Main Date: 30 Oct 2007 22:19:04 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up please? - Rich   Date: 09 Nov 2007 13:53:35 From: Rob Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 9, 3:06 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 9, 3:28 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 6:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > > > speak up please? > > > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > > > Dave. > > > Hmmmmmmmmm? DIE? > > That would improve things around here anyway. > > > HAHAHA > > Rob, why have you put my name at the top of your post? I said none > of the things you quote there, and I particularly disagree with your > childishly malicious response to Mr. Hutnik.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It was the first one in the thread. Nothing done deliberatly to impugne you Taylor. SOrry if you though it was.   Date: 09 Nov 2007 13:06:49 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 9, 3:28 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 6:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > > speak up please? > > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > > Dave. > > Hmmmmmmmmm? DIE? > That would improve things around here anyway. > > HAHAHA Rob, why have you put my name at the top of your post? I said none of the things you quote there, and I particularly disagree with your childishly malicious response to Mr. Hutnik.   Date: 09 Nov 2007 12:28:20 From: Rob Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 6:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > speak up please? > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > Dave. > Hmmmmmmmmm? DIE? That would improve things around here anyway. HAHAHA     Date: 09 Nov 2007 12:49:17 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Rob wrote: > On Oct 31, 6:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > > >>> On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> >>> wrote: > > >>>> Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how >>>>> Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you >>>>> speak up please? > > >>>> Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > >>>> Dave. > Hmmmmmmmmm? DIE? > That would improve things around here anyway. > > HAHAHA > "False face must hide what the false heart doth know." -- The Bard -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti   Date: 06 Nov 2007 01:14:10 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 5, 10:18 am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > > Cause in this case means "purposes", as is seen in the expression > > "just cause". What I was asking here is exactly does Mr. Sloan look > > to do to improve the status of chess by his actions. > > Perhaps he's hoping that, if he looks weird and obnoxious enough, > other chess players will look normal, by comparison? If you go to Wikipedia and search for "Sam Sloan", you will find a nice full-color picture which aptly fits into your described plan. But just remember this: beauty is only skin deep. -- shallow Hal   Date: 05 Nov 2007 06:53:05 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 4:38 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 4, 12:29 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > > > > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > > > > > please? > > > > > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > > > > > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > > > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > > > > > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > > > > > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > > > > > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. > > > > > Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running > > > > across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me > > > > back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is > > > > why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. > > > > > - Rich > > > > I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. > > > > I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of > > > them. > > > > Sam Sloan > > > I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it. > > It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is > > understandable. I am not going to post it here now. > > > Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself > > on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so > > on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as > > your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is > > a pissing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to > > me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here, > > which is why I ask. > > > - Rich > > Mr. Hutnick, > > Your use of the phrase "cause of chess" I find rather curious. What > is this cause? How does it relate to Mr and Mrs. Truong and the > USCF? Surely you do not mean cause in the sense of cause and effect. > It sounds more like you mean it like it was justification for some > sort of crusade? Clarify, if you will, please. What is the "cause of > chess?" > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. Cause in this case means "purposes", as is seen in the expression "just cause". What I was asking here is exactly does Mr. Sloan look to do to improve the status of chess by his actions. - Rich     Date: 05 Nov 2007 15:18:46 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > Cause in this case means "purposes", as is seen in the expression > "just cause". What I was asking here is exactly does Mr. Sloan look > to do to improve the status of chess by his actions. Perhaps he's hoping that, if he looks weird and obnoxious enough, other chess players will look normal, by comparison? Dave. -- David Richerby Flammable Metal Apple (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tasty fruit that's made of steel but it burns really easily!   Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:38:11 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 12:29 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > > > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > > > > please? > > > > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > > > > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > > > > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > > > > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > > > > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. > > > > Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running > > > across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me > > > back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is > > > why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. > > > > - Rich > > > I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. > > > I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of > > them. > > > Sam Sloan > > I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it. > It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is > understandable. I am not going to post it here now. > > Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself > on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so > on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as > your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is > a pissing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to > me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here, > which is why I ask. > > - Rich Mr. Hutnick, Your use of the phrase "cause of chess" I find rather curious. What is this cause? How does it relate to Mr and Mrs. Truong and the USCF? Surely you do not mean cause in the sense of cause and effect. It sounds more like you mean it like it was justification for some sort of crusade? Clarify, if you will, please. What is the "cause of chess?" Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.   Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:29:01 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > > > please? > > > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > > > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > > > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > > > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > > > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. > > > Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running > > across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me > > back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is > > why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. > > > - Rich > > I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. > > I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of > them. > > Sam Sloan I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it. It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is understandable. I am not going to post it here now. Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is a pissing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here, which is why I ask. - Rich     Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:36:35 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: >> I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. >> >> I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of >> them. 1,000? is that really credible? I get about 200, and maybe 50 of those are e-mail notification of correspondance moves. >> Sam Sloan > > I emailed and email address at ishipress.com, which might explain it. > It was the only email address I found related to you. Ok, that is > understandable. I am not going to post it here now. > > Anyhow, I posted my question so maybe you could speak out for yourself > on why you want to smack down the U.S Chess Federation, Polger and so > on, and to what end. I am curious what your motives are and so on, as > your messages are dominating a newsgroup, and all it appears to be is > a pissing contest by an irate individual to accomplish selfish ends to > me. I don't see how the cause of chess is advanced in any way here, > which is why I ask. I see even Taylor Kingston uses my Joe MacCarthy description of such 'questions'. What happens is that, to take an example, Sam Sloan will exite the issue 2 months before the election of Polgar and Truong taking over the federation, getting their hands on the money, and spening it on some looney keting idea - 2 months after the election he is miffed that they seem to have made no resolutions at all, especially not making a grab for 'the money'. As many say here, whether in respect of Sloan or others, what has this to do with chess players rather than chess politicians? And maybe it has, though on the evidence of what is presented, not clearly anything of value is even suggested, which survives a post or two. Politicos are often too proud to attend to any chess public's values - even to the extent of being able to sensibly repeat them. Exceptions are those who do engage in interactive forums, and those people are... as far as I can see, Polgar, Truong and Sloan. If only Sloan didn't make it all about him, then during his board tenure he may have actually have been able to do something other than raise a rash of alarums on his own behalf, to which he resolved none. Randy Bauer used to write here, but relied too much on running on his record rather than asking open questions about what aids us or sets us back. To return to the center of this topic, what did Sam Sloan /do/ to improve chess that warranted his seat on the board? Of course, this might equitably be compared with what others achieved during the same period of tenure. To wit: did he do more than what a non-board member could do, which is /only/ to raise issues, and was he, or others! able to identify which of these issues was critical, sufficiently to remedy them or take advantage of some erstwhile absent opportunity? Phil Innes > - Rich >   Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:02:40 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? SOME LARGER PURPOSE <Larry, I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice like myself is missing? > -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. Dear Rev. Walker, What is my purpose in examining in detail a statement made by Taylor Kingston, who falsely claimed to be 2300+ Elo? Just to win a debate? Well, yes, it is fun. I know that none of this should afford me the least pleasure, but like everyone else I have my flaws. I admit to being amused every time this topic arises here because the same scenario ensues: NMnot Kingston keeps his trap shut for a few days; then Greg Kennedy again appears here under the false name of help bot, finally shoots his wad geyserlike; and NMnot Kingston reluctantly returns -- angry as Hades with our Greg, you can bet -- and always speaks to anyone other than this writer about how this whole issue was "refuted" long ago. It was never refuted, except in Mr. Kingston's own mind. Then the discussion inevitably switches to Phil Innes' old "nearly an IM" claim. . Yes, yes, there is little excuse for enjoying this process. I know that. Concerning the issue of what most players, when hearing from a person they know little about, will think when that person announces baldly, without qualification and irony, that he is 2300+ Elo, I am content to leave the argument as it stands. Greg Kennedy, the botster, claims people would not leap to the conclusion that the person is talking about over-the-board tournament play. I mtaintain that most would indeed make such an assumption. Readers here will decide for themselves based on countless conversations they themselves have had over the years at tournaments and in clubs when people introduce themselves by reciting their Elo rating. David Kane makes a more intelligent argument than the drivel offered by the resentful Greg Kennedy, and I will deal with it in another posting later on. Yours, Larry Parr David Kane wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > OLD FAITHFUL > > > > Coo! Greg Kennedy as help bot is baring his fangs. > > > > He's predictable as Old Faithful and always spews forth his > > resentment against this writer and GM Larry Evans when > > intellectual heat is applied. > > > > The subject we are discussing -- ultimately the > > kind of human baggage that is the person, NMnot Taylor > > Kingston -- has to do with the following sauvely > > packaged, though stupid lie written by our NMnot: > > > > "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.'" > > > > I figure than many readers understand that such > > a statement coming from a Class "A" player may be > > reckoned as an outright lie. > > > > Notice, for example, the faux self-effacement > > that NMnot Kingston "never claimed to be any great > > player," which he then juxtaposes with the bald > > statement that he "think[s]" he had "a peak Elo of > > 2300+." Why would our NMnot tell us he never made > > a claim of being "any great player," yet then count > > himself among the upper one-half of one percent? > > > > NMnot understood the effect of his claim. He > > knew that nearly every player would assume that > > a claim of having "a peak Elo of 2300+ Elo" pertains > > to over-the-board play and that he was claiming to > > be plenty good. > > > > Once again, the scene is your club. Someone > > whom you know little or not at all walks in and then > > announces, "[O]n the subject of playing strength, I > > have never claimed to be any great player, > > but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+ I am a tad > > better than weak." > > > > Will those in the club, who are listening, say to > > themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo." > > or will they say, "Oh, yah, he's talkin' about postal > > chess because when a guy mentions his ratings, > > chances are he is talking about postal chess." > > > > I submit that the first reaction of listeners > > -- the one certainly sought by NMnot when writing his > > lie -- is to assume that OTB rating is being claimed. > > You are confusing the reaction of stupid listeners > (like yourself) with all listeners. If Kingston were > trying to deceive, then why did he give his actual > ranking? That told any (thinking) person (i.e. people > other than Sloan, Innes, Parr etc.) that it definitely > was *not* an OTB rating. > > In fact, his correspondence ranking *was* proof > that he was not too "weak" to comment on that > thread. Case closed.   Date: 04 Nov 2007 08:05:47 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 4:03 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > > > please? > > > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > > > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > > > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > > > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > > > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. > > > Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running > > across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me > > back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is > > why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. > > > - Rich > > I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. > > I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of > them. Sam, you can eliminate all the porn-site come-ons and male- enlargement ads with a good spam filter. You should then be able to handle with ease the few remaining messages, if in fact there still are any.   Date: 04 Nov 2007 04:20:33 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 6:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash? > > Because I enjoy playing chess, and have no need to confound that with the > subject of you, and since I have previously explained directly to you that > excessive personality involvement is the very thing that inhibits chess at > the national federation level, and in these newsgroups, [where so people > seem unable to express any joy in their own chess playing, and write > non-stop & depressingly about those who do], and instead use it for other > purposes. > > In short, my motive is other than yours, which is only about you. > Furthermore, I /dare/ say that my orientation is entirely mainstream, but > you ignore it because you are a *special* person. > > Many people just play the game for its own sake, and find their enjoyment > that way. Should you understand that fact, then you will also understand > that your own orientation is eccentric to both the art of the game, and > enjoyment thereof. > > It must also be said that the Miles-effect could kick in, where you seek to > unsettle others by your *special* comments would certainly transport the > engagement away from the chessboard. > > A logical conclusion may be that this also renders you useless to any chess > public by way of 'representing' them so as to 'improve' chess, since, by all > these tokens especially you 'deafness', you so plainly do not. > > Phil Innes "Thou coward, art thou bragging to the stars, Telling the bushes that thou look'st for wars, And wilt not come?"   Date: 04 Nov 2007 01:03:23 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 11:16 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > > please? > > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. > > Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running > across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me > back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is > why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. > > - Rich I do not recall ever receiving an email from you. I get more than one thousand emails per day and I do not read all of them. Sam Sloan   Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:16:28 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > please? > > We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original > poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby > provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine > interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he > ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now. Considering I sent Mr. Sloan two emails in September, before running across this All Sloan All the Time newsgroup(s), and he never wrote me back, I wouldn't be surpised Mr. Sloan ignored my question, which is why it was phrased in the third-person and not addressed to him. - Rich   Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:15:00 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 7:34 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > So you are still claiming to have been "nearly an IM". > > How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash? Mr, Sloan, I don't think you /get it/. IM Innes does not really believe he is nearly-an-IM; he just wants everyone else to believe it. Deep down, where he keeps his pocketbook and ratpack membership card, he knows better than to throw away hard-earned cash like that. For $1,000, IM Innes could buy around 100 pizzas, or approximately 100 Eric Schiller chess books (that's everything he has written in the last two years!), or he could enter and play in the World Open. No way is he going throw that away for a one-in-ten shot at beating the great Sam Sloan. Un-uh. -- Vegas odds maker bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:07:40 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 6:45 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > For Gawds sake! > > > How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around > > 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. > > Where might one find documentation? Don't bother looking; twenty-five years ago Mr. Brennan was no better than he is today. -- anti-help bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:02:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 12:57 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > For Gawds sake! > > > How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around > > 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. > > Again, that's not what you wrote: > > *************** > 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 > **************** > > > If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila! > > [but who is?] > > Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy. Anybody else notice that the nearly-an-IM made a specific reference to ELO ratings? Not only did the nearly-an-IM claim a 2450 rating, but he added that the rating scale was not linear, and the kindest interpretation of that comment might be that he meant the rating curve is not linear, but bell shaped (a very generous interpretation, IMO). That being said, I agree with the nearly-an-IM-in-his -own-mind that unless the position in the painting can be "resolved", it is unwise to assert a mate-in-three... unless that happened to be /the title/ of this painting. (Thank Bot I have never had to play on such a hideous set.) -- help bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 19:51:49 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 12:06 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > For that excuse to work, you would need to have written > > something along these lines: > > > "I once was among the top 1% of all casual chess > > players worldwide, IMO; this makes me an expert, so > > you should listen to me, not to Nil Brennan, who is a > > relatively weaker player." > > > Instead, what you wrote made very specific claims, > > including assigning yourself an imaginary rating of > > 2450 > > wrong. plain wrong. almost at im level, that's all > > but what the hell is it to you - other than envy? ;))) IMO, it is impossible to envy *imaginary* chess skill. However, if you meant that perhaps I am envious of your extensive lying skills, you are mistaken. It seems that each and every time you tell another fib, not one but many others catch you in your lies, and from my point of view, that makes you a /horrible/ liar -- not one to be envied. An enviable liar might be someone who is so believable that he is virtually never caught. I am reminded of a movie I saw, in which an alien visits Earth and is taken for a delusional nut case; so good were his "lies" that he began to drive his assigned psychologist batty. The shrink makes it his mission to catch the alien/delusional in a self-contradiction or blunder, but he never can; that is because in the movie, the guy is not lying. Perhaps... in an alternate world, Phil Innes really is a nearly-an-IM... . -- help bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 19:38:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 6:30 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My writing about my rating was sloppy.... Mine was because I was > > writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale > > goes, up or down. > > That is not the case. You will be surprised at the number of > chessplayers on HLAS. Here's what one of them wrote: > > "This I cannot understand at all. USCF ratings are a matter of > public record, and either he had the rating (in which case it is > recorded) or he did not. And I certainly cannot understand his claim > that he was "almost" an International Master. After all, it's a > lifetime title awarded by the FIDE, and either one has been awarded it > or one hasn't; being "almost" an International Master is, as I said > before, like being "almost pregnant." " As far as almost being an IM, it really is not that tough; you just look at the requirements for earning that title, and find someone who falls just short of them. Perhaps the easiest way to find players who are nearly IMs would be to look at the top 5% of FMs. Of course, nearly-an-IM Innes was not even an FM when he told that fib. -- help bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:34:29 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 1:57 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > For Gawds sake! > > > How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around > > 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. > > Again, that's not what you wrote: > > *************** > 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 > **************** > > > If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila! > > [but who is?] > > Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy. So you are still claiming to have been "nearly an IM". How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash? Sam Sloan     Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:54:19 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > How come you refuse to play me a chess match for $1000 cash? Because I enjoy playing chess, and have no need to confound that with the subject of you, and since I have previously explained directly to you that excessive personality involvement is the very thing that inhibits chess at the national federation level, and in these newsgroups, [where so people seem unable to express any joy in their own chess playing, and write non-stop & depressingly about those who do], and instead use it for other purposes. In short, my motive is other than yours, which is only about you. Furthermore, I /dare/ say that my orientation is entirely mainstream, but you ignore it because you are a *special* person. Many people just play the game for its own sake, and find their enjoyment that way. Should you understand that fact, then you will also understand that your own orientation is eccentric to both the art of the game, and enjoyment thereof. It must also be said that the Miles-effect could kick in, where you seek to unsettle others by your *special* comments would certainly transport the engagement away from the chessboard. A logical conclusion may be that this also renders you useless to any chess public by way of 'representing' them so as to 'improve' chess, since, by all these tokens especially you 'deafness', you so plainly do not. Phil Innes > Sam Sloan >   Date: 03 Nov 2007 12:49:35 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 2:19 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. > > I see. Does that mean that you are claiming that you were at one time > a 2300+ player? Sam, you are so tedious. All this was dealt with here years ago. Since learning that the correct Harkness-to-Elo conversion for my peak postal rating of 1806, back in 1986, was around 2260-2270 Elo, rather than 2306 as I previously thought, I don't claim now to have been 2300+. But I was pretty close. That I was officialy of Master rank and #45 in the USCF postal rankings is a matter of public record. Eat your heart out. Now, Sam, I suggest that if you are genuinely interested in helping the cause of chess, you quit wasting people's time re-asking questions that were answered years ago. Instead, answer the question Mr. Hutnik posed. But you won't do that, will you? Because you are totally negative, not the least bit positive. You haven't the least idea how to help chess, nor the least intention of doing so. I can only thank you for so thoroughly demonstrating how accurate I was in giving Mr. Hutnik such a negative report on you.   