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

So, having agreed that we both remember the event, do you still claim
to have been "misled" about my postal rating or my OTB rating (which at
the time was actually below 1800)? Despite the fact that both were
mentioned to you there in person?

Taylor - while this is of immense interest to you, I have never really given
a damn about ratings. I don't actually remember if you said your rating or
not, or if it wass CC or OTB.

But 1800 correspondance does not 'equate' to any OTB rating, nevermind 2300!
And certainly no Fide-rating. You can't mix 'em up like that, because of
course in CC you can look at books or use computers and you are not obliged
to play at an average speed of 2.5 minutes per move. One does not indicate
/any/ ability to do the other.

So rather than dispute your correspondence chess rating, I dispute that it
can mean /anything at all/ in terms of OTB.

On another occasion I met Tim Hanke on a nearby mountain, and Kenny from
Harvard. They were playing in a tourney - Ivanov was there, and your
Burlington player Alain who had the Fischer anecdotes.

Do you mean Alan Shaw? I don't think he ever played Fischer, but he
did play Tal, who consumed alarming amounts of gin-and-tonic over the
course of the evening. Or do you mean Allyn Khan?

That's him! I Frenchified his name, since I didn't see it written, and
guessed phonetically.

He played Fischer at
State College, Pennsylvania, on May 31, the last stop on Bobby's big
1964 tour, when Allyn was a member of the Penn State team (cf. "A
Legend on the Road" (2nd edition) by John Donaldson, p. 192).

Khan played him twice! [he was the college organiser for the simul] And at
the end of his second game [the first was also a simul] Fischer said to him
that he would like to go over a few moves 'from the game', then remarkably,
since there had been a 6 month hiatus, Fischer replayed the /first/ game.

The other thing that happened was that they later played table tennis and
Allyn said he was up 19-13 points when Fischer just stopped playing for a
moment and tranced, 'after that', said Allyn,' I didn't win another point.'

Interestingly Allyn played GM Ivanov on the mountain, and he told both of us
about those anecdotes - which Ivanov thought remarkable. Then we replayed
the game they had just finsihed, Kahn/Ivanov, and somewhat embarrassingly, I
found a winning move for Allyn which neither player saw over the board. It
was a late middlegame Queen incursion with lots of forcing checks collecting
pawns all the while, and then by exchanges black would have been bust. If he
still has the game score, I could point it out. Allyn played very well, but
his defensive baulkwork was about to be overun, and the move was the result
of necessity!

Phil

wrote:
KINGSTON'S INITIAL POSTING FOUND

I promised to hunt down Taylor Kingston'sinitial posting. So, then,
here is the relevant section of an exchange in which he who promoted
himself by some 500 rating points and simply lies on Sunday, June 5,
2005, when under pressu


Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was
incapable of doing this kind of analysis.

Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a
weak player that he cannot understand these simple
and obvious points

[[[[[TAYLOR KINGSTON NOW LIES]]]]]

"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."

I love that "as I recall," don't you? "As I
recall" indeed. What a shameless lie!

You're right, Larry. I was actually #45, not #46, as you published
yourself. Sorry for the "shameless lie."

Louis Blair wrote:
Terry wrote (Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:39:36 +0100)

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, for one, would be glad to see more of what
goes on in other countries. Why is there not
more from other countries?

This is my sentiment too. Let's have more
info, not less.

**********

Wlod

wrote in message
oups.com...
JOEL CHANNING ON STAYING THE COURSE


-- Joel Channing

Stabilize the number of memberships?

June 03 Regular members 23,479 Affiliates 2,013
June 04 Regular members 20,977 Affiliates 1,632
June 05 Regular members 20,931 Affiliates 1,386
April 06 Regular members 20,692 Affiliates 1,358

But Larry, consider that about half of those people actually played one game
of rated chess in 12 months! The other half must presumably buy membership
for the magazine. [actually, less one significant person as result of the
Evan's dismissal, as reported at chessville this week].

The trouble with you Larry is that you think you can save them from
themselves, in order to pursue promoting chess in the USA. I have the same
orientation; I also want to promote chess in the USA.

Our meeting point is that USCF says it wants to promote chess in the USA [it
actually is established as a non-profit to do exactly that] and much
revolves in its orb because of that statement.

We seem to disagree about the extent that it actually happens.

Phil Innes

wrote in message
oups.com...
KINGSTON'S INITIAL POSTING FOUND

"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."

I think the only way to resolve this issue is for someone to put up 10 grand
and I will play a match against Taylor. Phil Innes

Nick wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
wrote:
The man made the claim outright that he was
2300+ ELO WITHOUT ANY ELABORATION.

It's true that Taylor Kingston's original claim of
a '2300+ Elo' rating did not specify that rating.

He did not talk about his postal rating.

It's true that Taylor Kingston did not initially write
that his claimed '2300+ Elo' rating referred to his
old correspondence rating of 1806 (which actually
would convert to a mid-2200s rating today).

He was under pressure from Sam Sloan,

I doubt that.

and he then flat out lied about his rating.

