Taylor Kingston wrote:
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.




Insufficient research. To disprove Phil's claim, you must examine all
copies of Chess Life for 1948. Who knows: Curdo *might* have appeared
in Chess Review *and* in Chess Life in 1948!

Once again, Phil is vindicated!!!


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Nov 2, 12:51 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

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.

Insufficient research. To disprove Phil's claim, you must examine all
copies of Chess Life for 1948. Who knows: Curdo *might* have appeared
in Chess Review *and* in Chess Life in 1948!

Oh, Curdo probably did; I would imagine that the USCF usually
reported state championships, if they were publishing Chess Life back
then. That's not at issue here. My point was that, contrary to Phil's
claim, I have never forgotten that I have a copy of the 1948 Chess
Review (the full set of 12 issues, hardbound). It's been one of my
prize possessions ever since I bought it for a few bucks around 1966.
Now, alas, with the pages coming loose from the binding, it's much the
worse for wear, but it's not at all forgotten.
For Innes to have specified both magazines, he would have needed to
say that Curdo "appeared in Chess Life and in Chess Review," just as
you yourself phrased it, Ken. By saying "Chess Life and Review" Innes
is referring to a magazine that did not exist in 1948.

On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
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?

Curdo?

In 1992, when he was already well past his prime, John Curdo's USCF
rating broke the 2500 mark. Before that, as I recall, he was usually
in the 2400s.

Curdo has won at least 685 tournaments, which may possibly be a world
record. There is a biographical article by Larry Eldredge, with
several annotated games, in the ChessCafe archives:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles214.pdf

It so happens that over the years I've played more games with Curdo
than with any other tournament player. Not surprising, because he
played in all the major tournaments in the Boston area in the 60s and
70s, when I was most active. Among my college teammates, his nickname
was The Man.

It occurs to me that if anyone in the world truly deserves the "nearly
an IM" title, it would be John Curdo.

Larry T.

On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot wrote:

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

How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime,
was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose
strength dropped 400 points?

Sam Sloan

On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot wrote:

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

How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime,
was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose
strength dropped 400 points?

Isn't it amazing how Sam repeatedly fails to recognize and remember
facts, or pretends he's never seen them, even when they've been
presented to him repeatedly? As google search will show easily, the
facts of my USCF postal master rating have been posted here several
times over the last 2-3 years. And if Sam can dig up the appropriate
issue of Chess Life (April 1986 I believe) he will find me at #45 in
the USCF postal rankings.

It's also worth noting that the original poster in this thread, Rich
Hutnik, wanted to know "What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?" Has
Sam answered that? Has Sam told Mr. Hutnik what positive steps he
wants to undertake? No. Sam seems to think it's more important to
argue about my ratings than address the concerns of a potential USCF
voter. He has provided a very clear illustration of my point, that he
is merely an attention-seeking mud-slinger with no real interest in
serving the chess public.

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

Ah! My informant misled me. I gained this info from your own e-mail, as you
see below...

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.

Do not suppose so much, neither assume. This is what distinguishes master
chess from the rest. Real science lies in the question, not the answer -
which is to say, the process of observing something original and for
yourself, not rhetorically for others, and what we make of 'answer' is so
often merely an interpretation, not the only one.

So, you see, by keeping your mind open you can avoid 2 things - pretence to
what you are not, like a 2300 player, and secondly, satisfaction which need
no explanation to demand. It is a philosophical stance to be sure, but Sloan
wouldn't understand event the idea of any non-egoic approach, neh?

Phil Innes

"Larry Tapper" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 2, 12:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
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?

Curdo?

In 1992, when he was already well past his prime, John Curdo's USCF
rating broke the 2500 mark. Before that, as I recall, he was usually
in the 2400s.

This was approx 2002/2003

Curdo has won at least 685 tournaments, which may possibly be a world
record. There is a biographical article by Larry Eldredge, with
several annotated games, in the ChessCafe archives:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles214.pdf

It so happens that over the years I've played more games with Curdo
than with any other tournament player. Not surprising, because he
played in all the major tournaments in the Boston area in the 60s and
70s, when I was most active. Among my college teammates, his nickname
was The Man.

It occurs to me that if anyone in the world truly deserves the "nearly
an IM" title, it would be John Curdo.

Sure. He never quite made it. My friend played him too - John was famous for
his Dutch systems, no? I never played him personally.

Phil Innes

Larry T.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:16 am, help bot wrote:

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

How can you say that an 1800 player, still a young man in his prime,
was ever a 2200-2300 player? Have you ever heard of a player whose
strength dropped 400 points?

Isn't it amazing how Sam repeatedly fails to recognize and remember
facts, or pretends he's never seen them, even when they've been
presented to him repeatedly? As google search will show easily, the
facts of my USCF postal master rating have been posted here several
times over the last 2-3 years. And if Sam can dig up the appropriate
issue of Chess Life (April 1986 I believe) he will find me at #45 in
the USCF postal rankings.

But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all.

You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show up
and boost you.

Sloan doesn't care for that - it just rubbishes all the time. Doesn't matter
who or what - since they are all against him! And The Mission, as he
understands it.

Just because Sloan brings it up in his sicko way, doesn't mean you didn't
try to creep up 500 points. ROFL.

Phil Innes

It's also worth noting that the original poster in this thread, Rich
Hutnik, wanted to know "What will Sam Sloan do to improve chess?" Has
Sam answered that? Has Sam told Mr. Hutnik what positive steps he
wants to undertake? No. Sam seems to think it's more important to
argue about my ratings than address the concerns of a potential USCF
voter. He has provided a very clear illustration of my point, that he
is merely an attention-seeking mud-slinger with no real interest in
serving the chess public.

On Nov 2, 6:59 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

But the way you wrote Taylor was as if you said it was 2300 OTB. That's all.


No, Phil. I never said that, in any way, express or implied. That
was Sloan's leapt-to conclusion, which was exactly my point at the
time, to demonstrate the extreme shallowness of his investigative
technique. And in using the term shallow, I am being charitable.
In any event, you are hardly in a position to comment, with your
claim to being "nearly an IM rated 2450." This is rather like
Mussolini calling someone a fascist.

You sort of didn't tell the truth - and worse, got an alter ego to show up
and boost you.

You are hallucinating again, Phil. Once again the "alternate
universes" hypothesis comes to mind: one for you, one for everyone
else.

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

False. Elo is a system of rating, developed by Arpad Elo, for the
USCF. It is also used by FIDE and numerous other organizations, not
even restricted to chess.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Pickled Poetic Laser (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intense beam of light but it's in
verse and preserved in vinegar!