politikalhack "Sam Sloan, A Chess Master [...]" What's his ELO?


Electric Light Orchestra? I liked them back in the late 1970s, early 1980s.
It is amazing to see that you Chess guys rate each other based on ELO.

I bet the band never knew this, or they might not have broken up. I used to
have most of their LPs, so I should have a pretty high ELO rating myself. I
saw Xanadu back around 1980, and that should be worth about 200 points just
considering how bad the movie was.

I guess Checkers Federation rates each other based on Metallica? What's your
MET?

Ok, nice trollpost.

Not a lol, but definitely a l.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

For readers interested in the actual facts, I refer them to the first
post in the thread "Falling into Holes with Parr and Sloan" on
rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.politics.
I will add that the "greasy weasel" referred to below was Larry Parr,
not Larry Evans as Sam's misquote would have you believe.


You havent answered the question. Have you lied about your rating ?

Regards

Sam Sloan wrote:
Taylor Kingston caught lying again, says that his Elo rating was 2300+

On 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700, "Taylor Kingston"
wrote:

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."

This posting has generated more than one hundred comments in less than
a week because Taylor Kingston has a published USCF rating of 1811 and
it never happens that a 2300 player drops to 1811.

Taylor Kingston has a list of chess personalities he attacks all the
time. It Is a remarkable coincidence that his list is identical with
the list of chess personalities that Edward Winter attacks all the
time. That list includes Ray Keene, Larry Evans and Eric Schiller, who
happen to be the three most prolific and widely read chess authors in
the world. Accordingly, I should be honored that my name has been
added fairly recently to this list of famous chess personalities who
are constantly attacked by Edward Winter and Taylor Kingston.

For example, about Chess Icon Larry Evans, Taylor Kingston wrote,
"Evans is grossly, amazingly dishonest. ?c Today is my 30th wedding
anniversary, and I would rather be celebrating it with my wife, than
arguing with a greasy weasel."

It is interesting that Taylor Kingston refers to his 30th wedding
anniversary, because Edward Winter has been attacking Ray Keene for
the past 30 years. The man I met a few years ago who identified
himself as Taylor Kingston seemed to be much younger than I imagined
Edward Winter to be, but now it seems that the age difference may not
be a big hole in my theory that Taylor Kingston and Edward Winter are
actually the same person.

Taylor Kingston asserts that he is stronger than 99% of the chess
players in the world and therefore he is not weak. However, I did not
compare him to the great unwashed masses. I compared Taylor Kingston
to Grandmaster William Lombardy. What I actually wrote was:

Grandmaster William Lombardy has since told me that that he
knew that the games were fixed ever since he became a strong player in
the early 1950s because of the numerous suspicious moves in these
games. Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he
cannot understand these simple and obvious points.

Taylor Kingston is simply unable to comprehend his own inadequacies as
a chess player. He is like a man with a short penis who thinks that
his penis is long. Taylor Kingston thinks that his opinion about chess
positions are just as valid as those of Grandmaster Lombardy. He does
not comprehend that chess players pay money to buy books and magazines
by grandmasters like Evans and Lombardy, whereas nobody would pay a
penny for the chess opinions of an 1811 player like Taylor Kingston.

Regarding his claim to have been a 2300+ Elo rated player, after it
was pointed out that the highest his USCF rating has ever been was
1853 and he has never has an Elo rating, Taylor Kingston said that in
1985 he had an 1806 correspondence rating which was the equivalent of
2300.

This is a lie for many reasons. Here are a few of them.

The USCF correspondence ratings are the old Chess Review ratings which
the USCF purchased in the late 1960s. These are not Elo ratings at
all. Under that system, a player got to select his own initial rating.
A player could start himself at 600, 900, 1200, or 1500. When I
played, I always started my rating at 600, preferring to start at the
bottom and work my way up. My opponents often complained that I was
stronger than my rating. Somebody like Taylor Kingston who wants to
prove how great he is could start himself at 1500 and without much
difficulty reach 1806. Nobody would claim that this was the same as a
2300 Elo rating.

Also, Taylor Kingston claimed that he was the number 46 rated player
in the entire country. Another lie. There are many correspondence
chess federations. There is the CCLA, the ICCF and the APTC among
others. Serious correspondence players play with the CCLA or the ICCF,
not with the USCF. Being the number 46 correspondence player with the
USCF probably does not even make the player in the top two hundred in
the country.

Another gaffe that Duncan Oxley pointed out is that Taylor Kingston's
correspondence rating is only 2037.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12360630

Taylor Kingston says that this is his rating from 1985, as he has not
played since then.

However, 1985 is the same year that Taylor Kingston said that he had a
2300 + Elo rating. Apparently, Taylor Kingston does not see the
difference between a 2300+ rating and a 2037 rating.

USCF ratings are not Elo ratings. Elo ratings are FIDE ratings which,
until 1984, were done by Professor Elo himself.. USCF ratings were
originally calculated under the Harkness System and now are under the
Glickman System. Neither of these systems are similar to the Elo
System and nobody has ever called USCF ratings Elo ratings.
Correspondence ratings have also never been done under the Elo System.

So, the short of it is that Taylor Kingston is just an all-around
liar.

Sam Sloan

He *has* answered the question. Pay attention!

He hasn't lied about his rating. He made a slight miscalculation in
converting it from the old US Postal system to a more up-to-date Elo,
but then, after this error was pointed it out, acknowledged the same,
and revised the rating downward by about 50 points.

