there.

Rev, as usual our Larry omits inconvenient facts. He neglects to
mention that the rating range for a USCF Postal Master then was
1700-1898. Therefore the 1806 rating Parr attests to is exactly the
"claimed evidence of postal chess mastership" that is required.




  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 08:43:29
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On 31, 11:26 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> SINGLE QUESTION FROM A READER
>>> Larry,
>>>> I understand that you have many issues in this argument. However, I put a single question to you in hopes of moving the argument away from this "deja vu all-over-again" stage that it has been stuck in since I began reading this news group. Taylor claims that documentary evidence of his claim to be a postal master is on page 36 of the same issue you just quoted from. Since you, evidently, are blessed with
>>> actual possession of the issue mentioned, could you please check and
>>> see if he is listed there and in what capacities and report back to
>>> us? Then perhaps we can
>>> move on and you can air the essence of your argument with more focus.
>>> P.S. I was going to post this to the newsgroup, but thought better of
>>> it. If it helps, think of me as a bored and possibly inept debate
>>> judge listening to both sides and thinking, "can't we move this along
>>> and get to a point.....">
>>> ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
>>> being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
>>> his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
>>> follows:
>>> "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."
>> Thanks, Larry. The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
>> there.
>
> Rev, as usual our Larry omits inconvenient facts. He neglects to
> mention that the rating range for a USCF Postal Master then was
> 1700-1898. Therefore the 1806 rating Parr attests to is exactly the
> "claimed evidence of postal chess mastership" that is required.
>
>
Taylor,

This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
rating systems and context. It is unnecessary. If you can supply us
with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
Harkness and Elo systems. In other words, your statement incorrectly
implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
upon. Not so. The certificate could save us a long weary debate. I
think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
evidence of postal chess mastership. What comes after that in this
debate, I cannot say.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:56:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 29, 3:11 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> > Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since 2300+
> > elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean 600 points
> > [!]
>
> This is false.
>
> Since this has been pointed out many times before, we can conclude that
> it is an intentional falsehood.

Sorry, we can't. P Innes might be incapable of understanding the
discussion, or insane. Perhaps both. So it's a hasty conclusion he is
lying.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:53:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 29, 9:46 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THESE ARE THE FACTS
>
> >Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
> be any great
> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of,
> as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."> --
> Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005
>
> On ch 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
> 2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
> Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."
>
> On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
> 2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."
>
> KINGSTON REPLIED
>
> <April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
> rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
> You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
> rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
> but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
> claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
> tad better than "weak."> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
> for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"
>
> On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
> cited.
> among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.
>
> KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG
>
> <A correction: It was April 1985, page 36.> -- Taylor Kingston, ch
> 26, 2008
>
> Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
> postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
> to be found.
>
> In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
> Kingston (ca) 1806.
>
> In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
> between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
> top 50 postal players.
>
> For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
> Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
> points by a "conversion" formula.
>
> However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
> Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
> OTB rating was 1806.
>
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
> math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?

As opposed to the famous "nearly an IM" title one of your water-
carriers awarded himself, Larry?


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:51:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
SINGLE QUESTION FROM A READER

Larry,

>I understand that you have many issues in this argument. However, I put a single question to you in hopes of moving the argument away from this "deja vu all-over-again" stage that it has been stuck in since I began reading this news group. Taylor claims that documentary evidence of his claim to be a postal master is on page 36 of the same issue you just quoted from. Since you, evidently, are blessed with
actual possession of the issue mentioned, could you please check and
see if he is listed there and in what capacities and report back to
us? Then perhaps we can
move on and you can air the essence of your argument with more focus.

P.S. I was going to post this to the newsgroup, but thought better of
it. If it helps, think of me as a bored and possibly inept debate
judge listening to both sides and thinking, "can't we move this along
and get to a point....." >

ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
follows:

"45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."


Guy Macon wrote:
> Larry Parr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense... :)
>
> >In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
> >E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never heard him boast about reaching 2584
> >Elo by fattening his rating by 500 points.. On page 33 of the same
> >issue Taylor Kingston is not listed among U.S. FIDE masters. Nor is he
> >listed among the FIDE ratings of U.S. players led by #1 Dzindzi at
> >2570 with Reshevsky #21 at 2485.
>
> This still seems wrong. My last USCF postal chess rating was:
>
> [ http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353 ]
> 12499353: GUY MACON
> Regular Rating (Unrated)
> Quick Rating (Unrated)
> Correspondence Rating 1901
> State CA
> Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
> Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09
>
> ...which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
> player from 4 years earlier! No way was I ever that good.
> Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
> sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 13:23:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0448628c-256c-46b7-8179-5efa7c9074ea@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

> ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
> being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
> his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
> follows:
>
> "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."

Dear Larry,

While your Sloan hit poor Taylor on the back of his head, I have been
getting him right between the eyes for the past week - and thought I
deserved some credit for it? But that is mere petulance on my part.

But its a bleak day here in the USA. Not only is the weather in Vermont
atrocious, but a phone call this morning makes all the above, including
serial fibbing, nothing more than the fag-end of nothing much.

Very heavy things are going on at USCF, and depending who you talk with,
will result not in an IF it will break, but rather who will splinter off.

Sorry to not attend much more to the affairs of Mr. Kingston, though such
trivia is no doubt emblematic of a Decline and Fall... !

