On Nov 3, 1:38 am, " wrote:

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."

Good gawd -- not another one of /those/ people!

It reminds me of the threads here in rgc in which the
subject of IQ is discussed. Without fail, a half dozen
or more posters immediately announce that they are
among the top 2% of all the people in the world, in
spite of the obvious fact that they are wasting their
valuable time by reading and posting here at rgc.


Will those in the club, who are listening, say to
themselves, "This guy is a master at 2300+ Elo."

A subtle point often missed by weak players -- and
here by Mr. Parr -- is that 2300 is the *bottom* of the
FIDE master class. So when someone says their
"peak" FIDE rating was 2300, it means they may very
well be in a lower class now (a "former" FM, if there is
such a thing).

Now, in USCF terms, 2300 is smack dab in the
middle of the NM class, so if one's peak really was
2300+, it is unknown what class they might be in now.
Many such players are sitting on a rating floor, which
would typically be 2200.


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."

Most people at the local club would probably make
no assumption one way or another, and instead ask:
"Really? What's your rating now? And did you ever
play Emory Tate? How did you do in the State
Championship? That sort of thing.


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.

Freaky. In many people's estimation, a correspondence
rating is superior to an OTB rating in the sense that OTB
entails such skills as time-management, blitz, and being
able to think in spite of annoyances like inconsiderate
players talking, doors slamming, etc., etc.

Correspondence play -- cheating aside -- is a far better
measure of depth of understanding, added to research
and position judgment. In the case in question, the
rating and ranking were earned pre-computer, so that
leaves only the possibility that say, IM Innes was
consulted during play. I dismiss that possibility on the
rationale that most cheaters don't like to involve others
for obvious reasons, and this particular case would've
required the involvement of a very skilled player -- likely
someone much better than IM Innes.


NMnot Kingston could end this discussion and
thereby dispense with the embarrassing

I expect he enjoys the embarrassment. As one
poster recently put it, there is a certain degree of
entertainment value in watching the antics of the
ratpack. Even those who recommend kill filing say,
IM Innes, are obviously not following their own
advice, but reading this stuff.


I would ask our NMnot: Why not admit you
employed false identities to PRAISE YOURSELF

He could start with Sanny. Nobody believes that
guy is for real. He must be an invention, and why is
it that he always says TK is better than help bot when
help bot much higher-rated at 1350+? I smell a rat.


But these are mere annoyances. The real issue is
IM Innes and his lying problem. I challenge IM Innes
to admit that he told a fib, that he made all that stuff
up because he mistakenly thought he could get away
with it, and now he is ready to reform. I just want the
nearly-a-man to own his own words; to stand up off
the floor (laughing or not); to crawl out of the muck.
Don't do it for me; do it for the Gipper. Or do it for
Rob "The Robber" Mitchell, but just do it.


-- help bot