On Mar 14, 5:03 am, Offramp wrote:

Three matches, all of them first to 10 wins, draws not counting. The
first match to begin March 10, 2010. If the score reaches 8-8 then I
don't know what the fcku's going to happen.


You already specified that: the match would
continue until one of the two players reaches
a score of ten wins. (Why do so many folks
have trouble with such /simple logic/?)

The real issue is, what happens if both
players get to ten wins at exactly the same
time? ;D

On Mar 15, 3:37 pm, wrote:

I present again Sam Sloan's claim:

"The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master."

Interested readers can check the original post hehttp://tinyurl.com/27n2xd

Sam's claim is quite absolute and unequivocal

Not necessarily...


and also
unequivocally false. I have challenged Sam to put his money where his
mouth is. I have 10,000 actual, official American dollars that say I
have beaten an actual officially-titled USCF master in an actual,
serious, USCF-rated chess game.

Who cares? The question is, have you
ever beaten a REAL master -- that is, one
certified as such by FIDE, the official
organization recognized the world over as
the only corrupt entity with the power and
influence necessary to buy everyone off
and thus, reign supreme.

Obviously, when Mr. Sloan used the term
"master", he must have been referring to
the title of /FIDE master/, commonly
abbreviated as "FM". Here is a list of
games in which Sam Sloan has defeated
FIDE masters:


And here are some examples of him
drawing IMs and GMs:


(Sorry, I'm having technical problems
with the scanner, so these game scores
might not display correctly on your
screen.)


1. Sam is such an economic failure that he can't muster ten bucks in
the same place at the same time, let alone ten thousand.

We can rule this out on the basis that
Mr. Sloan has often entered such big-
money tournaments as the World Open;
real chess players know that Mr.
Goichberg does not give away entries
for free.


2. Sam has perhaps been trying to arrange a loan for the bet, acting
on the "greater fool" theory, but has not been able to find anyone
more foolish than himself.

3. Sam is not sane, and cannot distinguish between factual truth and
his own dream-world.

Irrelevant. Nutters have always had a
decided tendency to excel at chess.


4. Sam is an inveterate liar and smear-monger who will say anything,
but he slinks away in silence when his lies are exposed.

I like this one.


But I think an alternate explanation
might be that Mr. Sloan was looking to
"show off" his wins against some USCF
masters, and wanted a challenge to
produce them here. (Instead, he got a
mindless "give me $10K" diversion.)

Rather than blather on about money,
why not show us some annotations of
Mr. Sloan's many famous games? As
we know, even Dr. Phil IMnes can do
this, using the latest version of Rybka
in conjunction with the Fritz interface,
but that lends a rather robot-like style to
the writing. We have been told that the
style of TK is that of a careful researcher,
a flawless technician, a nearly-a-genius,
and Mr. Sloan's efforts could use a good
looking over.


-- help bot

KINGSTON REPEATS HIS CHALLENGE TO SAM

I have challenged Sam to put his money where his
mouth is. I have 10,000 actual, official American
dollars that say I have beaten an actual officially-titled
USCF master in an actual, serious, USCF-rated chess
gameI propose this bet not out of egotism; I readily
acknowledge that my chess-playing achievements are
nothing great. But it takes only one contrary instance to
refute "never," and I can always use a few bucks. Our
Sam expressed his opinion with great vehemence and
certainty, yet since I proposed the bet, he has remained
silenton the subject. If he is so sure, what's the problem?
He'd make an easy ten grand. -- Taylor Kingston

EVER OR NEVER

I hereby renew my challenge to NMnot Taylor
Kingston to take a polygraph test about whether
either of us used bogus names on this forum.
..
Is he such an economic failure that he cannot
muster $10,000 to determine whether this writer ever
posted under such jr, wmiketwo and any other
monickers that he would care to have me deny when
taking such a polygraph test?

Taylor Kingston, who now tells us he is no great
shakes as a player (though always keeping his 2300+
Elo claim for, perhaps, less knowledgable audiences),
wants to bet about whether he ever defeated a master.

The idea here is that Sam used the "never" word, which
is incautious and frequently wrong when describing the lives
of anyone other than the only one we really know: our own.

Will NMnot Taylor Kingston finally tell us whether he
ever or never posted under the names of Paulie Graf and
Xylothist, among others? He can certainly use the word
"never" with some assurance on this point. Let us hear from him.

As Taylor Kingston, our class A player, put the
matter on June 5, 2005, in a susurrus of sauvely
expressed dishonesty: "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."

You gotta love that "Still," "I think," and
above all "as I recall." His practice is to purr
when he lies outright.

Yours, Larry Parr


wrote:
I present again Sam Sloan's claim:

"The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master."

