Help bot notes that Larry Parr repeatedly relies upon his own
"interpretation" of facts to lend support to his own opinions. For
example, Larry Parr has maintained:

"The truth is that Edward Winter committed a
higher incidence of error in his attack on GM Evans
than he claimed against GM Evans in the attack!"


This sort of thing is just arguing in a circle, using one's own
peculiar "interpretations" to lend support to one's own opinion. It
has not been established here (or anywhere esle, so far as I know) that
the *actual* overall error rate is higher for one writer than the
other.



Another problem (which is self-evident to any rational reader) is
that Larry Parr has constructed a "two wrongs make a right" argument.
No matter if Edward Winter's own error rate were double that of even
say, Phil Innes, it is still a valid criticism to note the careless
handling of spelling, dates, and sometimes facts in Evans' Chess Life
column. Even if Winter could not spell his own name correctly, this
would hardly save Evans from responsibility for his own spelling
errors.
Two wrongs don't make a right; they make double the wrong. This is
second grade level math.



"Mind you, Editor Lucas is making an error and
his note was sadly mistaken, but it was certainly very
far from sinister. I would say that it was correct,
civil, cold and cocky."


That viewpoint makes sense from a certain perspective -- one where
Keene is highy respected for a) being a Grandmaster, and b) being a
famous writer of chess books and magazine articles.
But there is another perspective; one which takes into account (and
in fact weighs quite heavily) the quality of a writer's work, not just
the quantity or commercial success thereof. It is from this
perspective that Taylor Kingston noted the problem Evans has been
having with errors and/or personal bias -- a problem which Edward
Winter has attempted to magnify into something far greater than mere
laziness, which happens to be my personal assessment.


One more note: Larry Parr continues to assert that Taylor Kingston
has posted anonymouse-ly, as he puts it, "in praise of himself"; but
the examples I have thus far seen only show that the anons in question
(who have yet to be shown to be TK) *agreed* with TK. The question
remains, where is the "praise", the idolatry, the self-worship? Either
Larry Parr believes a man should "argue with himself" when posting
under another name, or else he has thus far been too lazy to post
examples of say, Xylothist, actually praising Kingston and not merely
being in accord on the issues discussed. Perhaps the difference
between "praise" and accordance of opinion is just too subtle for Larry
Parr to fathom, but I think it more likely that LP either has no
pertinent examples to give, or is just too lazy to support his
arguments with facts.


-- help bot



PS: I humbly suggest a "solution" to the problem of TK and PI
making certain claims regarding their chess abilities and/or ratings.
A duel -- no, make that a *match*, wherein the near-IM faces off
against the 2300 ELO. Winner take all: if Innes wins, he gets all 2300
points; if Kingston wins, he gets Innes' near-IM title. The loser is
relegated to mere patzer status henceforth. First to win six, draws
not counting. In the event of a tie, Louis Blair gets the near-IM
title while Larry Parr gains 2300 ELO points. Fair enough?

wrote in message oups.com...

And yes, Phil, you are right. NM Taylor Kingston will
not answer whether he posted in praise of himself under
the bogus screen names of Xylothist and Paulie Graf (among others).


Why should he when you are doing the same under the guise of jr?


That is one of the subjects that he will not
discuss, don't you see. He has these "standards,"
don't you see, and he would be doing something or
other to those "standards" of his, don't you see, were
he to tell us whether he appeared here under false
names to praise himself.


And what are YOUR standards? In all fairness, a man without standards
should not cricticize onw with standards.


Heh, heh, heh.

Even NM Kingston's supporters are embarrassed
for the man, which our fake NM understands full well.


Speaking of embarrassment, do you still consider Sam Sloan
an ally? Having him in your corner (or vice versa) seems like a
public relations disaster to me.

help bot wrote:

But there is another perspective; one which takes into account (and
in fact weighs quite heavily) the quality of a writer's work, not just
the quantity or commercial success thereof. It is from this
perspective that Taylor Kingston noted the problem Evans has been
having with errors and/or personal bias -- a problem which Edward
Winter has attempted to magnify into something far greater than mere
laziness, which happens to be my personal assessment.

