On Mar 12, 11:27 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:54 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > If I were kicking him out for the reasons you state, I would have > > > kicked off Phil Innes too because he says the same things as Rob ("The > > > Robber") Mitchell. Phil Innes is still a member of my group.
> > Untrue. I resigned my commission because is was 'your' group. I haven't > > posted or received anything for 3 months. Any way your group waas far too > > much about you. You didn't kick me off your group because then you would > > have eliminated all critics [you also eliminated Steve from TN, no?] Other > > people just stop posting and I presume they quit too.
Sloan doesn't know if anyone comes or goes. He is too busy talking to himself. Belonging to his group is like checking in at the " Hotel California"... you can never leave!
> I was not aware that you had left the group but in any case you were > not kicked out and can rejoin at any time.
People leave their names on your list because you won't let them leave.
> Steve TN has been a member of my group from the beginning, January > 2002, although he has changed his name and user ID several times. > However, he used to attack me every day. He no longer does so and now > seems to be in agreement with me most of the time.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day Sloan. Eventually someone will agree with you on something... Like the SUn rises in the East.
> The only chess person who has EVER been banned from my group is Rob > ("The Robber") Mitchell.
You couldn't stand the direct questioning from "Lex" Mitchell .. so you tried to silence me.. Coward.
On Mar 12, 9:43 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr" > does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it. > I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever > engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence" > is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
That is an odd way to put it. The postings by jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes more sense to say that there is only circum- stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the assertions by LP add nothing in the way of proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor > Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his > research. It is easy to see why he was a good > postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time > to find the truth.
LOL! You are hilarious. The truth is, TK is very prone to careless mistakes-- as we saw with his flip-flopping on the issue of the Larry Evans article in Chess Lies, and his habit of analyzing the wrong chess positions, for instance.
One article where TK appeared to do some real research was his latest revision of his opinion on the LE article he formerly praised, then later flip-flopped to a pan. However, that article was not written for this forum; it was "published" on a Web site, and on *that* forum he certainly raised himself above the low level of hacks like LP.
Although Greg Kennedy contacted me in the past, he has pretty much decided to reject efforts to build a reading and study program for him.
I offered. He has likely declined.
For the moment, Greg's attempt to turn Taylor Kingston into a master was absurd. NMnot Kingston was never 2300+ Elo over the board. He was a Class A player.
David Kane, our Kanester, wrote that when NMnot Kingston claimed to be 2300+ he was "unambiguously" (love that lie!) referring to postal ratings because he gave his position as No. 46 in the country. At the time someone called it The Horsefeathers Defense.
For the record, NMnot Kingston referred to an undefined time in his past without telling anyone his age. Nor did he tell us how far above 2300 -- as he was soaring in a fantasy -- he imagined himself to be.
Once again, we provide here precisely what NMnot Kingston -- who perhaps hired an Elo service a la the ex-gov of New York, who hired another kind of service -- claimed on June 5, 2005:
"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed o 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.'"
No one could know what year Taylor Kingston was claiming to be the time frame of his "peak." The average reader would have no idea what an OTB rating for No. 46 in the country might be in some undefined period of the past. We DO know that No. 46 OTB as of 30 or so years back, when NMnot might have been in his mid-20s, was, yes, about 2300+.
STILL, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
The point is that the average reader -- because that is how chess players talk among themselves -- would have assumed without giving the matter further thought that NMnot was claiming to be a strong OTB master, replete with an official Elo rating to boot!
NMnot Kingston would have understood this point when he wrote his low and, yes, very stupid lie.
Our MNnot is NOT a stupid man, in my estimation. I have repeatedly written that his chess book reviews, though not masterpieces of the art when compared with reviews outside our little world of chess, are better than 90 percent of what appears in chess journals and, yes, not totally derisory when placed against mainstream writing. In his article writing, when he breaks away from imitating Edward Winter's hideous neo-Victorian prose, he performs creditably.
So, then, why did NMnot Kingston tell his imbecilic lie, which was exploded within a few hours by Sam Sloan and others? He broke down under the pressure being applied to his ego by Sam Sloan, who dogged him over his playing strength like Nemesis. NMnot also acted the same way with this writer when inventing fake names to create false followers during our debates.
