Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+
Sam Sloan
On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
<tkin...@chittenden.com> 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."
This posting has generated more than one hundred comments in less than
a week because Taylor Kingston has a published USCF rating of 1811 and
it never happens that a 2300 player drops to 1811.
Taylor Kingston has a list of chess personalities he attacks all the
time. It Is a remarkable coincidence that his list is identical with
the list of chess personalities that Edward Winter attacks all the
time. That list includes Ray Keene, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, who
happen to be the three most prolific and widely read chess authors in
the world. Accordingly, I should be honored that my name has been
added fairly recently to this list of famous chess personalities who
are constantly attacked by Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston.
For example, about Chess Icon Larry Evans, Taylor Kingston wrote,
"Evans is grossly, amazingly dishonest. … Today is my 30th wedding
anniversary, and I would rather be celebrating it with my wife, than
arguing with a greasy weasel."
It is interesting that Taylor Kingston refers to his 30th wedding
anniversary, because Edward Winter has been attacking Ray Keene for
the past 30 years. The man I met a few years ago who identified
himself as Taylor Kingston seemed to be much younger than I imagined
Edward Winter to be, but now it seems that the age difference may not
be a big hole in my theory that Taylor Kingston and Edward Winter are
actually the same person.
Taylor Kingston asserts that he is stronger than 99% of the chess
players in the world and therefore he is not weak. However, I did not
compare him to the great unwashed masses. I compared Taylor Kingston
to Grandmaster William Lombardy. What I actually wrote was:
Grandmaster William Lombardy has since told me that that he
knew that the games were fixed ever since he became a strong player in
the early 1950s because of the numerous suspicious moves in these
games. Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he
cannot understand these simple and obvious points.
Taylor Kingston is simply unable to comprehend his own inadequacies as
a chess player. He is like a man with a short penis who thinks that
his penis is long. Taylor Kingston thinks that his opinion about chess
positions are just as valid as those of Grandmaster Lombardy. He does
not comprehend that chess players pay money to buy books and magazines
by grandmasters like Evans and Lombardy, whereas nobody would pay a
penny for the chess opinions of an 1811 player like Taylor Kingston.
Regarding his claim to have been a 2300+ Elo rated player, after it
was pointed out that the highest his USCF rating has ever been was
1853 and he has never has an Elo rating, Taylor Kingston said that in
1985 he had an 1806 correspondence rating which was the equivalent of
2300.
This is a lie for many reasons. Here are a few of them.
The USCF correspondence ratings are the old Chess Review ratings which
the USCF purchased in the late 1960s. These are not Elo ratings at
all. Under that system, a player got to select his own initial rating.
A player could start himself at 600, 900, 1200, or 1500. When I
played, I always started my rating at 600, preferring to start at the
bottom and work my way up. My opponents often complained that I was
stronger than my rating. Somebody like Taylor Kingston who wants to
prove how great he is could start himself at 1500 and without much
difficulty reach 1806. Nobody would claim that this was the same as a
2300 Elo rating.
Also, Taylor Kingston claimed that he was the number 46 rated player
in the entire country. Another lie. There are many correspondence
chess federations. There is the CCLA, the ICCF and the APTC among
others. Serious correspondence players play with the CCLA or the ICCF,
not with the USCF. Being the number 46 correspondence player with the
USCF probably does not even make the player in the top two hundred in
the country.
Another gaffe that Duncan Oxley pointed out is that Taylor Kingston's
correspondence rating is only 2037.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630
Taylor Kingston says that this is his rating from 1985, as he has not
played since then.
However, 1985 is the same year that Taylor Kingston said that he had a
2300 + Elo rating. Apparently, Taylor Kingston does not see the
difference between a 2300+ rating and a 2037 rating.
USCF ratings are not Elo ratings. Elo ratings are FIDE ratings which,
until 1984, were done by Professor Elo himself.. USCF ratings were
originally calculated under the Harkness System and now are under the
Glickman System. Neither of these systems are similar to the Elo
System and nobody has ever called USCF ratings Elo ratings.
Correspondence ratings have also never been done under the Elo System.
So, the short of it is that Taylor Kingston is just an all-around
liar.
Sam Sloan
Yousef
> himself as Taylor Kingston seemed to be much younger than I imagined
> Edward Winter to be, but now it seems that the age difference may not
> be a big hole in my theory that Taylor Kingston and Edward Winter are
> actually the same person.
>
Give it a rest pal. Taylor is some Jamaican scumbag who probably picks the
lice out of his Rasta braids. Who cares what he says?
Taylor Kingston
For readers interested in the actual facts, I refer them to the first
post in the thread "Falling into Holes with Parr and Sloan" on
rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.politics.
I will add that the "greasy weasel" referred to below was Larry Parr,
not Larry Evans as Sam's misquote would have you believe.
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+
>
> On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkin...@chittenden.com> 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."
>
> This posting has generated more than one hundred comments in less than
> a week because Taylor Kingston has a published USCF rating of 1811 and
> it never happens that a 2300 player drops to 1811.
>
> Taylor Kingston has a list of chess personalities he attacks all the
> time. It Is a remarkable coincidence that his list is identical with
> the list of chess personalities that Edward Winter attacks all the
> time. That list includes Ray Keene, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, who
> happen to be the three most prolific and widely read chess authors in
> the world. Accordingly, I should be honored that my name has been
> added fairly recently to this list of famous chess personalities who
> are constantly attacked by Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston.
>
> For example, about Chess Icon Larry Evans, Taylor Kingston wrote,
> "Evans is grossly, amazingly dishonest. c Today is my 30th wedding
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
>
>Duncan Oxley wrote:
>> I want to stay out of this but one small comment:
>>
>> "Another gaffe that Duncan Oxley pointed out is that Taylor Kingston's
>> correspondence rating is only 2037" is slightly misleading. I was merely
>> commenting on the new MSA feature of displaying current correspondence
>> rating.
>
> Thanks, Duncan.
> The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
>chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
>responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
>chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
>games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
>down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
>Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
>top 1%.
I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston. Now that we
know him a little better, we know that almost everything he writes is
a lie.
He would have had to lose a very large number of games to drop 250
points just by forfeiting his remaining games.
Even if this highly improbable story turns out to be true, Taylor
Kingston is still a liar. He started this by writing that his Elo
rating was 2300+. Elo ratings were ratings calculated by Professor
Elo. He never calculated correspondence chess ratings and thus
correspondence chess ratings have never been Elo ratings.
Also, correspondence chess players have access to books, computers and
friends who help them with analysis. Many top correspondence players
are not strong over-the-board. Dr. Norman Hornstein of North Carolina
was consistently rated among the top players on the Chess Review list,
yet his over-the-board rating was 1750. Gary Abram was the number one
correspondence player in the US and winner of the Golden Knights, but
his over-the-board rating was 1950. Nobody would claim that even the
number 45 player on the USCF postal list was the equivalent of 2300
over-the-board.
> Contrary to what Sloan says, I make no claim that this makes me at
>all important, or the equal of GMs Evans or Lombardy as an analyst. I
>merely submit that it shows I was not the "weak player" Sloan and Parr
>tried to claim. I leave Sloan now to his mendacious contortions and
>semantic chaos.
>
What I wrote was that Taylor Kingston was too weak to see the numerous
subtle errors in the Keres-Botvinnik match which enabled Botvinnik to
win that match 4-0. Does Taylor Kingston seriously dispute that fact?
I am a vastly stronger chess player than Taylor Kingston but I freely
admit that I cannot see the blunders in the Keres-Botvinnik match. I
can just see the one very obvious blunder I have displayed on my
website at http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm
Tell you what. I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for one
thousand dollars cash money on the table. No electronic devices and no
going to the restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston really
is.
Sam Sloan
P.S. you do have to bring photo ID however, to prove that your name
really is Taylor Kingston.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Sam Sloan
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>You're such a moron, Sloan. Really, you are.
>
>Mark Houlsby
And as for you, I will play you a chess match for money BLINDFOLDED.
Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
*and* much more lucrative.
Mark Houlsby
Frisco Del Rosario
> Tell you what. I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for one
> thousand dollars cash money on the table. No electronic devices and no
> going to the restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston really
> is.
Sam must be a fecalphiliac. He carries his baby around at a policy board
meeting in her soiled diaper, and now he's asking Taylor Kingston to sit
across the board from him while Sam is crapping his pants.
Sam, if you can get Gordon Roy Parker to play a match with you, I'll put
up the prize fund myself.