Phil Innes




  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 08:26:27
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> SINGLE QUESTION FROM A READER
>
> Larry,
>
>> I understand that you have many issues in this argument. However, I put a single question to you in hopes of moving the argument away from this "deja vu all-over-again" stage that it has been stuck in since I began reading this news group. Taylor claims that documentary evidence of his claim to be a postal master is on page 36 of the same issue you just quoted from. Since you, evidently, are blessed with
> actual possession of the issue mentioned, could you please check and
> see if he is listed there and in what capacities and report back to
> us? Then perhaps we can
> move on and you can air the essence of your argument with more focus.
>
> P.S. I was going to post this to the newsgroup, but thought better of
> it. If it helps, think of me as a bored and possibly inept debate
> judge listening to both sides and thinking, "can't we move this along
> and get to a point.....">
>
> ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
> being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
> his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
> follows:
>
> "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."
>

Thanks, Larry. The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
there.

Earlier Taylor stated: "... I have a scanner. However, I don't know how
to post an image on the internet. In any event, the issue of Chess Life
in which my postal master status and #45 rank on the USCF list appeared,
has been posted here many times: April 1985, page 36..."

This in itself suggests inaccuracy in the use of source material by the
claimant.

It has been a long time and perhaps memory plays tricks. To settle this
one minuscule point it would be really helpful, Taylor, if you could
photocopy that certificate of postal chess mastership and send the copy
to a scan capable friend for posting to the group. Perhaps Mr. Murray
could help.

Lest it seems that I am making too much of this, it would really be a
great relief for me to see an actual fact get established in this
debate. When you get into the anon and pseudonym aspects of the
argument I fear nothing will be proven by anyone -- ever.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


   
Date: 31 Mar 2008 16:21:02
From: Tom Martinak
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
> ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
> being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
> his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
> follows:
>
> "45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."

The documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to being a master
appears in Chess Life, April 1985, page P1 (the 1985 Annual Rating List
insert)

It reads:
"To recognize their special achievement, senior masters (those rated 1900
and above) and masters (those rated 1700-1898) are listed first
alaphebetically."
(looks like a typo where 1898 should be 1899)

In the "Postal Masters (1700-1899)" section is:

"Kingston, Taylor T CA 1806"

- Tom tinak




 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:36:51
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 8:44 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.
>
> > No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
> > information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
> > far, indistinguishable from denial.
>
> > What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
> > its okay to shut up.
>
> > PI
>
> Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.
>
> Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
> specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
> Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.
>
> And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.
>
> Sam Sloan

YES! YES! YES!


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 06:51:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 9:14 am, [email protected] wrote:

> Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
> system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
> this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
> rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
> That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
> different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
> your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
> height is the same whether given in feet or meters.
>
> The classes under the Harkness system were:
>
> Senior Master: 1900+
> Master: 1700-1898
> Expert: 1500-1698
> Class A: 1300-1498
> Class B: 1000-1298
> Class C: 700-998
> Class D: 700 and below

Mr. Kingston,

Why do you keep using the words "Harkness system". Kenneth Harkness
had nothing to do with the postal rating system. The USCF did not
have postal chess when Harkness was there. The rating system was the
Chess Review rating system which the USCF acquired when it bought out
Chess Review in 1969.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

You are displaying your ignorance again.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:26:11
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
samsloan wrote:
> On 31, 9:14 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
>> system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
>> this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
>> rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
>> That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
>> different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
>> your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
>> height is the same whether given in feet or meters.
>>
>> The classes under the Harkness system were:
>>
>> Senior Master: 1900+
>> Master: 1700-1898
>> Expert: 1500-1698
>> Class A: 1300-1498
>> Class B: 1000-1298
>> Class C: 700-998
>> Class D: 700 and below
>
> Mr. Kingston,
>
> Why do you keep using the words "Harkness system". Kenneth Harkness
> had nothing to do with the postal rating system. The USCF did not
> have postal chess when Harkness was there. The rating system was the
> Chess Review rating system which the USCF acquired when it bought out
> Chess Review in 1969.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927
>
> You are displaying your ignorance again.
>
> Sam Sloan

From Wikipedia, and possibly written by Sam Sloan:

"Kenneth Harkness (b. November 12, 1896 in Glasgow, Scotland, d. October
4, 1972 in Yugoslavia) was a chess organizer. He was Business Manager of
the United States Chess Federation from 1952 to 1959. He was also the
editor of Chess Review, which merged into Chess Life.

Kenneth Harkness died on a train in Yugoslavia, where he was on his way
to Skopje to be an arbiter at the Chess Olympiad. He had lived in Boca
Raton, Florida. He became an International Arbiter in 1972. He was a
member of the FIDE Permanent Rules Commission.

Harkness was responsible for bringing Swiss system tournaments to the
United States, and also introduced the Harkness rating system, which was
a precursor to the Elo rating system. One method of tiebreaks in Swiss
systems, where players tied on points are ranked by the sum of the
opponents scores minus the top score and the bottom score, is named
after him. For his services, Harkness is in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame.

Harkness co-authored a book, An Invitation to Chess with Irving Chernev,
as well as being responsible for a number of the first American chess
rulebooks.

Kenneth Harkness was a pseudonym. His real name was Stanley Edgar."

I did a bit of checking and the 1901 census of Scotland does indeed show
a 4 year old Stanley Edgar living with parents John and Grace in
Glasgow, Lanarks, Scotland.

If Mr. Edgar did indeed devise the Harkness rating system, and he was an
editor of Chess Review before it merged with Chess Life, then it seems
reasonable that the Chess Review postal rating system that Sam Sloan
refers to above, may well have been the Harkness System. You may wish
to rethink your statement that "Kenneth Harkness had nothing to do with
the postal rating system..." Mr. Sloan.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 06:44:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.
>
> No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
> information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
> far, indistinguishable from denial.
>
> What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
> its okay to shut up.
>
> PI

Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.

Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.

And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:04:15
From: Chess One
Subject: USCF's Ratings QC was Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.
>>
>> No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
>> information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written
>> so
>> far, indistinguishable from denial.
>>
>> What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't
>> know,
>> its okay to shut up.
>>
>> PI
>
> Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.
>
> Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
> specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
> Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.

If he knows something, then he hides his light soemwhere or other. Its just
a standing joke in the rest of the world that USCF ratings are Elo-100, or
even more in some locations. One rather evident correlation are those US
players to go to Hungary for norm tournaments.

If Ken Sloan has information then he can produce it. If he can't and what he
cannot do is serial, then I presume the opposite to what you say, which
cannot avoid fatuous 'nobody' and 'everybody' references.

The last time I asked Ken Sloan for information was in respect of the
disgraced board member who achieved a master's rating floor and nary ever
played a master, just 1800ish typed, in fact, just about half a dozen of
them.

So I asked Ken Sloan 3 things, since he has something to do with USCF
ratings:-

1) How come no-one in the ratings department noticed some guy playing down
400 points for hundreds of games against the same opponents?

2) Even when the Masters title was awarded [by a different office] how come
no-one actually looked at the playing record - should they have, or are
rating floors and titles given out under *special* circumstances for chess
politicicans?

3) How many /other/ instances are there of this type?

Ken Sloan provided no information on any of these subjects - and I think the
challenge is necessary, since he and Delegate Johnson were setting about
rubbishing the Quality Control of other chess rating groups - in abstract
fashion of course - and in your own psychophantic newsgroup!

No answers were received from Ken Sloan, only 'responses', like 'not!' as in
the above.

Now - this is no theoretical matter since Ken Sloan may know everything
about ratings - yet is he competent to administer or communicate about
ratings?

I would say from my 3 questions the answers are demonstrably, no and no.

Phil Innes



> And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.
>
> Sam Sloan




 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 06:14:42
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 8:31=A0am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Larry Parr <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense... =A0:)
>
> >In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
> >E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never heard him boast about reaching 2584
> >Elo by fattening his rating by 500 points. On page 33 of the same
> >issue Taylor Kingston is not listed among U.S. FIDE masters. Nor is he
> >listed among the FIDE ratings of U.S. players led by =A0#1 Dzindzi at
> >2570 with Reshevsky #21 at 2485.
>
> This still seems wrong. =A0My last USCF postal chess rating was:
>
> [http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353]
> 12499353: GUY MACON
> Regular Rating (Unrated)
> Quick Rating (Unrated)
> Correspondence Rating 1901
> State CA
> Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
> Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09
>
> ...which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
> player from 4 years earlier! =A0No way was I ever that good.
> Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
> sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>

Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
height is the same whether given in feet or meters.

The classes under the Harkness system were:

Senior Master: 1900+
Master: 1700-1898
Expert: 1500-1698
Class A: 1300-1498
Class B: 1000-1298
Class C: 700-998
Class D: 700 and below

The above is from the official USCF postal tournament rules, 1979
edition.
Checking the postal rating list in the April 1983 Chess Life, there
are about 6,300 players listed. Of those, 9 are Senior Masters, rated
1918 to 2030. About 150 are Masters, among them myself, then rated
1758.
I trust this clears things up for you.


 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:31:12
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math



Larry Parr <[email protected] > wrote:

Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense... :)

>In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
>E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never heard him boast about reaching 2584
>Elo by fattening his rating by 500 points.. On page 33 of the same
>issue Taylor Kingston is not listed among U.S. FIDE masters. Nor is he
>listed among the FIDE ratings of U.S. players led by #1 Dzindzi at
>2570 with Reshevsky #21 at 2485.

This still seems wrong. My last USCF postal chess rating was:

[ http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353 ]
12499353: GUY MACON
Regular Rating (Unrated)
Quick Rating (Unrated)
Correspondence Rating 1901
State CA
Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09

...which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
player from 4 years earlier! No way was I ever that good.
Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 01:30:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 31, 2:52 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Shortly thereafter, Slammin' Sammy Sloan posted the truth: Taylor
> Kingston's rating was a bit over 1800. Only AFTER Sam exposed the lie
> did NMnot Kingston attempt damage control.


Poor Larry Parr does not seem to know when
he is, quite simply, outclassed.

Here, our village idiot tries to ignore the fact
that the USCF's free Web site lists all rated
players by name, and anybody -- even the
dullest of folks, like these Evans ratpackers
-- can just type in a name and instantly fetch
the information requested.

Even those newbies who don't know about
this will have no trouble if they bother to do a
Google search on words like "chess" and
"ratings" in their quest to discover the actual
numbers, but I can understand how Mr. Sloan
has managed to "forget" -- if indeed he ever
knew -- the discussion of ratings conversion
from 2005 which I somehow recalled easily.

Of course, it's all a ruse, for the sinister
Evans ratpackers are unable to face the
music when it comes to defending their
fearless leader's wild speculations. GM
Evans laid claim to being the "only one"
st enough and strong enough at chess
to "see" his delusions, and indeed such
delusions were found to be "invisible" to
even stronger players than he was; one
example was GM Nunn, who dismissed it
as a bunch of nonsense. But we didn't
need any experts to tell us that, since the
whole shebang falls apart in terms of
elementary logic and reason.

Mr. Parr would like to have a discussion
about who was better: Larry Evans at his
all-time peak, or Taylor Kingston right
now, but this vanity project would reveal
nothing about the merits of GM Evans'
article, which was the original topic of
discussion. You can always tell when an
Evans ratpacker has given up all hope by
the fact that he /changes the subject/ to
personal attacks on the critics who have
nailed some of the many weaknesses of
the ratpackers' indefensible positions.

