On Mar 30, 10:02 am, wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:42 am, samsloan wrote:

The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom Martinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):

From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
For established ratings:
Old New
1629 2100
1738 2200
1848 2300
1958 2400
So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted Martinak's figure. So should you.

Absolutely not.

Elo ratings are FIDE Ratings. USCF Ratings are not Elo Ratings. ICC
Ratings and Yahoo Ratings are not Elo Ratings either.

Elo Ratings are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo of Marquette
University.

Taylor Kingston has never has an Elo Rating.

All this is explained in the book:

The Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

Available now at a book store near you.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 30, 12:08*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:02 am, wrote:





On Mar 30, 9:42 am, samsloan wrote:

The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

* You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom Martinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):

From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
*Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
*For established ratings:
Old * *New
1629 * 2100
1738 * 2200
1848 * 2300
1958 * 2400
*So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

* So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted Martinak's figure. So should you.

Absolutely not.

Elo ratings are FIDE Ratings. USCF Ratings are not Elo Ratings. ICC
Ratings and Yahoo Ratings are not Elo Ratings either.

Elo Ratings are ratings calculated by Professor Arpad Elo of Marquette
University.

Taylor Kingston has never has an Elo Rating.

All this is explained in the book:

The Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chesshttp://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

Available now at a book store near you.

Sam Sloan

Our Silly Sam still tries to foist his absurd claim that USCF
ratings are not Elo ratings. A couple of quotes that contradict him:

"In 1960 a new USCF method was introduced by a committee chaired by
[Dr. Arpad] Elo, later to become the official FIDE rating system, and
known either by that name or as Elo Rating." -- The Oxford Companion
to Chess (2nd edition), entry on "rating," page 332

"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system ... Consequently the writer undertook to develop a
rating system ... The outline and working principles of the new system
have been presented in a number of papers (Elo 1961, 1966, 1967,
1973). Since 1960 the system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
and Present" (Arco 1978), page 11.

I think that on the subject of Elo ratings, Dr. Elo himself is a
better authority than Sam Sloan.

samsloan wrote:

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

That can't be right. I have a postal rating (established before
chess computers) of 1901, and no way am I better than a Class A
player over-the-board. Me playing a 2200-2300 player OTB would
be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Mar 30, 2:33*pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:
However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

That can't be right. *

Guy, our Sam, in his usual fashion, is trying to confuse you. He
neglects to tell you that the 1806 was a Harkness rating, equivalent
to about 2260 Elo. If you look at my earlier posts in this thread, I
make this quite clear. In the Harkness system, the Master threshold
was 1700, Senior Master 1900.

I have a postal rating (established before
chess computers) of 1901, and no way am I better than a Class A
player over-the-board. *Me playing a 2200-2300 player OTB would
be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

You should never accept anything Sam Sloan says at face value. I
have never been more than Class A OTB, but I was a correspondence
master in the mid-1980s. Sam, in his ongoing battle with reality,
refuses to accept this.

On Mar 30, 6:42 am, samsloan wrote:
The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630

Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
of 1762 to a high of 1853.

Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
about the same and he has never been a master.

Sam Sloan


Ironic, since you also claimed to be something were not. You claimed
to be a former USCF master. LIE.

On Mar 30, 8:02 am, wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:42 am, samsloan wrote:

The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom Martinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):

From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
For established ratings:
Old New
1629 2100
1738 2200
1848 2300
1958 2400
So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted Martinak's figure. So should you.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
impossible. I was correct in that belief.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
rating points, but family came first.

Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630

Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
of 1762 to a high of 1853.

Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
about the same and he has never been a master.

In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
Would you like a copy?

I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."

Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
have been,
always will be. OK? All right now!

On Mar 30, 5:55*pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:02 am, wrote:





On Mar 30, 9:42 am, samsloan wrote:

The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

* You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom Martinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):

From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
*Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
*For established ratings:
Old * *New
1629 * 2100
1738 * 2200
1848 * 2300
1958 * 2400
*So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

* So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted Martinak's figure. So should you.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

* As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
impossible. I was correct in that belief.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

* The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
rating points, but family came first.

Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630

Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
of 1762 to a high of 1853.

Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
about the same and he has never been a master.

* In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
Would you like a copy?

* I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."

Dude, you need to just give up. *You are a 1800 chess patzer. *Always
have been,
always will be. *OK? *All right now!

Hey, as far as OTB chess is concerned, you are quite right!

HARKNESS = ELO = NMnot KINGSTON

On June 5, 2005 -- after suffering brutal battering from ball-busting
Sam Sloan over his playing strength -- Class A player Taylor Kingston
posted the following statement:

"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 rank
of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than weak."

There was no reference to postal chess. No caveat.

Shortly thereafter, Slammin' Sammy Sloan posted the truth: Taylor
Kingston's rating was a bit over 1800. Only AFTER Sam exposed the lie
did NMnot Kingston attempt damage control. The first excuse for his
lie, which he offered only AFTER Sam outed him, was that he figured
Sam would confuse a postal rating with its lower numerical scale with
the Elo over-the-board scale.

Someone called it The Horsefeathers Defense.

