On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:

Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
patzer.


Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how
silly you look here, going at TK while missing
the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes.


-- help bot

On Apr 1, 10:15 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:

Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
patzer.

Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how
silly you look here, going at TK while missing
the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes.

-- help bot

The "nearly an IM" who allegedly holds a "GM norm" in correspondence
chess?

On Apr 1, 10:45 pm, The Historian wrote:

My apologies, Reverend Walker. I had no idea P Innes the alleged
correspondence chess player and self-described "nearly an IM" would
believe we are one and the same. Unfortunately, since P Innes is
incapable of admitting error, expect several more such confused posts
from him.


I think it is more likely PI will just avoid discussing
his latest gaffe altogether.


BTW, did anyone notice P Innes doesn't know the difference between the
Internet Chess Club (ICC) and the International Correspondence Chess
Federation (ICCF)?


Well, what do you expect? Only real chess
players would know the difference. In a recent
rant, Mr. Parr flatly and with a straight face
insisted that OTB chess had much more
prestige than correspondence chess, and he
wasn't talking about the relatively recent
changes brought about by the introduction of
killer chess engines. It seems that some
folks just don't know very much about chess.


Meanwhile, we await evidence he secured a GM norm
from anyone.


I take the nearly-an-IMnes at his word; he said
he got hold of Rybka a good while back, and
that is proof enough for me that he is capable
of achieving GM norms now; it also explains
why he never made such a claim /before/ Rybka
was released, in spite of his being nearly-an-IM
with a rating of 2450, and all that. Just look at
the (presumed) facts: nearly IMnes never once
claimed to have scored a GM norm in remote
play until shortly /after/ acquiring Rybka, then
presto: he is making such claims. Do you
suppose this is merely a coinkydink?

Let's face it, as crushing as it may sound to
egotistical correspondence GMs, there's a new
sheriff in town, and they need to start packing
before a whole posse of killer chess engines
hunts them to near-extinction.


-- help bot

On Apr 1, 10:47 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 1, 10:45 pm, The Historian wrote:

My apologies, Reverend Walker. I had no idea P Innes the alleged
correspondence chess player and self-described "nearly an IM" would
believe we are one and the same. Unfortunately, since P Innes is
incapable of admitting error, expect several more such confused posts
from him.

I think it is more likely PI will just avoid discussing
his latest gaffe altogether.

BTW, did anyone notice P Innes doesn't know the difference between the
Internet Chess Club (ICC) and the International Correspondence Chess
Federation (ICCF)?

Well, what do you expect? Only real chess
players would know the difference. In a recent
rant, Mr. Parr flatly and with a straight face
insisted that OTB chess had much more
prestige than correspondence chess, and he
wasn't talking about the relatively recent
changes brought about by the introduction of
killer chess engines. It seems that some
folks just don't know very much about chess.

Meanwhile, we await evidence he secured a GM norm
from anyone.

I take the nearly-an-IMnes at his word; he said
he got hold of Rybka a good while back, and
that is proof enough for me that he is capable
of achieving GM norms now; it also explains
why he never made such a claim /before/ Rybka
was released, in spite of his being nearly-an-IM
with a rating of 2450, and all that. Just look at
the (presumed) facts: nearly IMnes never once
claimed to have scored a GM norm in remote
play until shortly /after/ acquiring Rybka, then
presto: he is making such claims. Do you
suppose this is merely a coinkydink?

So you are suggesting P Innes the Nearly an IM 2450 is a mere
'postman?' (early 2000s slang for a correspondence 'player' who uses a
chess engine to choose their moves)

Still, even as a postman, the GM norm P Innes allegedly scored has to
have been awarded by somebody. Since it doesn't appear to be ICCF, it
had to have been in some 'vapor' tournament online. Perhaps it's the
same group that made Goran Tomic an "Internet Grandmaster?"

Let's face it, as crushing as it may sound to
egotistical correspondence GMs, there's a new
sheriff in town, and they need to start packing
before a whole posse of killer chess engines
hunts them to near-extinction.

-- help bot

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...22186f00af59a2

NO DECEIT INTENDED!

A guy who never had an Elo rating claims once to have been rated 2300+
Elo. Needless to say, no deceit was intended.

wrote:
NO PASSAGE OF ARMS

If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is a damn
shame. -- John Walker

Dear Rev. Walker,

Taylor Kingston ain't ever gonna play Sam Sloan a
chess match. No way. No how.

A few years back, a gent offered a thousand
dollars for such a match, and more money could have
been raised. Sam, of course, champed at the bit and
later defeated Bill Brock for the moolah. It was a
good match with lots of ill feeling, but the natural
match was and still is Sloan-Kingston. But our NMnot
claims he is too refined for such a passage of Caissic arms.

NMnot Kingston continues with the strawman
nonsense about my denigrating his play. I have no
problem whatsoever in stating that he had a Harkness
postal rating of over 1800, which might translate into
something like 2200-2350 USCF today. I don't insist
on conversion numbers because they are not the issue.

NMnot Kingston's problem is NOT with this
writer; it is with himself.

Rightly or wrongly, over-the-boartd has nearly all the
prestige in chess. NMnot evidently agreed and told us
he was "2300+ Elo" while also noting he was ranked #46
in the nation at some totally undetermined point in the past
of, say, two or three decades.

On the other hand, we all have a fair idea what
someone is saying when baldly claiming to be "2300+
Elo." NMnot Kingston had a fair idea also. Later, he
offered a series of justifications, which have changed
over the years AFTER he was outed by the tenacious
Sam Sloan.

