MR. 2300+ ELO

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

ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a correspondence chess rating. When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face rating was over 2300. By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to 2300 under the new system. Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have never been above the 1800 level. -- Sam Sloan

To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's
subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he
was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when
someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand
his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing
strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the
claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal
chess."

NMnot Kingston wishes in the worst way that Greg Kennedy, our
help bot, would just shut up and stop "defending" him. Kennedy has
now forced our NMnot to speak again on the subject. Otherwise, her
would have kept his mealy trap shut.

Also, for the record, NMnot Kingston himself offered different
excuses than those offered by Greg Kennedy. He said he made the claim
because he knew someone would expose it and that he could then trap
Sam Sloan into assuming that the postal scales of today and yesterday
were the same! Further, I would then come to Sam's rescue and show
myself to be a partisan.

It was a key-razy junior-high-school kind of lie to justify a
moment of weakness on his part. Sam had mercilessly pilloried NMnot
Kingston for days, and our
NMnot -- the man who also uses false names to write in PRAISE OF
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake, and indeed, what a man! -- lashed out in
defense, tossing in a postal
national ranking list as a backstop for his lie.

The main thing that Greg Kennedy and NMnot Kingston have in
common is a tendency to hide behind false internet names.

Yours, Larry Parr




samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot 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