On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan wrote:

ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a
correspondence chess rating.

Nonsense. "All ICCF titles, championships and ratings are recognised
by FIDE." ICCF website. Correspondence players talk about their ELO
ratings all the time. The ICCF even has a rating search engine named
Eloquery.

As for the use of the term "ELO" for "USCF Rating", Mr. Kingston would
not be the first chess player to do so, nor will he be the last.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE GREG KENNEDY

Mr. 2300+ Elo doesn't need enemies.

help bot wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:18 am, samsloan wrote:

For those who may not know, Taylor Kingston wrote
that he had been a "2300+", and it turned out that he
was talking about his superb correspondence chess
record, not over-the-board ratings and certainly not
a FIDE OTB rating. The only "lie" I have managed to
detect is the fiction which the Evans ratpackers have
warmly embraced ("surprise!") on this issue.

Not true. Here is the exact quote:

Taylor Kingston caught lying again

You apparently "forgot" to include any of the prior
instances where you think you "caught" TK lying
before this one; try to focus. LOL


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

So, the subject was "playing strength", eh? I wonder
where the imbecile Larry Parr got the idea it *must* mean
over the board playing strength, since that was not
specified? Probably just a brain fart side-affect of Ad
Hom's disease.


I have never claimed to be any great
player

Hmm... again, no mention of over the board play, just
"play" at chess. Are you beginning to detect a pattern?
Think hard.


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."

ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating

No, I believe ELO is a boy-band. What TK wrote was
that his "Elo" (that's a reference to Arpad Elo -- the bloke
who developed the ratings system adopted by the USCF
and later, by FIDE) was 2300+. We have already gone
over this countless times, and it was established that:

a) TK's number was probably inflated by about 50 points
due to a conversion error

and

b) he was also off by a few places on his USA ranking,
due to an imperfect memory.


and especially not a correspondence chess rating.

Try to think; a rating is not classified as Elo or not
Elo based on the time controls or venue. Elo is just
the guy's name. The rating system is the same.


When Kingston wrote that he had a "peak
Elo of 2300+" he was saying that his over-the-board face-to-face
rating was over 2300.

No, he wasn't.


By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either.

Nothing gets past you; you are a regular genius.


His highest correspondence rating was only about 1800 but he claimed that
this was under the old system which, he claimed, was equivalent to
2300 under the new system.

We already beat that horse to death, fella. If you forgot,
it must be that LP is not the only one here going senile.


Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have
never been above the 1800 level.

Heck, he is rated 1315 at GetClub -- if you are too
ignorant to know the difference between one rating
and another. Mr. Kingston's crime, if you are so
desperate to find one here, was that his attempt
at conversion to modern numbers was off by about
50 points in his own favor because his formula was
imperfect. His faulty memory was responsible for
the small error in his reported ranking (he seems
to have serious problems in that area).

Where the *lies* begin is when Larry Parr and his
evil minions walk on stage.

Try to think more clearly; the subject was what?
Playing strength. The relevance of over the board
vs. correspondence? Zero. What was TK's
playing strength? Somewhere above 2200 but
below 2300+. Was that good enough? Yes. Did
he fake not being "weak"? No. That's better.


-- helpful bot

On Nov 1, 6:01 pm, "
wrote:

We are starting to sound a bit overboard in anti-Sloan talk. Sloan has
identified some sleazy behavior which would not have come out without
his persistence.

He has also peddled fabrications and unsubstantiated nonsense, in
the process smearing people not deserving of such treatment. He also
raises innumerable false alarms, which if all were acted upon would
completely paralyze the USCF. As for "sleazy behavior," his own life
is full of it.

Sloan is like the boy who cried wolf.

There we agree completely.

Sometimes his suspicions point
in the wrong direction, but like the boy who cried wolf, they also
sometimes identify dangerous characters.

What would you say is his ratio of error to accuracy, Jerry? How
many "dangerous characters" have been exposed, compared to how many
innocent parties besmirched? Is his track record any better than, say,
Joe McCarthy's?

I do not consider myself to
be a supporter of Sloan, but I do pay attention to what he says, and
try to determine whether or not it is accurate.

