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