On Oct 31, 8:14 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:22 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:



On Oct 31, 1:19 pm, David Richerby
wrote:

Rich Hutnik wrote:

With all this lawsuit business and whatnot, I am curious how
Mr. Sloan can help improve the state of chess. Mr. Sloan, can you
speak up please?

Please take this to rec.games.chess.politics, where it belongs.

Dave.

Sorry. All I read regarding chess is rec.games.chess.misc, and
considering how many times Sam Sloan (or is it a fake Sam Sloan?)
posts on here, I figured asking how Sam Sloan would improve chess was
a relevant misc topic.

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.
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?

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

- Rich

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

Unlikely. He's been posting relentlessly for longer than I've been
here, which is about four years.

Use software that will allow you to filter out his posts.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Love Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer that you can share with someone
special but it's frozen in a block
of ice!

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 1, 7:56 am, David Richerby
wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
Actually maybe I should just not give a damn and drop off here for 6
months or so until Sam gets bored.

Unlikely. He's been posting relentlessly for longer than I've been
here, which is about four years.

Use software that will allow you to filter out his posts.

Dave.

I use web based usenet news reader, because I don't want my harddrive
cluttered up with Usenet message or waste time downloading them. I
also like Google's search feature. The downside is I don't have a
kill filter.

- Rich

On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, " wrote:

NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus
Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan.
He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah
yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period
in which he offered every excuse imaginable for
poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air
in the same room with Sam Sloan.
.
Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our
NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations
for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his
wares elsewhere. His choice.

It seems to me that this cannot be just another case
of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that
Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten
that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie"
about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing
to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant
facts.

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.

If one is desperate to find a lie, look no further than
the fib Mr. Innes told about his supposed title and
rating, claiming to have been both "nearly an IM" and
to have held a rating of "2450". The fact that IM Innes
is one of the ratpack is rather ironic, I think.


Oh, yes, our NMnot has also posted under other
names on this forum IN PRAISE OF HIMSELF

And let's not forget about Sanny.


The man has a rock. He must needs recrawl beneath it.

Mr. Parr is mistaken. Taylor Kingston lives high in
the sky, in a big castle I expect. From up there, he
looks down upon mere mortals with disdain -- much
like Nick Burbaki or Larry Evans. The rent on such
a spread must be a killer... .


-- help bot

On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, " wrote:

NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus
Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan.
He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah
yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period
in which he offered every excuse imaginable for
poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air
in the same room with Sam Sloan.
.
Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our
NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations
for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his
wares elsewhere. His choice.

It seems to me that this cannot be just another case
of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that
Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten
that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie"
about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing
to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant
facts.

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, 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."


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

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

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

Sam Sloan

THE SAM HATERS

I would recommend just ignoring Sam.-- Taylor Kingston

There is little doubt that NMnot Taylor Kingston,
a class A player who proclaimed himself to be
2300+ Elo rated, hates Sam Sloan. There are a few
other ritualistic Sloan haters and, to be sure, a fair
number of Sloan detractors.

Contrary to NMnot Kingston's lies, Sam has also
attracted several supporters. This writer is one, and
GM Larry Evans has long espoused many of his views
about chess governance.
..
The current attempt to explain away Sam's
accomplishments is to argue that , like a broken clock,
he gets the time right twice a day when shouting about
USCF lapses and crooked deals.

Nonsense. Sam wrote voluminously about the
disastrous USCF decision to leave New York, the center
of American chess, for atrocious Crossville, Tennessee
-- our Caissic cross-to-bear. His critique, if
anything, understated the costs, though at the time,
he appeared totally over the top.

The truth about Crossville first began to appear
when Sam and this writer began questioning the nature
of title to the property and the cost of the small new
building, which is about 45 percent the size of the
old headquarters in New Windsor. I finally reported
that the cost would run to at least $650,000 -- over
twice the initial estimates. I was called "a liar" by
the usual suspects,. Just two months later the Board
itself released PRECISELY THAT NUMBER as the new
estimated cost.

If one counts future ancillary costs of that tiny building,
the real cost of construction and aintenance and improvement
will run to a million or more bucks.

Sam was at the forefront in exposing the horrors
of moving to Crossville, and his attacks hit home
nearly every time. His errors were frequently
underestimations of costs because he tried to use
conservative numbers.

The response to the above will be something
about Sam having wives, babies, and reporting that GM
Leko was dead. In short, the ad hom reponses will be
vicious and irrelevant.