As far as I know, Winter's comments on Evans make a definite
distinction between cases of simple error, as when Evans twice failed
to get the right year for a Steinitz match, and cases of dishonesty, as
when he misrepresented my own views. Laziness seems a plausible
explanation for the former, but not the latter.

PS: I humbly suggest a "solution" to the problem of TK and PI
making certain claims regarding their chess abilities and/or ratings.
A duel -- no, make that a *match*, wherein the near-IM faces off
against the 2300 ELO.

The problem there is that my master rating (a fact, not a claim) was
20 years ago and in postal chess. Innes' claim relates to OTB play,
from about as long ago. For a proper test, we'd have to go back to,
say, 1985, and have Innes play by OTB rules while I play under postal
rules. Apples and oranges, and not really fair.

Winner take all: if Innes wins, he gets all 2300
points; if Kingston wins, he gets Innes' near-IM title. The loser is
relegated to mere patzer status henceforth.

OTB I've always been a patzer, with occasional flashes of mediocrity.
Probably the best OTB player I've beaten is former Vermont state
champion, FM Steven Winer (now about 2350-2400), but that was when he
was about 13 years old. Now I lack any OTB ambition.

Niemand a/k/a Taylor Kingston wrote:

The problem there is that my master rating (a fact, not a claim) was
20 years ago and in postal chess.

Taylor Kingston is not a master. Never was a master. Never will be a
master. His mind is weak but his ass is strong.

It is impossible for a master to go down to become an 1800 player,
which is what Taylor Kingston is.

Taylor Kingston has never been awarded a master title by any recognized
chess organization, not even in postal chess.

At the time when Kingston claims to have been a postal master, any
player got to choose his own initial starting rating. Nobody called or
considered such players to be masters.

If Taylor Kingston were really a master he could produce many games
where he defeated masters and even a few games where he defeated
grandmasters. Taylor Kingston has failed to produce any games where he
defeated anybody at all, even in postal chess, much less a game where
he defeated a master or even an expert.

Sam Sloan

Responding to Scam Sloan's accusations looks too easy. Like shooting
fish in a barrel, eh?


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

samsloan wrote:

Terry wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
(snipped)

More f**king american chess politics. I wish they would stop polluting
this newsgroup. Being an ignorant lot - they will carry on of course.

I am reading this thread in rec.games.chess.misc.

Ignorance alone cannot explain why many American writers insist on
cross-posting their US political opinions to rec.games.chess.misc.
Over the years, many diverse non-American writers have been
telling the Americans who like to write in rec.games.chess.politics
to stop doing that. As I recall, for instance, David Richerby often
expressed his objections about that until he apparently realised
that those Americans simply were not going to listen to him.

My conclusion is that many, perhaps most, of the Americans
who like to write in rec.games.chess.politics do not listen
seriously to or respect the views of non-Americans.

--Nick

THERE WAS NO CONFUSION

You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things. --
Taylor Kingston

Mr. 2300+ Elo made the bald claim knowing full well that most
readers
would understand it was his over-the-board rating. He later offered a
number
of excuses, such as he was laying a trap for this writer and Sam Sloan,
etc..
Other excuses followed for his misleading claim.

One poster aptly called it "The Horsefeathers Defense."

wrote:
THERE WAS NO CONFUSION

You're right, Larry. There was no confusion. You and Sloan instantly
assumed I was lying about an OTB rating, while rgcm's more rational and
intelligent readers checked the USCF web-site and correctly realized I
was referring to my postal rating. No confusion either way: you and
Sloan assumed and were wrong, just as you did yesterday about my Chess
Life subscription. Others checked the facts and were right.