Date: 03 Nov 2007 18:19:59 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 10:47 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up > old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. I see. Does that mean that you are claiming that you were at one time a 2300+ player? Sam Sloan   Date: 03 Nov 2007 10:57:31 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > For Gawds sake! > > How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around > 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. Again, that's not what you wrote: *************** 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 **************** > If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila! > [but who is?] Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy.     Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:56:11 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> For Gawds sake! >> >> How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of >> around >> 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. > > Again, that's not what you 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 Now I quote you. But what is it to you = you have never written anything about you liking for chess - you are simply an abusenik who - should anyone like to look at any 100 consecutive posts, would resolve for themselves. Various nutters here enjoy such cynicism, and feast on it for years! But you are a patzer too! And you distort all you write - and that is evident from your miserable record. Get a life fatso! Get out of your reinforced chair, and get some air. People like you have erased the chess content from these newsgroups, supported by other sad cases who snigger because they too can't explain why they are here, and non-stop rubbish others. I'm talking to you fatso, or your effect on those who would write, but abandon these forums as result your nasty little programs, and this is just the public side of it - stalker! What a bunch of great big wankers you all are! Get your own life or sod off! pi   Date: 03 Nov 2007 07:47:00 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 1:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > please? We're still waiting for Sam to reply to Mr. Hutnik, the original poster. So far in this thread, Sloan has done nothing but dredge up old ad-hom attacks on me that were refuted years ago. He has thereby provided nothing but support for my view, that he has no genuine interest in improving chess, only in slinging mud. I'd say that if he ever had any chance to get Mr. Hutnik's vote, he's lost it now.   Date: 03 Nov 2007 04:35:47 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > My writing about my rating was sloppy, so was yours. Mine was because I was > writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale > goes, up or down. For that excuse to work, you would need to have written something along these lines: "I once was among the top 1% of all casual chess players worldwide, IMO; this makes me an expert, so you should listen to me, not to Nil Brennan, who is a relatively weaker player." Instead, what you wrote made very specific claims, including assigning yourself an imaginary rating of 2450 -- a number you now insist was meaningless to your intended victims/audience (so why bother inventing it?). It makes for a good story, but the inconsistencies ruin the plot. For one thing, most people are not even able to decipher whether a higher number or a lower one is superior here, as it could be that zero represents perfection, and GK's 2800+ means he has a long way to go to catch up with Rob Mitchell. -- help bot P.S.: I recently laid claim to 1350 on GetClub, but lo and behold, my memory failed me! I am not only below that number (as help bot), but I am locked up so that I can't get over it and pretend the slip-up never happened. (grumbles to self) Hence, I must resort to Plan B: I of course meant that my peak rating (as nomorechess) was over 1350. There -- that should fix it. P.S.S.: Whew! That was a close one.     Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:06:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My writing about my rating was sloppy, so was yours. Mine was because I >> was >> writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale >> goes, up or down. > > For that excuse to work, you would need to have written > something along these lines: > > "I once was among the top 1% of all casual chess > players worldwide, IMO; this makes me an expert, so > you should listen to me, not to Nil Brennan, who is a > relatively weaker player." > > > Instead, what you wrote made very specific claims, > including assigning yourself an imaginary rating of > 2450 wrong. plain wrong. almost at im level, that's all but what the hell is it to you - other than envy? ;))) > -- a number you now insist was meaningless of wrap it up! stop obsessing! if you want to play then do so - the rest of these obsessionals about other people are just sicko made up missunderstandings by patzers - you included > to your intended victims/audience (so why bother > inventing it?). It makes for a good story, but the > inconsistencies ruin the plot. For one thing, most > people are not even able to decipher whether a > higher number or a lower one is superior here, as > it could be that zero represents perfection, and GK's > 2800+ means he has a long way to go to catch up > with Rob Mitchell. uh... whatever that means <shrug > for heaven's sake, as an illustration to non-chess players [don't believe brennan's context, who is constant liar] that whatever he thought [which was insane!] is not clever chessic opinion, then we have 3 years of trash from the likes of you you tried playing chess once in the same place I do, and you scored what? 1300? but you have 3000 level opinions if you don't understand the reference by now = go ahead and say what it all /must/ mean to your understanding another 4 years if you want, alternatively, get a life, patzer! and stop polluting all these threads with your /obvious/ resentments pi > > -- help bot > > > P.S.: I recently laid claim to 1350 on GetClub, but > lo and behold, my memory failed me! I am not only > below that number (as help bot), but I am locked up > so that I can't get over it and pretend the slip-up > never happened. (grumbles to self) > > Hence, I must resort to Plan B: I of course meant > that my peak rating (as nomorechess) was over 1350. > There -- that should fix it. > > > P.S.S.: Whew! That was a close one. > > > > > >   Date: 03 Nov 2007 04:30:36 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > My writing about my rating was sloppy.... Mine was because I was > writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale > goes, up or down. That is not the case. You will be surprised at the number of chessplayers on HLAS. Here's what one of them wrote: "This I cannot understand at all. USCF ratings are a matter of public record, and either he had the rating (in which case it is recorded) or he did not. And I certainly cannot understand his claim that he was "almost" an International Master. After all, it's a lifetime title awarded by the FIDE, and either one has been awarded it or one hasn't; being "almost" an International Master is, as I said before, like being "almost pregnant." "     Date: 03 Nov 2007 15:11:47 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? For Gawds sake! How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila! [but who is?] Phil Innes "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 3, 5:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My writing about my rating was sloppy.... Mine was because I was >> writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale >> goes, up or down. > > That is not the case. You will be surprised at the number of > chessplayers on HLAS. Here's what one of them wrote: > > "This I cannot understand at all. USCF ratings are a matter of > public record, and either he had the rating (in which case it is > recorded) or he did not. And I certainly cannot understand his claim > that he was "almost" an International Master. After all, it's a > lifetime title awarded by the FIDE, and either one has been awarded it > or one hasn't; being "almost" an International Master is, as I said > before, like being "almost pregnant." " > > >       Date: 03 Nov 2007 18:45:41 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Chess One wrote: > For Gawds sake! > > How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around > 2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago. > Where might one find documentation? -- 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 Nov 2007 04:17:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 7:27 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > > But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all. > No, Phil. I never said that, in any way, express or implied. That > was Sloan's leapt-to conclusion, which was exactly my point at the > time, to demonstrate the extreme shallowness of his investigative > technique. And in using the term shallow, I am being charitable. I don't credit Mr. Sloan with conducting a shallow investigation. I think he, like another mindless drone here, is toeing the line drawn by Larry Parr. I think these drones are either unable or else unwilling to *think for themselves*, so they get drawn into the LP cesspool. Of course, since they cannot think for themselves, they cannot be held accountable for following orders like all good drones. > In any event, you are hardly in a position to comment, with your > claim to being "nearly an IM rated 2450." This is rather like > Mussolini calling someone a fascist. Poor analogy. IMO, one is a case of flawed math, while the other was obviously a case of *deliberate deception*. So we need to make an analogy where one guy accidently shoots someone by mistake, while the other guy (the one corresponding to IM Innes) can be axe-murderer Lizzy Borden. -- help bot   Date: 03 Nov 2007 01:29:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 3, 1:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > Once again, the scene is your club. Someone > whom you know little or not at all walks in and then > announces, "[O]n the subject of playing strength, I > have never claimed to be any great player, > but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+ I am a tad > better than weak." Good gawd -- not another one of /those/ people! It reminds me of the threads here in rgc in which the subject of IQ is discussed. Without fail, a half dozen or more posters immediately announce that they are among the top 2% of all the people in the world, in spite of the obvious fact that they are wasting their valuable time by reading and posting here at rgc. > Will those in the club, who are listening, say to > themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo." A subtle point often missed by weak players -- and here by Mr. Parr -- is that 2300 is the *bottom* of the FIDE master class. So when someone says their "peak" FIDE rating was 2300, it means they may very well be in a lower class now (a "former" FM, if there is such a thing). Now, in USCF terms, 2300 is smack dab in the middle of the NM class, so if one's peak really was 2300+, it is unknown what class they might be in now. Many such players are sitting on a rating floor, which would typically be 2200. > or will they say, "Oh, yah, he's talkin' about postal > chess because when a guy mentions his ratings, > chances are he is talking about postal chess." Most people at the local club would probably make no assumption one way or another, and instead ask: "Really? What's your rating now? And did you ever play Emory Tate? How did you do in the State Championship? That sort of thing. > I submit that the first reaction of listeners > -- the one certainly sought by NMnot when writing his > lie -- is to assume that OTB rating is being claimed. Freaky. In many people's estimation, a correspondence rating is superior to an OTB rating in the sense that OTB entails such skills as time-management, blitz, and being able to think in spite of annoyances like inconsiderate players talking, doors slamming, etc., etc. Correspondence play -- cheating aside -- is a far better measure of depth of understanding, added to research and position judgment. In the case in question, the rating and ranking were earned pre-computer, so that leaves only the possibility that say, IM Innes was consulted during play. I dismiss that possibility on the rationale that most cheaters don't like to involve others for obvious reasons, and this particular case would've required the involvement of a very skilled player -- likely someone much better than IM Innes. > NMnot Kingston could end this discussion and > thereby dispense with the embarrassing I expect he enjoys the embarrassment. As one poster recently put it, there is a certain degree of entertainment value in watching the antics of the ratpack. Even those who recommend kill filing say, IM Innes, are obviously not following their own advice, but reading this stuff. > I would ask our NMnot: Why not admit you > employed false identities to PRAISE YOURSELF He could start with Sanny. Nobody believes that guy is for real. He must be an invention, and why is it that he always says TK is better than help bot when help bot much higher-rated at 1350+? I smell a rat. But these are mere annoyances. The real issue is IM Innes and his lying problem. I challenge IM Innes to admit that he told a fib, that he made all that stuff up because he mistakenly thought he could get away with it, and now he is ready to reform. I just want the nearly-a-man to own his own words; to stand up off the floor (laughing or not); to crawl out of the muck. Don't do it for me; do it for the Gipper. Or do it for Rob "The Robber" Mitchell, but just do it. -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 23:38:26 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? OLD FAITHFUL Coo! Greg Kennedy as help bot is baring his fangs. He's predictable as Old Faithful and always spews forth his resentment against this writer and GM Larry Evans when intellectual heat is applied. The subject we are discussing -- ultimately the kind of human baggage that is the person, NMnot Taylor Kingston -- has to do with the following sauvely packaged, though stupid lie written by our NMnot: "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.'" I figure than many readers understand that such a statement coming from a Class "A" player may be reckoned as an outright lie. Notice, for example, the faux self-effacement that NMnot Kingston "never claimed to be any great player," which he then juxtaposes with the bald statement that he "think[s]" he had "a peak Elo of 2300+." Why would our NMnot tell us he never made a claim of being "any great player," yet then count himself among the upper one-half of one percent? NMnot understood the effect of his claim. He knew that nearly every player would assume that a claim of having "a peak Elo of 2300+ Elo" pertains to over-the-board play and that he was claiming to be plenty good. Once again, the scene is your club. Someone whom you know little or not at all walks in and then announces, "[O]n the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+ I am a tad better than weak." Will those in the club, who are listening, say to themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo." or will they say, "Oh, yah, he's talkin' about postal chess because when a guy mentions his ratings, chances are he is talking about postal chess." I submit that the first reaction of listeners -- the one certainly sought by NMnot when writing his lie -- is to assume that OTB rating is being claimed. Readers will notice that Greg Kennedy offers a defense of NMnot Kingston's lie that the latter himself eschews. Why? Because our NMnot figures that most forum readers will not consider this writer an idiot for maintaining that bald mention of a rating will be assumed by the vast majority of listeners as a reference to tournament chess playing performance. NMnot Kingston could end this discussion and thereby dispense with the embarrassing, unsought and certainly unwanted defense of Greg Kennedy by making the amende honorable. Even now, after the passage of years, redemption is possible. Indeed, genuine repentance is automatic redemption in His eyes. I would ask our NMnot: Why not admit you employed false identities to PRAISE YOURSELF and lied about your chess rating? You have certainly twigged by now that your chief defender -- Greg Kennedy -- has absolutely no doubt that you lied. He is, in effect, trying to claim you for himself by defending you. Don't let him do that. For now, our NMnot remains the man who told us that he has "standards," even though he posted messages under false names in which he PRAISED HIMSELF, for Pete's sake. He remains the man who lied about his rating. He remains the man who evinces authentic character weakness when placed under intellectual pressure. NMnot Kingston will never forgive Greg Kennedy for repeatedly forcing him to address the lie he told about his rating. If Greg had just kept his big bazoo zipped, NM Kingston would have quietly borne references to his past on these forums. But when Greg spoke up, a debate began, and our NMnot had to enter the fray once again. I confess that after my second posting on the Kingston lie, I knew that NMnot would not reply and worried that Greg would also keep quiet. But Greg came through by issuing another response. By the way, NMnot inflated his rating by 500 points -- not just 50. Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:27 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's > > > > subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he > > > > was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when > > > > someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand > > > > his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing > > > > strength > > ...which was never even mentioned... > > > > > > or do you, without any aside from the man making the > > > > claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal > > > > chess." > > ..which was also not mentioned... > > > It seems that Mr. Parr is a very irrational creature. Unless and > until any particular type of play is specified, there is no basis > whatever for simply assuming any such things -- except of > course, sheer desperation! LOL > > > > > > Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston > > > Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is > > > genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From > > > memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair > > > test. > > > > Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his > > rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is > > 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board > > or in correspondence play: > > > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630 > > > Nice, um, research Mr. Sloan. But as so often happens, > you have missed the forest for the trees. This entire issue > was beaten to death a very long time ago, and it was made > clear that the rating to which TK was referring needed to be > converted to its modern USCF equivalent in order to > comprehend what he was saying. > > The weakness in the claim is that TK said he forfeited > many games through not finishing them, and this has yet > to be verified as far as I know. But that relates to what > happened to his rating *after* he peaked, and as we know > his reference did not pertain to that aspect. Indeed, it was > crystal clear that he was talking about a /peak/ rating of > some kind. > > There was a lot of discussion over how to properly convert > TK's correspondence rating to its modern USCF equivalent, > and in the end a supposed expert appeared who corrected > his math to the tune of around 50 points to the downside. > That put him at say 2250+, instead of his claimed 2300+. > I may be mistaken, but I think TK erred the other way in > giving his ranking, shorting himself a tad. Perhaps one of > the ratpacker desperadoes here could check on that for us. > > > If it's a lie you desire, then check out the Shakespeare > newsgroups for postings by nearly-an-IM Innes. You'll find > that he tried to pass himself off as "nearly an IM", and even > went so far as to invent a 2450 rating out of thin air. (Ever > since, the poor boy has been trying to wiggle the number > downward to 2400 or less, but to no avail.) > > In the case of IM Innes, there was no confusion over the > proper conversion of old ratings to new; nobody even > asked him to guesstimate or inform regarding his strength; > no, he volunteered the misinformation on his own, under > no pressure and for some reason felt compelled to relate > "facts" of his own creation. I think that tells the tale. As > far as I know, even Larry Parr has never done that sort of > thing, never invented titles or ratings for himself, so you > can imagine how disappointing this was. > > Heck, I don't believe Larry Parr has ever stooped to just > inventing ratings or titles, even for his idol GM Evans, so > this is really stooping low; getting down even lower than > LP, who generally sets the bar on such things. :<( > > > -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 19:30:00 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 5:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all. Nowhere did TK specify whether the rating was OTB, blitz, correspondence or even blindfold; that is a faulty assumption. Don't assume so much, IM Innes. > You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show up > and boost you. Are you speaking of Rob "The Robber" Mitchell? (I thought he was your man, not TK's?) > Just because Sloan brings it up in his sicko way, doesn't mean you didn't > try to creep up 500 points. ROFL. While you are down there on the floor, try to focus on precisely what it is you are rolling around in. -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 19:26:52 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? WHAT THE DICKENS! --OFF TOPIC >Not very on topic, and tangential, is a previous topic I engaged here with Mr. Parr, on the subject of 'placing' people by borrowing them into groups --- and we discussed how both xists did that with Dickens, and if indeed he would profile as a modern liberal.