NMnot, if judged here on this forum, is the kind ofman who snaps. Then he acts like a sneak or lies.
DAVID KANE'S LATEST FIB
David Kane's latest attempt to defend Taylor Kingston's lie that he was rated "2300+" Elo is that NMnot Kingston employed "the vague term" of "ELO" when assessing his own strength at his peak.
(NMnot Kingston's actual OTB rating, we need to keep in mind, was in the 1800s.)
So, then, when a gent, whom you don't know much about and have never met, tells you that he is "2300+" ELO, he is being vague. So, says, the Kanester.
ON THE OTHER HAND, avers the Kanester, when the gent adds that he was No. 46 on an unspecified player's list (NMnot Kingston was either too busy or, ah, too lazy to write "postal rating" list) during an unspecified period when the gent had hit his "peak," during an unspecified decade of a player who does not provide his age -- well, then, the man is, as the Kanester lies so delectably, speaking "unambiguously."
Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+ ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question -- a strongish master.
Imagine, then, NMnot walking into a local club: "Hello, there. I am Taylor Kingston, and although not a grandmaster, I ain't so shabby. I peaked at 2300+ Elo quite a few years back. That put me No. 46 on the rating list nationally, you know."
OUR KANESTER -- THAT CHAPPIE DAVID KANE -- IS TELLING US THE AVERAGE CHESS PLAYER HEARING THIS RECITAL WOULD IMAGINE THAT KINGSTON WAS TALKING ABOUT POSTAL CHESS.
Lord Almighty, what a boyo our Kanester must be!
And how petty the occasion for a fib. How cheaply Kanester sells his innocence and finer feelings.
> > The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves > > precisely the following: he engaged this writer in > > debates under his own name; he invented such false > > names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED > > HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post > > under his own name; and he spoke also about having > > these things called high "standards."
> > I consider the invention of false names to > > create non-existent supporters in a debate in which > > one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It > > betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider > > the claim to have "standards" while inventing false > > identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome > > and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth, > > prime louses.
> > David Kane condones such behavior while condemning > > Paul Truong.
> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr" > does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it. > I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever > engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence" > is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
> But if he, or others, had behaved that way, I would not > approve.
> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor > Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his > research. It is easy to see why he was a good > postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time > to find the truth. It is no wonder that a lazy know-it-all > like Larry Parr finds that behavior objectionable.
> On Mar 12, 9:43 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr" >> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it. >> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever >> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence" >> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
> That is an odd way to put it. The postings by > jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist > outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes > more sense to say that there is only circum- > stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist > were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the > assertions by LP add nothing in the way of > proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or > evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
I am not aware even of the so-called circumstantial "evidence" concerning Kingston. Obviously Larry Parr's smears are not evidence of any kind. I do recall that Louis Blair put forth a very convincing array of evidence linking "jr" to Parr.
>> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor >> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his >> research. It is easy to see why he was a good >> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time >> to find the truth.
> LOL! You are hilarious. The truth is, TK > is very prone to careless mistakes-- as we > saw with his flip-flopping on the issue of the > Larry Evans article in Chess Lies, and his > habit of analyzing the wrong chess positions, > for instance.
> One article where TK appeared to do some > real research was his latest revision of his > opinion on the LE article he formerly praised, > then later flip-flopped to a pan. However, that > article was not written for this forum; it was > "published" on a Web site, and on *that* forum > he certainly raised himself above the low level > of hacks like LP.
My experience is that Kingston backs up his statements with data. In that regard he is completely unlike both Larry Parr and help bot, both self-proclaimed know-it-alls who know surprisingly little, despite often disagreeing with each other.
> Although Greg Kennedy contacted me in the past, > he has pretty much decided to reject efforts to build > a reading and study program for him.
> I offered. He has likely declined.
> For the moment, Greg's attempt to turn Taylor > Kingston into a master was absurd. NMnot Kingston was > never 2300+ Elo over the board. He was a Class A player.