You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things. --
Taylor Kingston

Mr. 2300+ Elo made the bald claim knowing full well that most readers
would understand it was his over-the-board rating. He later offered a
number of excuses, such as he was laying a trap for this writer and Sam Sloan,
etc..

Which you fell into like a sleepwalker. So predictable.

Other excuses followed for his misleading claim.

Interesting that only you and Sloan were "misled."

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Niemand a/k/a Taylor Kingston wrote:

The problem there is that my master rating (a fact, not a claim) was
20 years ago and in postal chess.

Taylor Kingston is not a master. Never was a master. Never will be a
master. His mind is weak but his ass is strong.

It is impossible for a master to go down to become an 1800 player,
which is what Taylor Kingston is.

I disagree, Sam! my irregular but sometimes sparring partner who delivers
the mail won the Nevada Open when it was 'big', was a 2350 rated player, and
we bull**** a lot about chess and what it takes to do it. [its not theory!@]
he said he took a few years off and then played in a New Hampshire
tournament and lost to 2 1600 players in succession

now he still plays on ICC and gets up to a 24xx rating, then blows the whole
thing by playing all night with the big guys and drinking 'a few' bottles of
wine

Taylor Kingston has never been awarded a master title by any recognized
chess organization, not even in postal chess.

At the time when Kingston claims to have been a postal master, any
player got to choose his own initial starting rating. Nobody called or
considered such players to be masters.

you think i could spot him a knight? or just pawn and move? the issue would
be at what time-control? maybe the best test would to to penalise time
instead of pieces? like 5 to 10 minutes.

i never took correspondance chess seriously anyway, obviously, you can look
at your books and consult Fritz or whatever, and what a nonsense all that is
compared to the challenge of being at the board and a 'live challenge' in
progress

If Taylor Kingston were really a master he could produce many games
where he defeated masters and even a few games where he defeated
grandmasters. Taylor Kingston has failed to produce any games where he
defeated anybody at all, even in postal chess, much less a game where
he defeated a master or even an expert.

to be 1800 it is entirely likely that he has beaten both a master or two
plus expert A's, but not often.

what can boost your rating a hundred points or so is to be involved in a
strong pool of players, which is what happened to me in Germany. you lose a
hell of a lot at the beginning, usually from novel openings you don't
understand the pattern of, but your play changes considerably, not just in
'things learned' but by practice against stronger players than yourself -
its a sort of raja yoga - you simply are more ready and able to fight and
not be lazy at the board

you also have to have enough energy and bloody mindedness to win!

if this mongolian girl can play 'up' 600 points for a tournament, then
playing up 100 points for a season is only amazing to patzers

i play another guy more regualrly than the 2350 guy, and he is rated 2000.
sometimes our score is even - we average wins and loses, not even based on
white/black. we have also been playing chess together for 20 years and we
both get sick and tired of the repetoire - his slav, or alekhine's or
karo-kan, my mod. benoni, benko or pelikan . but sometimes i win all the
games, 4 or 6 or 8 in a row played at 10 or 15 minutes. i don't know why,
maybe its just him losing, or as it seems to me, I sometimes feel more on
and 'see' so many more things, and [laugh] within the allowable time

but what is our experience as players? if we had an easy week or two
otherwise, are solid with our repetoire, and pushed our perceptions out
further than normal by playing-over high level games - doesn't this make for
substantial difference in play? I would say that is worth a 100 points right
there

when i was a 'kid' this is exactly what did the trick. relatively high level
of general practice and preparation combined with being relaxed at the
table. after age 30, i lived in such a remote area, almost in the artic
circle that there were no strong opponents, and i played other people, but
like an idiot -not really feeling any challenge or threat, ploped out dull
moves, and only winning by making less mistakes than they did

i also gave up mountain climbing when my first child was born, since maybe
for the first time in my life something about mortality entered into my
considerations - i sometimes yearn so much to be up there on the tops, but
must reflect that there are no old mountain climbers

chess is more enduring, and the joy of it is that no matter how prepared you
are, you still bring unconsciously everything you ever learned to the table,
and try to observe what is going on, and dance with it - doesn't matter so
much what your rating is, but where your heart is

phil innes


Sam Sloan

Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
THERE WAS NO CONFUSION

You're right, Larry. There was no confusion.