> -- Phil Innes Dear Phil, I think one can make sense of Dickens' socio-political views if you think of him in the American Progressive tradition of southern politics. Namely, the supposed benefits of social democracy are for white folk rather than for blacks.That puts the matter in a single sentence and makes sense of the contradictions apparent but not inherent. You will recollect that x himself had no place for Negroes in his system. The likely view of a Dickens toward Negroes and toward many colonial peoples is that they annoyed him by appearing human. You will recollect that such is the point made by Lawrence of Arabia in "Seven Pillars of Wisdom." The Negro would not be so objectionable if he had seven hands and three heads, but instead has the effrontery to appear in bodily form as we do. Still worse, he awakens within us the suspicion that he may be, more or less, about the same as we, though Lawrence does not not admit that as even a remote possibility. Hence Lawrence's anger that we have impostors as human beings who thereby drag down one's own status as fully human. After all, if the Negro is mistaken as human by others, those others may imagine that Lawrence himself partakes of important similarities with Negroes. He found such impudence to be intolerable. Kipling spoke of "lesser breeds without the Law," by which I think he meant, if you read Recessional very carefully, the Mosaic Law. The best you could do was to build carefully and, having built, as Kipling writes in the White Man's Burden, "Watch Sloth and heathen Folly/ Bring all you hope to nought." Dickens was concerned about alleviating suffering among white Christian folk, whilst objecting to really ill treatment of Jews and natives not because they merit his concern on the basis of their intrinsic value, but because to not be so concerned is to coarsen one's own spirit. Yours, Larry Parr Chess One wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > MR. 2300+ ELO > > > To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's > > subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he > > was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when > > someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand > > his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing > > strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the > > claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal > > chess." > > Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston > Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is > genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From > memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair > test. > > >> Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have > >> never been above the 1800 level. > > Be fair to your opponents and avoid the ratings trap, and other > envy-engines, which can be more to do with you than them. The constant > measure of chess is if you enjoy it, and all else is relative to other > players. > > >> Sam Sloan > > WHAT THE DICKENS! > > Not very on topic, and tangential, is a previous topic I engaged here with > Mr. Parr, on the subject of 'placing' people by borrowing them into groups - > and we discussed how both xists did that with Dickens, and if indeed he > would profile as a modern liberal. > > I have found an interesting and direct response from Jane Smiley's writing > [albeit, she cites Ackroyd rather much] > > "Additionally, as Dickens grew more readical in his political views (and > more idiosyncratic - we should not interpret him as the sort of left liberal > we know today - he was rascist, imperialist, sometimes anti-Semitic, a > believer in harsh prison conditions, and distrustful of trade unions), he > divided himself more and more from his fellow novelists. How do we make of > sense of this?" > > She then discussed the common social mixing of other Victorian writers, and > Dickens's voluntary isolation... > > Now - the lesson is - that any description of that type would get an > author's books banned from high schools and libraries these days, nevermind > it was favorite reading of Freud. > > People are changeable creatures, no motive springs from other than a > complexity of factors, themselves in dynamic relationship, and while > overselling one thing, another is undersold. And all the time the > commentator observing others needs be aware of their vicarious existence, > and those notions which emerge, ///as if/// it were their own. > > Otherwise we have no compass to understand how we ourselves act, and in the > Dostoyevskyan sense, are 'possessed,' but not of any truth! Only lies and > deceptions. > > It will be a brave man who writes here about their own self-deceiving > activity - and probably no man at all; it might take a woman writer to do > that. > > Phil Innes     Date: 03 Nov 2007 11:38:04 From: Chess One Subject: Dickens etc, <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > WHAT THE DICKENS! --OFF TOPIC > >>Not very on topic, and tangential, is a previous topic I engaged here with >>Mr. Parr, on the subject of 'placing' people by borrowing them into >>groups --- and we discussed how both xists did that with Dickens, and >>if indeed he would profile as a modern liberal.> -- Phil Innes > > Dear Phil, > > I think one can make sense of Dickens' > socio-political views if you think of him in the > American Progressive tradition of southern politics. > Namely, the supposed benefits of social democracy are > for white folk rather than for blacks.That puts the > matter in a single sentence and makes sense of the > contradictions apparent but not inherent. > > You will recollect that x himself had no > place for Negroes in his system. Dear Larry, There is an extensive review of such folk in The Wine Dark Sea, set in the pacific Islands & Peru, by P. O'B, where the paradise on earth can be established, freedom of religion, true egalitarian systems, no hierarchies or churches or church taxes! Except for the awkward problem of having to eliminate the natives to get the thing off the ground, then by inate human good will, the place will run itself. A French enthusiast named DuTord is the propopent of said system, following the ideas of that mumping villain Rousseau. > The likely view of a Dickens toward Negroes and > toward many colonial peoples is that they annoyed him > by appearing human. You will recollect that such is > the point made by Lawrence of Arabia in "Seven Pillars > of Wisdom." The Negro would not be so objectionable if > he had seven hands and three heads, but instead has > the effrontery to appear in bodily form as we do. Gosh - I first read 7 pilllars when I was 19. Fascinating that the man who survived the film, in grubby RAF overalls, should have cabinet ministers dropping by to see him, since his was the only opinion Arabs trusted, even after they were betrayed at the end of the first war. His was also the only disinterested opinion in Britain in an area of the world that was ever in danger of becoming inflamed and a real biblical Megidio. Orwell paid him the particular compliment of stating that his was the /only/ intellectual opinion on the right worth taking in. > Still worse, he awakens within us the suspicion that > he may be, more or less, about the same as we, though > Lawrence does not not admit that as even a remote > possibility. Hence Lawrence's anger that we have > impostors as human beings who thereby drag down one's > own status as fully human. To invoke another writer - probably the best on this subject - would be to reference van der Post, who championed the black man in Africa, notably the Bushmen, /but also/ what he called the first person in us all, the aboriginal person. The acceptance or rejection of that sense of ourselves was what deeply interested Jung about Europeans and in fact set him in sharply different focus from Freud - in fact vdP and Jung were close friends thereafter. Symbolically [of course] they met over a discussion about making fire. He told me that when Jung went to Africa the 'missing' European sense of this first person in us, almost overwhelmed Jung by comparison - and I think neither of them trusted Euro-intellectualism thereby, since it did not admit this inner man - this inner 'black' man! Latterly here in the US, the philosopher Jacob Needleman admits this relationship as being of prime importance to the USA as 'the world's country.' As well as its neglect of all things 'black' being a principle crime. [Currently the newest 'black' people are Mexican] > After all, if the Negro is > mistaken as human by others, those others may imagine > that Lawrence himself partakes of important > similarities with Negroes. He found such impudence to > be intolerable. The writer, poet-Laureate, Ted Hughes said that Shakespeare was the first to frame this issue in 'modern' times. And the rejection by Macbeth of the 3 hags, is rejection of the female side of life, and in fact the /power/ and the means to reflect at all, other than as intellection. It is interesting that this state endures, and even today, people are still willing to state that La MacBeth 'made him do it'. Now nations do it! > Kipling spoke of "lesser breeds without the Law," > by which I think he meant, if you read Recessional > very carefully, the Mosaic Law. The best you could do > was to build carefully and, having built, as Kipling > writes in the White Man's Burden, "Watch Sloth and > heathen Folly/ Bring all you hope to nought." His writing in this very town was perhaps the most inspired of all. His most animistic books written here - Jungle Book[s] was a long time before Lord of the Rings, or the works of J. C. Powys. > Dickens was concerned about alleviating suffering > among white Christian folk, whilst objecting to really > ill treatment of Jews and natives not because they > merit his concern on the basis of their intrinsic > value, but because to not be so concerned is to > coarsen one's own spirit. Yes. Except Smiley makes the point that Dickens did not as much relate to others from any social stance we should recognise as 'politics' but as novelist, which is at least vicariously, a one to one relationship. I think he drove what was to become public polity, by being the first writer to look fair and square at the new world of the industrial revolution - and the lauded Victorian middle-classes of England - though he was an improbable candidate for that category himself, and to actually attempt to critique it from a value level. It is also complicated since the great divide in his life surrounding his divorce [where he not only behaved badly, but in public, rather like his 'misbehavior' here in the US when he refused to be the literary 'Great' as was expected of him - whatever he was he didn't care to hide or dissemble about] makes a clear division in early/late Dickens. Whatever happened latterly, and to end with a reference you make repeatedly above, those 5 months in the /blacking/ factory, was his own /black/ personal experience. At least Smiley credits her female insight of this early experience as being a very potent force throughout his life, and a sort of anchor or emotional grounding which was shocking, yet an experience no middle class person could access [though I paraphrase to suit this discussion.]. Latterly [Eton educated] Orwell deliberately did the same thing. This shorter biography is very good that way, finding IMO, in all the material, both his own driving forces, and those of the society and the life of his times. At end, the subject was not engaged again to the same degree until Hardy - Tess, eg, is the cream of the country, and the new man, Angell is a modern disaster of a person. George Eliot didn't cope with it to any near extent, granting far more space to specific individual characterisation, with the occassional social topic, such as the repugnant English anti-Semiticm she illustrates in Daniel Deronda. And what lineage here! Since Hardy and Lawrence were rather more than friends - and what a great shame that their conversations at Max Gate went unrecorded, not even sumised save perhaps what he told Buchan's wife. Cordially, Phil Innes > Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 02 Nov 2007 19:16:55 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 1:32 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? > > Playing strength. The relevance of over the board > > vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's > > playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but > > below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did > > he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. > How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime, > was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose > strength dropped 400 points? As a matter of fact, I have. There was a local player who developed a vision problem (glaucoma) but apparently this did not stop him from playing rated chess. Perhaps a floor capped his losses at somewhat less than 400 points, but the subject you mentioned was "strength" (just as it was the subject being discussed by TK). So, who is the 1800 player that is young and still in his prime? (I hope it's me! I would give anything to be that good, even sacrificing wisdom gained from old age, my good looks -- whatever it takes. I would give up my entire comic book collection, my baseball cards -- you name it.) IMO, these twin "events" -- the one in which TK erred by 50 points and the one where PI told a fib -- are quite revealing. One fellow made an honest math error, while the other deliberately invented a lie to "lend heft" to his opinions. It's no mere coincidence that the second fellow joined up with the Evans ratpack. Birds of a feather. -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 18:58:51 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 10:40 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > Wow, so I really *am* Edward Winter? Amazing. Without Sam's uncanny > powers, I never would have known it. In this case, Sam, can you > investigate a few more more things in this vein: > > 1) From his writings, it's clear that Winter can speak French > fluently. Why can't I? Se la vie. > 2) Why do I not remember writing any of Edward Winter's books or > online columns? Very poor recall? > 3) Why do none of the e-mails and letters addressed to Edward Winter > ever come to me? The post office will not deliver overseas for free. > 4) On the many occasions that I have I received correspondence from > Edward Winter, who was writing to me? That's an easy one: Sam Sloan. > 5) And most importantly, why haven't my publishers been sending me > any royalty checks for Edward Winter books? This is an obvious case of > financial impropriety, Sam. Just your cup of tea. You get my money for > me, and I'll give you a handsome cut. This looks like a job for Rob "The Robber" Mitchell. -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 17:27:04 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 6:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all. > No, Phil. I never said that, in any way, express or implied. That was Sloan's leapt-to conclusion, which was exactly my point at the time, to demonstrate the extreme shallowness of his investigative technique. And in using the term shallow, I am being charitable. In any event, you are hardly in a position to comment, with your claim to being "nearly an IM rated 2450." This is rather like Mussolini calling someone a fascist. > You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show up > and boost you. You are hallucinating again, Phil. Once again the "alternate universes" hypothesis comes to mind: one for you, one for everyone else.     Date: 03 Nov 2007 10:45:46 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > On Nov 2, 6:59 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's >> all. >> > > No, Phil. I never said that, in any way, express or implied. I am glad that the issue is now resolved, but as for implied, well... ! > That > was Sloan's leapt-to conclusion, which was exactly my point at the > time, to demonstrate the extreme shallowness of his investigative > technique. I do not obsess about these things - some people do nothing else :((( - but you chose a poor example to illustrate Sloan's shallowness. > And in using the term shallow, I am being charitable. > In any event, you are hardly in a position to comment, with your > claim to being "nearly an IM rated 2450." This is rather like > Mussolini calling someone a fascist. To you it is, but your frequently nearest comparisons are usually to Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin... so I take no intellectual offence. >> You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show >> up >> and boost you. > > You are hallucinating again, Phil. Once again the "alternate > universes" hypothesis comes to mind: one for you, one for everyone > else. My writing about my rating was sloppy, so was yours. Mine was because I was writing to non-chess players, who don't even know which way the ELO scale goes, up or down. I don't know your excuse. But 'hallucinations' - I don't think so! We both could have written better - that's all. Phil Innes   Date: 02 Nov 2007 13:20:23 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? > > Playing strength. The relevance of over the board > > vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's > > playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but > > below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did > > he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. > > > -- helpful bot > > How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime, > was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose > strength dropped 400 points? Isn't it amazing how Sam repeatedly fails to recognize and remember facts, or pretends he's never seen them, even when they've been presented to him repeatedly? As google search will show easily, the facts of my USCF postal master rating have been posted here several times over the last 2-3 years. And if Sam can dig up the appropriate issue of Chess Life (April 1986 I believe) he will find me at #45 in the USCF postal rankings. It's also worth noting that the original poster in this thread, Rich Hutnik, wanted to know "What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?" Has Sam answered that? Has Sam told Mr. Hutnik what positive steps he wants to undertake? No. Sam seems to think it's more important to argue about my ratings than address the concerns of a potential USCF voter. He has provided a very clear illustration of my point, that he is merely an attention-seeking mud-slinger with no real interest in serving the chess public.     Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:59:13 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? >> > Playing strength. The relevance of over the board >> > vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's >> > playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but >> > below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did >> > he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. >> >> > -- helpful bot >> >> How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime, >> was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose >> strength dropped 400 points? > > Isn't it amazing how Sam repeatedly fails to recognize and remember > facts, or pretends he's never seen them, even when they've been > presented to him repeatedly? As google search will show easily, the > facts of my USCF postal master rating have been posted here several > times over the last 2-3 years. And if Sam can dig up the appropriate > issue of Chess Life (April 1986 I believe) he will find me at #45 in > the USCF postal rankings. But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all. You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show up and boost you. Sloan doesn't care for that - it just rubbishes all the time. Doesn't matter who or what - since they are all against him! And The Mission, as he understands it. Just because Sloan brings it up in his sicko way, doesn't mean you didn't try to creep up 500 points. ROFL. Phil Innes > It's also worth noting that the original poster in this thread, Rich > Hutnik, wanted to know "What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?" Has > Sam answered that? Has Sam told Mr. Hutnik what positive steps he > wants to undertake? No. Sam seems to think it's more important to > argue about my ratings than address the concerns of a potential USCF > voter. He has provided a very clear illustration of my point, that he > is merely an attention-seeking mud-slinger with no real interest in > serving the chess public. >   Date: 02 Nov 2007 18:32:38 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? > Playing strength. The relevance of over the board > vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's > playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but > below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did > he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. > > -- helpful bot How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime, was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose strength dropped 400 points? Sam Sloan   Date: 02 Nov 2007 11:16:14 From: Larry Tapper Subject: Re: John Curdo (was Sloan) On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in > > 1948 ! > > I may have also overstated his rating, I can't remember exactly, maybe only > high 22xx? Curdo? In 1992, when he was already well past his prime, John Curdo's USCF rating broke the 2500 k. Before that, as I recall, he was usually in the 2400s. Curdo has won at least 685 tournaments, which may possibly be a world record. There is a biographical article by Larry Eldredge, with several annotated games, in the ChessCafe archives: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles214.pdf It so happens that over the years I've played more games with Curdo than with any other tournament player. Not surprising, because he played in all the major tournaments in the Boston area in the 60s and 70s, when I was most active. Among my college teammates, his nickname was The Man. It occurs to me that if anyone in the world truly deserves the "nearly an IM" title, it would be John Curdo. Larry T.     Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:56:03 From: Chess One Subject: Re: John Curdo (was Sloan) "Larry Tapper" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in >> >> 1948 ! >> >> I may have also overstated his rating, I can't remember exactly, maybe >> only >> high 22xx? > > Curdo? > > In 1992, when he was already well past his prime, John Curdo's USCF > rating broke the 2500 k. Before that, as I recall, he was usually > in the 2400s. This was approx 2002/2003 > Curdo has won at least 685 tournaments, which may possibly be a world > record. There is a biographical article by Larry Eldredge, with > several annotated games, in the ChessCafe archives: > > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles214.pdf > > It so happens that over the years I've played more games with Curdo > than with any other tournament player. Not surprising, because he > played in all the major tournaments in the Boston area in the 60s and > 70s, when I was most active. Among my college teammates, his nickname > was The Man. > > It occurs to me that if anyone in the world truly deserves the "nearly > an IM" title, it would be John Curdo. Sure. He never quite made it. My friend played him too - John was famous for his Dutch systems, no? I never played him personally. Phil Innes > Larry T. >       Date: 03 Nov 2007 02:06:02 From: EZoto Subject: Re: John Curdo (was Sloan) >Sure. He never quite made it. My friend played him too - John was famous for >his Dutch systems, no? I never played him personally. > >Phil Innes > John Curdo live and died in the Dutch defense. Similiar to Sicilian Dragon players. They live and die with that opening and Dutch players don't seem to be any different. EZoto   Date: 02 Nov 2007 10:56:49 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: > Taylor Kingston wrote: > > On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in > > >> 1948 ! > > > Yep, the June issue, page 5, to be precise. A 3-paragraph story on > > his winning the Massachusetts state championship, accompanied by a > > photo of the then 16-year-old John Anthony Michael Curdo. > > One correction, Phil: it was called just Chess Review back then. > > Chess Life was a separate publication. The two didn't merge until > > about 20 years later. > > >> Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48 > >> Review ;) > > > If, as Innes and Sloan claim, that Innes and Sloan are never wrong, > > then I guess I hallucinated the above Curdo citation, just like I'm > > hallucinating that I am not Edward Winter. Amazing how one can learn > > something new every day, when surrounded by such great teachers. > > How then do we reconcile the fact that Innes and Sloan often > > contradict each other? I suppose alternate universes is the only > > viable hypothesis that allows them both to retain their infallibility. > > Insufficient research. To disprove Phil's claim, you must examine all > copies of Chess Life for 1948. Who knows: Curdo *might* have appeared > in Chess Review *and* in Chess Life in 1948! Oh, Curdo probably did; I would imagine that the USCF usually reported state championships, if they were publishing Chess Life back then. That's not at issue here. My point was that, contrary to Phil's claim, I have never forgotten that I have a copy of the 1948 Chess Review (the full set of 12 issues, hardbound). It's been one of my prize possessions ever since I bought it for a few bucks around 1966. Now, alas, with the pages coming loose from the binding, it's much the worse for wear, but it's not at all forgotten. For Innes to have specified both magazines, he would have needed to say that Curdo "appeared in Chess Life and in Chess Review," just as you yourself phrased it, Ken. By saying "Chess Life and Review" Innes is referring to a magazine that did not exist in 1948.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 09:38:55 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > >>the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about > >>2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of > >>rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - > >>so, a fair test. > > Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his > > rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is > > 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board > > or in correspondence play: > > Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in > > 1948 ! Yep, the June issue, page 5, to be precise. A 3-paragraph story on his winning the Massachusetts state championship, accompanied by a photo of the then 16-year-old John Anthony Michael Curdo. One correction, Phil: it was called just Chess Review back then. Chess Life was a separate publication. The two didn't merge until about 20 years later. > Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48 > Review ;) If, as Innes and Sloan claim, that Innes and Sloan are never wrong, then I guess I hallucinated the above Curdo citation, just like I'm hallucinating that I am not Edward Winter. Amazing how one can learn something new every day, when surrounded by such great teachers. How then do we reconcile the fact that Innes and Sloan often contradict each other? I suppose alternate universes is the only viable hypothesis that allows them both to retain their infallibility.     Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:51:55 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:[email protected]... >> >> >>the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about >> >>2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of >> >>rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about >> >>2400 - >> >>so, a fair test. >> > Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his >> > rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is >> > 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board >> > or in correspondence play: >> >> Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in >> >> 1948 ! > > Yep, the June issue, page 5, to be precise. A 3-paragraph story on > his winning the Massachusetts state championship, accompanied by a > photo of the then 16-year-old John Anthony Michael Curdo. > One correction, Phil: it was called just Chess Review back then. > Chess Life was a separate publication. The two didn't merge until > about 20 years later. Ah! My informant misled me. I gained this info from your own e-mail, as you see below... >> Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48 >> Review ;) > > If, as Innes and Sloan claim, that Innes and Sloan are never wrong, > then I guess I hallucinated the above Curdo citation, just like I'm > hallucinating that I am not Edward Winter. Amazing how one can learn > something new every day, when surrounded by such great teachers. > How then do we reconcile the fact that Innes and Sloan often > contradict each other? I suppose alternate universes is the only > viable hypothesis that allows them both to retain their infallibility. Do not suppose so much, neither assume. This is what distinguishes master chess from the rest. Real science lies in the question, not the answer - which is to say, the process of observing something original and for yourself, not rhetorically for others, and what we make of 'answer' is so often merely an interpretation, not the only one. So, you see, by keeping your mind open you can avoid 2 things - pretence to what you are not, like a 2300 player, and secondly, satisfaction which need no explanation to demand. It is a philosophical stance to be sure, but Sloan wouldn't understand event the idea of any non-egoic approach, neh? Phil Innes     Date: 02 Nov 2007 11:51:34 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Taylor Kingston wrote: > On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:[email protected]... >> >>>> the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about >>>> 2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of >>>> rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - >>>> so, a fair test. >>> Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his >>> rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is >>> 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board >>> or in correspondence play: >> Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in >> >> 1948 ! > > Yep, the June issue, page 5, to be precise. A 3-paragraph story on > his winning the Massachusetts state championship, accompanied by a > photo of the then 16-year-old John Anthony Michael Curdo. > One correction, Phil: it was called just Chess Review back then. > Chess Life was a separate publication. The two didn't merge until > about 20 years later. > >> Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48 >> Review ;) > > If, as Innes and Sloan claim, that Innes and Sloan are never wrong, > then I guess I hallucinated the above Curdo citation, just like I'm > hallucinating that I am not Edward Winter. Amazing how one can learn > something new every day, when surrounded by such great teachers. > How then do we reconcile the fact that Innes and Sloan often > contradict each other? I suppose alternate universes is the only > viable hypothesis that allows them both to retain their infallibility. > > > Insufficient research. To disprove Phil's claim, you must examine all copies of Chess Life for 1948. Who knows: Curdo *might* have appeared in Chess Review *and* in Chess Life in 1948! Once again, Phil is vindicated!!! -- 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: 02 Nov 2007 08:40:54 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 10:18 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now > > more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy > > theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan > > has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how > > many have proven accurate? > > All of them. > > Sam Sloan Wow, so I really *am* Edward Winter? Amazing. Without Sam's uncanny powers, I never would have known it. In this case, Sam, can you investigate a few more more things in this vein: 1) From his writings, it's clear that Winter can speak French fluently. Why can't I? 2) Why do I not remember writing any of Edward Winter's books or online columns? 3) Why do none of the e-mails and letters addressed to Edward Winter ever come to me? 4) On the many occasions that I have I received correspondence from Edward Winter, who was writing to me? 5) And most importantly, why haven't my publishers been sending me any royalty checks for Edward Winter books? This is an obvious case of financial impropriety, Sam. Just your cup of tea. You get my money for me, and I'll give you a handsome cut.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 08:06:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 9:27 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > > To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's > > > subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he > > > was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when > > > someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand > > > his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing > > > strength ...which was never even mentioned... > > > or do you, without any aside from the man making the > > > claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal > > > chess." ..which was also not mentioned... It seems that Mr. Parr is a very irrational creature. Unless and until any particular type of play is specified, there is no basis whatever for simply assuming any such things -- except of course, sheer desperation! LOL > > Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston > > Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is > > genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From > > memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair > > test. > > Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his > rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is > 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board > or in correspondence play: > > http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630 Nice, um, research Mr. Sloan. But as so often happens, you have missed the forest for the trees. This entire issue was beaten to death a very long time ago, and it was made clear that the rating to which TK was referring needed to be converted to its modern USCF equivalent in order to comprehend what he was saying. The weakness in the claim is that TK said he forfeited many games through not finishing them, and this has yet to be verified as far as I know. But that relates to what happened to his rating *after* he peaked, and as we know his reference did not pertain to that aspect. Indeed, it was crystal clear that he was talking about a /peak/ rating of some kind. There was a lot of discussion over how to properly convert TK's correspondence rating to its modern USCF equivalent, and in the end a supposed expert appeared who corrected his math to the tune of around 50 points to the downside. That put him at say 2250+, instead of his claimed 2300+. I may be mistaken, but I think TK erred the other way in giving his ranking, shorting himself a tad. Perhaps one of the ratpacker desperadoes here could check on that for us. If it's a lie you desire, then check out the Shakespeare newsgroups for postings by nearly-an-IM Innes. You'll find that he tried to pass himself off as "nearly an IM", and even went so far as to invent a 2450 rating out of thin air. (Ever since, the poor boy has been trying to wiggle the number downward to 2400 or less, but to no avail.) In the case of IM Innes, there was no confusion over the proper conversion of old ratings to new; nobody even asked him to guesstimate or inform regarding his strength; no, he volunteered the misinformation on his own, under no pressure and for some reason felt compelled to relate "facts" of his own creation. I think that tells the tale. As far as I know, even Larry Parr has never done that sort of thing, never invented titles or ratings for himself, so you can imagine how disappointing this was. Heck, I don't believe Larry Parr has ever stooped to just inventing ratings or titles, even for his idol GM Evans, so this is really stooping low; getting down even lower than LP, who generally sets the bar on such things. :<( -- help bot     Date: 09 Nov 2007 15:59:47 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 9, 5:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty > > acids, you know. Just beware of mercury. > > Is that far enough? Corn-fed has some problems with authority and > achievement. Much lesser men than thee, hath achieved twice as much, as all men can see. Thou ad hominist, thou slothful flea! What hath thine self achieved, but piddle--dee-dee? Fiddle faddle, fuddle dee dum, Larry Parr hath as much twaddle, as thine own self, thou bum! Forsooth, thou canst claim for thine self the ratings and titles of old GM Evans, thine elf! Nor the titles or robes of great players, you see, for thou and thine master, have none, for to thee. When thou and thy master can claim rightfully so, then thee may complain, thither and fro. Until then remain silent, and mend thee thy ways, or I shall make much regretful, thy nights and thy days! Thou bloated pork rind, thou nit-witted pea! If thou hadst but a brain, or the thoughts of a flea, thy mind would swing open, thy mouth silent be. Go clean up thy stables, thy master commands! Get thee thy shovel, or just use thy hands. His lies they are many, his truths be they few, his time in confession be long it is true. But clean up his stables, his piles and his poo, else be demoted still further, how low I don't knew. -- S. bot       Date: 09 Nov 2007 16:18:58 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? help bot wrote: > On Nov 9, 5:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty >>> acids, you know. Just beware of mercury. >> Is that far enough? Corn-fed has some problems with authority and >> achievement. > > > Much lesser men than thee, hath achieved twice as much, > as all men can see. Thou ad hominist, thou slothful flea! > What hath thine self achieved, but piddle--dee-dee? > > Fiddle faddle, fuddle dee dum, Larry Parr hath as > much twaddle, as thine own self, thou bum! Forsooth, > thou canst claim for thine self the ratings and titles > of old GM Evans, thine elf! Nor the titles or robes of > great players, you see, for thou and thine master, > have none, for to thee. > > When thou and thy master can claim rightfully so, > then thee may complain, thither and fro. Until then > remain silent, and mend thee thy ways, or I shall > make much regretful, thy nights and thy days! > > Thou bloated pork rind, thou nit-witted pea! If thou > hadst but a brain, or the thoughts of a flea, thy mind > would swing open, thy mouth silent be. > > Go clean up thy stables, thy master commands! > Get thee thy shovel, or just use thy hands. His lies > they are many, his truths be they few, his time in > confession be long it is true. But clean up his stables, > his piles and his poo, else be demoted still further, > how low I don't knew. > > > -- S. bot > > Bravo!! Now you are rocking... :^) -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti     Date: 09 Nov 2007 06:42:09 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: "Most Scholars"? (was: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?) On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree > > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article > > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). > > Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced? As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does *not* agee with Evans: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html       Date: 09 Nov 2007 16:00:08 From: Chess One Subject: Re: "Most Scholars"? (was: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?) "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree >> > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article >> > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). >> >> Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced? > > As we expected, Parr has failed to name a single one. As far as I > know, none exist. Meanwhile, here's a scholar who definitely does > *not* agee with Evans: > > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/evans.html This is in fact true. Though unfortunately for Mr. Kingston's favorite it is entirely inconclusive since, like himself, he disagrees with GM Evans on every subject. Phil Innes     Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:36:44 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: "Most Scholars"? (was: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?) On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree > > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article > > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). > > Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced? I've wondered about that too, Dr. D. Since the time of Evan's article (10/1996) and mine (1998 and 2001), I've seen a few others that touched on the K-B case and which might be considered scholarly. I was gratified to see my work mentioned in a couple, but I have yet to see any mentioning Evans at all. So this raises two questions: 1) Who are all the "scholars" that Parr considers to have expressed any opinion on Evans' 10/1996 article? 2) Of those, which ones agree with Evans, and do they actually constitute a majority? Both questions require citing specific names and verifiable statements. Parr is generally not very good at this; he finds fabrication easier.     Date: 07 Nov 2007 11:16:42 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: "Most Scholars"? (was: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?) On Nov 7, 8:43 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree > > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article > > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). > > Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced? A good question, Dr. D. After reading Evans' article in late 1996, and writing my own on the Keres-Botvinnik case in 1998 and 2001, I've tried to keep tabs on this subject. A few articles dealing with it have come to my attention, some of which might be called scholarly. I was gratified to see my work cited a couple of times, but I have yet to see any scholarly reference to Evans at all, let alone enough positive comments to conclude that he is supported by the majority of scholars. This prompts several questions: 1. How is Parr defining "most scholars"? Or "scholar" period, in this context? 2. Who are all the "scholars" who have expressed any opinion on the Evans article? 3. Of those, whose opinion is positive, and whose negative? All this requires naming names and citing specific references, something Parr is not in the habit of doing. Fabrication is far easier.     Date: 07 Nov 2007 07:16:39 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 7, 7:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on > Keres seems > willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor Kingston > on Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 Championship. > > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars More lies from Larry Parr. There are no "scholars" when it comes to this sort of thing; it is a matter of logic and reason, not the interpretation of historical documents. > now agree > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). That article broke wind, not ground. > But the Botster conveniently omits the attempt by NMnot Kingston to > secretly contact Richard Laurie to try and persuade him to retract an > item he submitted to Chess Life. That is /irrelevant/, not "convenient". Nothing TK has done or can do has any impact whatsoever on the fact that GM Evans' article was worthless. Only in the very strange mind of Larry Parr are these two things tightly interwoven; for LP, there is some sort of war going on in which victory over the enemy equates to verification of irrational thinking. Rational thinkers can see clearly that no war can ever decide such matters. > "I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw > games to each other," Reuben Fine explained to GM Evans when asked why > he declined to participate in the 1948 World Championship. More fluff. I like a house to be built upon a foundation of concrete, cement. Granted it is cold and hard, but it still beats a foundation of fluffery. So long as the case for GM Bronstein continues to be plagued by "support" from hacks, it is going to be tough going. Anyone who would like to make a serious case would be well advised to wait until these ratpackers go away, lest their rational arguments be dismissed as lunacy out of sheer force of habit. -- help bot     Date: 07 Nov 2007 13:43:47 From: SBD Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > > That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree > with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article > THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced?       Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:11:38 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:03 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >> That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now >> agree with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his ground- >> breaking article THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October >> 1996). > > Can a list of these agreeing scholars be produced? No, because `most scholars agree that X' means `I say that X'. Dave. -- David Richerby Miniature Radio (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but you can hold in it your hand!     Date: 06 Nov 2007 12:12:18 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Armchair philosphizing (was: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?) On Nov 6, 1:24 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying > > definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the > > effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different > > definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so > > far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics. > > I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience > here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of > discussion. > > If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think > more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and > lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will > improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you > proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and > reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the > board. > > I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that > you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent > to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad > judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet. > > Back to the generalization... > > Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is > right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is > best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so, > on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best > idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry > mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise. On the whole I agree with you, with a couple of caveats: 1) An important difference between chess and life is that in chess, paranoia is an entirely valid world-view. Your opponent IS out to get you (unless you're composing helpmates). In life, some people are out to get other people, but it's not a good idea to assume that of every one. 2) I respectfully disagree about your "2nd-best move" concept. In chess, probably 99.9% of all players come nowhere near playing even the 2nd-best move as a general rule. They are more likely to choose a less good move, even a rather bad one. Allowing for obvious exceptions like forced recaptures, I dare say someone who could unfailingly play what is objectively the 2nd-best move on the board would almost certainly be a high-ranking GM, probably even a world champion. Likewise, in life, I'd say people on the whole often fail to make choices anywhere near as good as 2nd-best. Just as with chess moves, most choices in life are not either/or; one usually has multiple, even myriad alternatives. People often make disastrous choices, which is a major reason we have wars, crime, hatreds, and all the other self- inflicted ills man is prone to. Rather than 2nd-best giving us "a very sorry mess," I think most people woudl be very happy with the world that 2nd-best would provide. Then again, this disagreement may be purely semantic, depending on how one defines "second best." I'm using it in the sense of, say, the 2nd-best choice among 10 or 15 alternatives. If your'e thinking of it as a choice between only two alternatives, that's a horse of a different color.     Date: 06 Nov 2007 18:24:15 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 7:27 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 6, 10:17 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Mr. Kingston, > > > Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like > > the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it > > is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in > > life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely > > practiced. It would transform life for all of us. > > Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying > definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the > effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different > definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so > far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics. I admit there are obstacles. Since we have a chess playing audience here why not consider this in a chess context for the sake of discussion. If you try to develop good judgment in chess you must learn and think more about "chessic" cause and effect. When you make mistakes and lose, you must try to learn why you went wrong and how you will improve in the future. This refines your good judgment. As you proceed through the cycle of learning, playing, digesting results, and reassessing your game, it gives you feedback via your results at the board. I believe that if you do not try to improve your good judgment that you are headed for worse results. If some one set out with the intent to always look for the 2nd best move, they would be following bad judgment on the whole. I would expect their rating to plummet. Back to the generalization... Although various people may have directly opposite views as to what is right, that is a different matter than trying to figure out what is best for an individual making choices for his/her own life. Even so, on the macro scale, if everyone decided to always pursue the 2nd best idea, I believe the collective results would likely be a very sorry mess making our current troubled world look like a relative paradise. Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 07:27:15 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 8:57 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > MR. 2300+ ELO > > To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's > > subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he > > was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when > > someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand > > his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing > > strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the > > claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal > > chess." > > Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston > Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is > genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From > memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair > test. Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board or in correspondence play: http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630 Sam Sloan     Date: 02 Nov 2007 16:19:49 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >>the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about >>2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of >>rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - >>so, a fair test. > Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his > rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is > 2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board > or in correspondence play: Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in 1948 ! I may have also overstated his rating, I can't remember exactly, maybe only high 22xx? Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48 Review ;) Talking more of him, I did say 'tpr', which is how we players mention a performance rating. Don't worry! There really is plenty of dirt to still root around in, but if you write it here instead of your 'own' group, people are going to react to what's not dirt. Get it? Phil Innes > > Sam Sloan >   Date: 02 Nov 2007 07:22:30 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 9:18 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now > > more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy > > theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan > > has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how > > many have proven accurate? > > All of them. > > Sam Sloan Do I need to dredge up my alleged non-appearance at the World Open several years ago?   