Some folks wave a white flag; others go
silent; but these Evans ratpackers know
only one way to surrender: spewing ad
hominen, ad nauseum; it is a surrender
of all reason, of rational discussion and
of sanity itself.


-- help bot






 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 01:09:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 5:55 pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> > better than "weak."
>
> Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
> have been,
> always will be. OK? All right now!


Dude, you like need to get a grip; a "patzer"
is someone rated lower than you or that you
just beat; it isn't somebody rated 1800 USCF,
'cause they would probably just *demolish*
someone as weak as you are! In fact, an
1800 beats 80% of patzers like you, and 95%
of all players, including non-rated duffers.

Okay, I just made those numbers up; but
the thing is, TK said he was "a tad" better
than weak, so he left his hind side covered
with a Kevlar fanny-pack. Meanwhile back at
the ranch, a poster known as nearly-IMnes
made a bald-faced claim to royal titles and a
2450 rating that never even existed! Don't
you feel dumb for missing that? Here, let me
help you: click on this link and type in the
name "Innes, Sir Phillip, Esquire"; find any
titles? Or ratings?

www.fide.corrupto.chess.org/ratings

Nothing there, huh? Not to worry, here is
another link:

www.uscf.goichbergrules!.org/ratings

Look for Sir Phillip of Brattleboro; he'll be
near the very top of the rating list, just under
Bobby Fischer (deceased). Sir Phil was
given the nearly-an-IM title for defeating
the famous master, Anon, in a long match.
It turned out that Anon was actually Rob
Mitchell, but that is a mere technicality.


-- help not








 
Date: 31 Mar 2008 00:45:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 12:25 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> "In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
> Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
> rating system ... Consequently the writer undertook to develop a
> rating system ... The outline and working principles of the new system
> have been presented in a number of papers (Elo 1961, 1966, 1967,
> 1973). Since 1960 the system has been used by the USCF for rating its
> entire membership." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
> and Present" (Arco 1978), page 11.
>
> I think that on the subject of Elo ratings, Dr. Elo himself is a
> better authority than Sam Sloan.


Do you really expect the Evans ratpackers to buy
that? Clearly, this Dr. Arpad fellow was a fake. Mr.
Sloan is the read deal; former world champion of
Chinese chess, prevailed against a team of Supreme
Court Justices 1-0, published countless books as an
authority on everything, etc. How can you even
contemplate this Mr. Elo character as knowing
anything about chess ratings, when Sam Sloan
*himself* says otherwise? It boggles the mind... .


-- help bot




 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 23:52:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

HARKNESS = ELO = NMnot KINGSTON

On June 5, 2005 -- after suffering brutal battering from ball-busting
Sam Sloan over his playing strength -- Class A player Taylor Kingston
posted the following statement:

"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be
any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top rank
of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than weak."

There was no reference to postal chess. No caveat.

Shortly thereafter, Slammin' Sammy Sloan posted the truth: Taylor
Kingston's rating was a bit over 1800. Only AFTER Sam exposed the lie
did NMnot Kingston attempt damage control. The first excuse for his
lie, which he offered only AFTER Sam outed him, was that he figured
Sam would confuse a postal rating with its lower numerical scale with
the Elo over-the-board scale.

Someone called it The Horsefeathers Defense.

As for this writer, NMnot Kingston began to stretch his original lie
-- in the time-honored fashion of young, junior-high-school level
fantasists -- stating that he realized I would not make such an error
but that I would argue a reference to a national Harkness postal
rating from some undefined period in the past would not be understood
by most readers to be a reference to the international Elo-rating
system. I would thereby discredit myself.

HARKNESS = ELO = NMnot KINGSTON

Many of you -- and certainly the vast majority of club players -- have
never heard the name of Ken Harkness. NMnot Taylor Kingston's latest
explanation for his lie about
his rating is that he was referring to the Harkness postal system.

Get it? Harkness = Elo.

The undifferentiated reader of Taylor Kingston's claim to be 2300+ Elo
is held to understand that the word "Elo" can be understood to mean
"Harkness" at some unnamed, undated period of the past. Oh, say, 20 or
30 years back.

So, then, the idea being peddled by NMnot Kingston is that because he
was ranked #45 or #46in the United States several decades back, the
average reader will snap his fingers and say, "Oh, yeah, No. #45 about
20 or 30 years ago would be in the 1800s on a Harkness list.
Therefore, Honest Taylor Kingston is talking about a postal rating. Of
couse, none of us would imagine that '2300+ Elo' could mean anything
else two or three decades back or at some undefined period of the
past.

In Chess Liffe, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have neverr heard him boast about reaching 2584
Elo by fattening his rating by 500 points.. On page 33 of the same
issue Taylor Kingston is not listed among U.S. FIDE masters. Nor is he
listed among the FIDE ratings of U.S. players led by #1 Dzindzi at
2570 with Reshevsky #21 at 2485.

An alternative explanation is that after weeks of battering from Sam
Sloan about playing strength, the ego which is NMnot Kingston,
overcame the good sense of its owner. He dashed off a stupid, if
sauvely expressed lie.

At the time even Larry Tapper, who often fetches for NMnot Kingston,
admitted that the claim to be 2300+ Elo was not Kingston's most
shining moment.

Indeed, it was not. And now it's getting worse.