--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061
Sam Sloan
Rosario) wrote:
>Sam, if you can get Gordon Roy Parker to play a match with you, I'll put
>up the prize fund myself.
>
>--
>Frisco Del Rosario
>A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061
Do you really expect me to take on an Internet Grandmaster like Gordon
Roy Parker for money?
I would be terrified at the prospect. I prefer to stick to the sure
things, like Taylor Kingston, who I know I can beat, even though he
keeps referring to himself as "a master".
Sam Sloan
fed up
I don't buy Taylor Kingston's "explanation" of his rating fib. I don't
buy his imaginary grievances against Larry Parr or GM Evans either.
fed up
Vaughn Sturtevant
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42aa1015...@ca.news.verio.net...
> On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Duncan Oxley wrote:
> >> I want to stay out of this but one small comment:
> >>
> >> "Another gaffe that Duncan Oxley pointed out is that Taylor Kingston's
> >> correspondence rating is only 2037" is slightly misleading. I was
merely
> >> commenting on the new MSA feature of displaying current correspondence
> >> rating.
> >
> > Thanks, Duncan.
> > The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
> >chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
> >responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
> >chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
> >games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
> >down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
> >Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
> >top 1%.
>
> I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
> way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
> find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston. Now that we
> know him a little better, we know that almost everything he writes is
> a lie.
correspondence players as no. 45 with a rating of 1806 (master level in the
rating system of those old days) in the april issue of Chess Life.
parrt...@cs.com
I think Taylor Kingston simply engaged in some
wish-fulfillment without thinking too much about it.
He certainly did not expect anyone to search out the
facts as you did.
You are correct: he meant to deceive when
stating offhand that he was ELO 2300, but let's give
him a chance simply to make amends.
If Mr. Kingston sends his regret that he let his
ego get in the way of his self-respect, I will say
that he has done a courageous thing and is on the road
to self-repair.
lb...@blackburn.edu
- fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:13 -0700)
"You and Blair make me sick. ..."
- fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:15 -0700)
"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:16 -0700)
"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:19 -0700)
"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:24 -0700)
"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:29 -0700)
"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:38 -0700)
"Horsefeathers. I don't buy ..."
- fed up (10 Jun 2005 18:22:01 -0700)
"Horsefeathers. I don't buy ..."
- fed up (10 Jun 2005 18:22:06 -0700)
"NEIL IS CHRONOLOGICALLY ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 05:48:39 -0700)
"NEIL IS CHRONOLOGICALLY ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 05:49:04 -0700)
"TROLLSBY AND BRENNEN ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 21:47:13 -0700)
"TROLLSBY AND BRENNEN ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 21:48:38 -0700)
"... tournament at Buenos Aires in 1960."
- Larry Parr (3 Jun 2005 15:09:27 -0700)
"... tournament at Buenos Aires in 1960."
- Larry Parr (3 Jun 2005 15:09:53 -0700)
"... Chess Life, June 2005, page 12 ..."
- Larry Parr (6 Jun 2005 16:10:22 -0700)
"... Chess Life, June 2005, page 12 ..."
- Larry Parr (6 Jun 2005 16:11:01 -0700)
politi...@gmail.com
And I would be willing to forgive you for your defense (celebration?)
of statutory rape. As atonement, please write a 10,000-word essay
entitled, "Just Because Soldiers on Leave Do It Doesn't Make It Right."
Pedro
your defense (celebration?) of statutory rape.>>
Dear Inbred cornholing dicksucker fag,
Larry Parr pointed out that Sloan's article clearly stated the woman was 19
years old. The ones in the huts were of unknown origin, but Sloan did not
claim they were underage. Unless you were there servicing the men, you do
not know, so shut your HO mouth, Beeyatch.
It is bad enough that every Chess Masters first sexual encounter is with a
prostitute, but then we also have to deal with the homosexualization of the
USCF.
Mark Houlsby
I note that--up to now--Sloan has neglected to file suit against you.
If you're slandering him, why doesn't he do that, I wonder?
He attacks you here, repeatedly, but he doesn't sue you...
Hmmmm. It's a puzzle, this one.
Regards,
Mark Houlsby
The Historian
Mark Houlsby wrote:
> Dear Bill Brock,
>
> I note that--up to now--Sloan has neglected to file suit against you.
> If you're slandering him, why doesn't he do that, I wonder?
>
> He attacks you here, repeatedly, but he doesn't sue you...
Sounds like a description of the Brattleboro Bedlam. His I-ness has
been threatening legal action of some kind against me since 2001, and
against other posters since 1998.
politi...@gmail.com
Sam Sloan, so you probably believe he is creditworthy. I understand
that Sloan likes to litigate.
I have called him, and now call him, a "kiddie fucker." Loan him the
funds to sue me.
205 W. Randolph etc.
Something isn't adding up here! Kindly explain it to me, Pedro.
Or should I say "Pedro"?
Pedro
Pedro.
>
What isn't adding up is your I.Q. is smaller than your dick, and you have to
be a lowlife on the level of Trailor Trash Kingston.
I guess it is easy for you bottom-feeders to attack some indigent person who
seems to have spent much of his life as a fan of Chess.
But you are a good example of why Chess does not thrive. The people like you
that are involved turn off anybody who is not a glutton for punishment. I
was briefly involved as a student years ago, and when I realized that Chess
is full of assholes like you, I decided I was not going to spend a penny of
my money supporting it.
You are an asshole. You probably smell like old cheese, and you met your
wife through some kind of mail-order bride service. Then she left you for
some unemployed drunk who treated her better than you did. None of your kids
looks like you, and your ex-wife eventually admitted that they were all from
other men she had made love to during the marriage.
Mark Houlsby
Why doesn't Sam sue? Surely there are grounds?
politi...@gmail.com
Pedro
>
You are just bitter because Sam is the true father of your children, and
stole away your Mail-Order Bride.
I admire Sam. He is a sleazy little rascal with numerous kids from various
wives and a sense of irresponsible adventure. His life would probably become
a TV Movie on Showtime or Spice TV. When the going gets rough, does Sam
retreat? No, he goes to Asia and hunts down some hapless family and buys
their prettiest daughter. Sure, those relationships are doomed to failure,
but for at least a few years Sam is back in the saddle and for somebody who
must be around 60 years old, that is pretty good.
So, you can slander and libel the guy all you want, but the last laugh is on
you. He is still getting young poontang, and he probably is the father of
all of your kids.
Sam Sloan, A Chess Master in the tradition of thousands of other sleazy
reprobates who have darkened the halls of the USCF with their garlic aroma.
You should all vote for Sam. He is truly the essences of Chess. The only
reason that you hate him is because he reminds you folks of what you really
are. Sam lives the life you wish you could live.
politi...@gmail.com
"Sam Sloan, A Chess Master [...]" What's his ELO?
Larry Parr is willing to forgive you.
Copacabana
>
Electric Light Orchestra? I liked them back in the late 1970s, early 1980s.
It is amazing to see that you Chess guys rate each other based on ELO.
I bet the band never knew this, or they might not have broken up. I used to
have most of their LPs, so I should have a pretty high ELO rating myself. I
saw Xanadu back around 1980, and that should be worth about 200 points just
considering how bad the movie was.
I guess Checkers Federation rates each other based on Metallica? What's your
MET?
Mark Houlsby
Not a lol, but definitely a l.
Terry
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1118402414.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
For readers interested in the actual facts, I refer them to the first
post in the thread "Falling into Holes with Parr and Sloan" on
rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.politics.
I will add that the "greasy weasel" referred to below was Larry Parr,
not Larry Evans as Sam's misquote would have you believe.
You havent answered the question. Have you lied about your rating ?
Regards
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+
>
> On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
> <tkin...@chittenden.com> 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."
>
> This posting has generated more than one hundred comments in less than
> a week because Taylor Kingston has a published USCF rating of 1811 and
> it never happens that a 2300 player drops to 1811.
>
> Taylor Kingston has a list of chess personalities he attacks all the
> time. It Is a remarkable coincidence that his list is identical with
> the list of chess personalities that Edward Winter attacks all the
> time. That list includes Ray Keene, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, who
> happen to be the three most prolific and widely read chess authors in
> the world. Accordingly, I should be honored that my name has been
> added fairly recently to this list of famous chess personalities who
> are constantly attacked by Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston.
>
> For example, about Chess Icon Larry Evans, Taylor Kingston wrote,
> "Evans is grossly, amazingly dishonest. … Today is my 30th wedding
Mark Houlsby
He hasn't lied about his rating. He made a slight miscalculation in
converting it from the old US Postal system to a more up-to-date Elo,
but then, after this error was pointed it out, acknowledged the same,
and revised the rating downward by about 50 points.