And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now
more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy
theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan
has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how
many have proven accurate? What is his batting average? How much good
has he done, compared to how much harm? And how much has he
interfered, obstructed, and wasted time that could be put to better
use?
Just to give a few examples, and citing only some of the less
harmful, do you recall his notion that I was Edward Winter? His charge
that Hanon Russell "blacklisted" Eric Schiller? His claim that Peter
Leko was dead? His claim that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6
dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.Nf3 Qxe4+ White's best move was 7.Be2? I suggest you
view his actions toward the USCF in that light.

Lord knows, the USCF has problems, and I will be the first to admit
it has not been run with anything like consistent competence and
honesty. But as I said earlier, promoting Sloan as cure for its ills
is like saying that leprosy cures acne. And touting Sloan as a
watchdog is like saying the Navy should use truffle-sniffing pigs on
submarines instead of sonar.

On Nov 1, 8:59 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Nov 1, 2:16 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Rich, you may not be as familiar with Sloan as most rec.games.chess
regulars are. Virtually everyone here, with the lamentable exception
of Larry Parr, will tell you that Sam has no genuine interest in
improving chess. His only interest is in drawing attention to himself.
He simply uses chess and the USCF as a means to that end, along with
pornography, racism, and his various other interests.

Ok, thanks for the info. I popped into chess.misc out of getting
interested in chess again, and I see the swarm of Sloan posts on here,
so I was curious about who the heck Sloan is, and why Sloan matters.

Sloan does not matter. His election to the USCF Executive Board a
while back is just further proof of Abraham Lincoln's maxim that you
can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people
some of the time. Basically, Sloan cries "Wolf!" at everything the
USCF does, posting here and elsewhere every suspicion and accusation
that enters his mind, whether it's backed by facts or not. If he is
occasionally right, it is not due to any competence, virtue, or real
investigative effort on his part; it's just that even a stopped clock
is right twice a day.
Basically, Sloan predicts every day that "It will rain here today."
When it does happen to rain, Larry Parr proclaims Sloan's clairvoyant
powers. Everyone else here just laughs, if they pay any heed at all.

I am also a bit confused what Sloan wants. Sloan just wants packback
or does Sloan want to become officer of U.S Chess Federation again?

Sloan wants to draw attention to Sloan. That's all. He tries to do
this in all manner of ways, ranging from running for USCF office to
posting the history of his sex life on the internet.

Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6
months or so until Sam gets bored.

That's not likely any time soon. I would recommend just ignoring Sam
and concentrating on the rgcm posts that interest you.

On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now
more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy
theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan
has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how
many have proven accurate?

All of them.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 2, 9:18 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now
more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy
theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan
has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how
many have proven accurate?

All of them.

Sam Sloan

Do I need to dredge up my alleged non-appearance at the World Open
several years ago?

On Nov 2, 8:57 am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

MR. 2300+ ELO
To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's
subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he
was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when
someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand
his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing
strength or do you, without any aside from the man making the
claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal
chess."

Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston
Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is
genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From
memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair
test.

Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his
rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is
2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board
or in correspondence play:

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

Sam Sloan

On Nov 2, 9:27 am, samsloan wrote:

To add to the point made by Sam Sloan re Taylor Kingston's
subject when stating without irony and quite straightforwardly that he
was 2300+ ELO, every reader can ask himself this question: when
someone tells you unadorned that he is 2300+ ELO, do you understand
his meaning to be a statement about his over-the-board playing
strength

...which was never even mentioned...


or do you, without any aside from the man making the
claim, say to yourself, "Oh yeah, he must be talkin' about his postal
chess."

..which was also not mentioned...


It seems that Mr. Parr is a very irrational creature. Unless and
until any particular type of play is specified, there is no basis
whatever for simply assuming any such things -- except of
course, sheer desperation! LOL



Yes, he did confound those two a bit. OTOH! Other items in the Kingston
Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about 2050, which is
genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of rated players. From
memory I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 - so, a fair
test.

Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his
rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is
2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board
or in correspondence play:

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


Nice, um, research Mr. Sloan. But as so often happens,
you have missed the forest for the trees. This entire issue
was beaten to death a very long time ago, and it was made
clear that the rating to which TK was referring needed to be
converted to its modern USCF equivalent in order to
comprehend what he was saying.

The weakness in the claim is that TK said he forfeited
many games through not finishing them, and this has yet
to be verified as far as I know. But that relates to what
happened to his rating *after* he peaked, and as we know
his reference did not pertain to that aspect. Indeed, it was
crystal clear that he was talking about a /peak/ rating of
some kind.

