In article om,
Taylor Kingston wrote:


Jerzy wrote:
BTW Taylor, with all due respect to ratings : what ratings had Batvinnik and
Keres in 1948 ? ;-)

The only source I have for this is the chart on pages 88-89 of Elo's
"The Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present." There Botvinnik in 1948
looks to be around 2715, Keres about 2660.

Jeff Sonas' chessmetrics.com gives Botvinnk 2826, Keres 2754 in March
1948.

-ed g.
--
Caissa have mercy on a miserable patzer: http://altergoniff.blogspot.com

Ed Gaillard wrote:
BTW Taylor, with all due respect to ratings : what ratings had
Botvinnik and Keres in 1948 ? ;-)

The only source I have for this is the chart on pages 88-89 of Elo's
"The Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present." There Botvinnik in
1948 looks to be around 2715, Keres about 2660.

Jeff Sonas' chessmetrics.com gives Botvinnk 2826, Keres 2754 in March
1948.

So taking ratings too seriously leads to funny results. Ratings don`t
measure one`s chess strength in absolute values but they show one`s strength
comparatively to others in a period of time. I think that Jeff Sonas took a
longer period for his comparative analysis.

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

Speaking of mud-wrestling, has Larry Parr ever had a USCF rating?
Checking both www.uschess.org and old copies of Chess Life from the
time he was editor, I can't find any rating for any Larry or Lawrence
Parr. Anyone know anything on this?

Larry Parr is a hanger-on and GM jock sniffer. He is only here to line his
pockets in any way he can.

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

I repeat my question: has Larry Parr ever had a USCF rating, normal
OTB, quick, postal, or otherwise?

I propose a match between Parr and Carol Jarecki. Stakes: two checks for
1,500 each.

wrote:
WHAT KINGSTON DOESN'T LIKE

Taylor Kingston, who
still won't come clean about why he is ducking Sam Sloan in a match.
Mr. 2300+ ELO, No. 46. Heh, heh, heh, heh. But Lord, oh Lordy,
save me from Sam "1931" Sloan!

OK, Larry, I'm "coming clean."
On several occasions I have observed that you missed your calling,
Larry. You would be excellent as a spin-doctor for a dirty politician,
or a propaganda minister for a dictator. However, I think you would
have been best as a "People's Prosecutor," in the mold of
Vishinsky and Krylenko. No need to worry about facts or evidence -
your victims would just confess their crimes according to a
pre-arranged script you wrote yourself. Pardon me if diverge from your
script.
Sloan's challenge is the act of a bar-room loudmouth who says
"Step outside!" when he's on the losing side an argument. Not
even when I'm actually in a bar do I bother with such people. Chess
is a game for gentlemen, which Sloan decidedly is not.
Now, Larry, you seem to think that his act of schoolyard rodomontade
requires that I must, on short notice, abandon all my professional and
personal commitments, not to mention the pleasures of my family, home
and garden in a glorious Vermont summer, to spend several days in close
confinement with a convicted felon of dubious hygiene, even more
dubious sexual proclivities, and not at all dubious mendacity and moral
degeneracy, accompanied by his howling infant offspring.
Frankly, Larry, on moral and social grounds, I feel as justified in
shunning Sloan as FIDE did in shunning Alekhine after WW II, or
Israelis did in shunning the recent FIDE Championship in Libya. And yet
you attribute my attitude to ... cowardice? Well, there's no
accounting for taste, and the world is full of people who believe weird
things.

What he doesn't like is that I won't give him more than that.

What Larry doesn't like is the way that I and others on this
newsgroup routinely embarrass him by pointing out his and Sloan's
lies. Perhaps he figures if Sloan were to beat me in a match, he could
somehow claim that the many critics of Parr and Sloan are wrong, or
that at least he'll get some measure of vicarious petty revenge.
Lord, Larry, I have better things to do than worry about every
puerile punk that calls me "chicken." I would have thought you had
outgrown that pre-adolescent stuff several decades ago. And I've been
around too long, seen "Back to the Future" too many times, to
respond in the hot-headed fashion you hope for.
I have beaten enough 1900+ players in my time (over-the-board as well
as postally) that Sam's rating does not overly concern me. Elo's
math says he'd probably win, but Sam seems to be declining noticeably
the last few years. Sloan fills me with no great dread as a chess
player.
But he does fill me with great revulsion as a person. And $1,000, nor
even $10,000, is hardly sufficient compensation for that, let alone for
my valuable time, whether I were rated 1811 or 2811. As Albert Finney
said to Richard Widmark in "Murder on the Orient Express" (and here
I paraphrase from memory) "I have made enough money to satisfy both
my needs and my caprices. I take only such cases as interest me, and my
interest in your case, frankly, is dwindling." I doubt that any sum
you're likely to propose, let alone raise, would be enough to pique
my interest. Or overcome my disgust.
So absent some misguided Macaenas, the only conditions under which I
would play a match with Sloan involve changes in Sloan himself, changes
in his character and behavior. But these would be so radical that the
probability of their being met is probably less than the aforementioned
financial conditions. If and when Sam straightens out, maybe we can
talk again.