Several trolls make a *big thing* about ratings. The main reason why
they do this, evidently, is to divert attention from the fact that they
have *lost* an argument.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Mark
Sam Sloan
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.
Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
System and has never been close.
Sam Sloan
Taylor Kingston
Sam Sloan wrote:
> There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
> system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.
Even small children of low intelligence usually need to touch a hot
stove only once, to learn that touching a hot stove is a bad idea. But
not our Sam! When one of his glaring errors is pointed out, he just
keeps repeating it over and over, like a defective Energizer Bunny with
a tape loop.
USCF converted all their postal ratings directly from the old
CR-style system to the OTB-style Elo system circa 1987, as others on
this group have already pointed out.
> Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
> Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
> System and has never been close.
Sam continues to swear on a Bible that day is night. Another of those
errors he keeps repeating is that only FIDE ratings are Elo ratings.
Wrong.
As I pointed out directly to Sam on 6 June, the USCF rating system
was designed by Dr. Arpad Elo himself. The USCF has used the Elo rating
system since 1960, BEFORE FIDE, which began using it about 10 years
later. USCF ratings are Elo ratings. I quote again from Elo's "The
Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco, 1978), page 11: "Since 1960 the [Elo]
system has been used by the USCF for rating its entire membership."
In the postal rating conversion, my peak rating of 1816 in early 1985
would have converted to about 2270, as has already been pointed out on
this group. I was incorrect to believe it would have been 2300+, but,
contrary to Sam's above assertion, it was close.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
>system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.
>Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
>Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
>System and has never been close.
AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
although the Elo rating system is used to calculate USCF ratings, and
also could be used to calculate ratings used by clubs or regional
organizations.
While a conversion from the old Chess Review formula to the Elo
formula could easily be made (and errors would eventually correct
themselves), it wouldn't be to what most people call "Elo", but to
one more system managed according to the Elo system.
So, Sam has a point, but it's less significant that he would like to
make it, IMO.
>
>Sam Sloan
Mark Houlsby
>AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
*any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
*equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
Mike Murray:
>although the Elo rating system is used to calculate USCF ratings, and
also could be used to calculate ratings used by clubs or regional
organizations.
Right. This contradicts your initial statement, which, it turns out, is
horse manure.
Mike Murray:
>While a conversion from the old Chess Review formula to the Elo
formula could easily be made (and errors would eventually correct
themselves), it wouldn't be to what most people call "Elo", but to
one more system managed according to the Elo system.
Wrong again. See above.
Mike Murray:
>So, Sam has a point,
Wrong again. See above.
Mike Murray:
>but it's less significant that he would like to
make it, IMO.
It's a *lot* less significant than he would like to make it. It's not
significant *at all* what with its being pure *horse manure*.
Terry
There is something strange with uscf ratings. How can somebody have
a supposed rating of 2270 20 years ago but only have a 1500 icc rating now.
It doesnt make sense.
The USCF converted postal ratings to OTB.
This involved 2 completely different populations and is
statistically impossible.
As I understand it you never exceeded 1900 OTB.
All very strange.
Terry
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1118617515.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Murray wrote:
>>AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>
>
>
> Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
> *any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
> *equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
> ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
>
You are correct but it is statistically impossible to convert ratings
from one to another ie USCF cannot be converted to ICC.
Regards
Mark Houlsby
Murray seem confused on this point.
Actually, the latter may have figured it out by now. If the former has,
I shall most probably faint.
Regards,
Mark
Mark Houlsby
>There is something strange with uscf ratings. How can somebody have
a supposed rating of 2270 20 years ago but only have a 1500 icc rating
now.
It doesnt make sense.
It makes sense to me. Lots of people cheat on ICC. Then there are
mouseslips. Then there's premoving. There's no chess on ICC. What's
called "chess" on ICC is actually a chess variant. Admittedly, it
*looks* a lot like chess, but it's not chess, what with premoving and
cheating and all.
>The USCF converted postal ratings to OTB.
Wrong.
>This involved 2 completely different populations and is
statistically impossible.
Right.
Old postal ratings were converted to new postal ratings.
>As I understand it you never exceeded 1900 OTB. All very strange.
Strange...how? Zeitnot is the bane of theory, I find. If you read any
issue of Informator published in, say, the last fifteen years (indeed,
you may have done this) you will quickly discover that zeitnot is
responsible for a great many gross blunders even with respect to 2700+
GMs.
Once again: Taylor is arguing only that he is not *weak*. Once again:
several deranged trolls: Jason Repa, Simon Spivack, Sam Sloan, Phil
Innes,... etc. etc. like to belittle people's intelligence by mocking
their ratings.
Are you like those deranged trolls, Terry, or can you accept that
Taylor (who readily admits that he is not a strong player) is not
*weak*, as Sloan, Parr et al keep asserting?
Does it still seem "...very strange"?
Chess One
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1118617515.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>
>
>
> Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
> *any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
> *equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
> ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
I don't think this is wrong. An ELO rating is obtained for regularly timed
chess, under regular rules, and with an arbiter present. All these types of
rating need be assessed by the same methods to be considered ELO
equivalents.
Phil Innes
Mark Houlsby
To be an Elo rating, it has only to derive from Elo's original concept.
You're deranged. All that stuff which you believe is *in your head* and
*nowhere else*.
Mark Houlsby
Taylor Kingston
Terry wrote:
> There is something strange with uscf ratings. How can somebody have
> a supposed rating of 2270 20 years ago but only have a 1500 icc rating now.
I don't know. You will have to take up that question with the ICC
1500 player. I do not have an ICC rating (if by that you mean Internet
Chess Club), or any online chess rating -- I have never played online.
I played some ICCF (International Correspondence Chess Federation)
games years ago, but ICCF did not use ratings then.
> The USCF converted postal ratings to OTB.
> This involved 2 completely different populations and is
> statistically impossible.
Are you one of Sam's pseudonyms? That's his kind of misquote. Or is
it a deliberate distortion? To repeat what I actually said: "USCF
converted all their postal ratings directly from the old CR-style
system to the OTB-style Elo system circa 1987."
> As I understand it you never exceeded 1900 OTB.
> All very strange.
Yes, postal chess allows more time, and therefore I could play more
accurately. You should try taking more time yourself; you might avoid
such gaffes as you commit here.
Chess One
My brain hurts! Someone took my Naturol and now I have not any. However,
have contrived explanation below:-
Converting Elo ratings <<<----emphasis on ratings
not Elo's mathematical basis <<<---- brain hurty factor, can readers spot
difference?
to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and without an
arbiter is intellectual cheating.
It does not at all follow that a any-rated postal player is the same as any
any-rated OTB player. We don't know anything about the OTB performance of
the postal player - maybe he is even better than his postal rating? or
worse? But the scales are quite seperate, and you can't mix and match, since
the rules for both items are quite different.
As a famous 1450 player myself, I am, like Goran Tomic, also an internet GM
[sometimes even for a week or two anyway] but have always beeen too shy to
say so, but more importantly haven't mentioned it because being an
internet-GM is absolutely not comparable with being a real GM.
Anyway got to go work on the house.
<yodel along with me> Home, Home on deRange! Where the paint peals and the
Naturol grows!
Deranged, Phil Innes
Mark Houlsby
That's right, ratings. There's more than one kind of Elo rating, some
of which are only loosely based upon Elo's idea. So an ICC rating is
different from an SCA rating is different from a USCL rating is
different from a DWZ rating is different from a WCN rating is different
from a USCF rating is different from a....but they're *all* Elo
ratings. DUH! Converting *between* Elo ratings requires different
methods, because, on account of their various uses' being widespread,
those uses are correspondingly disparate.
DUH!
Now... Taylor has NEVER argued that his US postal rating is
*equivalent* to an OTB rating. He's argued *only* that he is not
*weak*. Is that too difficult to understand you deranged trolling
moron?
Bitter Lemonly, Mark Houlsby
Mike Murray
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Mike Murray wrote:
>>AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
>*any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
>*equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
>ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
I agree that any rating system employing Elo's system *should* be
called "Elo". And I'll further agree that what I'm calling common
usage might be a regional anomaly. But, I've heard various strong
players say they wanted to play in such-and-such an event to "get an
Elo", even though they already had USCF ratings.
