On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, " wrote:

NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus
Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan.
He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah
yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period
in which he offered every excuse imaginable for
poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air
in the same room with Sam Sloan.
.
Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our
NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations
for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his
wares elsewhere. His choice.

It seems to me that this cannot be just another case
of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that
Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten
that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie"
about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing
to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant
facts.

For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote
that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he
was talking about his superb correspondence chess
record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not
a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to
detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have
warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue.

Not true. Here is the exact quote:

Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+

On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"

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


ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a
correspondence chess rating. When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak
Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face
rating was over 2300.

By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. His
highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that
this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to
2300 under the new system.

Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have
never been above the 1800 level.

Sam Sloan