On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan wrote:

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

Not true. Here is the exact quote:

Taylor Kingston caught lying again

You apparently "forgot" to include any of the prior
instances where you think you "caught" TK lying
before this one; try to focus. LOL


says that his Elo rating was 2300+

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

wrote:
Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on
the subject of playing strength

So, the subject was "playing strength", eh? I wonder
where the imbecile Larry Parr got the idea it *must* mean
over the board playing strength, since that was not
specified? Probably just a brain fart side-affect of Ad
Hom's disease.


I have never claimed to be any great
player

Hmm... again, no mention of over the board play, just
"play" at chess. Are you beginning to detect a pattern?
Think hard.


but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as
I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak."

ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating

No, I believe ELO is a boy-band. What TK wrote was
that his "Elo" (that's a reference to Arpad Elo -- the bloke
who developed the ratings system adopted by the USCF
and later, by FIDE) was 2300+. We have already gone
over this countless times, and it was established that:

a) TK's number was probably inflated by about 50 points
due to a conversion error

and

b) he was also off by a few places on his USA ranking,
due to an imperfect memory.


and especially not a correspondence chess rating.

Try to think; a rating is not classified as Elo or not
Elo based on the time controls or venue. Elo is just
the guy's name. The rating system is the same.


When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak
Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face
rating was over 2300.

No, he wasn't.


By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either.

Nothing gets past you; you are a regular genius.


His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that
this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to
2300 under the new system.

We already beat that horse to death, fella. If you forgot,
it must be that LP is not the only one here going senile.


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

Heck, he is rated 1315 at GetClub -- if you are too
ignorant to know the difference between one rating
and another. Mr. Kingston's crime, if you are so
desperate to find one here, was that his attempt
at conversion to modern numbers was off by about
50 points in his own favor because his formula was
imperfect. His faulty memory was responsible for
the small error in his reported ranking (he seems
to have serious problems in that area).

Where the *lies* begin is when Larry Parr and his
evil minions walk on stage.

Try to think more clearly; the subject was what?
Playing strength. The relevance of over the board
vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's
playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but
below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did
he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better.


-- helpful bot