The discussion of the Elo rating system in
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/ELO-rating-system
seems to support what I'm saying when they state:
"The phrase "ELO rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating
as calculated by FIDE. However, this usage is confusing and often
misleading, because Élo"'s general ideas have been adopted by many
different organizations, including the USCF (before FIDE), the
Internet Chess Club (ICC), Yahoo! Games, and the now defunct
Professional Chess Association (PCA). Each organization has a unique
implementation, and none of them precisely follows Élo"'s original
suggestions. It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above
ratings as ELO ratings, and none of them as the ELO rating."
Chess One
Your own wit and wisdom are somewhat suspect in recent postings, and you
have taken to snipping so much of people's posts as to make them seem
incoherent to benefit whatever point you attempt to promote - a bad habit
you've picked up somewhere, but if you want to be taken seriously its
something to avoid, since its so obviously a form of cheating the
discussion.
Neither do I write long to amuse abusive hysterics. Previously you have
demanded evidence and proofs, while simultaneously snipping them, then
demanding more attention by obliging others to restore them.
I never called Taylor Kingston weak, and certainly never said he was *weak*
on any day of the week. I said precisely that you cannot tell if a player is
weak OTB by virtue of a postal rating.
I believe I already answered that and other CHESS CONTENT questions of
converting ratings, which YOU have snipped, and as for moron, trolling and
so on...
Phil Innes
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1118668877....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Mark Houlsby
Phil Innes wrote:
Dear Mark Houslby,
>Your own wit and wisdom are somewhat suspect in recent postings, and you
have taken to snipping so much of people's posts as to make them seem
incoherent to benefit whatever point you attempt to promote - a bad
habit
you've picked up somewhere, but if you want to be taken seriously its
something to avoid, since its so obviously a form of cheating the
discussion.
When I discuss your posts with you *in detail* inviting you to put
*your point-of-view* with respect to your *every point* about which I
am unclear, you decline to do so. When I respond with one-liners, you
complain about that, too. When I reproduce only a part of what you
write, you complain about that, too, but NEVER do we reach a
satisfactory conclusion. The reason we NEVER reach a satisfactory
conclusion is ALWAYS your RETICENCE.
>Neither do I write long to amuse abusive hysterics. Previously you have
demanded evidence and proofs, while simultaneously snipping them, then
demanding more attention by obliging others to restore them.
That's right, I've tried *everything I can imagine*, Phil, but STILL
you decline to engage in a grown up dialogue. Why?
>I never called Taylor Kingston weak, and certainly never said he was *weak*
on any day of the week. I said precisely that you cannot tell if a
player is
weak OTB by virtue of a postal rating.
Yes you did, and you were right about that. Taylor has NEVER claimed
the contrary. What you HAVE done, however, is jump into the debate on
the side of your fellow deranged troll Sam Sloan, who is evidently
convinced of some conspiracy on Taylor Kingston's part. You have
likewise appeared convinced of such a conspiracy, viz: between Kingston
and Brennen, even *after* it's been CLEARLY explained to you that it's
nonsense. Why do you persist in this nonsensical belief, Phil?
>I believe I already answered that and other CHESS CONTENT questions of
converting ratings, which YOU have snipped, and as for moron, trolling
and
so on...
You forgot "deranged", Phil.
Mark Houlsby
Taylor Kingston
Mike Murray wrote:
> I agree that any rating system employing Elo's system *should* be
> called "Elo". And I'll further agree that what I'm calling common
> usage might be a regional anomaly. But, I've heard various strong
> players say they wanted to play in such-and-such an event to "get an
> Elo", even though they already had USCF ratings.
"Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by the World Chess
Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players over the entire world
... Subsequently many national chess federations have adopted the
system for their own purposes." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of
Chessplayers Past and Present" (Arco 1978) page 11.
Theoretically, the Elo system can be used for any one-on-one
competition: tennis, billiards, racquetball, horseshoes, dominoes,
boxing, arm-wrestling, etc. If there were any objective win-lose-draw
criteria, it might even be applicable to newsgroup pissing contests.
Sam Sloan
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>Mike Murray wrote:
>>AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>
>
>
>Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
>*any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
>*equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
>ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
>
I hope you are aware that Mark Houlsby is a rated 1295 player in his
native Scotland and knows NOTHING about this subject. He just has a
loud mouth.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
question that I did not already answer. And frankly, I do not feel obliged
to answer! Especially such a little snipper such as you who offer so much
abuse - you are a bit like a petulent child, no?
I am my own master and if its popularity you think I want, you think wrong.
Otherwise I rather feel that it is you who are the troll - you know -
endlessly dissatisfied with the way that other people are... zzz ... full of
abstract complaints.
As for your complaint below that I have jumped into the debate on behalf of
Sam Sloan, this is untrue. I recently wrote Taylor Kingston that he himself
stated that he first wrote to me based on what I had written about Averbakh
3 years ago. I offered liar Brennen to take the test to ask Kingston Taylor
himself if this were the case, and he declined. So much for his interest ;)
I have tried to assess what this business of Kingston/Evans has to do with
Keres/Botvinnik, inter Alia Averbakh. No one has admitted any connection.
Phil Innes
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1118671658.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
David Richerby
> to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
> without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.
You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Sadistic Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it wants to hurt you!
David Richerby
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>> AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>>
>> Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
>> *any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
>> *equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
>> ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
Exactly.
> I don't think this is wrong. An ELO rating is obtained for regularly
> timed chess, under regular rules, and with an arbiter present. All
> these types of rating need be assessed by the same methods to be
> considered ELO equivalents.
No. The chess federations of country X and country Y can both calculate
ratings using Elo's system, for games played under the same conditions but
the ratings are still not directly comparable. If there are players who
have played in both countries, we can extrapolate from their ratings to
compute the *approximate* rating that a country X player would have in
country Y but that's the best that can be done.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Revolting Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but it'll turn your
stomach!
Chess One
"David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:W1m*z+...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
>> without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.
>
> You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
> under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
> calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
> independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.
I wrote the same thing here this morning.
A chess rating is not an abstraction nor a metaphor nor a mathematical
system. It needs real-time play, regular rules, and a real arbiter present.
David Richerby
> I hope you are aware that Mark Houlsby is a rated 1295 player in his
> native Scotland and knows NOTHING about this subject.
That's a truly spectacular non sequitur. Well done!
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it's
huge!
Rob
OK,
Before this idea is dismissed offhand, please think about it first.
In baseball you have a ifetime batting average and a current bating
average. From one year to the next, a player may have a better average.
Over a career an entirely different result might appear.
What is there were "life-time" chess ratings as well as annual ratings?
Of course, I am thinking of a highly organized and well compensated
group of players here as well. Just an idea for thoughtful serious
discussion.
Rob
Mike Nolan
>What is there were "life-time" chess ratings as well as annual ratings?
>Of course, I am thinking of a highly organized and well compensated
>group of players here as well. Just an idea for thoughtful serious
>discussion.
I don't know how to compute a lifetime rating, do you?
--
Mike Nolan
Rob
Mike,
The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating? What
would be needed to be decided upon then is an annual rating for play.
Perhaps everyone starts the first tournament with same rating(whatever
that might be) and as they play over the course of a year their annual
rating is caculated. Of course those same match scores would be used
for the lifetime scores as well.
It may not work. It might make the game a bit more exciting though.
Rob
Terry
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:42adb76d...@ca.news.verio.net...
A high rating is not necessary to comment on ratings.
Regards
Chess One
> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Murray wrote:
>>>> AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
>>>
>>> Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
>>> *any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
>>> *equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
>>> ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>> I don't think this is wrong. An ELO rating is obtained for regularly
>> timed chess, under regular rules, and with an arbiter present. All
>> these types of rating need be assessed by the same methods to be
>> considered ELO equivalents.
>
> No. The chess federations of country X and country Y can both calculate
> ratings using Elo's system, for games played under the same conditions but
> the ratings are still not directly comparable. If there are players who
> have played in both countries, we can extrapolate from their ratings to
> compute the *approximate* rating that a country X player would have in
> country Y but that's the best that can be done.
Not so. Look at the initial list above, which among others includes ICC
ratings - in addition to games played at full time, there must also be an
arbiter present. ICC ratings are not transposable therefore.
Postal chess is an inflated rating-medium, since the look-ups benefit the
player's strength, and is no test of their otherwise unaided play OTB. It is
also not transposable as an indicator of OTB strength.
Mathematically Elo's idea can be applied to any sport or game, but chess
ratings specifically require real-time play under arbiter supervision to be
ratable. Otherwise they are like-ratings, but not alike enough to transpose
one type [in this case correspondance] into an equivalent OTB. So to say
that one's Elo is 2300 by some transpostion method of extrapolating that
from correspondance 1800 is a nonsense.