There was a lot of discussion over how to properly convert
TK's correspondence rating to its modern USCF equivalent,
and in the end a supposed expert appeared who corrected
his math to the tune of around 50 points to the downside.
That put him at say 2250+, instead of his claimed 2300+.
I may be mistaken, but I think TK erred the other way in
giving his ranking, shorting himself a tad. Perhaps one of
the ratpacker desperadoes here could check on that for us.


If it's a lie you desire, then check out the Shakespeare
newsgroups for postings by nearly-an-IM Innes. You'll find
that he tried to pass himself off as "nearly an IM", and even
went so far as to invent a 2450 rating out of thin air. (Ever
since, the poor boy has been trying to wiggle the number
downward to 2400 or less, but to no avail.)

In the case of IM Innes, there was no confusion over the
proper conversion of old ratings to new; nobody even
asked him to guesstimate or inform regarding his strength;
no, he volunteered the misinformation on his own, under
no pressure and for some reason felt compelled to relate
"facts" of his own creation. I think that tells the tale. As
far as I know, even Larry Parr has never done that sort of
thing, never invented titles or ratings for himself, so you
can imagine how disappointing this was.

Heck, I don't believe Larry Parr has ever stooped to just
inventing ratings or titles, even for his idol GM Evans, so
this is really stooping low; getting down even lower than
LP, who generally sets the bar on such things. :(


-- help bot

On Nov 2, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:38 am, Taylor Kingston wrote:

And what have you determined, Jerry? Among the hundreds, or by now
more probably thousands, of allegations, accusations, conspiracy
theories, character assassinations, innuendoes and other noises Sloan
has made over the years, both on chess matters and other issues, how
many have proven accurate?

All of them.

Sam Sloan

Wow, so I really *am* Edward Winter? Amazing. Without Sam's uncanny
powers, I never would have known it. In this case, Sam, can you
investigate a few more more things in this vein:

1) From his writings, it's clear that Winter can speak French
fluently. Why can't I?
2) Why do I not remember writing any of Edward Winter's books or
online columns?
3) Why do none of the e-mails and letters addressed to Edward Winter
ever come to me?
4) On the many occasions that I have I received correspondence from
Edward Winter, who was writing to me?
5) And most importantly, why haven't my publishers been sending me
any royalty checks for Edward Winter books? This is an obvious case of
financial impropriety, Sam. Just your cup of tea. You get my money for
me, and I'll give you a handsome cut.

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...

the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about
2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of
rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 -
so, a fair test.


Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his
rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is
2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board
or in correspondence play:

Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in

1948 !

I may have also overstated his rating, I can't remember exactly, maybe only
high 22xx?

Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48
Review

Talking more of him, I did say 'tpr', which is how we players mention a
performance rating. Don't worry! There really is plenty of dirt to still
root around in, but if you write it here instead of your 'own' group, people
are going to react to what's not dirt. Get it?

Phil Innes



Sam Sloan

On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

ups.com...

the Kingston Files reveal he had a decent OTB tournament tpr of about
2050, which is genuinely above that 1800, and in the 99th percentile of
rated players. I think Curdo was in his group, who was then about 2400 -
so, a fair test.
Not true. Kingson's all time highest rating was 1853. Since 1991 his
rating has ranged from 1762 to 1853. His correspondence rating is
2027. He has never been anywhere close to 2300 either over-the-board
or in correspondence play:

Talking of Curdo, he appeared in a Chess Life and Review in

1948 !

Yep, the June issue, page 5, to be precise. A 3-paragraph story on
his winning the Massachusetts state championship, accompanied by a
photo of the then 16-year-old John Anthony Michael Curdo.
One correction, Phil: it was called just Chess Review back then.
Chess Life was a separate publication. The two didn't merge until
about 20 years later.

Taylor Kingston has forgotten that his library contains a copy of the '48
Review

If, as Innes and Sloan claim, that Innes and Sloan are never wrong,
then I guess I hallucinated the above Curdo citation, just like I'm
hallucinating that I am not Edward Winter. Amazing how one can learn
something new every day, when surrounded by such great teachers.
How then do we reconcile the fact that Innes and Sloan often
contradict each other? I suppose alternate universes is the only
viable hypothesis that allows them both to retain their infallibility.