Yours, Larry Parr


[email protected] wrote:
> On 30, 5:55?pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30, 8:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> > > > Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
> >
> > > > This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
> >
> > > > However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> > > > equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
> >
> > > ? You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> > > facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> > > 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
> >
> > > >> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> > > >> ?Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
> > > >> ?For established ratings:
> > > >> Old ? ?New
> > > >> 1629 ? 2100
> > > >> 1738 ? 2200
> > > >> 1848 ? 2300
> > > >> 1958 ? 2400
> > > > ?So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
> >
> > > ? So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> > > had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> > > points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> > > since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
> >
> > > > It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> > > > to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
> >
> > > ? As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
> > > impossible. I was correct in that belief.
> >
> > > > The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> > > > typographical error.
> >
> > > ? The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
> > > that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
> > > rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
> > > Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
> > > rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
> > > did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
> > > time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
> > > rating points, but family came first.
> >
> > > > Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
> >
> > > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
> >
> > > > Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> > > > of 1762 to a high of 1853.
> >
> > > > Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> > > > about the same and he has never been a master.
> >
> > > ? In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
> > > postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
> > > permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
> > > Would you like a copy?
> >
> > > ? I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> > > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> > > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> > > better than "weak."
> >
> > Dude, you need to just give up. ?You are a 1800 chess patzer. ?Always
> > have been,
> > always will be. ?OK? ?All right now!
>
> Hey, as far as OTB chess is concerned, you are quite right!


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 14:56:12
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 5:55=A0pm, Chess Nuggets <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 8:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> > > Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> > > This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> > > However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> > > equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> > =A0 You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> > facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> > 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
>
> > >> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> > >> =A0Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as =
OTB.
> > >> =A0For established ratings:
> > >> Old =A0 =A0New
> > >> 1629 =A0 2100
> > >> 1738 =A0 2200
> > >> 1848 =A0 2300
> > >> 1958 =A0 2400
> > > =A0So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> > =A0 So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> > had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> > points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> > since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
>
> > > It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> > > to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
>
> > =A0 As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was=

> > impossible. I was correct in that belief.
>
> > > The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> > > typographical error.
>
> > =A0 The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
> > that I scored +49 -6 =3D12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
> > rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
> > Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
> > rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
> > did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
> > time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
> > rating points, but family came first.
>
> > > Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> > >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> > > Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low=

> > > of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> > > Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> > > about the same and he has never been a master.
>
> > =A0 In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
> > postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
> > permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
> > Would you like a copy?
>
> > =A0 I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> > better than "weak."
>
> Dude, you need to just give up. =A0You are a 1800 chess patzer. =A0Always
> have been,
> always will be. =A0OK? =A0All right now!

Hey, as far as OTB chess is concerned, you are quite right!


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:54:10
From:
Subject: Harkness or Battell? (was: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math)
On 31, 1:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 31 2008 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The director of postal chess at Chess Review was Jack Straley Battell.
> >When the USCF bought Chess Review in 1969, Battell moved to Newburgh
> >where the USCF was headquartered and continued to work on postal
> >chess.
> >I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
> >or the postal chess rating system.
> >Sam Sloan
>
> You may be wrong, Sam.
>
> The first instance of Chess Review's rating of postal players occurred
> in January, 1942. =A0At that time, Battell appeared nowhere on the
> masthead and Managing Editor was Kenneth Harkness.
>
> "For a long time we have promised to rate our correspondence players.
> We have finally got around to doing it and the results appear on the
> next page...Our rating system is fair and accurate, will eventually
> portray a player's ability compared with others. =A0The number of points
> with which you are credited or debited for each finished game depends
> upon the rating of your opponent..." ("Chess Review", January, 1942,
> Page 18).

Mike, if you check page 47 of the February 1942 issue you will see
table of points gained/subtracted for a given game based on the rating
differential of the players. It is virtually the same table as was in
effect in the 1980s, with K=3D50, and points to be won/lost ranging from
2 to 100, in increments of two.
The only significant difference from the 1980s is in the class
ranges, which were:

Class A: 1052 and up
Class B: 950-1050
Class C: under 950

No mention is made of Class D, expert or master titles then. The
class intervals seem to have been adjusted over the next few years;
for example in 1944 it appears that Class A starts at 1200, B at 1000,
C at 800, and a sub-800 Class D has been added.

As you noted earlier, Harkness was on the masthead as Managing
Editor throughout 1942, and there was no editor for correspondence
chess during that year. I see Jack Collins listed as postal chess
editor as of January 1943, then Batell takes over as of October 1944.
Since it's clear that the basic Chess Review postal rating system
was in effect *_before_* either Collins or Battell came aboard,
Harkness seems the most likely author of it, barring more conclusive
evidence.
This does not necessarily rule out Sloan's claim that it was
designed by Battell, but he will have to present more evidence to
establish it.


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 14:55:20
From: Chess Nuggets
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 8:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> > Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> > This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> > However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> > equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
>
> >> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> >> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
> >> For established ratings:
> >> Old New
> >> 1629 2100
> >> 1738 2200
> >> 1848 2300
> >> 1958 2400
> > So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
>
> > It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> > to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
>
> As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
> impossible. I was correct in that belief.
>
> > The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> > typographical error.
>
> The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
> that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
> rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
> Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
> rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
> did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
> time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
> rating points, but family came first.
>
> > Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> > Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> > of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> > Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> > about the same and he has never been a master.
>
> In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
> postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
> permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
> Would you like a copy?
>
> I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> better than "weak."

Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
have been,
always will be. OK? All right now!


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 14:54:26
From: Chess Nuggets
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 6:42 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
>
> The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> typographical error.
>
> Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> about the same and he has never been a master.
>
> Sam Sloan


Ironic, since you also claimed to be something were not. You claimed
to be a former USCF master. LIE.