METHINKS KINGSTON DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH

If and when Sam straightens out, maybe we can talk again. Taylor
Kingston

Methinks NM Taylor Kingston, the 2300+ Elo paragon, doth protest
too much. Or is it at too great a length? He has no time for this or
that, though he has plenty of time to write lengthy messages denying
that he has time.

Mr. Kingston has come out with his most extensive
proud-man-contumely defense yet. He is simply too high and mighty or
Mr. Sloan is too subterranean for a match to be played. Their
altitudes are dissimilar. Vermont is Vermont and Flatbush is Sloan and
never the twain shall meet.

Something like that.

I have no problem at all with Mr. Kingston stating he will not
play Mr. Sloan because he wishes to smell the coffee and flowers of
Vermont in the summer. I do have a problem with the man telling us he
will not play because he is too good to sit across from a pile of
manure when the truth is obvious to all: the 2300+ Elo monument fears
getting his granite chipped by 1931 Sloan.

There is nothing discreditable in such a fear, but the man must stop
assuming postures, since he will cavort with the likes of a Mark
Houlsby or Stan Booz easily enough. He will call names and consort with
the lowest slime on this forum.

Based on the statements of the two men on rgcp and only the
statements, it is evident that Mr. Sloan is a behemoth of sporting elan
when compared with Mr. Kingston. Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than
that of most of his gutter critics and his forthrightness makes Mr.
Kingston's striking poses look stilted and ever so dishonest.

One is certain that a match could be arranged over the Net for
times other than summer, and one is certain that the refusal would be
couched in the same silly terms.

NM Kingston needs to write, "I won't play Sam Sloan because I
don't like him and don't want to lose to him, which I very much expect
would occur. The idea of putting money in his pocket appalls me."

wrote:
I do have a problem with the man telling us he
will not play because he is too good to sit across from a pile of
manure when the truth is obvious to all: the 2300+ Elo monument fears
getting his granite chipped by 1931 Sloan.

Larry, if I were as worried as you claim about my "2300+ Elo
monument" I would have neglected my family so as to preserve or raise
my peak postal rating, then quit chess altogether, both postal and OTB,
back in 1985. Instead for two decades in the backwaters of American
chess I have quietly carved out an obscure on-again-off-again OTB
career of consistent just-above-mediocrity, punctuated by some lapses
into laughable ineptitude and occasional flights to slightly higher
levels of mediocrity. I have no granite to chip.

He will call names and consort with
the lowest slime on this forum.

Why are you describing your relationship with Sloan in the third
person?

Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than
that of most of his gutter critics and his forthrightness makes Mr.
Kingston's striking poses look stilted and ever so dishonest.

As I said earlier, the world is full of people who believe weird
things. So if you want to believe I'm worried about preserving a
legacy of greatness I never had, no one can stop you.
And if you want to insist that Sam Sloan is a paragon of virtue and
honesty (even though you don't really believe it) that too is your
privilege. Who knows, someone might believe you -- I think there are
still people who insist the earth is flat.
Well, enough on this topic. I'll leave Larry to help Sam with his
opening preparation. I hear there are some exciting new TNs in the
Damiano!

wrote:
Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than
that of most of his gutter critics ...

"I plan to beat the ****ing **** at chess out of this asshole Bill
Brock, so please have your money ready." -- Sam Sloan, 23 June 2005

Taylor,

I don't look in here much anymore, but you fail to note that this is
exceptional language from Sam Slaon, rather than typical, while you entirely
omit to mention that it is typical language of his hosts.

You have, may I mention? this bad habit which distorts contextual material -
deliberately on your part in this and other more poignant cases, and which
maintains this correspondance in the basement of our affections.

Will you de-defenestrate yourself to achive more than casual applause from
the very cheapest seats in the gallery?

Phil Innes

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


wrote:
Mr. Sloan's language is cleaner than
that of most of his gutter critics ...

"I plan to beat the ****ing **** at chess out of this asshole Bill
Brock, so please have your money ready." -- Sam Sloan, 23 June 2005

Chess One wrote:
I don't look in here much anymore, but you fail to note that this is
exceptional language from Sam Slaon, rather than typical, while you entirely
omit to mention that it is typical language of his hosts.

Never said it was typical or atypical of anyone. However, it is
obviously contrary to the image of Sloan that Parr wants to foist.

You have, may I mention?

No, you may not.