> David Kane, our Kanester, wrote that when NMnot > Kingston claimed to be 2300+ he was "unambiguously" > (love that lie!) referring to postal > ratings because he gave > his position as No. 46 in the > country.
I said it was unambiguously not OTB, making you a liar. It was (possibly intentionally) ambiguous as to what it did mean. Being ambiguous is not lying - never has been, never will be. If you want an example of a lie, read your own post above.
> Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating > list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+ > ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question > -- a strongish master.
Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
On Mar 13, 1:30 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > That is an odd way to put it. The postings by > > jr, PolyGraf and Xylothist are real-- they exist > > outside of the mind of Larry Parr. It makes > > more sense to say that there is only circum- > > stantial "evidence" that PolyGraf and Xylothist > > were alter-egos of Taylor Kingston, and the > > assertions by LP add nothing in the way of > > proof. LP has been asked to provide proof or > > evidence, and he simply failed to respond.
> I am not aware even of the so-called circumstantial > "evidence" concerning Kingston.
From what I have just seen in this thread, it has been discussed; for instance, LP has whined that Poly Graf and Xylothist jumped into what he imagined was a "debate", praising TK. That is circumstantial stuff (~evidence) linking TK to the posts, just as the fake Sam Sloan is linked to PT or SP by his obsession with women's-GM chess. More circumstantial stuff would include TK's refusal to flat-out deny that he made those postings. It reminds me of the way in which "jr" appeared *only* in praise of LP, and only in LP's particular threads.
> Obviously > Larry Parr's smears are not evidence of any > kind. I do recall that Louis Blair put forth a > very convincing array of evidence linking > "jr" to Parr.
Yes, but although they are linked, the fact remains that Larry Evans is afraid to post here under his own name, and it was said that Mr. Evans employs "aides" of some sort who might post on his behalf; in sum, the linkage is not sufficient evidence that "jr" was LP, although it is very likely he was (or was posting on behalf of) one of the Evans ratpackers (who all "think" alike anyway).
> My experience is that Kingston backs up his > statements with data. In that regard he is completely > unlike both Larry Parr and help bot, both > self-proclaimed know-it-alls who know > surprisingly little, despite often disagreeing > with each other.
Look, kid: TK has been caught twice just recently, giving answers to newbies or in their threads, which were based on his analysis of *the wrong positions*. He is reckless, and has a decided tendency to jump to unwarranted conclusions without doing the required research and well-considered thought. This is why he flip-flops when writing letters to Chess Lies magazine, for instance. He even got his own peak rating wrong.
The mistake you are making is judging him based on a few instances where somebody asked a question, and he got out a book and found the correct answer. Trouble is, not all answers are found quite so easily; sometimes, you have to use your noggin, and this is where TK comes up short.
On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
Wait a second.
Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as strong at chess as I am.
However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time, Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a meaningful determination that the games played between the two strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
> On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well > > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know > > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, > > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack > > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying > > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of > > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
> Wait a second.
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as > strong at chess as I am.
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time, > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
> Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
> That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating > and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
> And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a > 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player > in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a > meaningful determination that the games played between the two > strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
> On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well >> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know >> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, >> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack >> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying >> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of >> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
> Wait a second.
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as > strong at chess as I am.
Well he was more successful at correspondence chess than you (or Parr) were OTB. And also "not weak". I'm sure that must annoy you.
On Mar 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why > >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character? > >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in > >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and > >lampooing techniques.
> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I > see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize > Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
On Mar 13, 12:09 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why > > >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character? > > >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in > > >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and > > >lampooing techniques.
> > So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I > > see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize > > Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
> P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize > content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P > Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
I am right now calling upon Taylor Kingston to provide one game, just one, where he ever defeated even a moderately strong player. This game can be over-the-board or correspondence.
The strong player does not have to be a master. He can even be a middle expert.
If Taylor Kingston ever was a 2300 player or equivalent under any rating system, USCF, FIDE, Yahoo, ICC or FICS, he should be able to provide the scores of many games, not just one, where he defeated masters.
I have issued this challenge before, but no response.