That's quite a disingenuous assertion by Taylor Kingston.

You and Sloan instantly assumed I was lying about an OTB rating,

I did not assume that Taylor Kingston 'was lying about an OTB rating'.
I have not accused Taylor Kingston of 'lying about an OTB rating'.

while rgcm's more rational and intelligent readers checked the USCF
web-site and correctly realized I was referring to my postal rating.

Taylor Kingston's original claim was of a "2300+ Elo" rating.
Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating at the USCF website is 2037.
2037 is *not* close to '2300+'.

I know of no available evidence (to the general public) at the
USCF website that would show that Taylor Kingston ever
had a correspondence rating of '2300+', which was needed
to confirm his original claim.

So how on earth could any 'intelligent reader' (as someone who's
not a white American, I may not qualify as such) 'correctly realize'
that Taylor Kingston's correspondence rating of 2037 at the
USCF website *must* confirm Taylor Kingston's original claim
of a '2300+ Elo' rating?

I did *not necessarily* assume that Taylor Kingston's
correspondence rating of 2037 was his peak correspondence
rating. But there was no available evidence (to the general
public) at the USCF website about Taylor Kingston's peak
correspondence rating. I had no reason to assume that
Taylor Kingston *must* once have been rated 263+ points
higher than his current correspondence rating.

No confusion either way:

That's quite a disingenuous assertion by Taylor Kingston.

you and Sloan assumed and were wrong, just as you
did yesterday about my Chess Life subscription.
Others checked the facts and were right.

As I recall, someone associated with the USCF later did
look up Taylor Kingston's peak correspondence rating
(it's 1806, if I recall correctly), which, using a formula,
would convert to a mid-2200s rating today.

A converted mid-2200s rating does *not* quite confirm
a ratings claim of '2300+ Elo', though Taylor Kingston
prefers to act as though it completely confirms it.

What would I call the difference between a converted
mid-2200s rating and a claimed '2300+' rating?
I would call it an exaggeration; some people
may prefer to describe it in harsher terms.

You are confusing my OTB and postal ratings. Two different things. --
Taylor Kingston

I know of no evidence that Taylor Kingston ever has had,
even by conversion, a '2300+' correspondence rating.

Mr. 2300+ Elo made the bald claim knowing full well that most readers
would understand it was his over-the-board rating. He later offered a
number of excuses, such as he was laying a trap for this writer and
Sam Sloan, etc..

Which you fell into like a sleepwalker. So predictable.

Other excuses followed for his misleading claim.

Interesting that only you and Sloan were "misled."

How on earth could Taylor Kingston be certain that only
Larry Parr and Sam Sloan believed that Taylor Kingston's
claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating was misleading?
Can Taylor Kingston read everyone else's mind?

Indeed, a friend of mine (who has deep disdain for both
Larry Parr and Sam Sloan) has criticised Taylor Kingston's
'2300+ Elo' rating claim in harsher terms than I have.
He regards Taylor Kingston's '2300+ Elo' rating claim
as misleading and deceptive and Taylor Kingston's
continuing defences of his claim as dishonest.

If Taylor Kingston had written something like:
"I had an old USCF correspondence rating that
would convert to something *approaching* a
USCF correspondence rating of 2300 today",
then that would have been a fair statement.

I regard Larry Parr's continuing criticisms of Taylor
Kingston's '2300+ Elo' rating claim as excessive,
and I regard Taylor Kingston's continuing defences
of his '2300+ Elo' rating claim as disingenuous.

--Nick