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

"Sam Sloan" 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.

Hey Sloan, you must be around 65 years old? Maybe you are getting senile?
Give it a rest pal. Taylor is some Jamaican scumbag who probably picks the
lice out of his Rasta braids. Who cares what he says?

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.

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. =81c 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.
=20
Sam Sloan

Keep banging those rocks together.

Jackass.

Mark Houlsby

Sam Sloan:

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.

This is a good example of Sam Sloan's nearly total imperviousness to
criticism or evidence. He apparently still thinks it's "obvious" to any
strong player that Keres-Botvinnik games were fixed, in spite of the
fact that numerous posters have pointed out that there are GM-strength
players on both sides of this issue.

The Keres-Botvinnik analysis Sam has posted on his own website is
trash, because it uncritically endorses the theory that the more
strategically bad the moves are, the more likely the fix.

Evans' original analysis was (not surprisingly) much better --- he
acknowledged that a skillful fix was likely to involve subtle errors
designed to avoid immediate detection, by the likes of Sam Sloan for
example.

This point sailed right over Sloan's head, and apparently continues to
do so. For example Sam writes:

"The drawing technique is simple. White leaves his rook on the fourth
rank. Eventually, to make progress, Black must advance his pawn to g4.
White then must immediately move his rook to the eighth rank and start
checking from behind. The Black king cannot escape the checks and the
game is a draw."

"What did Keres do? He made a move that even a 1600 player would be
embarrassed to make. He retreated his rook back to d3, allowing
Botvinnik to seize the fourth rank with 53. ... Rf4."

So if Evans is right about the proper way to fix a chess game, then
Sloan's comments do not make sense. A world-class GM does not throw a
game by making "a move that even a 1600 player would be embarrassed to
make".

My own opinion is that game analysis alone could never provide
conclusive evidence of a fix, because a sufficiently ingenious and
paranoid analyst could take _any_ game with decisive errors and make a
case for something fishy going on..

Larry T.

(USCF 2300 if that matters)

Larry Tapper wrote:
My own opinion is that game analysis alone could never provide
conclusive evidence of a fix, because a sufficiently ingenious and
paranoid analyst could take _any_ game with decisive errors and make
a case for something fishy going on..

Larry T.

(USCF 2300 if that matters)

That`s just your opinion and it `s your right to stick to it. However it`s
an obvious fact that Keres couldn`t win the game with Botvinnik in 1948. The
question is : who forced him to do so. BTW I don`t think Botvinnik was aware
that Keres played a bad move on purpose.

On 10 Jun 2005 05:31:43 -0700, "Larry Tapper"
wrote:

For example Sam writes:
....
"What did Keres do? He made a move that even a 1600 player would be
embarrassed to make. He retreated his rook back to d3, allowing
Botvinnik to seize the fourth rank with 53. ... Rf4."

So if Evans is right about the proper way to fix a chess game, then
Sloan's comments do not make sense. A world-class GM does not throw a
game by making "a move that even a 1600 player would be embarrassed to
make".

This assumes that Keres *wanted* to throw the game in a way that would
avoid suspicion. Maybe he wanted to leave some doubt, but still
satisfy the Party and avoid being shot.

My own opinion is that game analysis alone could never provide
conclusive evidence of a fix, because a sufficiently ingenious and
paranoid analyst could take _any_ game with decisive errors and make a
case for something fishy going on..

I agree, but game analysis, combined with an analysis of the political
situation, is still an important part of the web of circumstance.

Larry T.

(USCF 2300 if that matters)

"Mike Murray" This assumes that Keres *wanted* to throw the game in a way
that would avoid suspicion. Maybe he wanted to leave some doubt, but still
satisfy the Party and avoid being shot.


Interesting that everyone up to now has pretty much ignored the Cold War
politics, which were a major part of the world, especially from 1960-1988.

I guess only Keres knows the truth, and I presume that he never admitted it.

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.

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.

You're such a moron, Sloan. Really, you are.

Mark Houlsby