It is true that there needs to be 'sufficient X' where X is the pool of
players. to be able to calculate Elo. But this discussion was originally
about transposing correspondance ratings [Taylor Kingstons's whose name
still survives massive thread drift] where any X factor is redundant.
Cordially, Phil
Ed Seedhouse
>> I don't know how to compute a lifetime rating, do you?
>The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
>someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating?
No it isn't. It is a kind of moving average where recent games are
rated much more heavily than older ones, and where old enough games
basically have no effect.
The present system is designed to predict future results based on past
results. A rating based on all one's games, though dead easy to
produce, would not do that since what predicts future results is present
strength.
A "lifetime" rating would have little value in predicting future
results.
We do have a system of life time titles, but no one uses the player's
title to predict the outcome of a particular game except in the very
roughest way.
A rating is designed to produce a probabilistic prediction to a faily
high level of accuracy. Lifetime ratings and titles aren't.
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
Rob
Ed,
Thank you very much. I was not aware that there was a weighting in
favor of more current games played. Does the current system lower a
players rating for inactivity?
Rob
Mike Nolan
>The actual math involved, no; I don't know how to do it. But isnt what
>someone has right now as a rating exactly that,a lifetime rating? What
>would be needed to be decided upon then is an annual rating for play.
>Perhaps everyone starts the first tournament with same rating(whatever
>that might be) and as they play over the course of a year their annual
>rating is caculated. Of course those same match scores would be used
>for the lifetime scores as well.
The mathematicians on the Ratings Committee would probably disagree, but
to me the current ratings system is closer to a weighted average than
anything else, with recent results being very heavily weighted over
previous results.
>It may not work. It might make the game a bit more exciting though.
I'm not sure how it could add any excitement. Please elaborate.
--
Mike Nolan
Rob
Mike, I was just thinking that someone who had a high rating might not
be currently the strongest player. Yet because they were once strong,
they simply say they are the best because of their historical rating
and not their actual current match play. A situation like that opens up
the opportunity for one person to be the champion and someone else to
claim to be the champion because of an outdated rating. Not knowing
excatly how this stuff works or is caculated, I could be totally wrong
here.
Rob
George John
Rob wrote:
> Does the current system lower a
> players rating for inactivity?
No, it does not. Furthermore, the most current, official rating never
"expires". IOW, "once rated, always rated".
Best regards,
George John
George John
awards require a minimum amount of current activity.
See: http://www.uschess.org/scholastic/03inviterequirements.php
Best regards,
George John
Nick
> Terry wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > The USCF converted postal ratings to OTB.
> > This involved 2 completely different populations
> > and is statistically impossible.
>
> Are you one of Sam's pseudonyms?
As far as I know, Terry is *not* "one of Sam's pseudonyms".
As I recall, Terry has written that he's rated about 2100 FIDE.
According to FIDE and ChessBase, Terry's rated 2083 FIDE now
and was rated as high as 2095 FIDE.
> That's his kind of misquote. Or is it a deliberate distortion?
> To repeat what I actually said: "USCF converted all their postal
> ratings directly from the old CR-style system to the OTB-style
> Elo system circa 1987."
I know that some other USCF correspondence players have
corroborated Taylor Kingston's statement (above).
> > As I understand it you never exceeded 1900 OTB.
> > All very strange.
I happen to know another player whose peak USCF OTB rating's about
the same as Taylor Kingston's and whose peak USCF correspondence
rating approaches Taylor Kingston's.
> Yes, postal chess allows more time, and therefore I could play
> more accurately. You should try taking more time yourself;
> you might avoid such gaffes as you commit here.
One should not overlook the comparative psychology of competition.
Playing OTB chess usually is a public act; playing correspondence
chess usually is a private act. I have known some players who
tend to be quite self-conscious and anxious in public OTB games.
They may prefer correspondence chess in part because it removes
the unwelcome (to them) necessity of face-to-face interaction
with a human opponent.
--Nick
Taylor Kingston
Nick wrote:
> One should not overlook the comparative psychology of competition.
> Playing OTB chess usually is a public act; playing correspondence
> chess usually is a private act. I have known some players who
> tend to be quite self-conscious and anxious in public OTB games.
> They may prefer correspondence chess in part because it removes
> the unwelcome (to them) necessity of face-to-face interaction
> with a human opponent.
An interesting point, Nick, though not the reason for my better
postal performance. That was due simply to the fact that I analyze much
better when I have ample time and can move the pieces about. Apparently
the increase in my analytical ability in the postal situation, compared
to the limited time and forced mental (rather than actual)
visualization of OTB chess, was greater than for most people.
I am told that Tal wrote his entire book of the 1960 world
championship match without ever looking at a board -- he envisioned not
only the actual game moves but every analytical variation in his head,
and dictated them. Yet amazingly, the book has few errors. That is a
level of talent most of us, certainly I myself, could no more hope to
imitate than we could sprout wings and fly.
However, with enough time and perseverance, a less talented person
can climb to at least the lower slopes of such Olympian analytical
heights. Nowadays, though, with so much silicon-based assistance
available, the incentive is perhaps lacking.
Ed Seedhouse
>Thank you very much. I was not aware that there was a weighting in
>favor of more current games played.
This is clear from an inspection of the rating formulas themselves.
> Does the current system lower a players rating for inactivity?
Most do not. If you take a look at Jeff Sonas' "Chessmetrics" site you
can find there pretty well anything you want to know about how rating
systems work. http://www.chessmetrics.com/
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
David Richerby
> "David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
>>> without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.
>>
>> You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
>> under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
>> calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
>> independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.
>
> I wrote the same thing here this morning.
That seems very unlikely as we appear to be in complete disagreement on
this subject.
> A chess rating is not an abstraction nor a metaphor nor a mathematical
> system. It needs real-time play, regular rules, and a real arbiter
> present.
Absolutely not. A chess rating is *exactly* an abstracted mathematical
system. It does *not* need real-time play, regular rules or any sort of
arbiter. The Elo rating system can just as well be used for correspon-
dence chess, tennis or even Mornington Crescent. It uses a mathematical
model to abstract away from the game that is being played and produce
numbers that can be used to estimate the probability that one player will
beat another. Now, in order for that estimate to be meaningful, it helps
if all the players are playing the same game in the same way and it makes
perfect sense to use Elo's system to rate any set of games (not necessar-
ily even chess) played in the same way.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mentholated Frozen Peanut (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a roasted nut but it's frozen in
a block of ice and invigorating!
The Historian
Chess One wrote:
> I recently wrote Taylor Kingston that he himself
> stated that he first wrote to me based on what I had written about Averbakh
> 3 years ago. I offered liar Brennen to take the test to ask Kingston Taylor
> himself if this were the case, and he declined. So much for his interest ;)
"You have likewise appeared convinced of such a conspiracy, viz:
Chess One
> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Chess One <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
>>>> without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.
>>>
>>> You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
>>> under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
>>> calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
>>> independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.
>>
>> I wrote the same thing here this morning.
>
> That seems very unlikely as we appear to be in complete disagreement on
> this subject.
>
>
>> A chess rating is not an abstraction nor a metaphor nor a mathematical
>> system. It needs real-time play, regular rules, and a real arbiter
>> present.
>
> Absolutely not. A chess rating is *exactly* an abstracted mathematical
> system. It does *not* need real-time play, regular rules or any sort of
> arbiter.
Dave, I seem to be suffering from a lack of definition of terms and
contexts - I thought we were specifically discussing ELO chess ratings. I am
therefore confused why you state that this does not need real-time play or
an arbiter or standard rules. Of course, if you were discussing something
else I am sure you are correct.
Phil
Mark Houlsby
Hope this helps.
Mark
Taylor Kingston
> <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
> > The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
> >chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
> >responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
> >chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
> >games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
> >down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
> >Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
> >top 1%.
In reply, Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
> way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
> find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston.
So, Sam, a few questions for the sake of clarity:
1. What exactly is the issue you want to bet on? My peak postal
rating? My peak postal rank? Please be specific.
2. What will you accept as proof of the issue wagered on?
3. How much are you willing to bet?
4. Will you deposit the amount of your wager with an impartial third
party, agreed upon by us both, who will act as stakeholder?
StanB
"Pedro" <pe...@cojones.com> wrote in message
news:lYEqe.115406$J25....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> You are an asshole. You probably smell like old cheese, and you met your
> wife through some kind of mail-order bride service. Then she left you for
> some unemployed drunk who treated her better than you did. None of your
> kids
> looks like you, and your ex-wife eventually admitted that they were all
> from
> other men she had made love to during the marriage.