Date: 02 Nov 2007 07:18:22 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now > more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy > theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan > has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how > many have proven accurate? All of them. Sam Sloan   Date: 02 Nov 2007 06:38:28 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 1, 6:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > > We are starting to sound a bit overboard in anti-Sloan talk. Sloan has > identified some sleazy behavior which would not have come out without > his persistence. He has also peddled fabrications and unsubstantiated nonsense, in the process smearing people not deserving of such treatment. He also raises innumerable false alarms, which if all were acted upon would completely paralyze the USCF. As for "sleazy behavior," his own life is full of it. > Sloan is like the boy who cried wolf. There we agree completely. > Sometimes his suspicions point > in the wrong direction, but like the boy who cried wolf, they also > sometimes identify dangerous characters. What would you say is his ratio of error to accuracy, Jerry? How many "dangerous characters" have been exposed, compared to how many innocent parties besmirched? Is his track record any better than, say, Joe McCarthy's? > I do not consider myself to > be a supporter of Sloan, but I do pay attention to what he says, and > try to determine whether or not it is accurate. And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how many have proven accurate? What is his batting average? How much good has he done, compared to how much harm? And how much has he interfered, obstructed, and wasted time that could be put to better use? Just to give a few examples, and citing only some of the less harmful, do you recall his notion that I was Edward Winter? His charge that Hanon Russell "blacklisted" Eric Schiller? His claim that Peter Leko was dead? His claim that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ White's best move was 7.Be2? I suggest you view his actions toward the USCF in that light. Lord knows, the USCF has problems, and I will be the first to admit it has not been run with anything like consistent competence and honesty. But as I said earlier, promoting Sloan as cure for its ills is like saying that leprosy cures acne. And touting Sloan as a watchdog is like saying the Navy should use truffle-sniffing pigs on subines instead of sonar. > On Nov 1, 8:59 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > > > > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > > > > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > > > > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > > > > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > > > > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. > > > > Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting > > > interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, > > > so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. > > > Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a > > while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you > > can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people > > some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the > > USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation > > that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is > > occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real > > investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock > > is right twice a day. > > Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today." > > When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant > > powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all. > > > > I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback > > > or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? > > > Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do > > this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to > > posting the history of his sex life on the internet. > > > > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > > > months or so until Sam gets bored. > > > That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam > > and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 06:17:35 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? WITH FRIENDS LIKE GREG KENNEDY Mr. 2300+ Elo doesn't need enemies. help bot wrote: > On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote > > > that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he > > > was talking about his superb correspondence chess > > > record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not > > > a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to > > > detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have > > > warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue. > > > > Not true. Here is the exact quote: > > > > Taylor Kingston caught lying again > > You apparently "forgot" to include any of the prior > instances where you think you "caught" TK lying > before this one; try to focus. LOL > > > > says that his Elo rating was 2300+ > > > > On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on > > >the subject of playing strength > > So, the subject was "playing strength", eh? I wonder > where the imbecile Larry Parr got the idea it *must* mean > over the board playing strength, since that was not > specified? Probably just a brain fart side-affect of Ad > Hom's disease. > > > > > I have never claimed to be any great > > >player > > Hmm... again, no mention of over the board play, just > "play" at chess. Are you beginning to detect a pattern? > Think hard. > > > > > 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." > > > > ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating > > No, I believe ELO is a boy-band. What TK wrote was > that his "Elo" (that's a reference to Arpad Elo -- the bloke > who developed the ratings system adopted by the USCF > and later, by FIDE) was 2300+. We have already gone > over this countless times, and it was established that: > > a) TK's number was probably inflated by about 50 points > due to a conversion error > > and > > b) he was also off by a few places on his USA ranking, > due to an imperfect memory. > > > > and especially not a correspondence chess rating. > > Try to think; a rating is not classified as Elo or not > Elo based on the time controls or venue. Elo is just > the guy's name. The rating system is the same. > > > > When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak > > Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face > > rating was over 2300. > > No, he wasn't. > > > > By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. > > Nothing gets past you; you are a regular genius. > > > > His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that > > this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to > > 2300 under the new system. > > We already beat that horse to death, fella. If you forgot, > it must be that LP is not the only one here going senile. > > > > Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have > > never been above the 1800 level. > > Heck, he is rated 1315 at GetClub -- if you are too > ignorant to know the difference between one rating > and another. Mr. Kingston's crime, if you are so > desperate to find one here, was that his attempt > at conversion to modern numbers was off by about > 50 points in his own favor because his formula was > imperfect. His faulty memory was responsible for > the small error in his reported ranking (he seems > to have serious problems in that area). > > Where the *lies* begin is when Larry Parr and his > evil minions walk on stage. > > Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? > Playing strength. The relevance of over the board > vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's > playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but > below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did > he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. > > > -- helpful bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 06:16:29 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a > correspondence chess rating. Nonsense. "All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised by FIDE." ICCF website. Correspondence players talk about their ELO ratings all the time. The ICCF even has a rating search engine named Eloquery. As for the use of the term "ELO" for "USCF Rating", Mr. Kingston would not be the first chess player to do so, nor will he be the last.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 05:16:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > > For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote > > that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he > > was talking about his superb correspondence chess > > record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not > > a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to > > detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have > > warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue. > > Not true. Here is the exact quote: > > Taylor Kingston caught lying again You apparently "forgot" to include any of the prior instances where you think you "caught" TK lying before this one; try to focus. LOL > says that his Elo rating was 2300+ > > On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on > >the subject of playing strength So, the subject was "playing strength", eh? I wonder where the imbecile Larry Parr got the idea it *must* mean over the board playing strength, since that was not specified? Probably just a brain fart side-affect of Ad Hom's disease. > > I have never claimed to be any great > >player Hmm... again, no mention of over the board play, just "play" at chess. Are you beginning to detect a pattern? Think hard. > > 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." > > ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating No, I believe ELO is a boy-band. What TK wrote was that his "Elo" (that's a reference to Arpad Elo -- the bloke who developed the ratings system adopted by the USCF and later, by FIDE) was 2300+. We have already gone over this countless times, and it was established that: a) TK's number was probably inflated by about 50 points due to a conversion error and b) he was also off by a few places on his USA ranking, due to an imperfect memory. > and especially not a correspondence chess rating. Try to think; a rating is not classified as Elo or not Elo based on the time controls or venue. Elo is just the guy's name. The rating system is the same. > When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak > Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face > rating was over 2300. No, he wasn't. > By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. Nothing gets past you; you are a regular genius. > His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that > this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to > 2300 under the new system. We already beat that horse to death, fella. If you forgot, it must be that LP is not the only one here going senile. > Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have > never been above the 1800 level. Heck, he is rated 1315 at GetClub -- if you are too ignorant to know the difference between one rating and another. Mr. Kingston's crime, if you are so desperate to find one here, was that his attempt at conversion to modern numbers was off by about 50 points in his own favor because his formula was imperfect. His faulty memory was responsible for the small error in his reported ranking (he seems to have serious problems in that area). Where the *lies* begin is when Larry Parr and his evil minions walk on stage. Try to think more clearly; the subject was what? Playing strength. The relevance of over the board vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better. -- helpful bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 05:05:34 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? MR. 2300+ ELO > 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." > -- Taylor Kingston >ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a correspondence chess rating. When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face rating was over 2300. By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to 2300 under the new system. Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have never been above the 1800 level.> -- Sam Sloan To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal chess." NMnot Kingston wishes in the worst way that Greg Kennedy, our help bot, would just shut up and stop "defending" him. Kennedy has now forced our NMnot to speak again on the subject. Otherwise, her would have kept his mealy trap shut. Also, for the record, NMnot Kingston himself offered different excuses than those offered by Greg Kennedy. He said he made the claim because he knew someone would expose it and that he could then trap Sam Sloan into assuming that the postal scales of today and yesterday were the same! Further, I would then come to Sam's rescue and show myself to be a partisan. It was a key-razy junior-high-school kind of lie to justify a moment of weakness on his part. Sam had mercilessly pilloried NMnot Kingston for days, and our NMnot -- the man who also uses false names to write in PRAISE OF HIMSELF, for Pete's sake, and indeed, what a man! -- lashed out in defense, tossing in a postal national ranking list as a backstop for his lie. The main thing that Greg Kennedy and NMnot Kingston have in common is a tendency to hide behind false internet names. Yours, Larry Parr samsloan wrote: > On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus > > > Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan. > > > He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah > > > yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period > > > in which he offered every excuse imaginable for > > > poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air > > > in the same room with Sam Sloan. > > > . > > > Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our > > > NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations > > > for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his > > > wares elsewhere. His choice. > > > > It seems to me that this cannot be just another case > > of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that > > Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten > > that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie" > > about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing > > to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant > > facts. > > > > For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote > > that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he > > was talking about his superb correspondence chess > > record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not > > a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to > > detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have > > warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue. > > Not true. Here is the exact quote: > > Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+ > > On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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." > > > ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a > correspondence chess rating. When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak > Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face > rating was over 2300. > > By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. His > highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that > this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to > 2300 under the new system. > > Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have > never been above the 1800 level. > > Sam Sloan     Date: 02 Nov 2007 12:57:27 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > MR. 2300+ ELO > To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's > subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he > was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when > someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand > his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing > strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the > claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal > chess." Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair test. >> Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have >> never been above the 1800 level. Be fair to your opponents and avoid the ratings trap, and other envy-engines, which can be more to do with you than them. The constant measure of chess is if you enjoy it, and all else is relative to other players. >> Sam Sloan WHAT THE DICKENS! Not very on topic, and tangential, is a previous topic I engaged here with Mr. Parr, on the subject of 'placing' people by borrowing them into groups - and we discussed how both xists did that with Dickens, and if indeed he would profile as a modern liberal. I have found an interesting and direct response from Jane Smiley's writing [albeit, she cites Ackroyd rather much] "Additionally, as Dickens grew more readical in his political views (and more idiosyncratic - we should not interpret him as the sort of left liberal we know today - he was rascist, imperialist, sometimes anti-Semitic, a believer in harsh prison conditions, and distrustful of trade unions), he divided himself more and more from his fellow novelists. How do we make of sense of this?" She then discussed the common social mixing of other Victorian writers, and Dickens's voluntary isolation... Now - the lesson is - that any description of that type would get an author's books banned from high schools and libraries these days, nevermind it was favorite reading of Freud. People are changeable creatures, no motive springs from other than a complexity of factors, themselves in dynamic relationship, and while overselling one thing, another is undersold. And all the time the commentator observing others needs be aware of their vicarious existence, and those notions which emerge, ///as if/// it were their own. Otherwise we have no compass to understand how we ourselves act, and in the Dostoyevskyan sense, are 'possessed,' but not of any truth! Only lies and deceptions. It will be a brave man who writes here about their own self-deceiving activity - and probably no man at all; it might take a woman writer to do that. Phil Innes       Date: 09 Nov 2007 09:42:26 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 7, 7:15 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life > >> (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World > >> Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to > >> analyze by saying Nunn was the better player. > > > That statement grossly misrepresents the facts. > > > What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he > > alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain > > "clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game. > > > That argument was easily skewered by pointing out > > that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much > > stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his > > "analysis". > > > The fact remains that this is and was not chess > > analysis per se, so the question of relative strength > > is merely an aside to the real question; but even so, > > there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM > > Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger > > players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this > > ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since > > chess is only a game. > > > The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic > > and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players; > > even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely > > requires an ability to think /rationally/. > > > In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been > > shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet > > cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must > > have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the > > case, but we may never see it, thanks to these > > hacks. > > Pardon me! > > What a farce of an argument. > > If you don't like American opinion > I can, and have done, offered Russian > ones which make any Evans statement seem quite mild in contrast. I have no objection to having opinions. Just don't try and pass them off as established facts, utilizing bogus methods such as ad hominem, broiled red herring, etc., etc. We've all we can eat here! > And this is merely to answer in the rather narrow vein proposed by those who > contest what Evans has said. To mention but a couple of factors, the > //experience// of engaging Russian chess at this level during the cold war > is rather different than having 'opinions' about it by latter-day saints and > GM Nunn! Indeed. But that has no relevance here. If LE wanted to argue than /in his opinion/ this could very well have happened, he is perfectly welcome to do that. > Larry Parr is correct to repeat here a little e-mail campaign to revoke or > reverse Laurie on this subject. Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty acids, you know. Just beware of mercury. > Though such campaigning is a 'shy subject' for Taylor Kingston is quite > beside the point of whether he is right or not. What is at point is > Kingston's resentment of Evans because he declined to give even more space > to his protestations. I see. So you are obsessed with the issue of TK vs. LP, who wins, and in what round? --------- I was objecting to the logical error wherein some poor fool claimed that Larry Evans' chess ability was chopped and grated by merely pointing out facts. In reality, the playing strength of LE is irrelevant, since the flaw in his article lay elsewhere. But for the record, at the time LE published his article, he was no longer in the same class as Dr. Nunn, so it also falls flat from that approach, though that is really irrelevant and immaterial. -------- > This is interpreted by Kingston as avoiding an unpleasant truth - whereas, > and I have somewhere, the declined letter - any continuation of the subject > in Chess Life cannot have seemed fruitful to Evans because Kingston never > improved upon or developed his first contested point. TK should never have expected a "fair trial" treatment in the pages of Chess Lies. That would have been an anomaly, much like you or me winning the World Open. > I might add that it also sought to lionise the issue between two poles - and > if extensive correspondance on those lines were to be developed, published > and so on, it would be, IMO, insufficient to compass the issue. As Larry Evans himself noted, there is little point in participating in censored (or otherwise manipulated) mediums such as the USCF forum -- or here, Chess Lies magazine. Every editor or column writer will skew things his own way, so the best advice is like that for dealing with lobes-be-three weeds: leave it be. -- help bot         Date: 09 Nov 2007 22:29:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >> > In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been >> > shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet >> > cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must >> > have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the >> > case, but we may never see it, thanks to these >> > hacks. >> >> Pardon me! >> >> What a farce of an argument. >> >> If you don't like American opinion >> I can, and have done, offered Russian >> ones which make any Evans statement seem quite mild in contrast. > > I have no objection to having opinions. Just don't try > and pass them off as established facts, utilizing bogus > methods such as ad hominem, broiled red herring, etc., > etc. We've all we can eat here! "We" :) Greg Kennedy who cannot admit his own name wants to contradict Taimanov and Bronstein and Gulko, to name a couple and a half. I could go another 3. >> And this is merely to answer in the rather narrow vein proposed by those >> who >> contest what Evans has said. To mention but a couple of factors, the >> //experience// of engaging Russian chess at this level during the cold >> war >> is rather different than having 'opinions' about it by latter-day saints >> and >> GM Nunn! > > Indeed. But that has no relevance here. If LE wanted > to argue than /in his opinion/ this could very well have > happened, he is perfectly welcome to do that. Experience at high level play against Soveit era manipulations, "has no relevance here" says Greg Kennedy, the arbiter of what is relevant. he does not say what that is, in his opionion, if a no-name can actually own one. How much more shall I read? >> Larry Parr is correct to repeat here a little e-mail campaign to revoke >> or >> reverse Laurie on this subject. > > Baked, broiled or fried herring? Fish contains omega-fatty > acids, you know. Just beware of mercury. Is that far enough? Corn-fed has some problems with authority and achievement. Any kind at all except his own. He is not currently percipient to this fact, so talks fish instead. That's enough. Whoever can write this preamble can conclude as 'we' wish. <shrug > Phil Innes > >> Though such campaigning is a 'shy subject' for Taylor Kingston is quite >> beside the point of whether he is right or not. What is at point is >> Kingston's resentment of Evans because he declined to give even more >> space >> to his protestations. > > I see. So you are obsessed with the issue of TK > vs. LP, who wins, and in what round? > > --------- > > I was objecting to the logical error wherein some > poor fool claimed that Larry Evans' chess ability was > chopped and grated by merely pointing out facts. In > reality, the playing strength of LE is irrelevant, since > the flaw in his article lay elsewhere. But for the > record, at the time LE published his article, he was > no longer in the same class as Dr. Nunn, so it also > falls flat from that approach, though that is really > irrelevant and immaterial. > > -------- > > >> This is interpreted by Kingston as avoiding an unpleasant truth - >> whereas, >> and I have somewhere, the declined letter - any continuation of the >> subject >> in Chess Life cannot have seemed fruitful to Evans because Kingston never >> improved upon or developed his first contested point. > > TK should never have expected a "fair trial" treatment > in the pages of Chess Lies. That would have been an > anomaly, much like you or me winning the World Open. > > >> I might add that it also sought to lionise the issue between two poles - >> and >> if extensive correspondance on those lines were to be developed, >> published >> and so on, it would be, IMO, insufficient to compass the issue. > > As Larry Evans himself noted, there is little point in > participating in censored (or otherwise manipulated) > mediums such as the USCF forum -- or here, Chess > Lies magazine. > > Every editor or column writer will skew things his > own way, so the best advice is like that for dealing > with lobes-be-three weeds: leave it be. > > > -- help bot >       Date: 07 Nov 2007 04:03:52 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? MORE DRIVEL FROM KENNEDY "Not to grant provisional assent to the hypothesis of coercion on Keres seems willfully obtuse. Conclusion: the Commies did it." -- Taylor Kingston on Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 Championship. That issue has been rehashed ad infinitum and most scholars now agree with Larry Evans's analysis of the games in his groundbreaking article THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES (Chess Life, October 1996). But the Botster conveniently omits the attempt by NMnot Kingston to secretly contact Richard Laurie to try and persuade him to retract an item he submitted to Chess Life. "I didn't want to spend three months of my life watching Soviets throw games to each other," Reuben Fine explained to GM Evans when asked why he declined to participate in the 1948 World Championship. Needless to add, the Botster is again short on research and long on opinions. help bot wrote: > On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life > > (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World > > Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to > > analyze by saying Nunn was the better player. > > > That statement grossly misrepresents the facts. > > What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he > alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain > "clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game. > > That argument was easily skewered by pointing out > that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much > stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his > "analysis". > > The fact remains that this is and was not chess > analysis per se, so the question of relative strength > is merely an aside to the real question; but even so, > there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM > Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger > players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this > ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since > chess is only a