Imagine postal players routinely claiming to be
2300 or 2400 or 2500 Elo when stating their strengths
to people who don't even know that they play postal.
Postal players are, in the main, far too honest to
transact business in such fashion. Many would be
embarrassed. So is Taylor Kingston, but he intends
to brazen it out aided by a few of his water carriers.

And remember: he would not play Sam Sloan for
a thousand or more bucks because of his exquisitely
attuned olfactory capabilities. Or he balked because,
quite simply, he abhorred the very thought of losing
to someone who humiliated him publicly.

It's Ego. Not Elo.

Yours, Larry Parr


J.D. Walker wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:03 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
The
facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.
Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
Saddam settle things in the cage?

Nah, I already saw Saddam duke it out with Charlie Sheen and Lloyd
Bridges in "Hot Shots, Part Deux." No way Rumsfeld could have topped
that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QS5Io_yUg

We're talkin' bread and circus here.

That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them
eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it!

Mel Gibson also indulges in drunken anti-Semitic rants. I don't
consider him a role model.

Michael Richards then?

Rev, if you and Mike Murray are so eager to see Sloan play chess,
feel free to challenge him yourselves. I have plenty of better things
to do.

And waste all the promotional value of the ongoing diatribe? I do not
think so. If you don't want to play Mr. Sloan, that is fine, but it is
a damn shame.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

On Apr 2, 2:16*pm, " wrote:
NO DECEIT INTENDED!

A guy who never had an Elo rating claims once to have been rated 2300+
Elo.

Larry, what drugs are you and Sloan on, that you think USCF ratings
are not Elo ratings?
Arpad Elo invented his rating system specifically for the USCF, at
the USCF's request. It has been used by the USCF for OTB chess since
1960, and for postal chess since 1987. Your USCF rating, Sloan's USCF
rating, my USCF ratings, everyone's USCF ratings are ALL Elo ratings.

If we are going to talk about things people here have claimed but
never had, let's start with:

1. Your claim to have won an "international Swiss" tournament in
1970.
2. Sloan's claim to have won " the world championship of Chinese
chess" in 1988.
3. Sloan's claim to have been a "rated chess master" when he has
never had a USCF rating of 2200 or better.
4. Sloan's claim to have been a USCF expert in 2006, when his rating
was well below the required 2000.

Unlike my rating, ranking, and title, which all were real matters of
public record, these are all pure fabrication. Yet you have never
denounced them at all, to my knowledge. Isn't this just a tad
inconsistent?
Of course, you will either ignore this challenge, or spin some
ludicrously contrived logic to justify your mendacity, and the
mendacity of Sloan. In Parr's Distorted Dictionary, the operative
definitions a

Truth: Any statement Larry Parr likes or agrees with, regardless of
its factual accuracy.
Honesty: A character trait possessed only by those Larry Parr likes
or agrees with, no matter how many lies they may tell.
Lie: Any statement Larry Parr disagrees with, or made by someone
Larry Parr dislikes.

The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
Players from 1970 until about 1984.

Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings, Yahoo Ratings, ICC Ratings,
USChessLive Ratings or FICS Ratings.

Elo Ratings are definitely not correspondence ratings.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
Players from 1970 until about 1984.

Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

Nope. Elo developed a mathematical rating method, and any
rating system using the method is an Elo rating.

On Apr 2, 5:32*pm, samsloan wrote:
The general and commonly understood meaning among chess players is
that "Elo Ratings" are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo and
published in the book by Professor Elo "The Rating of Chess Players"
or else published in the semi-annual Elo Rating lists of FIDE Rated
Players from 1970 until about 1984.

Apparently Sam thinks his electric bill does not involve wattage
unless it's measured by James Watt himself. Or voltage unless it's
toted up by Alessandro Volta. I'd like to see him use this argument
with Con Ed.
I guess our supersonic aircraft do not really fly at Mach 1, Mach 2,
etc., because Ernst Mach is no longer with us. And I guess we need no
longer fear radioactivity, since all those roentgens mean nothing now
that Wilhelm Roentgen has passed away.

Elo Ratings are understood to be FIDE Ratings.

Elo Ratings are not USCF Ratings,

Sam, I love it when you flaunt your ignorance, not to mention your
obstinate stupidity.

Now, tell us why you lied to the Libertarian Party of New York in
your 2006 speech. Because you figured you could get away with it,
right? Put one over on the rubes?

Larry, what drugs are you and Sloan on, that you think USCF ratings
are not Elo ratings?
Arpad Elo invented his rating system specifically for the USCF, at
the USCF's request. It has been used by the USCF for OTB chess since
1960, and for postal chess since 1987. Your USCF rating, Sloan's USCF
rating, my USCF ratings, everyone's USCF ratings are ALL Elo ratings.

If we are going to talk about things people here have claimed but
never had, let's start with:


1. Your claim to have won an "international Swiss" tournament in
1970.
2. Sloan's claim to have won " the world championship of Chinese
chess" in 1988.
3. Sloan's claim to have been a "rated chess master" when he has
never had a USCF rating of 2200 or better.
4. Sloan's claim to have been a USCF expert in 2006, when his
rating
was well below the required 2000.


Unlike my rating, ranking, and title, which all were real matters
of
public record, these are all pure fabrication. Yet you have never
denounced them at all, to my knowledge. Isn't this just a tad
inconsistent?
Of course, you will either ignore this challenge, or spin some
ludicrously contrived logic to justify your mendacity, and the
mendacity of Sloan. In Parr's Distorted Dictionary, the operative
definitions a


Truth: Any statement Larry Parr likes or agrees with, regardless of
its factual accuracy.
Honesty: A character trait possessed only by those Larry Parr likes
or agrees with, no matter how many lies they may tell.
Lie: Any statement Larry Parr disagrees with, or made by someone
Larry Parr dislikes.