The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time, > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
It was not, as Sloan portrays, Kingston jumping into an analysis of a chess position being conducted by Keres and Botvinnik. The debate, in a nutshell, had one side claiming that Keres was a cheater who lost his games on purpose, while the other side arguing that Keres could simply have made mistakes under pressure. The only "evidence", if you can call it that, is the games themselves.
It is my opinion that the most useful characteristic for participating in a "debate" like that is mental illness. Surely it is not Taylor Kingston's finest hour. However, he did establish that he had sufficient chess skill to participate. That annoyed Parr, so he invented his "moronic reader = dishonest writer" attack which he has since repeated countless times. Ironically each time he brings it up, he reminds everyone that Kingston was a very good correspondence player.
> On Mar 13, 12:09 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > > >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why > > > >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character? > > > >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in > > > >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and > > > >lampooing techniques.
> > > So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I > > > see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize > > > Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined?
> > P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize > > content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P > > Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
> I am right now calling upon Taylor Kingston to provide one game, just > one, where he ever defeated even a moderately strong player. This game > can be over-the-board or correspondence.
> The strong player does not have to be a master. He can even be a > middle expert.
> If Taylor Kingston ever was a 2300 player or equivalent under any > rating system, USCF, FIDE, Yahoo, ICC or FICS, he should be able to > provide the scores of many games, not just one, where he defeated > masters.
> I have issued this challenge before, but no response.
> The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
On Mar 13, 12:31 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master.
Really, Sam? How much are you willing to bet on that?
Funny, I had not been paying any attention to this thread, thinking it was about the Truong/FSS matter, which does not interest me. Then I take a look for the first time today, and find you guys are talking about me. Well, that's not a subject that interests me much either, but I'll be happy to take Sam's money.
Minimum bet is $10,000 American, Sam. Put up or shut up.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:09:59 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 12, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote: >> >> A satire is something done in the general style of the original. Why >> >> would a satire deliberately do something out of character? >> >Actually, a satire 'sends-up' the original material - it is precisely not in >> >the style of, but consciously mocking the style of by exagerations and >> >lampooing techniques. >> So to satirize one who doesn't swear, you'd put in a lot of cursing? I >> see. To satirize Whittier, one would write blank verse? To satirize >> Sloan's openings, one would play the orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined? >P Innes does have a point here. One can argue that one can satirize >content instead of form. Still, this is far off the topic, which was P >Innes' blatant lie that Truong was accused of satire.
My view of what constitutes satire may be too restricted. Can you gimme a couple examples of what's considered well-done satire of content which disregards form?
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:01:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> > wrote:
>>Are you truly stupid Murray? Or is this just perversity. I have asked you >>10 >>times if YOU can tell the difference [between FSS posts and RSS posts]. >>That is the only reason I entertain your speculations at all, and you >>can't answer.
> I've answered the question multiple times.
You seem to have issued one word on the subject 'some'. And you have avoided the question of what that means to you a dozen times.
> The question reflects a dishonest approach to the issue.
Your English language expression is insufficient to say /what/ issue, since what follows is your device in it, not what 'issue' I raised.
And the issue I raised can be assessed by anyone - can they tell the FSS by its swear word content? Whereas everything you write below is your ideosyncratic version of things, more or less referenced, that is to say, very vague.
But the fatuity of Mike Murray is that he CHALLENGED the idea of satire, but admits it 'some' of the time. Can't say if some is 10% or 90%, and can't be bothered to actually look at the FSS material to establish anything.
Murray doesn't like 47 other approaches to his, [this being only 1] and if challenged just a little intensely, as in this case, still cannot do more than admit 'some' as a vaguery, while demanding that some attention continue to be paid to his meanderings, which presumably are only appreciable if unexamined.
> I've been participating in this group since early 2003. For the > threads in question, I know most of the players. For the threads in > question, I've a pretty good handle on the context and background, > I've followed the discussions about the headers, IP addresses and > related technologies. Most of the time, I use a real newsreader > (rather than Google) which makes the metadata a bit more readable.
> Given any specific post and a bit of time to inspect headers, etc, I > can make a pretty good guess about whether it's FSS or not.
> THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.
> That's like asking whether a bank teller can identify a counterfeit > bill.
> The real question is whether someone who is not a Usenet regular, > someone using a search engine, querying on one of the terms in the > fake posts' text, will falsely ascribe the post to the person (whether > Sloan, Gordon, Lafferty, me or whoever) whose name and ISP were > forged.
> And this doesn't even *touch* the question of slander, which, believe > it or not, calling something "satire" after the fact affords no > protection.
> I think you understand all this Phil. As happens so often in this > group, you've been caught lying and are now trying to bluster your way > out of it.
> And now, let's get back to your lie that started all this: your > claim that Truong had been accused of satire.
> He was accused of identity theft and slander (note that I didn't say > he was *guilty* of identity theft and slander). Nobody accused him > of "satire". You lied in your question in order to trivialize the > offense.
>>> <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote in message >>> news:2078d2c0-872e-43ad-b671-aaf05201f0fe@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... >>>> The POINT, though, is that the average reader of >>>> Kingston's claim to be 2300+ ELO would assume >>>> automatically he was speaking about tournament >>>> ratings. The average reader could not tell you what >>>> No. 46 on the OTB list a few decades back might be.
>>> But they would have known that 20 years ago a 2300 >>> rating would not be anywhere near the top 50 OTB. >>> So they would *know* that the rating was NOT >>> OTB. .
>> That's not true.
>> A 2300+ ELO is 2400 uscf, right? And circa 1985 or earlier ... well, you >> look it up, then speak your piece. Phil Innes
> Many ratings, USCF, FIDE, correspondence etc., are > ELO ratings.
You looked that up did you David, circa 1985?
> The very fact that Kingston used the > vague term "ELO" also harms Parr's ridiculous argument.
Does that sentence have anything to do with your previous one?
> An argument based on the idea that that somewhere, sometime, an > OTB rating of 2300 was #45 means that he was claiming > that the rating was OTB is just plain stupid. Even for you.
Many people who know things appear stupid to those who do not, but think they know everything.. 2300 elo was # 45 in USA when? That was your previous homework, and I must tell you, you flunked the class by not doing any work and instead mouthing off about those who do being stupid.
It is an orientation to life, sure. So is this reception to what is jejeune.
> > Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating > > list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the > > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+ > > ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question > > -- a strongish master.
> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr himself:
> "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind > of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story, doesn't it?
Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole matter is pretty much on the money.
>While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the >average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out >that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr >himself:
I stand corrected. I must also admit that I have never followed this debate closely and am blissfully unaware of exactly who said what, when.
Once I determined that the "debate" was based upon the ridiculously flawed notion of trying to determine history by looking at a handful of chess moves, I wanted nothing to do with it.
> Our MNnot is NOT a stupid man, in my estimation. > I have repeatedly written that his chess book > reviews, though not masterpieces of the art when > compared with reviews outside our little world of > chess, are better than 90 percent of what appears in > chess journals and, yes, not totally derisory when > placed against mainstream writing. In his article > writing, when he breaks away from imitating Edward > Winter's hideous neo-Victorian prose, he performs > creditably.
Agree.
> So, then, why did NMnot Kingston tell his > imbecilic lie, which was exploded within a few hours > by Sam Sloan and others?
Quaere, jacta est alea
[help-bot bullet - get this one because it comes up all the time; 'the die is cast!]
> He broke down under the > pressure being applied to his ego by Sam Sloan, who > dogged him over his playing strength like Nemesis.
[Nemy was a Greek, bot, who brought people down to earth, he 'grounded' them like a farma auhta]
> NMnot also acted the same way with this writer when > inventing fake names to create false followers during > our debates.
> NMnot, if judged here on this forum, is the kind > ofman who snaps. Then he acts like a sneak or lies.
qui trop embrasse mal étreint
[note to bot, that means who grasps too much... homework is, resolve whole sentence, eg, what happens to the grasper?]
