Dear Phil Inses,

Phil Innes wrote:
Dear Mark Houslby,

Your own wit and wisdom are somewhat suspect in recent postings, and you
have taken to snipping so much of people's posts as to make them seem
incoherent to benefit whatever point you attempt to promote - a bad
habit
you've picked up somewhere, but if you want to be taken seriously its
something to avoid, since its so obviously a form of cheating the
discussion.

When I discuss your posts with you *in detail* inviting you to put
*your point-of-view* with respect to your *every point* about which I
am unclear, you decline to do so. When I respond with one-liners, you
complain about that, too. When I reproduce only a part of what you
write, you complain about that, too, but NEVER do we reach a
satisfactory conclusion. The reason we NEVER reach a satisfactory
conclusion is ALWAYS your RETICENCE.


Neither do I write long to amuse abusive hysterics. Previously you have
demanded evidence and proofs, while simultaneously snipping them, then
demanding more attention by obliging others to restore them.

That's right, I've tried *everything I can imagine*, Phil, but STILL
you decline to engage in a grown up dialogue. Why?

I never called Taylor Kingston weak, and certainly never said he was *weak*
on any day of the week. I said precisely that you cannot tell if a
player is
weak OTB by virtue of a postal rating.

Yes you did, and you were right about that. Taylor has NEVER claimed
the contrary. What you HAVE done, however, is jump into the debate on
the side of your fellow deranged troll Sam Sloan, who is evidently
convinced of some conspiracy on Taylor Kingston's part. You have
likewise appeared convinced of such a conspiracy, viz: between Kingston
and Brennen, even *after* it's been CLEARLY explained to you that it's
nonsense. Why do you persist in this nonsensical belief, Phil?

I believe I already answered that and other CHESS CONTENT questions of
converting ratings, which YOU have snipped, and as for moron, trolling
and
so on...

You forgot "deranged", Phil.

Mark Houlsby

Mike Murray wrote:
I agree that any rating system employing Elo's system *should* be
called "Elo". And I'll further agree that what I'm calling common
usage might be a regional anomaly. But, I've heard various strong
players say they wanted to play in such-and-such an event to "get an
Elo", even though they already had USCF ratings.

"Since 1960 the [Elo] system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership ... In 1970 the system was adopted by the World Chess
Federation (FIDE) for rating master chess players over the entire world
.... Subsequently many national chess federations have adopted the
system for their own purposes." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of
Chessplayers Past and Present" (Arco 1978) page 11.
Theoretically, the Elo system can be used for any one-on-one
competition: tennis, billiards, racquetball, horseshoes, dominoes,
boxing, arm-wrestling, etc. If there were any objective win-lose-draw
criteria, it might even be applicable to newsgroup ****ing contests.

On 12 Jun 2005 16:05:16 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

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.....


I hope you are aware that Mark Houlsby is a rated 1295 player in his
native Scotland and knows NOTHING about this subject. He just has a
loud mouth.

Sam Sloan

"Mark Houlsby" No, quite the contrary, it's *not at all likely*. If I was
under any such threat from people as powerful as that, I would *comply*. If
there was *any chance* of the authorities' discovering my dissention, I'd be
in trouble, wouldn't I?


But you are a gutless unprincipled piece of trash, unlike the kind of people
that grew up in the previous generations, and who took many risks for the
sake of freedom, especially during the Cold War.

Just cut to the point Mark - if you are capable of asking a straitforward
question that I did not already answer. And frankly, I do not feel obliged
to answer! Especially such a little snipper such as you who offer so much
abuse - you are a bit like a petulent child, no?

I am my own master and if its popularity you think I want, you think wrong.

Otherwise I rather feel that it is you who are the troll - you know -
endlessly dissatisfied with the way that other people are... zzz ... full of
abstract complaints.