Several trolls make a *big thing* about ratings. The main reason why
they do this, evidently, is to divert attention from the fact that they
have *lost* an argument.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Mark

On 12 Jun 2005 08:41:48 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

He *has* answered the question. Pay attention!

He hasn't lied about his rating. He made a slight miscalculation in
converting it from the old US Postal system to a more up-to-date Elo,
but then, after this error was pointed it out, acknowledged the same,
and revised the rating downward by about 50 points.

Several trolls make a *big thing* about ratings. The main reason why
they do this, evidently, is to divert attention from the fact that they
have *lost* an argument.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Mark

There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.

Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
System and has never been close.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.

Even small children of low intelligence usually need to touch a hot
stove only once, to learn that touching a hot stove is a bad idea. But
not our Sam! When one of his glaring errors is pointed out, he just
keeps repeating it over and over, like a defective Energizer Bunny with
a tape loop.
USCF converted all their postal ratings directly from the old
CR-style system to the OTB-style Elo system circa 1987, as others on
this group have already pointed out.

Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
System and has never been close.

Sam continues to swear on a Bible that day is night. Another of those
errors he keeps repeating is that only FIDE ratings are Elo ratings.
Wrong.
As I pointed out directly to Sam on 6 June, the USCF rating system
was designed by Dr. Arpad Elo himself. The USCF has used the Elo rating
system since 1960, BEFORE FIDE, which began using it about 10 years
later. USCF ratings are Elo ratings. I quote again from Elo's "The
Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco, 1978), page 11: "Since 1960 the [Elo]
system has been used by the USCF for rating its entire membership."
In the postal rating conversion, my peak rating of 1816 in early 1985
would have converted to about 2270, as has already been pointed out on
this group. I was incorrect to believe it would have been 2300+, but,
contrary to Sam's above assertion, it was close.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:14:09 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.

Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
System and has never been close.

AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,
although the Elo rating system is used to calculate USCF ratings, and
also could be used to calculate ratings used by clubs or regional
organizations.

While a conversion from the old Chess Review formula to the Elo
formula could easily be made (and errors would eventually correct
themselves), it wouldn't be to what most people call "Elo", but to
one more system managed according to the Elo system.

So, Sam has a point, but it's less significant that he would like to
make it, IMO.


Sam Sloan

Mike Murray wrote:
AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,



Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
*any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
*equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....

Mike Murray:
although the Elo rating system is used to calculate USCF ratings, and
also could be used to calculate ratings used by clubs or regional
organizations.



Right. This contradicts your initial statement, which, it turns out, is
horse manure.

Mike Murray:
While a conversion from the old Chess Review formula to the Elo
formula could easily be made (and errors would eventually correct
themselves), it wouldn't be to what most people call "Elo", but to
one more system managed according to the Elo system.



Wrong again. See above.


Mike Murray:
So, Sam has a point,


Wrong again. See above.

Mike Murray:
but it's less significant that he would like to
make it, IMO.



It's a *lot* less significant than he would like to make it. It's not
significant *at all* what with its being pure *horse manure*.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sam Sloan wrote:
There is no such thing as coverting the old Chess Review postal chess
system to the modern Elo Fide system. No such conversion exists.

Even small children of low intelligence usually need to touch a hot
stove only once, to learn that touching a hot stove is a bad idea. But
not our Sam! When one of his glaring errors is pointed out, he just
keeps repeating it over and over, like a defective Energizer Bunny with
a tape loop.
USCF converted all their postal ratings directly from the old
CR-style system to the OTB-style Elo system circa 1987, as others on
this group have already pointed out.

Also, a USCF over-the-board 2400 rating is equivalent to 2300 in the
Elo System and Taylor Kingston is 600 points below 2400 on the USCF
System and has never been close.

Sam continues to swear on a Bible that day is night. Another of those
errors he keeps repeating is that only FIDE ratings are Elo ratings.
Wrong.
As I pointed out directly to Sam on 6 June, the USCF rating system
was designed by Dr. Arpad Elo himself. The USCF has used the Elo rating
system since 1960, BEFORE FIDE, which began using it about 10 years
later. USCF ratings are Elo ratings. I quote again from Elo's "The
Rating of Chessplayers" (Arco, 1978), page 11: "Since 1960 the [Elo]
system has been used by the USCF for rating its entire membership."
In the postal rating conversion, my peak rating of 1816 in early 1985
would have converted to about 2270, as has already been pointed out on
this group. I was incorrect to believe it would have been 2300+, but,
contrary to Sam's above assertion, it was close.



There is something strange with uscf ratings. How can somebody have
a supposed rating of 2270 20 years ago but only have a 1500 icc rating now.
It doesnt make sense.

The USCF converted postal ratings to OTB.
This involved 2 completely different populations and is
statistically impossible.

As I understand it you never exceeded 1900 OTB.
All very strange.

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mike Murray wrote:
AFAIK, common usage generally restricts "Elo" to FIDE ratings,



Wrong. Completely wrong. Totally and utterly wrong. "Elo" refers to
*any* rating system which uses Dr. Arpad Elo's idea, so it applies
*equally* to, say, USCF ratings, FIDE ratings, SCA ratings, DWZ
ratings, ICC ratings, WCN ratings, playchess.com ratings.....


You are correct but it is statistically impossible to convert ratings
from one to another ie USCF cannot be converted to ICC.

Regards