---
But to Larry Parr I also offer a rebuke, bona fide, that such an analysis is insufficient since it lacks the context of the original engagement. We are to remember that TK 'overthought' the likes of Evans, contested his judgement and, as many are, became intimidated by the demonstrated skill in chess and chess experience of his responent's rank.
Now, doubtless TK had something to contest with, since people do not act from a nothing, and chose the wrong means, which even if true would hardly qualify.
Wherefore we now celebrate here the fatuity of these means, this does not of itself refute the /basis/ of the contest. This is merely to transcend expression on the subject, so that Sloan's comment, and all ours since, is merely to examine the means of contest, not its fons et origo, [where it springs, bot!] which may have, though ill-expressed, a virtue?
That is still an open matter intellectually. It is best informed by, in my opinion, commentary of participants east and west. I do not know that my opinion is even accepted by the hoi-polloi, neverthless, there it is to be itself contested.
And so while I comment on the false means of establishing a verite of commentary, I do not despise, pro se, the sense sponsoring that commentary, albeit it is a naive one to one's experience.
> David Kane's latest attempt to defend Taylor > Kingston's lie that he was rated "2300+" Elo is that > NMnot Kingston employed "the vague term" of "ELO" when > assessing his own strength at his peak.
> (NMnot Kingston's actual OTB rating, we need to > keep in mind, was in the 1800s.)
> So, then, when a gent, whom you don't know much > about and have never met, tells you that he is "2300+" > ELO, he is being vague. So, says, the Kanester.
> ON THE OTHER HAND, avers the Kanester, when the > gent adds that he was No. 46 on an unspecified > player's list (NMnot Kingston was either too busy or, > ah, too lazy to write "postal rating" list) during an > unspecified period when the gent had hit his "peak," > during an unspecified decade of a player who does not > provide his age -- well, then, the man is, as the > Kanester lies so delectably, speaking "unambiguously."
> Quick! What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating > list for OTB? Know it? Quick! What is the > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+ > ELO? Any chess person can answer the latter question > -- a strongish master.
> Imagine, then, NMnot walking into a local club: > "Hello, there. I am Taylor Kingston, and although not > a grandmaster, I ain't so shabby. I peaked at 2300+ > Elo quite a few years back. That put me No. 46 on the > rating list nationally, you know."
> OUR KANESTER -- THAT CHAPPIE DAVID KANE -- IS > TELLING US THE AVERAGE CHESS PLAYER HEARING THIS > RECITAL WOULD IMAGINE THAT KINGSTON WAS TALKING > ABOUT POSTAL CHESS.
> Lord Almighty, what a boyo our Kanester must be!
> And how petty the occasion for a fib. How cheaply Kanester > sells his innocence and finer feelings.
>> > The issue regarding Taylog Kingston involves >> > precisely the following: he engaged this writer in >> > debates under his own name; he invented such false >> > names as Paulie Graf and Xylothist and then PRAISED >> > HIMSELF in said debates; he also continued to post >> > under his own name; and he spoke also about having >> > these things called high "standards."
>> > I consider the invention of false names to >> > create non-existent supporters in a debate in which >> > one is still participating to be morally scabrous. It >> > betrays the character of a sneak. I further consider >> > the claim to have "standards" while inventing false >> > identities to PRAISE ONESELF to exhibit an awesome >> > and awful hypocrisy typical of people who are, in truth, >> > prime louses.
>> > David Kane condones such behavior while condemning >> > Paul Truong.
>> I do think that inventing false names to praise oneself, e.g. "jr" >> does betray the character of a sneak. I do not condone it. >> I find no reason to believe that Taylor Kingston has ever >> engaged in any similar behavior - as the only "evidence" >> is the claim of Larry Parr, rgcp's very own congenital liar.
>> But if he, or others, had behaved that way, I would not >> approve.
>> The problem that Parr has in his attacks on Taylor >> Kingston is that TK posts carefully and does his >> research. It is easy to see why he was a good >> postal player - he is willing to spend a lot of time >> to find the truth. It is no wonder that a lazy know-it-all >> like Larry Parr finds that behavior objectionable.
On Mar 13, 3:35 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Once I determined that the "debate" was based upon the ridiculously > flawed notion of trying to determine history by looking at a handful > of chess moves, I wanted nothing to do with it.