But such is the style of NMnot Kingston and his ilk.

A pleasing aspect of Sam is that he writes under
his own name. Unlike NMnot Kingston, Sam has never
felt a need to invent other monickers so as to PRAISE
HIMSELF. That really was the limit when our NMnot
posted under other names in order to support himself
during debates. Such is not in Sam's character. He
is an honest man, sometimes mistaken but
sincere -- unlike our NMnot.

Yours, Larry Parr




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.

MR. 2300+ ELO

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." --
Taylor Kingston

ELO is a FIDE rating, not a USCF rating and especially not a correspondence chess rating. 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. By the way, his correspondence rating was never 2300 either. 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. Both his over-the-board rating and his correspondence rating have never been above the 1800 level. -- Sam Sloan

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."

NMnot Kingston wishes in the worst way that Greg Kennedy, our
help bot, would just shut up and stop "defending" him. Kennedy has
now forced our NMnot to speak again on the subject. Otherwise, her
would have kept his mealy trap shut.

Also, for the record, NMnot Kingston himself offered different
excuses than those offered by Greg Kennedy. He said he made the claim
because he knew someone would expose it and that he could then trap
Sam Sloan into assuming that the postal scales of today and yesterday
were the same! Further, I would then come to Sam's rescue and show
myself to be a partisan.

It was a key-razy junior-high-school kind of lie to justify a
moment of weakness on his part. Sam had mercilessly pilloried NMnot
Kingston for days, and our
NMnot -- the man who also uses false names to write in PRAISE OF
HIMSELF, for Pete's sake, and indeed, what a man! -- lashed out in
defense, tossing in a postal
national ranking list as a backstop for his lie.

The main thing that Greg Kennedy and NMnot Kingston have in
common is a tendency to hide behind false internet names.

Yours, Larry Parr




samsloan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:53 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:50 pm, " wrote:

NMnot Kingston, who lied about being a 2300-plus
Elo master, was challenged to a chess match by Mr. Sloan.
He has never forgiven Mr. Sloan for showing him up. Ah
yes, one can remember the Kingston posts of the period
in which he offered every excuse imaginable for
poltroonery such as refusing to breathe the same air
in the same room with Sam Sloan.
.
Perhaps it is time to revisit precisely what our
NMnot wrote and examine HIS OWN shifting explanations
for the lie about his rating. Or NMnot can peddle his
wares elsewhere. His choice.

It seems to me that this cannot be just another case
of Evans ratpacker twisting of facts; no, I would say that
Mr. Parr is definitely going senile and has thus forgotten
that it was established long ago that TK did not "lie"
about his rating. Mr. Parr must be excused for failing
to be able to recall -- given his condition -- the relevant
facts.

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, 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."


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

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

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

Sam Sloan

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

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.

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

Be fair to your opponents and avoid the ratings trap, and other
envy-engines, which can be more to do with you than them. The constant
measure of chess is if you enjoy it, and all else is relative to other
players.

Sam Sloan

WHAT THE DICKENS!

Not very on topic, and tangential, is a previous topic I engaged here with
Mr. Parr, on the subject of 'placing' people by borrowing them into groups -
and we discussed how both Marxists did that with Dickens, and if indeed he
would profile as a modern liberal.

I have found an interesting and direct response from Jane Smiley's writing
[albeit, she cites Ackroyd rather much]

"Additionally, as Dickens grew more readical in his political views (and
more idiosyncratic - we should not interpret him as the sort of left liberal
we know today - he was rascist, imperialist, sometimes anti-Semitic, a
believer in harsh prison conditions, and distrustful of trade unions), he
divided himself more and more from his fellow novelists. How do we make of
sense of this?"

She then discussed the common social mixing of other Victorian writers, and
Dickens's voluntary isolation...

Now - the lesson is - that any description of that type would get an
author's books banned from high schools and libraries these days, nevermind
it was favorite reading of Freud.

People are changeable creatures, no motive springs from other than a
complexity of factors, themselves in dynamic relationship, and while
overselling one thing, another is undersold. And all the time the
commentator observing others needs be aware of their vicarious existence,
and those notions which emerge, ///as if/// it were their own.

Otherwise we have no compass to understand how we ourselves act, and in the
Dostoyevskyan sense, are 'possessed,' but not of any truth! Only lies and
deceptions.

It will be a brave man who writes here about their own self-deceiving
activity - and probably no man at all; it might take a woman writer to do
that.

Phil Innes