Interested readers can check the original post he http://tinyurl.com/27n2xd

Sam's claim is quite absolute and unequivocal, and also
unequivocally false. I have challenged Sam to put his money where his
mouth is. I have 10,000 actual, official American dollars that say I
have beaten an actual officially-titled USCF master in an actual,
serious, USCF-rated chess game.
I propose this bet not out of egotism; I readily acknowledge that my
chess-playing achievements are nothing great. But it takes only one
contrary instance to refute "never," and I can always use a few
bucks.
Our Sam expressed his opinion with great vehemence and certainty,
yet since I proposed the bet, he has remained silent on the subject.
If he is so sure, what's the problem? He'd make an easy ten grand. As
I see it, the problems could be any or all of the following:

1. Sam is such an economic failure that he can't muster ten bucks in
the same place at the same time, let alone ten thousand.
2. Sam has perhaps been trying to arrange a loan for the bet, acting
on the "greater fool" theory, but has not been able to find anyone
more foolish than himself.
3. Sam is not sane, and cannot distinguish between factual truth and
his own dream-world.
4. Sam is an inveterate liar and smear-monger who will say anything,
but he slinks away in silence when his lies are exposed.

On Mar 15, 6:45*pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 15, 3:37 pm, wrote:

* I present again Sam Sloan's claim:

* "The fact is that Taylor Kingston has never beaten a master."

* Interested readers can check the original post hehttp://tinyurl.com/27n2xd

* Sam's claim is quite absolute and unequivocal

and also
unequivocally false. I have challenged Sam to put his money where his
mouth is. I have 10,000 actual, official American dollars that say I
have beaten an actual officially-titled USCF master in an actual,
serious, USCF-rated chess game.

* Who cares? *The question is, have you
ever beaten a REAL master -- that is, one
certified as such by FIDE, the official
organization recognized the world over as
the only corrupt entity with the power and
influence necessary to buy everyone off
and thus, reign supreme.

I have beaten someone who has since become a FIDE Master, but that
was not the "officially titled USCF master" I had in mind. His USCF
rating was only 2114 at the time I won (now it's 2423), and I don't
think he had a FIDE rating yet, so it would not be accurate to say "I
beat an FM" based on that game.

* Obviously, when Mr. Sloan used the term
"master", he must have been referring to
the title of /FIDE master/, commonly
abbreviated as "FM".

No, I took it to mean USCF master, i.e. someone rated 2200+ OTB, or
in postal chess, who had reached a rating of at least 1700 under the
Harkness system in effect when I played postal chess circa 1966-86. In
that system, Master was 1700-1899, Senior Master 1900+.


* 1. Sam is such an economic failure that he can't muster ten bucks in
the same place at the same time, let alone ten thousand.

* We can rule this out on the basis that
Mr. Sloan has often entered such big-
money tournaments as the World Open;
real chess players know that Mr.
Goichberg does not give away entries
for free.

Good! Then surely Sam can afford to risk $10,000, eh? Why then is he
hiding like a terrified mouse?

* 2. Sam has perhaps been trying to arrange a loan for the bet, acting
on the "greater fool" theory, but has not been able to find anyone
more foolish than himself.
* 3. Sam is not sane, and cannot distinguish between factual truth and
his own dream-world.

* Irrelevant. *Nutters have always had a
decided tendency to excel at chess.

A good point!

* 4. Sam is an inveterate liar and smear-monger who will say anything,
but he slinks away in silence when his lies are exposed.

* I like this one.

Yes, I conisder it the most likely explanation.

* But I think an alternate explanation
might be that Mr. Sloan was looking to
"show off" his wins against some USCF
masters, and wanted a challenge to
produce them here.

I seem to recall that I did annotate a few Sloan games here a few
years back, when he was hyping his favorite Damiano "Defense" as a
forced win for Black

*(Instead, he got a
mindless "give me $10K" diversion.)

* Rather than blather on about money,
why not show us some annotations of
Mr. Sloan's many famous games? *As
we know, even Dr. Phil IMnes can do
this, using the latest version of Rybka
in conjunction with the Fritz interface,
but that lends a rather robot-like style to
the writing. *We have been told that the
style of TK is that of a careful researcher,
a flawless technician, a nearly-a-genius,

I strive to be worthy of the first and second designations, but
errare humanum est and all that. The third, not even close.

and Mr. Sloan's efforts could use a good
looking over.

As I said, been there, done that, and Sam's games don't interest me
much. I have better games to go through, for example those of Max
Judd, for the next installment of Jeremy Spinrad's column. appearing
in about two weeks.

On Mar 16, 9:12 am, " wrote:


I hereby renew my challenge to NMnot Taylor
Kingston to take a polygraph test about whether
either of us used bogus names on this forum.

You know, those tests only detect "stress",
a problem for people who feel guilty or are
fearful when they lie. Trouble is, many liars
are the chronic type, the kind of people who
feel nothing at all, who do not stress-out,
and who therefore are undetectable liars
insofar as this particular test goes.