game. > > The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic > and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players; > even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely > requires an ability to think /rationally/. > > In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been > shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet > cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must > have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the > case, but we may never see it, thanks to these > hacks. > > > -- help bot       Date: 07 Nov 2007 00:15:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life > (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World > Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to > analyze by saying Nunn was the better player. That statement grossly misrepresents the facts. What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain "clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game. That argument was easily skewered by pointing out that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his "analysis". The fact remains that this is and was not chess analysis per se, so the question of relative strength is merely an aside to the real question; but even so, there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since chess is only a game. The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players; even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely requires an ability to think /rationally/. In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the case, but we may never see it, thanks to these hacks. -- help bot         Date: 07 Nov 2007 12:15:51 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Nov 6, 10:24 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life >> (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World >> Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to >> analyze by saying Nunn was the better player. > > > That statement grossly misrepresents the facts. > > What GM Evans tried to do was argue that he, and he > alone was a good enough analyst to "detect" certain > "clues" embedded in the moves of some chess game. > > That argument was easily skewered by pointing out > that even after seeing these alleged "clues", much > stronger players than GM Evans disagreed with his > "analysis". > > The fact remains that this is and was not chess > analysis per se, so the question of relative strength > is merely an aside to the real question; but even so, > there can be no doubt that at his advanced age, GM > Evans was no longer any match for a host of younger > players, including GM Nunn. Personally, I find this > ego-stroking business appalling -- all the more since > chess is only a game. > > The real issue can be settled in the realms of logic > and reason -- even by the weakest of chess players; > even by the likes of Sanny or Rob Mitchell. It merely > requires an ability to think /rationally/. > > In my opinion, the case for GM Bronstein has been > shortchanged by it having been adopted as a pet > cause by the likes of LP and LE; surely there must > have been some /rational/ approach to presenting the > case, but we may never see it, thanks to these > hacks. Pardon me! What a farce of an argument. If you don't like American opinion, I can, and have done, offered Russian ones which make any Evans statement seem quite mild in contrast. And this is merely to answer in the rather narrow vein proposed by those who contest what Evans has said. To mention but a couple of factors, the //experience// of engaging Russian chess at this level during the cold war is rather different than having 'opinions' about it by latter-day saints and GM Nunn! Larry Parr is correct to repeat here a little e-mail campaign to revoke or reverse Laurie on this subject. Though such campaigning is a 'shy subject' for Taylor Kingston is quite beside the point of whether he is right or not. What is at point is Kingston's resentment of Evans because he declined to give even more space to his protestations. This is interpreted by Kingston as avoiding an unpleasant truth - whereas, and I have somewhere, the declined letter - any continuation of the subject in Chess Life cannot have seemed fruitful to Evans because Kingston never improved upon or developed his first contested point. I might add that it also sought to lionise the issue between two poles - and if extensive correspondance on those lines were to be developed, published and so on, it would be, IMO, insufficient to compass the issue. Phil Innes > > -- help bot > > > > > > > >       Date: 06 Nov 2007 07:27:50 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 10:17 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Mr. Kingston, > > Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like > the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it > is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in > life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely > practiced. It would transform life for all of us. > Alas, if only it were that simple. People have widely varying definitions of "that which is right," often including provisos to the effect that it is right to kill those who have slightly different definitions. In life, as in chess, general principles apply only so far. Eventually one must get down to concrete specifics.       Date: 06 Nov 2007 15:17:17 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 6:50 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 6, 3:55 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:21 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > THE REV. STEERS CLEAR > > > > But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get > > > him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered > > > unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck ... Hence > > > the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev. > > > > Larry Parr > > > I believe I have learned a lesson from my > > engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to > > have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they > > can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs > > as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and > > forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down, > > the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a > > "trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I > > salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for > > me. :^) > > A very apt description of the process, Rev. Walker. BTW, let me > assure you that contrary to Larry's assertion, I bear you no > hostility. > Also BTW, I noticed you saying "I'd like to urge everyone to 'Do > that which is right.'" Is that still the ULC's motto? As I recall, it > was when I first heard of it back in the 1960s. Mr. Kingston, Thank you. I do not think motto is the correct word. It is more like the Bible of the ULC. Yet it is only one sentence. The beauty of it is that it encourages one to develop good judgment and apply it in life. I wish that this one simple piece of advice were more widely practiced. It would transform life for all of us. Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 03:52:28 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? THE SAM HATERS <I would recommend just ignoring Sam.-- Taylor Kingston There is little doubt that NMnot Taylor Kingston, a class A player who proclaimed himself to be 2300+ Elo rated, hates Sam Sloan. There are a few other ritualistic Sloan haters and, to be sure, a fair number of Sloan detractors. Contrary to NMnot Kingston's lies, Sam has also attracted several supporters. This writer is one, and GM Larry Evans has long espoused many of his views about chess governance. . The current attempt to explain away Sam's accomplishments is to argue that , like a broken clock, he gets the time right twice a day when shouting about USCF lapses and crooked deals. Nonsense. Sam wrote voluminously about the disastrous USCF decision to leave New York, the center of American chess, for atrocious Crossville, Tennessee -- our Caissic cross-to-bear. His critique, if anything, understated the costs, though at the time, he appeared totally over the top. The truth about Crossville first began to appear when Sam and this writer began questioning the nature of title to the property and the cost of the small new building, which is about 45 percent the size of the old headquarters in New Windsor. I finally reported that the cost would run to at least $650,000 -- over twice the initial estimates. I was called "a liar" by the usual suspects,. Just two months later the Board itself released PRECISELY THAT NUMBER as the new estimated cost. If one counts future ancillary costs of that tiny building, the real cost of construction and aintenance and improvement will run to a million or more bucks. Sam was at the forefront in exposing the horrors of moving to Crossville, and his attacks hit home nearly every time. His errors were frequently underestimations of costs because he tried to use conservative numbers. The response to the above will be something about Sam having wives, babies, and reporting that GM Leko was dead. In short, the ad hom reponses will be vicious and irrelevant. But such is the style of NMnot Kingston and his ilk. A pleasing aspect of Sam is that he writes under his own name. Unlike NMnot Kingston, Sam has never felt a need to invent other monickers so as to PRAISE HIMSELF. That really was the limit when our NMnot posted under other names in order to support himself during debates. Such is not in Sam's character. He is an honest man, sometimes mistaken but sincere -- unlike our NMnot. Yours, Larry Parr Taylor Kingston wrote: > On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > > > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > > > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > > > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > > > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > > > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. > > > > Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting > > interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, > > so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. > > Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a > while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you > can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people > some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the > USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation > that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is > occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real > investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock > is right twice a day. > Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today." > When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant > powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all. > > > I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback > > or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? > > Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do > this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to > posting the history of his sex life on the internet. > > > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > > months or so until Sam gets bored. > > That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam > and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.   Date: 02 Nov 2007 02:18:30 From: samsloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus > > Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan. > > He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah > > yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period > > in which he offered every excuse imaginable for > > poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air > > in the same room with Sam Sloan. > > . > > Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our > > NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations > > for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his > > wares elsewhere. His choice. > > It seems to me that this cannot be just another case > of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that > Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten > that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie" > about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing > to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant > facts. > > For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote > that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he > was talking about his superb correspondence chess > record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not > a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to > detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have > warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue. Not true. Here is the exact quote: Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+ On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote: > 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." ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a correspondence chess rating. When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face rating was over 2300. By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to 2300 under the new system. Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have never been above the 1800 level. Sam Sloan     Date: 06 Nov 2007 19:24:27 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? LET ME HAZARD A GUESS <By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested. > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. For the record, our NMnot Kingston is a private email type who wants to send dirt on this or that opponent. See, for example, his "confidential" attempts with Richard Laurie, author of an interesting play on Alekhine that has been produced. He tried to persuade Laurie to retract an item he submitted to Chess Life. BLAST FROM THE PAST OPEN LETTER FROM RICHARD LAURIE (April 2 2006): "Mr. Kingston's memory is extremely faulty. He contacted me on the Net, then wanted to send me materials to try and win me over to his side of the argument -- that Evans was wrong. After that he said HE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE QUIET [emphasis mine] just between us. It sounded a little shaky, but so far I saw nothing wrong. "Then he said he contacted the editor and asked if it would be okay for him to say I had changed my mind.. That's when I jumped on him in my last letter, that I had not changed my mind and agreed to look at his materials only to see what he had to offer.. I found nothing substantial there and I told him that as far as secrecy went, he already violated that by jumping the gun and contacting the editor. "Mr. Kingston e-mailed me about half a dozen times. While I never showed Evans any of his material, I told him I did feel perfectly free to show Evans my own responses. All anyone has to do is read Kingston's article in Chess Life (about Keres throwing games to Botvinnik in the 1948 World Championship] to see that he denigrated Evans' ability to analyze by saying Nunn was the better player. "Kingston wanted me to retract my printed view of the situation as it appeared in Evans On Chess. He wanted me to say that I was wrong and. therefore, Evans was wrong ..I even wrote the editor saying I had not changed my mind, and that ended the matter." And now NMnot Kingston crawls a bit to the Rev. Walker. Please note the implicit admission of having lied: in his previous posting, he told the Rev. that he did not understand the twitching frog story. Now he understands it all quite perfectly. He's oleaginous all right. j.d.walker wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:21 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > THE REV. STEERS CLEAR > > > > <I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will.> -- > > Rev. J.D. Walker > > > > The Rev. Walker has decided not to inhale these > > forums mists and exhalations. He will be missing a > > great deal. One had hoped he could have tried his > > hand at one monster thread -- just to learn the joys. > > Perhaps the significance of "The" in "The Historian," > > an exchange I had with one Neil Brennen, would have > > significance eventually for the Rev. Walker. > > > > But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get > > him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered > > unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck. > > > > Yes, I understood the twitching frog story, and I > > am fairly sure that the Rev. Walker understands that > > our NMnot Kingston understood it all too well. Hence > > the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev. > > > > Larry Parr > > > > j.d.walker wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT. > > > > > > >Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any > > > > > > argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of > > > > importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too > > > > seriously.> -- Taylor Kingston > > > > > > Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that > > > > he does not take the debates here too seriously even > > > > as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog. > > > > He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of > > > > this and other writers who disagree with him as well as > > > > people he respects. > > > > > > To be sure, the claim that he does not take the > > > > debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply > > > > please reread the man's evidently anguished > > > > posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for > > > > yourself. He lies even when he says that he > > > > reprehends lying. > > > > > > My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing > > > > of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under > > > > other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise > > > > YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? > > > > > > A yes or no will suffice. > > > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > > And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it! > > > > > > j.d.walker wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is > > > > > > > > > this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several > > > > > > > > > debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice > > > > > > > > > like myself is missing? > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > > > > Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware > > > > > > > > that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name > > > > > > > > "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that > > > > > > > > into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is > > > > > > > > convincing. > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Kingston, > > > > > > > > > I am going to stay out of this quarrel. > > > > > > > > I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself > > > > > > in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me > > > > > > convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those > > > > > > who know the facts he is just another dirty politician. > > > > > > In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I > > > > > > can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never > > > > > > resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are > > > > > > free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope > > > > > > to persuade the reasonable minority. > > > > > > > > > It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real > > > > > > > purpose for it. > > > > > > > > Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from > > > > > > Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that > > > > > > mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when > > > > > > it stares us in the face? > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and > > > > > > > nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it. > > > > > > > > Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why > > > > > > it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides. > > > > > > > > > Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar? > > > > > > > > My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his > > > > > > mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect. > > > > > > He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam > > > > > > Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE > > > > > > governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and > > > > > > inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically. > > > > > > However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I > > > > > > don't take our debates too seriously. > > > > > > > > > <begin sermon> > > > > > > > To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order > > > > > > > that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to > > > > > > > participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or > > > > > > > berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a > > > > > > > captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did. > > > > > > > <end sermon> > > > > > > > > The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my > > > > > > disagreements with Parr eludes me. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > > > > > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > > > > > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > > > > > > society.' > > > > > > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > > > > > > Mr. Kingston, > > > > > > > I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I > > > > > believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe > > > > > his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it > > > > > several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when > > > > > you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as > > > > > wrong. However, consider the following story. > > > > > > > Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named, > > > > > let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just > > > > > a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He > > > > > nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he > > > > > would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the > > > > > impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o' > > > > > shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it > > > > > gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted. > > > > > He was in control. > > > > > > > If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this > > > > > question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage? > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, > > > Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the > > > crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let > > > you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose > > > arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of > > > twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > Mr. Parr, > > I am not leaving the forum just yet. I have other windmills to tilt > at in other threads. I believe I have learned a lesson from my > engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to > have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they > can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs > as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and > forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down, > the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a > "trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I > salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for > me. :^) > > By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering > to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a > complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested. > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.     Date: 06 Nov 2007 06:50:54 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 3:55 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:21 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > THE REV. STEERS CLEAR > > > But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get > > him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered > > unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck ... Hence > > the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev. > > > Larry Parr > > I believe I have learned a lesson from my > engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to > have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they > can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs > as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and > forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down, > the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a > "trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I > salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for > me. :^) A very apt description of the process, Rev. Walker. BTW, let me assure you that contrary to Larry's assertion, I bear you no hostility. Also BTW, I noticed you saying "I'd like to urge everyone to 'Do that which is right.'" Is that still the ULC's motto? As I recall, it was when I first heard of it back in the 1960s.     Date: 06 Nov 2007 08:55:30 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 12:21 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > THE REV. STEERS CLEAR > > <I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will.> -- > Rev. J.D. Walker > > The Rev. Walker has decided not to inhale these > forums mists and exhalations. He will be missing a > great deal. One had hoped he could have tried his > hand at one monster thread -- just to learn the joys. > Perhaps the significance of "The" in "The Historian," > an exchange I had with one Neil Brennen, would have > significance eventually for the Rev. Walker. > > But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get > him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered > unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck. > > Yes, I understood the twitching frog story, and I > am fairly sure that the Rev. Walker understands that > our NMnot Kingston understood it all too well. Hence > the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev. > > Larry Parr > > j.d.walker wrote: > > On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT. > > > > >Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any > > > > argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of > > > importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too > > > seriously.