 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 13:14:33
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 2:33=A0pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> >However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> >equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> That can't be right. =A0

Guy, our Sam, in his usual fashion, is trying to confuse you. He
neglects to tell you that the 1806 was a Harkness rating, equivalent
to about 2260 Elo. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread, I
make this quite clear. In the Harkness system, the Master threshold
was 1700, Senior Master 1900.

> I have a postal rating (established before
> chess computers) of 1901, and no way am I better than a Class A
> player over-the-board. =A0Me playing a 2200-2300 player OTB would
> be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

You should never accept anything Sam Sloan says at face value. I
have never been more than Class A OTB, but I was a correspondence
master in the mid-1980s. Sam, in his ongoing battle with reality,
refuses to accept this.



 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 09:25:35
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 12:08=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 10:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> > > Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> > > This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> > > However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> > > equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> > =A0 You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> > facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> > 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
>
> > >> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> > >> =A0Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as =
OTB.
> > >> =A0For established ratings:
> > >> Old =A0 =A0New
> > >> 1629 =A0 2100
> > >> 1738 =A0 2200
> > >> 1848 =A0 2300
> > >> 1958 =A0 2400
> > > =A0So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> > =A0 So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> > had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> > points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> > since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> Elo ratings are FIDE Ratings. USCF Ratings are not Elo Ratings. ICC
> Ratings and Yahoo Ratings are not Elo Ratings either.
>
> Elo Ratings are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo of quette
> University.
>
> Taylor Kingston has never has an Elo Rating.
>
> All this is explained in the book:
>
> The Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chesshttp://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927
>
> Available now at a book store near you.
>
> Sam Sloan

Our Silly Sam still tries to foist his absurd claim that USCF
ratings are not Elo ratings. A couple of quotes that contradict him:

"In 1960 a new USCF method was introduced by a committee chaired by
[Dr. Arpad] Elo, later to become the official FIDE rating system, and
known either by that name or as Elo Rating." -- The Oxford Companion
to Chess (2nd edition), entry on "rating," page 332

"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system ... Consequently the writer undertook to develop a
rating system ... The outline and working principles of the new system
have been presented in a number of papers (Elo 1961, 1966, 1967,
1973). Since 1960 the system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
and Present" (Arco 1978), page 11.

I think that on the subject of Elo ratings, Dr. Elo himself is a
better authority than Sam Sloan.


  
Date: 01 Apr 2008 08:51:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ecb92186-659d-496e-bb62-fde37dbb6905@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 30, 12:08 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

Our Silly Sam still tries to foist his absurd claim that USCF
ratings are not Elo ratings. A couple of quotes that contradict him:

"In 1960 a new USCF method was introduced by a committee chaired by
[Dr. Arpad] Elo, later to become the official FIDE rating system, and
known either by that name or as Elo Rating." -- The Oxford Companion
to Chess (2nd edition), entry on "rating," page 332

"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system ... Consequently the writer undertook to develop a
rating system ... The outline and working principles of the new system
have been presented in a number of papers (Elo 1961, 1966, 1967,
1973). Since 1960 the system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
and Present" (Arco 1978), page 11.

I think that on the subject of Elo ratings, Dr. Elo himself is a
better authority than Sam Sloan.

---

To stay with Elo, I believe Dr E himself has made some objections to USCF's
system of rating which invalidates his own idea, and decoupled USCF from it,
specifically the rating-floor issue which makes an award of a title, but
also screws up the math, and since the Elo system is now a world one, an
adjustment needs be made between ROW and USCF, and that is some 100 points.

That is hardly unknown, and non controversial.

Any claim made in the past 20 years to an 'Elo' would be to a world-rating.

But this is to contest trivia. The original contention was that the 1800
player was 2300+ Elo as well as #46 in the country. This contention is now
reported to be a postal reference, and yet, does it seem like one? After
all, 2300+ Elo could be 2450 USCF. How many people know if there were 45
higher rated players in the country in [?] an unreported year, or
specifically in 1985 in either postal or OTB chess.

If you want to report your postal rating, why 'claim' anything at all? Why
not cite what it is.

If you make a conversion then isn't it deceptive not to mention you
converted something to what you thought was Harkness?

Taylor Kingston could have written that correction at any time in the past 5
years, even if he thought he was being clear, he could have acknowledged
that others didn't see it that way. But he continues to both not acknowledge
that his writing was deceptive to other readers, whether he intended
deception or not - it is /evidently/ deceptive.

Given the context of the initial statement - that he needed a big Elo to
contest Evans, his intention is very suspect indeed.

Again, simply admitting it was loose talk on usenet would be honest. But he
has the gall to have a go at others who talked just as loosely to /non-chess
players/ where brevity of expression is at least understandable, and who
make no bones about it. You can't really deceive people about ratings when
they don't know if a high number is better than a low one!!

This rather removes any idea that he intended to be honest himself, since
again, I never heard of any American talking Elo and meaning postal. Never,
not in 25 years.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 09:08:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 10:02 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> > Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> > This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> > However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> > equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
>
> >> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> >> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
> >> For established ratings:
> >> Old New
> >> 1629 2100
> >> 1738 2200
> >> 1848 2300
> >> 1958 2400
> > So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.

Absolutely not.

Elo ratings are FIDE Ratings. USCF Ratings are not Elo Ratings. ICC
Ratings and Yahoo Ratings are not Elo Ratings either.

Elo Ratings are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo of quette
University.

Taylor Kingston has never has an Elo Rating.