At least she doesn't have lips like a baboon's anus.
Taylor Kingston
Sam Sloan
<tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote:
What I was proposing to bet on against some third party was obviously
your claim that your rating got knocked down 250 points just because
you quit postal chess.
Although not impossible, in view of your history of lies on this
newsgroup, I am willing to bet that this is just another lie.
However, as far as my willingness to bet against you directly is
concerned, I am williong to bet one thousand dollars cash money on the
table that I can beat you in a chess match.
Please note that I am but a simple man. I am rated a lowly 1931.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?11115292
You, on the other hand are a self-proclaimed chess master, a 2300
player according to your own admission.
Therefore, with your chess strength being nearly 400 points higher
than mine, you should be quite happy to take the easy money you will
get by playing a much weaker player such as myself.
Unless, of course, you are lying about your chess strength.
So, now we will find out: Is Taylor Kingston a liar or is he not.
Choose your time and place. Where are you going to bring your one
thousand dollars cash money so that we can settle this over the chess
board.
By the way, be sure to bring photo ID to prove that your name really
is Taylor Kingston, you liar.
Sam Sloan
Greg
>
>
You fucked her too?!?!?! Wow, Taylor's wife gets around! Just like the story
in Chess Life.
parrt...@cs.com
<So, now we will find out: Is Taylor Kingston a liar or is he not.
Choose your time and place. Where are you going to bring your one
thousand dollars cash money so that we can settle this over the chess
board. By the way, be sure to bring photo ID to prove that your name
really is Taylor Kingston, you liar.> Sam Sloan
I wish Sam had not challenged Taylor Kingston to a chess match.
True, I think he would win a 10-game battle fairly easily and will bet
$100 to said effect if anyone wants some action in the event the match
ever takes place.
The issue, however, is not whether Sam at 1931 could clobber
our Mr. Kingston. The issue is whether Mr. Kingston misled all of us
when he baldly stated he was 2300+ ELO knowing full well what
conclusion we would reach. about his playing strength. The issue is
what such a lie tells us about his character since he now has persisted
in his original "horsefeathers defense."
Over the years Sam has enough scalps of very strong players to
tell us what he is capable of when he applies himself to a task. He
plays above a rating based on blunders and a disorganized lifestyle.
Knowing Sam just a bit, I figure he would get the money
together, eat a decent diet, sleep at regular hours and generally apply
himself to a high-profile grudge battle. In that case, I suspect he
would raise his game up to or near the master level. Further, Sam
plays mixer, tactical chess, which can be deadly against a lesser
opponent when Sam gets his act together.
I figure a $100 wager on Sam would more likely than not pay off.
politi...@gmail.com
characters as part of his training?
http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm
Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's daughter...yuck.
politi...@gmail.com
characters as part of his training?
http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm
Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's
daughter...yuck.
reposted on Google & original removed--darn broken links!
politi...@gmail.com
animé characters?
http://www.shamema.com/pokepoll.htm
Note that this page appears on a site named after Sam's
daughter--gross....
***************
Not sure whether all three versions of my post will show up, but all
who post on rgcp labor under the delusion that their words bear
world-historical significance....
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com says...
>
>
> Over the years Sam has enough scalps of very strong players to
>tell us what he is capable of when he applies himself to a task. He
>plays above a rating based on blunders and a disorganized lifestyle.
>
> Knowing Sam just a bit, I figure he would get the money
>together, eat a decent diet, sleep at regular hours and generally apply
>himself to a high-profile grudge battle. In that case, I suspect he
>would raise his game up to or near the master level. Further, Sam
>plays mixer, tactical chess, which can be deadly against a lesser
>opponent when Sam gets his act together.
>
game. I'll put up $1,000 Larry, and you do the same. I'll play Sam in a 5 game
match, 40/2, 20/game, and if I win the funds will go to the US Chess Trust.
Randy Bauer
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
If someone volunteers to escrow the purse, and we can get minimum
$5,000 in backers, I'll travel to NYC on my own dime and play the
k***** f*****.
50% Illinois Chess Assn, 50% National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children.
Next two weeks would be nice. No hand-shaking--eww, gross.
30/90, SD/1, 4 games.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
I figured this would happen. No. I am not willing to play Randy Bauer
a match for one thousand dollars.
I would consider playing Mig Greengard, another one of those
self-proclaimed 2300 players, a match for one thousand dollars, but in
that case I would be gambling because Mig might actually be able to
beat me. Unlikely but possible.
Another case is Stan Vaughan. His rating is not self-proclaimed but
was obtained through ratings manipulation. I am not sure that I would
risk a thousand dollars against him., There is no way to know how
strong he is except that he is weaker than his rating.
Another case is Jude Acers. Nobody really knows how strong he is
either.
However, Taylor KIngston would not be a gamble. He would have no
chance at all against the great me. He probably would not win even a
single game. Care to challenge me on that, Taylor?
Sam Sloan
Greg
daughter...yuck.>
Jesus, you are one dumb motherfucker. I guess if Sam named a child Abraham
you would post a site about Abraham Lincoln and say that Lincoln was named
after Sam's son?
You need to get back to your crack pipe and finish smoking that last rock
before you post any more stupid remarks.
parrt...@cs.com
It is understandable that Taylor Kingston, who
is so very dreadfully pressed for time in spite of his
continuing engagment with Sam Sloan, does not wish to
discuss the question of what chess players will reasonably
infer from his straighforward, unironic declaration that he is a
2300 Elo player.
I think a far more interesting bet than the
one Sam Sloan proposed would be whether Mr. Kingston
could pass a lie detector test when uttering his
"horsefeathers" defense for why he told this forum
he was a strong.
Readers will recollect that there are two
versions on the table:
1. Mr. Kingston says that he really was not
lying in a moment of weakness when he was being
pressed about his playing strength. Instead, he set a
snare to lure Sam Sloan and, in some fashion that he
never explains, to splatter egg on this writer's face.
(Frankly, I don't think I ever entered into such a
Byzantine, still unexplained, calculation and that his
declaration re this writer is also a lie.)
Our Mr. Kingston says that he knew full well
when posting that he was 2300 ELO+, his claim could
be checked. Hence he could not possibly ever have imagined
he would get way with a pro forma fib that had as its purpose NOT to
mislead readers here but to ensnare Mr. Sloan and,
in some still unexplained fashion, this writer.
There was a bit more to the defense, which
does not make Mr. Kingston look very good and
undermines, in fact, the above story. He also noted
that his claim about 2300 and No. 46, when shorn of
all context, was literally true. Literal truth, in
such an instance, may be misleading; but it is not
thereby untrue. Pretty cheesy stuff, which Mr.
Kingston would have done better to eschew.
2. The second explanation for Mr. Kingston's
straightforward claim to be a strong tournament master
is that he lied, rather incompetently, in a weak
moment. It is an explanation that fits the criterion
of Occam's Razor. It explains quite simply why an
admitted untruth by him is also a lie.
In his "horsefeathers" defense of his claim to
be a strong tournament master, Mr. Kingston also spoke of
the entire business being amusing and worthwhile.
Okay, then, even Mr. Kingston's allies don't
really believe his claim about having a blithe time
here with this writer and Mr. Sloan. They understand
that his attempt at jaunty spiritedness does not ring
true except as a bit of ego-priming.
Which brings us to Mr. Kingston's claim to be a
strong master. Since he was evidently NOT enjoying
himself, the obvious construction is that he told a lie without
having a decent fallback position. If he imagined that he
could parlay 2300+ Elo into a claim that he was talking
about being a postal player, he was wrong. He dropped
this dishonest defense of a couple of supporters like
a hot potato.
Mr. Kingston, in a moment of weakness, let
wish-fulfillment get in the way of self-respect. He
blurted out a claim that would lead to a line of
attack that he quite obviously did not foresee. He
could see that the otbcentric vs. postalcentric
defense of a couple of supporters was hopeless (though
he may initially have had it in mind at the time he
typed his lie) and he then tried to make light of the
matter. He was really attempting to trap Sam Sloan
and, in some still unexplained way, this writer.
As usual, one whopper follows another in a cover-up.
politi...@gmail.com
personae more hygenically.
Several of them show up in rec.pets.herp and alt.fan.howard-stern, for
example.
Equi...@aol.com
The idea of a Sloan-Kingston OTB match is not that interesting, IMO. A
correspondence match might be more to the point. But I would find a
Sloan-Ray Gordon or Sloan-Repa or Repa-Gordon OTB match interesting.