Dave, that was never my approach to the Keres-Botvinnik case. Unlike Evans, Parr or Sloan, I consider game analysis neither necessary nor sufficient to establish whether Keres was coerced or not in 1948. You can read my take on the subject here:
In fact, I agreed that Evans' analysis was largely accurate, insofar as it found inferior moves by Keres. But did not agree that this analysis, by itself, was at all sufficient to prove coercion. Any attempt to cast the issue in terms of analytical ability, as Sloan has been doing here for years, is totally beside the point.
At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan, who also bothers to identify the context of it all.
This is not quite the all of it however, as I have just written Larry Parr, since TK needed something to substantiate his sense of things, and he chose a false means to do so, even if he were 2300+ Elo. This is quite other than to validate what Evans said, by dismissal of his critics.
That would require a different means of discussion. Indeed, that would require half-a-book to interrogate.
Where is that book?
A sad factor of these affairs, first written me by a Russian about Russians, is to get after these old elephants before they go. And in chess we have not done that - well... chess publishers have not sufficiently honored this idea, since while it is important, it is not so very commercial.
Kids these days hardly know what the cold war was, and ridiculously ascribe 'from each his means to each his contribution...' to the Founders, rather than the communist manifesto. And so we chess aficionados suffer our youth to know little, or as above, know trash about themselves and of others.
We should all try to be human about this, since no man here did not lie here.
AGREE?
If chess has some role to play, and I think it does, in the difficult to fudge non-verbal nature of our art, let us together qualify these things. If these means challenging 'greats' such as Evans, then so be it. But we should challenge in the sense of 'engage with us', rather than this instance which is dismissive of him, and his like, based on inventing one's own footing in things.
While hyperbolous statements issue from all sides, where is any will to consensus statement?
> On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well >> enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know >> the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes, >> honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack >> made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying >> credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of >> pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
> Wait a second.
> Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as > strong at chess as I am.
> However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik, or whether he was strong enough > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time, > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
> Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown. I replied that Taylor > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
> That was what evoked his response that he had had a 2300+ Elo Rating > and had been the number 46 rated player in the country.
> And I was right. Taylor Kingston has never been in his entire life a > 2300+ Elo rated player, he has never been the number 46 rated player > in the country, and he had never been strong enough at chess to make a > meaningful determination that the games played between the two > strongest chess players in the world were legitimate or not.
On Mar 13, 4:53 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> At length, a fair capsule, by Sam Sloan,
Come now, Phil, you know that what Sloan has written is nonsense. Let's examine it in detail:
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Taylor Kingston has never in his entire life been rated as high or as > > strong at chess as I am.
Well, that's debatable. I don't want to blow my own horn, but I did attain USCF master rank in postal chess in the mid-1980s. I don't think Sloan ever got to a master rating either postal or OTB.
> > However, that was not the issue. The issue was not whether Taylor > > Kingston was as strong as Sam Sloan. It was whether Taylor Kingston > > was as strong as Keres and Botvinnik,
Well, if that's the crux of the matter, we can certainly disqualify Sam too.
> > or whether he was strong enough > > to analyze in a meaningful way the games of the four-game match played > > in 1948 between the two strongest players in the world at that time, > > Keres and Botvinnik, which Botvinnik won by 4-0.
Wrong in almost every particular:
1. Keres and Botvinnik were never known to have played any official match. 2. The event Sloan refers to is Hague-Moscow 1948, which was a five- man *_tournament_*. 3. The score between B and K was 4-1, not 4-0. 4. I have never attempted much analyis of those games.
> > Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the > > games, the games were legitimate and not thrown.
Completely wrong on both points:
1. I never reached any such conclusion -- quite the opposite. 2. Analysis had nothing to do with the conclusions I did reach.
> I replied that Taylor > Kingston was too weak at chess to make that determination.
Quite irrelevant, since I never made the determination Sloan claims.
So rather than a "fair capsule," Phil, what we have here is a completely fictitious product of Sam's fevered imagination and highly faulty memory.