All this is explained in the book:

The Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

Available now at a book store near you.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 08:27:31
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 11:06=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> >> Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> >> This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> >> However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> >> equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> > =A0 You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> > facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> > 2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):
>
> >>> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
> >>> =A0Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as O=
TB.
> >>> =A0For established ratings:
>
> >>> Old =A0 =A0New
> >>> 1629 =A0 2100
> >>> 1738 =A0 2200
> >>> 1848 =A0 2300
> >>> 1958 =A0 2400
>
> >> =A0So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> > =A0 So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> > had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> > points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> > since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
>
> >> It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> >> to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
>
> > =A0 As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was=

> > impossible. I was correct in that belief.
>
> >> The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> >> typographical error.
>
> > =A0 The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
> > that I scored +49 -6 =3D12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
> > rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
> > Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
> > rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
> > did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
> > time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
> > rating points, but family came first.
>
> >> Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> >>http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> >> Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> >> of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> >> Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> >> about the same and he has never been a master.
>
> > =A0 In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
> > postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
> > permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
> > Would you like a copy?
>
> > =A0 I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> > better than "weak."
>
> Suggestion, scan the certificate and post it here, then maybe this sorry
> topic can be laid to rest... =A0<crossed fingers>

I don't have the means to do that, Rev. It might be more fitting for
Larry Parr to scan and post the Top 50 Postal Players list from the
April 1985 Chess Life, as a penance.


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 08:02:02
From:
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On 30, 9:42=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (see http://tinyurl.com/326b36 ):

>> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
>> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
>> For established ratings:

>> Old New
>> 1629 2100
>> 1738 2200
>> 1848 2300
>> 1958 2400

> So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.

> It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
impossible. I was correct in that belief.

> The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> typographical error.

The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
that I scored +49 -6 =3D12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
rating points, but family came first.

> Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> about the same and he has never been a master.

In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
Would you like a copy?

I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."


  
Date: 31 Mar 2008 19:11:11
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3aa71c56-9576-4515-b581-4527e6c1920f@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
> Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>
> This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>
> However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
> equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (see http://tinyurl.com/326b36 ):

>> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
>> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
>> For established ratings:

>> Old New
>> 1629 2100
>> 1738 2200
>> 1848 2300
>> 1958 2400

> So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number?

---------

**Shall 'we' stop agreeing on utter nonsense? Who is 'we'. Taylor Kingston
has not a leg to stand on.

There is not the slightest hint on any Harkness nor postal rating indication
in the original post. It has nothing to do with Elo, and he has not
corrected the statement at any time whatever.

The IMPRESSION that he lets stand at the time and ever since until these
recent threads - not even correcting his fixated admirer Paulie Girl and
whoever the other one was, is that the 2300+Elo was in some sense
legitimate - and here he is, dragged to the ground, since that was not the
impressions he originally achieved, despite psychics here who 'knew' it was
postal, despite the fact that he cited an Elo number as if Fide rated, and
all along he was plain old 1800 USCF.

Is it 5 years of not coming to the point since he made these undated
claims - and when challenged for 5 years cannot admit he converted his
rating to an originally unnamed system.

Dammit! That's rich. And all the while he has the gall to call people names
for challenging such a preposterous claim. Still, he wishes to be a USCF
postal master rated 1806 - OK, but let us now understand the scale on which
he writes.

That an 1805 player is weak compared to even a 2300 player is not in
dispute. The scale is not linear and these are decades of difference in
chess skill. In terms of comparing himselfself to a GM's analysis of the
highest levels of engagement in chess, which was the original context, it is
absurd.

If it were not for this last fact, the entire instance of his writing could
be ignored as braggadochio.

Yet still, he cannot admit his own deception [self-deception?] and bullys
on, since it really ain't to do with Elo and rather more to do with ego.

Phil Innes

---


I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.

> It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
> to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
impossible. I was correct in that belief.

> The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
> typographical error.

The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
rating points, but family came first.

> Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>
> Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
> of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>
> Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
> about the same and he has never been a master.

In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
Would you like a copy?

I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."




  
Date: 30 Mar 2008 08:06:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
[email protected] wrote:
> On 30, 9:42 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
>> Kingston had a rating of 1806N.
>>
>> This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.
>>
>> However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
>> equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.
>
> You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
> facts), that Tom tinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
> 2005 (see http://tinyurl.com/326b36 ):
>
>>> From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
>>> Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
>>> For established ratings:
>
>>> Old New
>>> 1629 2100
>>> 1738 2200
>>> 1848 2300
>>> 1958 2400
>
>> So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.
>
> So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
> had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
> points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
> since accepted tinak's figure. So should you.
>
>> It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
>> to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.
>
> As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
> impossible. I was correct in that belief.
>
>> The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
>> typographical error.
>
> The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
> that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
> rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
> Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
> rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
> did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
> time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
> rating points, but family came first.
>
>> Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811
>>
>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630
>>
>> Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
>> of 1762 to a high of 1853.
>>
>> Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
>> about the same and he has never been a master.
>
> In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
> postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
> permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
> Would you like a copy?
>
> I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
> the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
> link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
> better than "weak."

Suggestion, scan the certificate and post it here, then maybe this sorry
topic can be laid to rest... <crossed fingers >
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 30 Mar 2008 06:42:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630

Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
of 1762 to a high of 1853.

Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
about the same and he has never been a master.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 30 Mar 2008 18:33:06
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math



samsloan wrote:

>However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
>equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

That can't be right. I have a postal rating (established before
chess computers) of 1901, and no way am I better than a Class A
player over-the-board. Me playing a 2200-2300 player OTB would
be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



 
Date: 29 Mar 2008 12:43:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8810ee61-e7e5-4733-af54-87dcd76ddc04@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> THESE ARE THE FACTS
>
> >Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to
> be any great
> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of,
> as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."> --
> Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005
>
> On ch 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
> 2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
> Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."
>
> On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
> 2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."
>
> KINGSTON REPLIED
>
> <April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
> rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
> You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
> rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
> but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
> claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
> tad better than "weak."> -- Taylor Kingston
>
> Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
> for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"
>
> On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
> cited.
> among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.
>
> KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG
>
> <A correction: It was April 1985, page 36.> -- Taylor Kingston, ch
> 26, 2008
>
> Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
> postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
> to be found.
>
> In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
> Kingston (ca) 1806.
>
> In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
> between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
> top 50 postal players.
>
> For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
> Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
> points by a "conversion" formula.
>
> However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
> Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
> OTB rating was 1806.
>
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
> math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?

Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since 2300+
elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean 600 points
[!]

I found earlier in the week that to be 2400 USCF postal would be in the top
10 in 1985.

And so the 'obviously postal' reference is a nonsense in three respects, (a)
you could not be 'obviously 2300+ Elo and 47th and (b) where did that 2300+
[or now, 2250] come from?

Ridiculosly, we now have;

> I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
> but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250.

And 2250 elo is 2350 uscf. So who exactly 'converts' 1806 to any other
number at all?

Finally, (c) was there an 'Elo' for postal players in 1985?

While Taylor may think other people are nutz for asking, this is merely the
normal jurisdiction of what people propose about themselves on usenet. After
all, he did propose this rating in order to be able to compete with the
Evans analysis of Keres Botvinnik - that's the context, and Taylor still
sts from what happened.

I should add that pointing this out does not validate Evans, it merely
disqualifies Kingston's approach to the topic.

Phil Innes







  
Date: 29 Mar 2008 15:11:01
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Chess One wrote:
>
> Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since 2300+
> elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean 600 points
> [!]

This is false.

Since this has been pointed out many times before, we can conclude that
it is an intentional falsehood.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


   
Date: 29 Mar 2008 16:25:19
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since
>> 2300+ elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean
>> 600 points [!]
>
> This is false.

So what is true? I know people who would have put the differential in 1985
at 125+ points between US rating and how the ROW scores it.

> Since this has been pointed out many times before, we can conclude that it
> is an intentional falsehood.

Since Ken Sloan has said nothing, as above, many times before, we can
conclude he is a bore, or faking it, and since he can't resist not saying
anything factual the back his opinions, definitely odd!

Phil Innes

> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/




    
Date: 08 Apr 2008 02:53:56
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Apr 8, 3:17 am, Tony M <[email protected] > wrote:

> > The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
> >that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
> >appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
> >but the darned labels were too small for me to
> >read!

> Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....
>
> Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.


I don't think you understand; this happens, not
necessarily because the resolution is poor, but
rather, because I can't see (anymore).

My local Wal-t has a chart which estimates
which level of magnification you probably need,
based on age. I find that even if I buy the super-
power reading glasses, for 85-year-old geezers,
it's barely enough.

But you're right-- I probably could have zoomed
in on just a portion of the screen, making it much
larger, if blurred. I figured why not just wait, as
Mr. Sloan's multitudinous critics would surely
jump at the chance to correct him, "if" he was
interpreting the chart wrong. Just kick back and
let those whose eyes actually work explain the
data. Hey, maybe if I were to buy one of those
new, big-screen HDTVs, with a PC input... .


-- help bot


     
Date: 08 Apr 2008 15:39:58
From: Tony M
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:53:56 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Apr 8, 3:17 am, Tony M <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny
>> >that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It
>> >appeared that there was some sort of skewing,
>> >but the darned labels were too small for me to
>> >read!
>
>> Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot.....
>>
>> Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard.
>
>
> I don't think you understand; this happens, not
>necessarily because the resolution is poor, but
>rather, because I can't see (anymore).
>

I apologize, robotic one. I forgot about your vision problems. Carry
on.

Tony


    
Date: 29 Mar 2008 15:31:29
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Chess One wrote:
> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since
>>> 2300+ elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean
>>> 600 points [!]
>> This is false.
>
> So what is true?

What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


     
Date: 31 Mar 2008 07:45:42
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math

"Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>> Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since
>>>> 2300+ elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean
>>>> 600 points [!]
>>> This is false.
>>
>> So what is true?
>
> What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
far, indistinguishable from denial.

What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
its okay to shut up.

PI

> --
> Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/




      
Date: 09 Apr 2008 19:24:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
I don't know what the conversion formula is, but through about 2300 it
looks very close to FIDE rating = USCF rating, and above that the
differences don't even seem to be terribly large until about 2600,
around which the number of data points (of course) is limited.


 
Date: 29 Mar 2008 09:42:14
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math
Please READ THIS

<April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." > -- Taylor Kingston

So the Problem is solved. He got 1806 Rating which he earlier
converted to 2300+ by mistake but later confirmed it to be 2250. So he
is correct.

Say at GetClub Help Bot is rated 1500 But that actually means he is
1800+ as at GetClub the Levels give very low ranking.

Different Systems has different grading scales.

Say in an exam I get 5/ 10 That is 50%

So if I give an exam of 20 ks I will get 10 matks.

So if I give an exam of 50 ks I will get 25 matks.

So if I give an exam of 100 ks I will get 50 matks.

So he has just converted from one scale to another. Just like we
convert inces to cms and miles to km.

So there is nothing to worry about for Taylor Kingston. As he
clarifies the point bt saing

----------------
<April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." > -- Taylor Kingston
--------------------

At GetClub Chess Taylor Kingston is Ranked 5. It is very difficult to
get into top 10 at GetClub Chess.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html