On Nov 2, 9:27 am, samsloan wrote:
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
...which was never even mentioned...
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."
..which was also not mentioned...
It seems that Mr. Parr is a very irrational creature. Unless and
until any particular type of play is specified, there is no basis
whatever for simply assuming any such things -- except of
course, sheer desperation! LOL
Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston
Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is
genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From
memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair
test.
Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his
rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is
2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board
or in correspondence play:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630
Nice, um, research Mr. Sloan. But as so often happens,
you have missed the forest for the trees. This entire issue
was beaten to death a very long time ago, and it was made
clear that the rating to which TK was referring needed to be
converted to its modern USCF equivalent in order to
comprehend what he was saying.
The weakness in the claim is that TK said he forfeited
many games through not finishing them, and this has yet
to be verified as far as I know. But that relates to what
happened to his rating *after* he peaked, and as we know
his reference did not pertain to that aspect. Indeed, it was
crystal clear that he was talking about a /peak/ rating of
some kind.
There was a lot of discussion over how to properly convert
TK's correspondence rating to its modern USCF equivalent,
and in the end a supposed expert appeared who corrected
his math to the tune of around 50 points to the downside.
That put him at say 2250+, instead of his claimed 2300+.
I may be mistaken, but I think TK erred the other way in
giving his ranking, shorting himself a tad. Perhaps one of
the ratpacker desperadoes here could check on that for us.
If it's a lie you desire, then check out the Shakespeare
newsgroups for postings by nearly-an-IM Innes. You'll find
that he tried to pass himself off as "nearly an IM", and even
went so far as to invent a 2450 rating out of thin air. (Ever
since, the poor boy has been trying to wiggle the number
downward to 2400 or less, but to no avail.)
In the case of IM Innes, there was no confusion over the
proper conversion of old ratings to new; nobody even
asked him to guesstimate or inform regarding his strength;
no, he volunteered the misinformation on his own, under
no pressure and for some reason felt compelled to relate
"facts" of his own creation. I think that tells the tale. As
far as I know, even Larry Parr has never done that sort of
thing, never invented titles or ratings for himself, so you
can imagine how disappointing this was.
Heck, I don't believe Larry Parr has ever stooped to just
inventing ratings or titles, even for his idol GM Evans, so
this is really stooping low; getting down even lower than
LP, who generally sets the bar on such things. :(
-- help bot