> -- Taylor Kingston > > > > Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that > > > he does not take the debates here too seriously even > > > as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog. > > > He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of > > > this and other writers who disagree with him as well as > > > people he respects. > > > > To be sure, the claim that he does not take the > > > debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply > > > please reread the man's evidently anguished > > > posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for > > > yourself. He lies even when he says that he > > > reprehends lying. > > > > My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing > > > of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under > > > other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise > > > YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? > > > > A yes or no will suffice. > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > > And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it! > > > > j.d.walker wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is > > > > > > > > this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several > > > > > > > > debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice > > > > > > > > like myself is missing? > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > > Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware > > > > > > > that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name > > > > > > > "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that > > > > > > > into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is > > > > > > > convincing. > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Kingston, > > > > > > > I am going to stay out of this quarrel. > > > > > > I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself > > > > > in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me > > > > > convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those > > > > > who know the facts he is just another dirty politician. > > > > > In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I > > > > > can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never > > > > > resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are > > > > > free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope > > > > > to persuade the reasonable minority. > > > > > > > It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real > > > > > > purpose for it. > > > > > > Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from > > > > > Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that > > > > > mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when > > > > > it stares us in the face? > > > > > > > It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and > > > > > > nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it. > > > > > > Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why > > > > > it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides. > > > > > > > Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar? > > > > > > My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his > > > > > mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect. > > > > > He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam > > > > > Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE > > > > > governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and > > > > > inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically. > > > > > However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I > > > > > don't take our debates too seriously. > > > > > > > <begin sermon> > > > > > > To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order > > > > > > that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to > > > > > > participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or > > > > > > berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a > > > > > > captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did. > > > > > > <end sermon> > > > > > > The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my > > > > > disagreements with Parr eludes me. > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > > > > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > > > > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > > > > > society.' > > > > > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > > > > Mr. Kingston, > > > > > I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I > > > > believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe > > > > his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it > > > > several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when > > > > you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as > > > > wrong. However, consider the following story. > > > > > Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named, > > > > let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just > > > > a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He > > > > nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he > > > > would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the > > > > impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o' > > > > shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it > > > > gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted. > > > > He was in control. > > > > > If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this > > > > question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage? > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, > > Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the > > crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let > > you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose > > arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of > > twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. > > > Cheers, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. Mr. Parr, I am not leaving the forum just yet. I have other windmills to tilt at in other threads. I believe I have learned a lesson from my engagement in this thread. Some of the participants are likely to have saved years of this drivel so that at the appropriate time they can dredge it up and throw it over the fence at a pack of baying dogs as they conceive their opponents to be. Then this goes back and forth. As an incident involving hundreds of posts finally dies down, the seasons pass, Someone innocently and unknowingly writes a "trigger text" and then the whole thing comes to life once again. I salute your ability to make the frog twitch Larry, but it is not for me. :^) By the way, one of the participants sent me a private email offering to send me scads of dirt on an opponent proving that the man was a complete scoundrel. No, thanks. Not interested. Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.     Date: 03 Nov 2007 00:45:32 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? samsloan <[email protected] > wrote: > ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a > correspondence chess rating. False. Elo is a system of rating, developed by Arpad Elo, for the USCF. It is also used by FIDE and numerous other organizations, not even restricted to chess. Dave. -- David Richerby Pickled Poetic Laser (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intense beam of light but it's in verse and preserved in vinegar!       Date: 03 Nov 2007 10:48:52 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:SYg*[email protected]... > samsloan <[email protected]> wrote: >> ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a >> correspondence chess rating. > > False. Elo is a system of rating, developed by Arpad Elo, for the > USCF. It is also used by FIDE and numerous other organizations, not > even restricted to chess. That's true historically Don Schultz got Dr. Elo to evolve the system //Chess Don. Sloan's point is that it then became [almost] universally adopted, so that the /same pool/ of players are referenced by Fide - whereas USCF ratings [like British ones] deviated from the world pool of players. Phil Innes > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Pickled Poetic Laser (TM): it's > like > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intense beam of light but > it's in > verse and preserved in vinegar!   Date: 01 Nov 2007 23:53:23 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus > Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan. > He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah > yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period > in which he offered every excuse imaginable for > poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air > in the same room with Sam Sloan. > . > Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our > NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations > for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his > wares elsewhere. His choice. It seems to me that this cannot be just another case of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie" about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant facts. For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he was talking about his superb correspondence chess record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue. If one is desperate to find a lie, look no further than the fib Mr. Innes told about his supposed title and rating, claiming to have been both "nearly an IM" and to have held a rating of "2450". The fact that IM Innes is one of the ratpack is rather ironic, I think. > Oh, yes, our NMnot has also posted under other > names on this forum IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF And let's not forget about Sanny. > The man has a rock. He must needs recrawl beneath it. Mr. Parr is mistaken. Taylor Kingston lives high in the sky, in a big castle I expect. From up there, he looks down upon mere mortals with disdain -- much like Nick Burbaki or Larry Evans. The rent on such a spread must be a killer... . -- help bot   Date: 02 Nov 2007 06:05:49 From: Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 1, 5:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > We are starting to sound a bit overboard in anti-Sloan talk. Sloan has > identified some sleazy behavior which would not have come out without > his persistence. He found that one USCF figure was falsifying ratings, > and made sure this person was forced to step down. Although Motterhead > was the person who identified FSS, I think that Sloan's persistence > makes it much more likely that the miscreant will pay a price for it. > > Sloan is like the boy who cried wolf. Sometimes his suspicions point > in the wrong direction, but like the boy who cried wolf, they also > sometimes identify dangerous characters. I do not consider myself to > be a supporter of Sloan, but I do pay attention to what he says, and > try to determine whether or not it is accurate. > > I think that Sloan believes all of his actions are for the good of > chess. If all the plots he believes in (sincerely, I think) were true, > he would be correct to try to publicize the supposed transgressions. > However, he often attributes USCF's failure to make money, which comes > at least in part from some inherent problems and from the standard > incompetence which you will find in all organizations, to attempts to > steal money from the federation. His quickness to believe in such > plots make him hard to deal with for many people who are trying to do > the best they can in a difficult position. > > So continue to read Sam Sloan's statements, but you should definitely > not take them as gospel truths. If I used a killfile, I would be much > more likely to use it on cus Roberts, Ray Gordon, and Phil Innes. > However, each of them can, in their own way, amuse me, so I read them > all. > > Jerry Spinrad > > On Nov 1, 8:59 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > > > > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > > > > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > > > > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > > > > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > > > > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. > > > > Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting > > > interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, > > > so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. > > > Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a > > while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you > > can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people > > some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the > > USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation > > that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is > > occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real > > investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock > > is right twice a day. > > Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today." > > When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant > > powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all. > > > > I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback > > > or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? > > > Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do > > this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to > > posting the history of his sex life on the internet. > > > > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > > > months or so until Sam gets bored. > > > That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam > > and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So let's be clear, Sam Sloan has the power to make chess news. Compared to Paul Troung, Sloan is an angel. I have the power to make news, and Ray Gordon has the power to make news. Why? Paul Troung - EB member - has given some pretty minor characters real power to make BIG news. Gordon's experience suing Google and costing those 60,000 makes his posts worth reading. Everyone knows what is coming, it's just a question of waiting for the police. My fear is that Paul threatened to kill me in New York, and the Texas Tech police have no power to prosecute from crimes he committed in New York. So, while gulity, is there a power to prosecute in Texas? I don't know.... I find it pretty hard to believe myself the station we face. But I can't believe that attacking Sloan is justified anymore with the behavior of EB member Paul Troung. My police reports, verified by Ray Gordon, prove that I was a victim of a crime and a potential plaintiff. That means I am worth reading. In a perfect world, Troung would just resign. In this manner, Paul is worse than Sam Sloan ever was. I really was disappointed with Sloan's behavior, but compared to Paul Troung, sloan did a wonderful job. Sloan did not break the law while in office, Troung has broken the law, while in chess office, having something to do with CHESS! What is certain is that a real lawyer suing Paul will force his removal from the EB Board and Texas Tech. Susan's fate is far from certain, but my guess is that once Paul is sued, Texas Tech will simply not renew her contract. cus Roberts   Date: 01 Nov 2007 15:01:48 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? We are starting to sound a bit overboard in anti-Sloan talk. Sloan has identified some sleazy behavior which would not have come out without his persistence. He found that one USCF figure was falsifying ratings, and made sure this person was forced to step down. Although Motterhead was the person who identified FSS, I think that Sloan's persistence makes it much more likely that the miscreant will pay a price for it. Sloan is like the boy who cried wolf. Sometimes his suspicions point in the wrong direction, but like the boy who cried wolf, they also sometimes identify dangerous characters. I do not consider myself to be a supporter of Sloan, but I do pay attention to what he says, and try to determine whether or not it is accurate. I think that Sloan believes all of his actions are for the good of chess. If all the plots he believes in (sincerely, I think) were true, he would be correct to try to publicize the supposed transgressions. However, he often attributes USCF's failure to make money, which comes at least in part from some inherent problems and from the standard incompetence which you will find in all organizations, to attempts to steal money from the federation. His quickness to believe in such plots make him hard to deal with for many people who are trying to do the best they can in a difficult position. So continue to read Sam Sloan's statements, but you should definitely not take them as gospel truths. If I used a killfile, I would be much more likely to use it on cus Roberts, Ray Gordon, and Phil Innes. However, each of them can, in their own way, amuse me, so I read them all. Jerry Spinrad On Nov 1, 8:59 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > > > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > > > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > > > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > > > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > > > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. > > > Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting > > interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, > > so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. > > Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a > while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you > can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people > some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the > USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation > that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is > occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real > investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock > is right twice a day. > Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today." > When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant > powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all. > > > I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback > > or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? > > Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do > this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to > posting the history of his sex life on the internet. > > > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > > months or so until Sam gets bored. > > That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam > and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.   Date: 01 Nov 2007 07:16:00 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 1, 7:56 am, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > > months or so until Sam gets bored. > > Unlikely. He's been posting relentlessly for longer than I've been > here, which is about four years. > > Use software that will allow you to filter out his posts. > > Dave. I use web based usenet news reader, because I don't want my harddrive cluttered up with Usenet message or waste time downloading them. I also like Google's search feature. The downside is I don't have a kill filter. - Rich   Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:59:20 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. > > Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting > interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, > so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today." When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all. > I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback > or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to posting the history of his sex life on the internet. > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > months or so until Sam gets bored. That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.   Date: 31 Oct 2007 23:16:47 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > speak up please? > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > Dave. > > > Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and > > considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) > > posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was > > a relevant misc topic. > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > pornography, racism, and his various other interests. Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here, so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters. I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again? Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 months or so until Sam gets bored. - Rich     Date: 01 Nov 2007 11:56:47 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6 > months or so until Sam gets bored. Unlikely. He's been posting relentlessly for longer than I've been here, which is about four years. Use software that will allow you to filter out his posts. Dave. -- David Richerby Frozen Love Tool (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer that you can share with someone special but it's frozen in a block of ice!   Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:56:35 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 7:25 pm, [email protected] wrote: > My money says Sam is an excellent EB member. Really -- it says that? Mine talks incessantly about being "parted" from fools, and how it expects very soon to be on the move once again. > If Paul Troung wants to threaten > to kill me, then I am going to put Sam BACK ON THE BOARD. What other > defense do I have? Um, "checkmate" PT? > I am a former officer of the company, and a court will look at my > judgement as much as any other officer. > The old board being put back is a common law remedy. Deal with it! You do realize that even if SS were to get back on the USCF board, he would still have but one vote -- just like before? The last time, we heard a lot about what was going on that SS did not like, but he seemed powerless to do more than merely irritate the real powers, like the BGs. The way things seem to work there, you need to "own" at least a couple of other board members, so as to get your ideas voted in and so as to keep the ideas of your enemies (there is always a war going on) nixed. Maybe the idea is just to stir up trouble, for the sake of our amusement? -- help bot   Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:50:46 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? A TRUE FARCEUR <Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in improving chess. > -- Taylor Kingston NMnot Taylor Kingston claims that Sam Sloan has no interest in improving chess. Nonsense. Sam's record as a Board member in which he exposed enormous cost overruns and the crooked behavior of USCF Executive Board members was outstanding. NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan. He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period in which he offered every excuse imaginable for poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air in the same room with Sam Sloan. . Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his wares elsewhere. His choice. Oh, yes, our NMnot has also posted under other names on this forum IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF -- and then told us that he has these things called "standards." A true farceur. That is also a useful area to revisit if this poseur fails to subside. The man has a rock. He must needs recrawl beneath it. Yours, Larry Parr --- Taylor Kingston wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > speak up please? > > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > > Dave. > > > > Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and > > considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) > > posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was > > a relevant misc topic. > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > pornography, racism, and his various other interests.     Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:56:14 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 6, 3:32 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, > > Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the > > crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let > > you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose > > arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of > > twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. > > I see you are a /real/ gentleman, rev! I appreciate you taking the > high-ground like this, while cleverly avoiding the muddy realms of content, > as such, where the people plod. > > Sadly I can't find any content in this current message to actually > obfusticate. Sorry to dissapoint, but was the objectionable material the > rule of law, possibly? Or is the objection to the metaphysic in the title > header; "will do", which contendibly argues in absentia against his record > which is as, "has been" or "not done already"? > > And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I > hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such > is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the > drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth! > > Cordially, Phil Innes > The Manse, > Green Pastures Road, > Republic of Vermont. > > > Cheers, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I > hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such > is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the > drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth! Dear Mr Innes, No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church My credentials are in the mail... I can say that I support the doctrine of this ministry 100% and believe it has good application for chess players. As for the designation U.C., it has a more mundane purpose. In this case it is short for <Under Construction >. Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.       Date: 06 Nov 2007 12:15:14 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:56:14 -0000, "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site >and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church >My credentials are in the mail... Did you opt for the holographic ID card? It adds a level of authenticity and prestige which, at times, may come in handy. For example, at the reception after the one wedding I conducted, a clergyman guest of the more traditional seminary background attempted polite conversation and asked where I'd done my training. I merely flashed my holographic ID and had to say nothing. He too remained silent, so I assume he was properly impressed.         