As for your complaint below that I have jumped into the debate on behalf of
Sam Sloan, this is untrue. I recently wrote Taylor Kingston that he himself
stated that he first wrote to me based on what I had written about Averbakh
3 years ago. I offered liar Brennen to take the test to ask Kingston Taylor
himself if this were the case, and he declined. So much for his interest

I have tried to assess what this business of Kingston/Evans has to do with
Keres/Botvinnik, inter Alia Averbakh. No one has admitted any connection.

Phil Innes



"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear Phil Inses,

Phil Innes wrote:
Dear Mark Houslby,

Your own wit and wisdom are somewhat suspect in recent postings, and you
have taken to snipping so much of people's posts as to make them seem
incoherent to benefit whatever point you attempt to promote - a bad
habit
you've picked up somewhere, but if you want to be taken seriously its
something to avoid, since its so obviously a form of cheating the
discussion.

When I discuss your posts with you *in detail* inviting you to put
*your point-of-view* with respect to your *every point* about which I
am unclear, you decline to do so. When I respond with one-liners, you
complain about that, too. When I reproduce only a part of what you
write, you complain about that, too, but NEVER do we reach a
satisfactory conclusion. The reason we NEVER reach a satisfactory
conclusion is ALWAYS your RETICENCE.


Neither do I write long to amuse abusive hysterics. Previously you have
demanded evidence and proofs, while simultaneously snipping them, then
demanding more attention by obliging others to restore them.

That's right, I've tried *everything I can imagine*, Phil, but STILL
you decline to engage in a grown up dialogue. Why?

I never called Taylor Kingston weak, and certainly never said he was
*weak*
on any day of the week. I said precisely that you cannot tell if a
player is
weak OTB by virtue of a postal rating.

Yes you did, and you were right about that. Taylor has NEVER claimed
the contrary. What you HAVE done, however, is jump into the debate on
the side of your fellow deranged troll Sam Sloan, who is evidently
convinced of some conspiracy on Taylor Kingston's part. You have
likewise appeared convinced of such a conspiracy, viz: between Kingston
and Brennen, even *after* it's been CLEARLY explained to you that it's
nonsense. Why do you persist in this nonsensical belief, Phil?

I believe I already answered that and other CHESS CONTENT questions of
converting ratings, which YOU have snipped, and as for moron, trolling
and
so on...

You forgot "deranged", Phil.

Mark Houlsby

"Mark Houlsby" Thanks for your trouble... I'm sorry to tell you now that
I was joking....


Really, why would you invest in any kind of vitamins for your brain. You
can't get any dumber than you already are.

Chess One wrote:
to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.

You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.


Dave.


--
David Richerby Sadistic Vomit (TM): it's like a pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it wants to hurt you!

Chess One wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote:
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.....

Exactly.


I don't think this is wrong. An ELO rating is obtained for regularly
timed chess, under regular rules, and with an arbiter present. All
these types of rating need be assessed by the same methods to be
considered ELO equivalents.

No. The chess federations of country X and country Y can both calculate
ratings using Elo's system, for games played under the same conditions but
the ratings are still not directly comparable. If there are players who
have played in both countries, we can extrapolate from their ratings to
compute the *approximate* rating that a country X player would have in
country Y but that's the best that can be done.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Revolting Beer (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing lager but it'll turn your
stomach!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
to other types of rating which play by different rules, times and
without an arbiter is intellectual cheating.

You're confusing the system used to produce the ratings with the system
under which the rated games are played. Elo's system is just a way of
calculating ratings based on the result of games -- it is utterly
independent of how those games are played or even what the games are.

I wrote the same thing here this morning.

A chess rating is not an abstraction nor a metaphor nor a mathematical
system. It needs real-time play, regular rules, and a real arbiter present.

Dave.


--
David Richerby Sadistic Vomit (TM): it's like a
pile
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of puke but it wants to hurt you!

Sam Sloan wrote:
I hope you are aware that Mark Houlsby is a rated 1295 player in his
native Scotland and knows NOTHING about this subject.

That's a truly spectacular non sequitur. Well done!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it's
huge!