I hear that sodium pentathol is far more
reliable, for it takes away the mind's
/ability/ to lie, to deceive. Trouble is, there
are nasty side-effects: nausea, internal
bleeding, brain damage, heart or kidney
failure, various internal rupturing and
hemmoraging --- this is a test which was
obviously /designed for/ Larry Parr types!


Is he such an economic failure that he cannot
muster $10,000 to determine whether this writer ever
posted under such jr, wmiketwo and any other
monickers that he would care to have me deny when
taking such a polygraph test?

Maybe for $10K, he wants /more/; maybe
TK wants questions about what are your
biggest weaknesses in the King-pawn
openings... what is your favorite color...
what is the nature of your relationship to
the mafia... have you ever been a member
of the Libertarian Party... what do you play
as White... are you weak as in the
endgame as they say?


Will NMnot Taylor Kingston finally tell us whether he
ever or never posted under the names of Paulie Graf and
Xylothist, among others?

Sheesh. Just stop whining about this and
do one of your famous "syntax analyses";
follow up with a careful examination of the
thousands of lines of headers, in which you
can show everyone how Paulie Graf always
posted from the same location as TK, even
when he traveled to Venice or Haiti.

Come on-- show us you're not just
whistling Dixie: do the work to back up
your carefree speculations.


-- help bot

On Mar 18, 5:05*pm, help bot wrote:

* Come on-- show us you're not just
whistling Dixie: do the work to back up
your carefree speculations.


Larry? Do the work? That's a good one.

On Mar 16, 10:40 am, wrote:

I have beaten someone who has since become a FIDE Master, but that
was not the "officially titled USCF master" I had in mind. His USCF
rating was only 2114 at the time I won (now it's 2423), and I don't
think he had a FIDE rating yet, so it would not be accurate to say "I
beat an FM" based on that game.

Obviously, when Mr. Sloan used the term
"master", he must have been referring to
the title of /FIDE master/, commonly
abbreviated as "FM".

I was just trying to help poor Mr. Sloan out;
of course, he (or his clone) was silly to assert
that TK has "never" beaten even one master.
(I know Class C players who have done that.)


No, I took it to mean USCF master, i.e. someone rated 2200+ OTB, or
in postal chess, who had reached a rating of at least 1700 under the
Harkness system in effect when I played postal chess circa 1966-86. In
that system, Master was 1700-1899, Senior Master 1900+.

So then, your *peak* rating would likely have
been in or around 1986, while the rating for
Larry Evans corresponds to the date of writing
his article, and the rating for John Nunn would
correspond to the writing of his comment. In
short, about 2600 FIDE for John Nunn, and
perhaps 2400 USCF for Larry Evans, if we
generously grant him a floor. Not that it
really matters; I don't buy into this authority
garbage, but for the benefit of those who do,
it is useful to point out that LE was not even
close to being strong enough to make such
a claim. Now, a Gary Kasparov might find a
few followers... or a Bobby Fischer.


Good! Then surely Sam can afford to risk $10,000, eh? Why then is he
hiding like a terrified mouse?

His bookie told him to, after calculating the
odds!


I seem to recall that I did annotate a few Sloan games here a few
years back, when he was hyping his favorite Damiano "Defense" as a
forced win for Black

Well, when I came along he was saying
that he liked his chances against opponents
below a certain level, maybe Class A or lower.
People kept insisting that even their pet rock
could refute this line, but Mr. Sloan refuted
this by presenting actual games from recent
events in which he had been reasonably
successful.


As I said, been there, done that, and Sam's games don't interest me
much. I have better games to go through, for example those of Max
Judd, for the next installment of Jeremy Spinrad's column. appearing
in about two weeks.


God help us! The nearly-IMnes creature
will once again rave about how the Winter
ratpackers can only write about such
players as this Max Judd, about whom
nobody (internationally) much cares. Why
can't you guys who work for Edward
Winter write about somebody good-- say,
Bobby Fischer? Nobody ever writes about
him, and it is said he could give women
Knight odds, computers Rook odds, and
Anatoly Karpov, pawn and move; granted,
he is mainly of interest to local folks in
the greater New York area... never mind.


-- help bot

On Mar 13, 1:30 pm, wrote:
In another thread, Sam Sloan wrote:

"The fact is that Taylor Kingston
has never beaten a master."

Would you care to bet on that, Sam?
If so, how much? I'd like a
minimum bet of at least $10,000,
but I'll go higher if you like.

Does it have to be Sam?

Wlod

On Mar 14, 1:24 am, Sanny wrote:


We should not leave it on chances/luck.

Sanny, what is your "it" in the above statement?

====
Wlod

On Mar 19, 3:29*am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:30 pm, wrote:

* In another thread, Sam Sloan wrote:

* "The fact is that Taylor Kingston
has never beaten a master."

* Would you care to bet on that, Sam?
If so, how much? I'd like a
minimum bet of at least $10,000,
but I'll go higher if you like.

Does it have to be Sam?

Well, Sam's the only one to say such a thing here, as far as I know.