Date: 06 Nov 2007 19:22:10 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Armchair Philosophizing Mike Murray wrote: > On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:56:14 -0000, "j.d.walker" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> No, I am not a Unitarian. To be completely honest, examine this site >> and form your own opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church >> My credentials are in the mail... > > Did you opt for the holographic ID card? It adds a level of > authenticity and prestige which, at times, may come in handy. For > example, at the reception after the one wedding I conducted, a > clergyman guest of the more traditional seminary background attempted > polite conversation and asked where I'd done my training. I merely > flashed my holographic ID and had to say nothing. He too remained > silent, so I assume he was properly impressed. Hi Mike, When I was investigating I noticed at least a half dozen organizations claiming various kinds of association with ULC. The Seattle Monastery group in particular had apparently broken off relations with another "headquarters" group that sprang from the original founder. A number of these groups seem to be in it for the money they can get by merchandising. I chose the "Headquarters" group. I do not know what sort of credentials they will send me. It will be the default set. I may put the bucks out to get the ULC press pass. It could be fun to have press privileges at some events. I do not plan to do weddings or funerals. The concept of exorcisms does intrigue me. Maybe we could team up and exorcise this news group some day. :^) Or, maybe we could simply exorcise Mr. Parr. He seems to have a fixation on shocking dead toads. :^) I added the "U.C." suffix so that people would have a shot at learning that it stood for "Under Construction." Then they would be less likely to confuse me with a traditional religious ordained minister. The main thing though is that I do agree with the statement: "Do that which is right." and I don't mind talking about it. (See other messages in this thread.) Thanks for the nudge that your messages gave me, leading me to investigate ULC. -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' -- (Exodus 23:2) 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.' -- Jiddu Krishnamurti     Date: 06 Nov 2007 00:21:29 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? THE REV. STEERS CLEAR <I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will. > -- Rev. J.D. Walker The Rev. Walker has decided not to inhale these forums mists and exhalations. He will be missing a great deal. One had hoped he could have tried his hand at one monster thread -- just to learn the joys. Perhaps the significance of "The" in "The Historian," an exchange I had with one Neil Brennen, would have significance eventually for the Rev. Walker. But he wishes to steer clear. I had hoped to get him embroiled with NMnot Kingston, who offered unwitting provocation. Alas, no luck. Yes, I understood the twitching frog story, and I am fairly sure that the Rev. Walker understands that our NMnot Kingston understood it all too well. Hence the barely disguised hostility from NMnot toward the Rev. Larry Parr j.d.walker wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT. > > > > >Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any > > > > argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of > > importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too > > seriously.> -- Taylor Kingston > > > > Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that > > he does not take the debates here too seriously even > > as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog. > > He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of > > this and other writers who disagree with him as well as > > people he respects. > > > > To be sure, the claim that he does not take the > > debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply > > please reread the man's evidently anguished > > posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for > > yourself. He lies even when he says that he > > reprehends lying. > > > > My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing > > of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under > > other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise > > YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? > > > > A yes or no will suffice. > > > > Yours, Larry Parr > > And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it! > > > > j.d.walker wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is > > > > > > > this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several > > > > > > > debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice > > > > > > > like myself is missing? > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > > Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware > > > > > > that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name > > > > > > "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that > > > > > > into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is > > > > > > convincing. > > > > > > > Dear Mr. Kingston, > > > > > > > I am going to stay out of this quarrel. > > > > > > I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself > > > > in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me > > > > convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those > > > > who know the facts he is just another dirty politician. > > > > In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I > > > > can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never > > > > resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are > > > > free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope > > > > to persuade the reasonable minority. > > > > > > > It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real > > > > > purpose for it. > > > > > > Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from > > > > Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that > > > > mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when > > > > it stares us in the face? > > > > > > > It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and > > > > > nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it. > > > > > > Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why > > > > it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides. > > > > > > > Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar? > > > > > > My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his > > > > mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect. > > > > He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam > > > > Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE > > > > governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and > > > > inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically. > > > > However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I > > > > don't take our debates too seriously. > > > > > > > <begin sermon> > > > > > To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order > > > > > that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to > > > > > participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or > > > > > berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a > > > > > captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did. > > > > > <end sermon> > > > > > > The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my > > > > disagreements with Parr eludes me. > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > > > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > > > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > > > > society.' > > > > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > > > > Mr. Kingston, > > > > > I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I > > > believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe > > > his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it > > > several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when > > > you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as > > > wrong. However, consider the following story. > > > > > Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named, > > > let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just > > > a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He > > > nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he > > > would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the > > > impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o' > > > shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it > > > gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted. > > > He was in control. > > > > > If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this > > > question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage? > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, > Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the > crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let > you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose > arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of > twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.     Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:11:26 From: j.d.walker Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Nov 4, 10:45 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT. > > >Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any > > argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of > importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too > seriously.> -- Taylor Kingston > > Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that > he does not take the debates here too seriously even > as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog. > He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of > this and other writers who disagree with him as well as > people he respects. > > To be sure, the claim that he does not take the > debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply > please reread the man's evidently anguished > posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for > yourself. He lies even when he says that he > reprehends lying. > > My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing > of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under > other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise > YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? > > A yes or no will suffice. > > Yours, Larry Parr > And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it! > > j.d.walker wrote: > > On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is > > > > > > this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several > > > > > > debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice > > > > > > like myself is missing? > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware > > > > > that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name > > > > > "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that > > > > > into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is > > > > > convincing. > > > > > Dear Mr. Kingston, > > > > > I am going to stay out of this quarrel. > > > > I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself > > > in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me > > > convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those > > > who know the facts he is just another dirty politician. > > > In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I > > > can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never > > > resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are > > > free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope > > > to persuade the reasonable minority. > > > > > It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real > > > > purpose for it. > > > > Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from > > > Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that > > > mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when > > > it stares us in the face? > > > > > It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and > > > > nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it. > > > > Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why > > > it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides. > > > > > Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar? > > > > My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his > > > mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect. > > > He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam > > > Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE > > > governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and > > > inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically. > > > However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I > > > don't take our debates too seriously. > > > > > <begin sermon> > > > > To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order > > > > that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to > > > > participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or > > > > berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a > > > > captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did. > > > > <end sermon> > > > > The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my > > > disagreements with Parr eludes me. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > > > society.' > > > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > > Mr. Kingston, > > > I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I > > believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe > > his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it > > several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when > > you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as > > wrong. However, consider the following story. > > > Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named, > > let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just > > a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He > > nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he > > would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the > > impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o' > > shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it > > gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted. > > He was in control. > > > If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this > > question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage? > > > Cheers, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.       Date: 06 Nov 2007 11:32:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? "j.d.walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > No, no! I will not stand in judgment, playing Moe to your Curly, > Larry... Neither will I be seduced by the scent of fresh pine and the > crisp crackle of Tesla energies. I will adroitly hop aside and let > you all proceed as you will. I offer my place to Phil Innes whose > arts of obfuscation give him the tools to survive in this garage of > twitching toads and barking moon bats.. As you were gentlemen. I see you are a /real/ gentleman, rev! I appreciate you taking the high-ground like this, while cleverly avoiding the muddy realms of content, as such, where the people plod. Sadly I can't find any content in this current message to actually obfusticate. Sorry to dissapoint, but was the objectionable material the rule of law, possibly? Or is the objection to the metaphysic in the title header; "will do", which contendibly argues in absentia against his record which is as, "has been" or "not done already"? And do these allusions mean you are a Unitarian flavored Presbyterian? I hear the mathematical ones are worse than the romantic poet kind, but such is to be expected out along the highway. Perhaps one shouldn't be mixing the drinks so much, the tea and the sherry all in an afternoon, forsooth! Cordially, Phil Innes The Manse, Green Pastures Road, Republic of Vermont. > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. >   Date: 01 Nov 2007 00:25:18 From: Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 7:14 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > > speak up please? > > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > > Dave. > > > Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and > > considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) > > posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was > > a relevant misc topic. > > Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess > regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception > of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in > improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. > He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with > pornography, racism, and his various other interests.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - My money says Sam is an excellent EB member. If Paul Troung wants to threaten to kill me, then I am going to put Sam BACK ON THE BOARD. What other defense do I have? I am a former officer of the company, and a court will look at my judgement as much as any other officer. The old board being put back is a common law remedy. Deal with it! cus Roberts former USCF Vice President   Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:14:01 From: Taylor Kingston Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > > speak up please? > > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > > Dave. > > Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and > considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) > posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was > a relevant misc topic. Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself. He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with pornography, racism, and his various other interests.   Date: 31 Oct 2007 11:22:08 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > > speak up please? > > Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. > > Dave. Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was a relevant misc topic. - Rich     Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:45:51 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? HE DOESN'T TAKE THESE DEBATES SERIOUSLY. NOT. >Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is convincing....However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I don't take our debates too seriously. > -- Taylor Kingston Taylor Kingston, Mr. 2300+ Elo, tells us that he does not take the debates here too seriously even as he squiggles to the occasion like that shocked frog. He tells us that he debates to dispel the mendacity of this and other writers who disagree with him as well as people he respects. To be sure, the claim that he does not take the debates seriously is a serious lie in itself. Simply please reread the man's evidently anguished posting in response to the Rev. Walker. Judge for yourself. He lies even when he says that he reprehends lying. My question to NMnot Kingston within the hearing of the Rev. Walker: did you write messages under other names on these forums in which you undertook to praise YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS? A yes or no will suffice. Yours, Larry Parr And, alas for the fate of my soul, lovin' it! j.d.walker wrote: > On Nov 4, 6:13 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 7:45 pm, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:01 am, "j.d.walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself: "why is > > > > > this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several > > > > > debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice > > > > > like myself is missing? > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > > Rev. Walker, as an rgcp novice, it would appear you are not aware > > > > that Mr. Parr is known here and in other chess circles by the name > > > > "Liarry" Parr. His mendacity is legendary. I suggest you take that > > > > into consideration before deciding that any argument of his is > > > > convincing. > > > > > Dear Mr. Kingston, > > > > > I am going to stay out of this quarrel. > > > > I had the impression that you had just decided to involve yourself > > in it, by stating that you found Parr's arguments regarding me > > convincing. Parr can sound very convincing to the uninformed; to those > > who know the facts he is just another dirty politician. > > In any event, having been involved in these quarrels far longer, I > > can only agree with your current decision. These quarrels never > > resolve, because there is no ultimate authority. The smear-artists are > > free to repeat their lies when and as they choose. One can only hope > > to persuade the reasonable minority. > > > > > It appears that it has been going on for far longer than it should. There seems to be no real > > > purpose for it. > > > > Well, I see that you include in your signature a quote from > > Scripture, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Does that > > mean we should do nothing to oppose wrongdoing by an individual when > > it stares us in the face? > > > > > It appears that there is plenty of mendacity and > > > nastiness available for anyone that wants to wallow in it. > > > > Oh, the rec.games.chess groups are absolutely full of it. That's why > > it's so important to be well informed before choosing sides. > > > > > Larry admits that he is drawn by the thrill of debate. Is your motivation similar? > > > > My motivation regarding Larry Parr has generally been to counter his > > mendacity. He has unfairly maligned both myself and people I respect. > > He supports people not worthy of respect, such as the egregious Sam > > Sloan. Parr and I agree on some important issues (e.g. FIDE > > governance), but in other areas his dishonesty is serial and > > inexcusable, both in general terms and regarding myself specifically. > > However, he is not anyone of importance (neither am I, really), so I > > don't take our debates too seriously. > > > > > <begin sermon> > > > To my mind the whole idea of a rating system is an illusion of order > > > that doesn't exist in the real world. That people choose to > > > participate in it and judge each other by it, whether to honor or > > > berate, is a bit pathetic. Yet, I admit that I also was once a > > > captive of the rating gods. You can break free! I did. > > > <end sermon> > > > > The message of your sermon is commendable. Its relevance to my > > disagreements with Parr eludes me. > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C. > > > > > 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.' > > > -- (Exodus 23:2) > > > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick > > > society.' > > > -- Jiddu Krishnamurti > > Mr. Kingston, > > I take no stand on the merits of the facts behind the arguments. I > believe Mr. Parr when he says he is in this for kicks. I also believe > his claim that this argument keeps resurfacing as I have seen it > several times in my short sojourn here. Lastly, I believe you when > you say that you are attempting to fight something you regard as > wrong. However, consider the following story. > > Once upon a time, there was a retired professor of biology named, > let's say, "Curly." He still liked to keep his hand in the trade just > a little bit. So he set up a small laboratory in his garage. He > nailed several dead frogs to an old pine board. Whenever needed, he > would go out to the garage to apply voltage to the bottoms of the > impaled frogs. It gave him secret delight tinged with a wee bit o' > shame to watch them kick furiously. He loved the sense of power it > gave him to realize he could go out and do this whenever he wanted. > He was in control. > > If this little story actually has any bearing, I am left with this > question: When will the frogs no longer respond to the voltage? > > Cheers, > Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.     Date: 31 Oct 2007 15:40:25 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Rich Hutnik wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how >>> Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you >>> speak up please? >> Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. >> >> Dave. > > Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and > considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?) > posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was > a relevant misc topic. > > - Rich > You were wrong. -- 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 Oct 2007 17:19:35 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how > Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you > speak up please? Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs. Dave. -- David Richerby Swiss Nuclear Atom Bomb (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a weapon of mass destruction that's made of atoms but it's made in Switzerland!   Date: 31 Oct 2007 06:06:49 From: Rich Hutnik Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 2:41 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > > please? > > You have to understand, Mr. Sloan is very shy. In fact, if it > weren't for the Fake Sloan(s), we would never have heard a peep > out of him here. Asking him to expound on his "agenda" is a bit > like asking an ant what it is planning to do when it stops standing > around, jabbering. Mr. Sloan is a worker bee; he has no time to > jibber-jabber, for he is always working non-stop for the good of > chess, etc., etc. > > When Mr. Sloan was on the board, he seemed obsessed with > financial matters, with the USCF's money (or what little of it was > left). This reminds me of our local chess organization, of pizza > parties and other wise "investments" they made with the > membership fees. Not that I'm envious, you know; they were, > after all, anchovie and mushroom (blech) pizzas... . > > -- help bot Are you say he is going to sign up Pizza Hut as a sponsor and serve pizza at all the championship chess matches in the USA? - Rich   Date: 30 Oct 2007 23:41:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess? On Oct 31, 12:19 am, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] > wrote: > With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how Mr. Sloan > can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you speak up > please? You have to understand, Mr. Sloan is very shy. In fact, if it weren't for the Fake Sloan(s), we would never have heard a peep out of him here. Asking him to expound on his "agenda" is a bit like asking an ant what it is planning to do when it stops standing around, jabbering. Mr. Sloan is a worker bee; he has no time to jibber-jabber, for he is always working non-stop for the good of chess, etc., etc. When Mr. Sloan was on the board, he seemed obsessed with financial matters, with the USCF's money (or what little of it was left). This reminds me of our local chess organization, of pizza parties and other wise "investments" they made with the membership fees. Not that I'm envious, you know; they were, after all, anchovie and mushroom (blech) pizzas... . -- help bot