That's a matter of interpretation and dispute.
Lying refers to making a false statement with
a premeditated intent to deceive or to mislead.

Taylor Kingston's original claim of a '2300+ Elo'
rating is, strictly speaking, a false statement.
Taylor Kingston's old correspondence rating of
1806, which would convert to a mid-2200s rating
today, does not quite confirm his '2300+' claim.

If someone would like to criticise Taylor Kingston's
original claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating as factually
inaccurate and an exaggeration, then that would
be a fair criticism.

Did Taylor Kingston make his '2300+ Elo' rating
with the intention of deceiving Larry Parr or Sam
Sloan about his OTB USCF rating? I doubt that
because Taylor Kingston already knew that his
OTB USCF rating could be easily checked at
the USCF website.

As far as I can tell, Taylor Kingston has been
asserting that his original '2300+ Elo' rating claim
misled no reader except Larry Parr, Sam Sloan,
and perhaps Phil Innes. Of course, Taylor
Kingston cannot read every reader's mind.

I suspect that some readers (who have no bias
against Taylor Kingston) were *sincerely* misled
by Taylor Kingston's original '2300+ Elo' claim
because they assumed that it referred to an
OTB rating rather than a correspondence rating.
Not every reader here is a USCF member, and
some readers here may not have known that
USCF ratings can be looked up at the USCF
website. I do not believe that there's any more
reason to presume that an English player should
know how to look up USCF ratings than an
American player should know how to look up
BCF grades.

After I read Taylor Kingston's original claim of a
'2300+ Elo' rating, I checked the USCF website
and I found out that Taylor Kingston evidently
has a peak OTB USCF rating in the 1800s
and a current correspondence USCF rating
of 2037. (Taylor Kingston seems to act as
though it should have been obvious for an
'intelligent reader' to conclude immediately
that his correspondence rating of 2037 must
completely support his '2300+ Elo' rating claim.)
I could find no FIDE rating for Taylor Kingston.

At that point, I still did *not* conclude that
Taylor Kingston *must* be lying. But I had
found no evidence to confirm Taylor Kingston's
original claim of a '2300+ Elo' rating, so I had
no independent reason to believe that it's true.
I wondered whether Taylor Kingston might
be referring a '2300+ Elo' rating at one of the
internet chess servers.

When Taylor Kingston writes that there
should have been 'no confusion' among
his readers about his original '2300+ Elo'
rating claim, that's another example of
Taylor Kingston being disingenuous.

It's a false dichotomy that either Taylor
Kingston must be completely right or
that Larry Parr must be completely right.

I believe that Taylor Kingston's original claim
of a '2300+ Elo' rating was an exaggeration,
which may have sincerely misled some readers.
Taylor Kingston warrants more criticism than
his apologists would have it, but Taylor Kingston
warrants less criticism than Larry Parr and
Sam Sloan would have it.

--Nick

Nick, let's see if I can pose an analogy that will make my point
clearer. Suppose Sam Sloan had posted here that you, Nick, were a
stupid, uneducated man. Let us suppose further that you actually have
an advanced degree, a doctorate in something. So in reply you say to
Sloan that you are not uneducated, that you are in fact Doctor
Bourbaki.
Sloan immediately replies "I've checked the list of all physicians in
England and your name is not there!". Then Parr chimes in, saying "What
an egotistical liar this Nick is, claiming a medical degree he does not
possess."
In reply, you note that you are not an M.D., never claimed to be an
M.D., that in fact you're a Ph.D. in history (or mathematics, or
chemistry, or literature, or whatever it might be). Yet Parr goes on
repeatedly, saying you're a liar who pretended to be a medical doctor.
I hope this illustrates more clearly how sleazy Parr and Sloan have
been in this regard.

RESOLVING THE ISSUE

Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed
to be any great player, but 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

I think the only way to resolve this issue is for someone to put
up 10 grand and I will play a match against Taylor. -- Phil Innes

An excellent idea. Sam Sloan can be Phil's second,
and Neil Brennen or Louis Blair will back up NM Taylor Kingston,
the 2300+ ELO wingding.

Calling funds committee chairman Tyrone
Slothrop! Calling Joel Channing!

This should be one heckuva match. Phil will be
in trim form, and NM Kingston is the No. 47 rated
player in the country. Heh, heh, heh.

I hereby bet U.S. $100 on Phil Innes if there is a taker.

Larry Evans can be match commentator along with
a foreheadless choice nominated by NM Kingston.

I pledged $500 towards a $5000 Innes-Kingston match purse for Katrina
victims.

http://tinyurl.com/j73q5

http://tinyurl.com/zdm6y

Seems like someone needs a more direct financial motivation.

It would be appropriate for Innes to be seconded by Sloan: both are in
the habit of vigorously defending child molesters (cf. Jefferson
Poland).

wrote:
It would be appropriate for Innes to be seconded by Sloan: both are in
the habit of vigorously defending child molesters (cf. Jefferson
Poland).

And again, you want to play chess with such 'gentlemen'.