Actually, come to think of it, Mr. Repa would probably be a little too
strong for the other two given his CFC rating. Still, any of these
matches would have some human interest value and might be fun to watch.
As to the rest of this thread, it simply defies credulity that Mr.
Kingston's "2300 ELO and top 50" post was intended to deceive anyone.
Mr. Kingston is clearly an intelligent man, experienced in the ways of
rgcp, and would well understand the inevitable reaction to any attempt
at rating puffery in a dialogue with Mr. Sloan. Mr. Parr's "moment of
weakness" theory doesn't hold water because it is based on a premise
that Mr. Kingston would ever think he could get away with an inflated
claim re: his OTB strength; a premise that, like many of Mr. Parr's
premises, simply doesn't make sense.
No, Mr. Kingston's explanation is more credible and believable than any
of the alternatives. His post, not strictly false given the ambiguity
of the term "ELO", but perhaps too deliberately provocative, was meant
to test the rgcp waters, and particularly those waters inhabited by the
local piranhas. Perhaps he was a bit more successful than he
anticipated. But nevertheless, the aftermath did expose once again Mr.
Sloan's tendency to rush to a judgment most pleasing to his emotional
self. And highlighted how Mr. Parr's disingenuous pontificating is
often flavored with a healthy dose of vindictive nastiness.
Just my opinion.
- Geof Strayer
parrt...@cs.com
I speculate that Sam, who was an expert in the
old days (which would equate to a higher rating these
days) might raise his game near to (say 2150) or "at"
the master level (2200) to play a grudge match for
moolah with Taylor Kingston (an 1850 player). I might
be wrong, but I figure a straight up bet of $100 would
be a good bet.
Now, I base my surmise on some of Sam's past
results and a fairish number of strong scalps over the
years. Then comes an imbecilic response from Mr. Bauer.
He says, why not bet $1,000 in a match between
himself and Sam, which has nothing to do with the
issue at hand.
First, Mr. Bauer is more than a 2200 master, who would have to
demotivate himself to drop to a level that I posited Sam might possibly
reach.
Secondly, Mr. Bauer's proffered bet in the context of the message
exchanges makes no political sense beyond trying to intercede on Taylor
Kingston's behalf.
If he wishes to butt in, then he should by all means do so.
Welcome, the water is fine, if a bit warmish at the moment for our
self-proclaimed strong master, NM or FM Taylor Kingston.
parrt...@cs.com
Greg
multiple personae more hygenically.
>
Jesus H. Christ, you really are the proverbial moron with the crack-pipe in
one hand and the XTC tabs in the other.
Maybe you took your Homo pal Randy's advice and started taking BRAINSPEED
and that is why you are so dumb. Stop taking Brainpills and get back on your
Methadone. At least when you are stoned out of your mind your posts are less
paranoid.
parrt...@cs.com
<Mr. Kingston's explanation is more credible and believable than any of
the alternatives. His post, not strictly false given the ambiguity of
the term "ELO", but perhaps too deliberately provocative, was meant to
test the rgcp waters, and particularly those waters inhabited by the
local piranhas. Perhaps he was a bit more successful than he
anticipated. But nevertheless, the aftermath did expose once again Mr.
Sloan's tendency to rush to a judgment most pleasing to his emotional
self. And highlighted how Mr. Parr's disingenuous pontificating is
often flavored with a healthy dose of vindictive nastiness.> Geof
Strayer
I think there is indeed some vindictive nastiness, though it did
not come from my pen. My position has been all along that Mr. Kingston
wrote a good article about Keres-Botvinnik in Chess Life and that if he
makes the amende honorable the current dispute over his false claim
about playing strength would end forthwith.
Geoffrey Strayer tells us that he buys Taylor Kingston's
"horsefeathers" defense. Does Mr. Strayer also buy Mr. Kingston's
claim that he has been amused during the dispute and found the exercise
worthwhile --even as Mr. Kingston employed some nasty name-calling,
talked about getting in a hole with this greasy weasel and Sam Sloan
and thanked with evident relief those like Trollsby who tried to
support him, albeit with explanations which were transparently
dishonest and which Mr. Kingston himself did not try to press?
For I would argue that Mr. Kingston was not amused and does not
enjoy this dispute. I would argue that his claim was designed to
assuage his ego as it appeared before the readers of rgcp -- just as I
argued that his untruth and, I aver further, lie about his tournament
strength came from the same flawed ego-source which prompted his
claimed amusement.
Mr. Kingston has shown this ego-weakness before when he
dishonestly assumed the nom de guerre of Xylothist, though this episode
may also fulfill Mr. Strayer's ethical criteria. In that moment of
weakness -- the same kind of weakness that had Mr. Kingston posing as
Xylothist and just now claiming amusement -- he lied about his playing
strength, calculating in a woolly minded way that the claim could be
sustained.
We note that Mr. Strayer has nothing to say about the evidently
dishonest posturing by those offering the otbcentric and postalcentric
defense. We note that Mr. Strayer tries to explain away Mr. Kingston's
cheesy literal-truth defense. We note that Mr. Strayer ignores how
this literal truth defense contradicts in part Mr. Kingston's claim to
have been luring Sam Sloan into error. Finally, we note that Mr.
Strayer does not examine Mr. Kingston's woolly stuff about how he was
also planning to lure this writer into the a snare. Does Mr. Strayer
really believe that Mr. Kingston even had this writer in mind when
posting his false statement about his chess strength?
Frankly, I find Mr. Strayer's intervention here to be vindictive
and expect little in the way of response from him.
Randy Bauer
parrt...@cs.com says...
>
>BAUER BUTTS IN
>
> I speculate that Sam, who was an expert in the
>old days (which would equate to a higher rating these
>days) might raise his game near to (say 2150) or "at"
>the master level (2200) to play a grudge match for
>moolah with Taylor Kingston (an 1850 player). I might
>be wrong, but I figure a straight up bet of $100 would
>be a good bet.
>
> Now, I base my surmise on some of Sam's past
>results and a fairish number of strong scalps over the
>years. Then comes an imbecilic response from Mr. Bauer.
>He says, why not bet $1,000 in a match between
>himself and Sam, which has nothing to do with the
>issue at hand.
Larry presents a hypothesis (Sloan plays at or near the master level), I present
an opportunity to test that hypothesis, and the suggestion is "imbecilic.
So much for hypothesis testing.
Randy Bauer
MKP
self-proclaimed 2300 players, a match for one thousand dollars, but in
that case I would be gambling because Mig might actually be able to
beat me. Unlikely but possible.
In this proposition I'd bet on Mig.
Sam S> However, Taylor KIngston would not be a gamble. He would have no
chance at all against the great me. He probably would not win even a
single game. Care to challenge me on that, Taylor?
This whole issue is a red herring. Taylor Kingston has never claimed
to be a master-level _OTB_ player. Everything he's said is consistent
with his being a mediocre OTB player --- he could suffer from excessive
slowness, bad nerves, lack of stamina, etc., which would not be factors
in correspondence play.
Larry T.
Mark Houlsby
native Scotland
Wrong. England is my home. Always has been.
> and knows NOTHING about this subject.
I know more than you do, evidently.
>He just has a
loud mouth.
Pot. Kettle.
Imbecile.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Mark
Mark Houlsby
Mark
Equi...@aol.com
You wrote:
>I think there is indeed some vindictive nastiness, though it >did not come from my pen. My position has been all along >that Mr. Kingston wrote a good article about Keres-Botvinnik >in Chess Life and that if he makes the amende honorable >the current dispute over his false claim about playing >strength would end forthwith.
Mr. Parr, your own posts provide sufficient evidence of the above. I
will just quote a few examples of your oeuvre from this thread and the
related "Parr Answers Kingston's Questions" thread: "an imbecilic
response," "he lied, rather incompetently, in a weak moment," "Bill
Brock still drools," "Beatriz Marinello's lickspittle," "Mr. Blair
weakmindedly confuses," "his dishonest supporters," "ludicrously
dishonest," "I have no problem classifying Mr. Houlsby as a hysteric,"
"palpably false," "evidently dishonest casuistry," "His sin is a moral
one of middling evil," etc. I found these examples in a few minutes of
reading backwards through these two threads; I have no doubt that there
are many more examples, and stronger ones.
You often seem incapable of arguing a point without insulting the
intelligence and/or character of those who disagree with you. Hence my
use of "nastiness" (for your constant use of belittling language re:
others) and "vindictiveness" (because your insults seem to target only
those that have the temerity to openly disagree with you) to describe
some of your posts.
