In article , wrote:

Tell you what. I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for one
thousand dollars cash money on the table. No electronic devices and no
going to the restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston really
is.

Sam must be a fecalphiliac. He carries his baby around at a policy board
meeting in her soiled diaper, and now he's asking Taylor Kingston to sit
across the board from him while Sam is crapping his pants.

Sam, if you can get Gordon Roy Parker to play a match with you, I'll put
up the prize fund myself.

--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:27:31 GMT, (Frisco Del
Rosario) wrote:

Sam, if you can get Gordon Roy Parker to play a match with you, I'll put
up the prize fund myself.

--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061

Do you really expect me to take on an Internet Grandmaster like Gordon
Roy Parker for money?

I would be terrified at the prospect. I prefer to stick to the sure
things, like Taylor Kingston, who I know I can beat, even though he
keeps referring to himself as "a master".

Sam Sloan

Horsefeathers.

I don't buy Taylor Kingston's "explanation" of his rating fib. I don't
buy his imaginary grievances against Larry Parr or GM Evans either.

Horsefeathers.

I don't buy Taylor Kingston's "explanation" of his rating fib. I don't
buy his imaginary grievances against Larry Parr or GM Evans either.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 10 Jun 2005 12:11:30 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:



Duncan Oxley wrote:
I want to stay out of this but one small comment:

"Another gaffe that Duncan Oxley pointed out is that Taylor Kingston's
correspondence rating is only 2037" is slightly misleading. I was
merely
commenting on the new MSA feature of displaying current correspondence
rating.

Thanks, Duncan.
The reason for my 2037 is simple. In 1985 I gave up correspondence
chess due to the birth of my second daughter. Increased family
responsibilites made it impossible to devote hours each week to postal
chess, so I quit cold turkey, with quite a few unfinished games. Such
games are counted as rated losses, which knocked my final PC rating
down about 250 points. However, anyone who still has an April 1985
Chess Life will find me at #45 among USCF Postal Masters, i.e. in the
top 1%.

I am willing to bet a fairly large amount of money that if we had some
way to check out this story (which unfortunately we do not) we would
find that this is just another lie by Taylor Kingston. Now that we
know him a little better, we know that almost everything he writes is
a lie.
If it matters to anyone, Taylor Kingston is listed in the top 50 UCSF
correspondence players as no. 45 with a rating of 1806 (master level in the
rating system of those old days) in the april issue of Chess Life.


He would have had to lose a very large number of games to drop 250
points just by forfeiting his remaining games.

Even if this highly improbable story turns out to be true, Taylor
Kingston is still a liar. He started this by writing that his Elo
rating was 2300+. Elo ratings were ratings calculated by Professor
Elo. He never calculated correspondence chess ratings and thus
correspondence chess ratings have never been Elo ratings.

Also, correspondence chess players have access to books, computers and
friends who help them with analysis. Many top correspondence players
are not strong over-the-board. Dr. Norman Hornstein of North Carolina
was consistently rated among the top players on the Chess Review list,
yet his over-the-board rating was 1750. Gary Abram was the number one
correspondence player in the US and winner of the Golden Knights, but
his over-the-board rating was 1950. Nobody would claim that even the
number 45 player on the USCF postal list was the equivalent of 2300
over-the-board.

Contrary to what Sloan says, I make no claim that this makes me at
all important, or the equal of GMs Evans or Lombardy as an analyst. I
merely submit that it shows I was not the "weak player" Sloan and Parr
tried to claim. I leave Sloan now to his mendacious contortions and
semantic chaos.

What I wrote was that Taylor Kingston was too weak to see the numerous
subtle errors in the Keres-Botvinnik match which enabled Botvinnik to
win that match 4-0. Does Taylor Kingston seriously dispute that fact?
I am a vastly stronger chess player than Taylor Kingston but I freely
admit that I cannot see the blunders in the Keres-Botvinnik match. I
can just see the one very obvious blunder I have displayed on my
website at http://www.samsloan.com/keres-bo.htm

Tell you what. I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for one
thousand dollars cash money on the table. No electronic devices and no
going to the restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston really
is.

Sam Sloan

P.S. you do have to bring photo ID however, to prove that your name
really is Taylor Kingston.

Dear Sam Sloan,

I think Taylor Kingston simply engaged in some
wish-fulfillment without thinking too much about it.
He certainly did not expect anyone to search out the
facts as you did.

You are correct: he meant to deceive when
stating offhand that he was ELO 2300, but let's give
him a chance simply to make amends.

If Mr. Kingston sends his regret that he let his
ego get in the way of his self-respect, I will say
that he has done a courageous thing and is on the road
to self-repair.

"You and Blair make me sick. ..."
- fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:13 -0700)

"You and Blair make me sick. ..."
- fed up (30 Apr 2005 19:50:15 -0700)

"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:16 -0700)

"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:19 -0700)

"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:24 -0700)

"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:29 -0700)

"All the name-calling seems ..."
- fed up (8 Jun 2005 06:43:38 -0700)

"Horsefeathers. I don't buy ..."
- fed up (10 Jun 2005 18:22:01 -0700)

"Horsefeathers. I don't buy ..."
- fed up (10 Jun 2005 18:22:06 -0700)

"NEIL IS CHRONOLOGICALLY ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 05:48:39 -0700)

"NEIL IS CHRONOLOGICALLY ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 05:49:04 -0700)

"TROLLSBY AND BRENNEN ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 21:47:13 -0700)

"TROLLSBY AND BRENNEN ..."
- Larry Parr (31 May 2005 21:48:38 -0700)

"... tournament at Buenos Aires in 1960."
- Larry Parr (3 Jun 2005 15:09:27 -0700)

"... tournament at Buenos Aires in 1960."
- Larry Parr (3 Jun 2005 15:09:53 -0700)

"... Chess Life, June 2005, page 12 ..."
- Larry Parr (6 Jun 2005 16:10:22 -0700)

"... Chess Life, June 2005, page 12 ..."
- Larry Parr (6 Jun 2005 16:11:01 -0700)

Dear Larry Parr,

And I would be willing to forgive you for your defense (celebration?)
of statutory rape. As atonement, please write a 10,000-word essay
entitled, "Just Because Soldiers on Leave Do It Doesn't Make It Right."

politikalhack Dear Larry Parr, And I would be willing to forgive you for
your defense (celebration?) of statutory rape.

Dear Inbred cornholing dicksucker fag,

Larry Parr pointed out that Sloan's article clearly stated the woman was 19
years old. The ones in the huts were of unknown origin, but Sloan did not
claim they were underage. Unless you were there servicing the men, you do
not know, so shut your HO mouth, Beeyatch.

It is bad enough that every Chess Masters first sexual encounter is with a
prostitute, but then we also have to deal with the homosexualization of the
USCF.

Dear Bill Brock,

I note that--up to now--Sloan has neglected to file suit against you.
If you're slandering him, why doesn't he do that, I wonder?

He attacks you here, repeatedly, but he doesn't sue you...

Hmmmm. It's a puzzle, this one.

Regards,
Mark Houlsby