SOME LARGER PURPOSE

Larry, I find your argument convincing, but I have to ask myself:
"why is
this all worth arguing over?" Is your aim simply to defeat several
debate opponents, or is there some larger purpose that a rgcp novice
like myself is missing? -- Cheers, Rev. J.D. Walker, U.C.

Dear Rev. Walker,

What is my purpose in examining in detail a
statement made by Taylor Kingston, who falsely
claimed to be 2300+ Elo?

Just to win a debate?

Well, yes, it is fun. I know that none of this
should afford me the least pleasure, but like everyone
else I have my flaws. I admit to being amused every
time this topic arises here because the same scenario
ensues: NMnot Kingston keeps his trap shut for a few
days; then Greg Kennedy again appears here under the
false name of help bot, finally shoots his wad geyserlike;
and NMnot Kingston reluctantly returns -- angry as
Hades with our Greg, you can bet -- and always speaks
to anyone other than this writer about how this whole
issue was "refuted" long ago.

It was never refuted, except in Mr. Kingston's own mind.
Then the discussion inevitably switches to Phil Innes' old
"nearly an IM" claim.
..

Yes, yes, there is little excuse for enjoying
this process. I know that.

Concerning the issue of what most players, when
hearing from a person they know little about, will
think when that person announces baldly, without
qualification and irony, that he is 2300+ Elo, I
am content to leave the argument as it stands.

Greg Kennedy, the botster, claims people would
not leap to the conclusion that the person is talking
about over-the-board tournament play. I mtaintain that
most would indeed make such an assumption.

Readers here will decide for themselves based on
countless conversations they themselves have had over
the years at tournaments and in clubs when people
introduce themselves by reciting their Elo rating.

David Kane makes a more intelligent argument
than the drivel offered by the resentful Greg Kennedy, and I
will deal with it in another posting later on.

Yours, Larry Parr




David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

You are confusing the reaction of stupid listeners
(like yourself) with all listeners. If Kingston were
trying to deceive, then why did he give his actual
ranking? That told any (thinking) person (i.e. people
other than Sloan, Innes, Parr etc.) that it definitely
was *not* an OTB rating.

In fact, his correspondence ranking *was* proof
that he was not too "weak" to comment on that
thread. Case closed.