You wrote:
>Geoffrey Strayer tells us that he buys Taylor Kingston's
>"horsefeathers" defense. Does Mr. Strayer also buy Mr. >Kingston's claim that he has been amused during the >dispute and found the exercise worthwhile --even as Mr. >Kingston employed some nasty name-calling, talked about >getting in a hole with this greasy weasel and Sam Sloan >and thanked with evident relief those like Trollsby who tried >to support him, albeit with explanations which were >transparently dishonest and which Mr. Kingston himself did >not try to press?
Here is a good example of the "disingenuousness" I referred to in my
prior post. You frequently disguise your arguments and pejoratives in
the form of questions, questions which incorporate assumptions and
negative characterizations which you take as a given without
establishing them as such. Then, if someone refuses to be drawn into a
"when did you stop beating your wife" Q & A session, you can accuse
them of not answering your questions. It is an interesting albeit
hardly admirable rhetorical device, apparently designed to avoid having
to defend often untenable positions and shift the burden to others to
disprove your constant assumptions.
You wrote:
>For I would argue that Mr. Kingston was not amused and >does not enjoy this dispute. I would argue that his claim >was designed to assuage his ego as it appeared before the >readers of rgcp -- just as I argued that his untruth and, I aver >further, lie about his tournament strength came from the >same flawed ego-source which prompted his claimed >amusement.
Anyone even moderately familiar with your postings in rgcp knows that
you would argue many things, Mr. Parr. From a purely empirical
viewpoint, many of the things you do argue appear to have little or no
basis in reality. So the significance of the fact that you "would
argue" a certain point is rather unclear, IMO.
I am not much interested in your pop psychoanalysis of Mr. Kingston,
other than to note that it is once again belittling in nature. One
could easily produce equally negative psychoanalytical theories
regarding your own psyche. I must stress that your ability to state a
theory does not make it true (as you seem to constantly assume) and,
quite frankly, you lack any credentials which might make your diagnoses
sufficiently credible to deserve a response.
You wrote:
>Mr. Kingston has shown this ego-weakness before when he
>dishonestly assumed the nom de guerre of Xylothist, though >this episode may also fulfill Mr. Strayer's ethical criteria. In >that moment of weakness -- the same kind of weakness >that had Mr. Kingston posing as Xylothist and just now >claiming amusement -- he lied about his playing
>strength, calculating in a woolly minded way that the claim >could be sustained.
Another example of your disingenuous tactics is your inclination to
make "ad hominem" attacks unrelated or only very tenuously related to
the subject matter at issue, such as the "Mr. Kingston posing as
Xylothist" accusation here. Then if your "red herring" is ignored on
the grounds that it is off-topic, you will proceed to harp on the lack
of response in future posts as some sort of evidence of the strength of
your position or the weakness of someone else's position. This sort of
approach is rhetoric without reason, Mr. Parr, full of sound and fury
but signifying nothing.
You wrote:
>We note that Mr. Strayer has nothing to say about the >evidently dishonest posturing by those offering the >otbcentric and postalcentric defense. We note that Mr. >Strayer tries to explain away Mr. Kingston's
>cheesy literal-truth defense. We note that Mr. Strayer >ignores how this literal truth defense contradicts in part Mr. >Kingston's claim to have been luring Sam Sloan into error. >Finally, we note that Mr. Strayer does not examine Mr. >Kingston's woolly stuff about how he was also planning to >lure this writer into the a snare. Does Mr. Strayer
>really believe that Mr. Kingston even had this writer in mind >when posting his false statement about his chess strength?
Actually, I appear to have been the one who offered up the "otbcentric
and postalcentric defense" that you, true to character, describe as
"evidently dishonest posturing." I am afraid I disagree with your
characterization of my post, as I disagree with so many of your
characterizations. First, it was not intended so much a "defense" of
Mr. Kingston as a critique of the rather vicious knee-jerk attacks in
response thereto. Mr. Kingston is certainly capable of defending
himself and, quite frankly, I was motivated by a strong distaste for
some of the reactions to Mr. Kingston's post than any feeling that he
needed my help. Second, I don't think there is anything in my post
which is "evidently dishonest," although I will admit you seem capable
of misconstruing it.
I am unsure why you doubt that Mr. Kingston had you in mind when he
made his post. Your reaction was, in fact, rather predictable. When
you engage in a controversy with someone, you often seem to strain for
any method of portraying them in an unfavorable light. Given your
debate with Mr. Kingston re: the Keres-Botvinnik article by Larry
Evans, it was close to a given that you would attack Mr. Kingston's
statement about his chess strength; in fact, his statement was akin to
waving a red flag in front of a bull.
Also, I see no contradiction between a "literal truth" argument and Mr.
Kingston's claim to be provoking Mr. Sloan. It is apparent to any
reader of this newsgroup that many things which are literally true are
capable of provoking Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kingston's point, as I take it, is
that his somewhat ambiguous statement was clearly defensible one to
anyone willing to do a bit of internet research (Mr. Rubin being the
obvious and admirable example), but it was nevertheless virtually
guaranteed to provoke accusations from Mr. Sloan and yourself due to
your habit of seizing on any pretext available to attack those who have
the hubris to oppose your viewpoints.
You wrote:
> Frankly, I find Mr. Strayer's intervention here to be vindictive
>and expect little in the way of response from him.
I'm sorry you find my post vindictive, it was not intended to be. I
have said some strong things, but not out of any personal dislike for
you or affection for Mr. Kingston. I do not consider either of you
friend or enemy. I only know the two of you from your writings here
and some of Mr. Kingston's book reviews, some of which I found amusing
but others of which I strongly disagreed with. (Mr. Kingston's
negative review of "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins", in my humble opinion,
is incredibly off base.)
You seem in several posts to suggest that I am a "Kingston supporter"
or "Kingston defender," as if I were allied with Mr. Kingston in all
things. The fact is I am in no one's camp and have no interest in
being so. I'm afraid I must reserve the right to support or oppose any
person in any specific matter without my actions having any general or
cosmic significance.
My motivation in entering into this particular dispute is relatively
straightforward, and I am happy to share it with you. You and Mr.
Sloan are obviously intelligent men, and many of your posts here have
points of interest which, IMO, add to rgcp. However, other of your
posts bear all the indicia of internet bullies, who believe that the
constant and stubborn repetitions of pejorative untruths and
half-truths is an acceptable form of discourse. You are of course,
free to continue in that vein if and when you please; this is
unmoderated usenet, after all. But, correspondingly, you have no right
to expect that people will not form opinions and make comments
regarding your tactics, particularly when you are engaging in
unjustified character assassinations. That is what I am doing here and
in my previous posts, no less, no more. You may disagree with my
opinion, you may even be offended by it, but I have the right to state
it, and in this instance I found some of your statements sufficiently
offensive to my sense of decency and fair play that I have exercised
that right.
parrt...@cs.com
>Larry presents a hypothesis (Sloan plays at or near the master level), I present an opportunity to test that hypothesis, and the suggestion is "imbecilic. So much for hypothesis testing.> Randy Bauer
Some of you who intend to vote for Randy Bauer ought to check out what
he snipped and how he deals with virtually any dispute. What he writes
is patently dishonest.
I presented a possibility that Sam could RAISE HIS GAME near to or "at"
the master level in the event of a grudge match with Taylor Kingstin.
Mr. Bauer then asserts that I claimed Sam Sloan plays at the master
level, period.
How clumsily done! My claim and what Mr. Bauer claims I wrote are very
different indeed. And then, Honest Randy snipped a key point without
letting the reader know. Namely, I wrote that Mr. Bauer's game is
already above the level that I suggested Sam might be able to achieve.
I also noted that Mr. Bauer would have to dumb down his level to make a
match with Sam competitive.
Honest Randy must have a great deal of contempt for the memories of
readers here. The political point behind his intrusion is to deflect
attention away from tough 2300+ Elo master Taylor Kingston's false
claim and Sam's challenge to him for a match.
parrt...@cs.com
Mike Murray
wrote:
> I speculate that Sam, who was an expert in the
>old days (which would equate to a higher rating these
>days)
Is it common knowledge that current ratings are inflated from, say,
twenty years ago? What's caused this?
Mark Houlsby
>Is it common knowledge that current ratings are inflated from, say,
twenty years ago?
That rather depends upon how one defines "common".... Certainly, it's
true.
Mike Murray also wrote:
> What's caused this?
In short, the rating mechanisms, which are such that they have an
inherent tendency to cause ratings to inflate as more games are played.
It's embedded within the formulae used to calculate new ratings.