OLD FAITHFUL
Coo! Greg Kennedy as help bot is baring his fangs.
He's predictable as Old Faithful and always spews forth his
resentment against this writer and GM Larry Evans when
intellectual heat is applied.
The subject we are discussing -- ultimately the
kind of human baggage that is the person, NMnot Taylor
Kingston -- has to do with the following sauvely
packaged, though stupid lie written by our NMnot:
"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.'"
I figure than many readers understand that such
a statement coming from a Class "A" player may be
reckoned as an outright lie.
Notice, for example, the faux self-effacement
that NMnot Kingston "never claimed to be any great
player," which he then juxtaposes with the bald
statement that he "think[s]" he had "a peak Elo of
2300+." Why would our NMnot tell us he never made
a claim of being "any great player," yet then count
himself among the upper one-half of one percent?
NMnot understood the effect of his claim. He
knew that nearly every player would assume that
a claim of having "a peak Elo of 2300+ Elo" pertains
to over-the-board play and that he was claiming to
be plenty good.
Once again, the scene is your club. Someone
whom you know little or not at all walks in and then
announces, "[O]n the subject of playing strength, I
have never claimed to be any great player,
but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+ I am a tad
better than weak."
Will those in the club, who are listening, say to
themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo."
or will they say, "Oh, yah, he's talkin' about postal
chess because when a guy mentions his ratings,
chances are he is talking about postal chess."
I submit that the first reaction of listeners
-- the one certainly sought by NMnot when writing his
lie -- is to assume that OTB rating is being claimed.
Readers will notice that Greg Kennedy offers a
defense of NMnot Kingston's lie that the latter
himself eschews. Why? Because our NMnot figures
that most forum readers will not consider this writer an
idiot for maintaining that bald mention of a rating
will be assumed by the vast majority of listeners as a
reference to tournament chess playing performance.
NMnot Kingston could end this discussion and
thereby dispense with the embarrassing, unsought and
certainly unwanted defense of Greg Kennedy by making
the amende honorable. Even now, after the passage of
years, redemption is possible. Indeed, genuine
repentance is automatic redemption in His eyes.
I would ask our NMnot: Why not admit you
employed false identities to PRAISE YOURSELF and lied
about your chess rating? You have certainly twigged
by now that your chief defender -- Greg Kennedy -- has
absolutely no doubt that you lied. He is, in effect,
trying to claim you for himself by defending you.
Don't let him do that.
For now, our NMnot remains the man who told us
that he has "standards," even though he posted
messages under false names in which he PRAISED
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake. He remains the man who lied
about his rating. He remains the man who evinces
authentic character weakness when placed under
intellectual pressure.
NMnot Kingston will never forgive Greg Kennedy
for repeatedly forcing him to address the lie he told
about his rating. If Greg had just kept his big bazoo
zipped, NM Kingston would have quietly borne
references to his past on these forums. But when Greg
spoke up, a debate began, and our NMnot had to enter
the fray once again.
I confess that after my second posting on the
Kingston lie, I knew that NMnot would not reply and
worried that Greg would also keep quiet. But Greg
came through by issuing another response.
By the way, NMnot inflated his rating by 500
points -- not just 50.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot wrote:
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