As for this writer, NMnot Kingston began to stretch his original lie
-- in the time-honored fashion of young, junior-high-school level
fantasists -- stating that he realized I would not make such an error
but that I would argue a reference to a national Harkness postal
rating from some undefined period in the past would not be understood
by most readers to be a reference to the international Elo-rating
system. I would thereby discredit myself.

HARKNESS = ELO = NMnot KINGSTON

Many of you -- and certainly the vast majority of club players -- have
never heard the name of Ken Harkness. NMnot Taylor Kingston's latest
explanation for his lie about
his rating is that he was referring to the Harkness postal system.

Get it? Harkness = Elo.

The undifferentiated reader of Taylor Kingston's claim to be 2300+ Elo
is held to understand that the word "Elo" can be understood to mean
"Harkness" at some unnamed, undated period of the past. Oh, say, 20 or
30 years back.

So, then, the idea being peddled by NMnot Kingston is that because he
was ranked #45 or #46in the United States several decades back, the
average reader will snap his fingers and say, "Oh, yeah, No. #45 about
20 or 30 years ago would be in the 1800s on a Harkness list.
Therefore, Honest Taylor Kingston is talking about a postal rating. Of
couse, none of us would imagine that '2300+ Elo' could mean anything
else two or three decades back or at some undefined period of the
past.

In Chess Liffe, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have neverr heard him boast about reaching 2584
Elo by fattening his rating by 500 points.. On page 33 of the same
issue Taylor Kingston is not listed among U.S. FIDE masters. Nor is he
listed among the FIDE ratings of U.S. players led by #1 Dzindzi at
2570 with Reshevsky #21 at 2485.

An alternative explanation is that after weeks of battering from Sam
Sloan about playing strength, the ego which is NMnot Kingston,
overcame the good sense of its owner. He dashed off a stupid, if
sauvely expressed lie.

At the time even Larry Tapper, who often fetches for NMnot Kingston,
admitted that the claim to be 2300+ Elo was not Kingston's most
shining moment.

Indeed, it was not. And now it's getting worse.

Yours, Larry Parr


wrote:
On Mar 30, 5:55?pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:02 am, wrote:





On Mar 30, 9:42 am, samsloan wrote:

The January 1984 issue of Chess Life, page 54, shows that Taylor
Kingston had a rating of 1806N.

This is an over-the-board rating, not a postal rating.

However, Kingston claims that his postal rating was 1806 and this was
equivalent to 2250 over-the-board.

? You may recall, Sam (though probably not; you so rarely remember
facts), that Tom Martinak posted the correct conversion here on 7 June
2005 (seehttp://tinyurl.com/326b36):

From the April 1986 CL, page 43 article "Rating System Takes a New
?Form" about the conversion of postal ratings to the same scale as OTB.
?For established ratings:
Old ? ?New
1629 ? 2100
1738 ? 2200
1848 ? 2300
1958 ? 2400
?So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.

? So, shall we agree on Elo 2260, just to keep it a round number? I
had first said 2300+, on the assumption that the conversion added 500
points to the Harkness rating to get the Elo rating, but I have long
since accepted Martinak's figure. So should you.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

? As I recall it was quite difficult at times, but I never felt it was
impossible. I was correct in that belief.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

? The correct explanation (not that Sam cares about such things) is
that I scored +49 -6 =12 in USCF-rated postal games over 1981-1984,
rose from a starting rating of 900 (class C) to 1806, attained a
Master title (1700+), and was #45 in the country on USCF's postal
rating list. Then, having two very young children to raise (which I
did not when I started postal play), I could no longer afford the
time, and retired from postal chess. The withdrawal cost me about 250
rating points, but family came first.

Taylor Kingston's current USCF rating is 1811

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12360630

Since 1991 his rating has fluctuated within a narrow range, from a low
of 1762 to a high of 1853.

Thus, it seems that, like most chess players, his strength has stayed
about the same and he has never been a master.

? In OTB chess, that's quite true. But I definitely was a master in
postal chess. Still am, because like the GM title, once awarded it is
permanent. I may still have the official certificate USCF sent me.
Would you like a copy?

? I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."

Dude, you need to just give up. ?You are a 1800 chess patzer. ?Always
have been,
always will be. ?OK? ?All right now!

Hey, as far as OTB chess is concerned, you are quite right!

On Mar 30, 12:25 pm, wrote:

"In 1959 the late Jerry Spann, then president of the United States
Chess Federation (USCF) named a committee to review the federation's
rating system ... Consequently the writer undertook to develop a
rating system ... The outline and working principles of the new system
have been presented in a number of papers (Elo 1961, 1966, 1967,
1973). Since 1960 the system has been used by the USCF for rating its
entire membership." -- Dr. Arpad Elo, "The Rating of Chessplayers Past
and Present" (Arco 1978), page 11.

I think that on the subject of Elo ratings, Dr. Elo himself is a
better authority than Sam Sloan.


Do you really expect the Evans ratpackers to buy
that? Clearly, this Dr. Arpad fellow was a fake. Mr.
Sloan is the read deal; former world champion of
Chinese chess, prevailed against a team of Supreme
Court Justices 1-0, published countless books as an
authority on everything, etc. How can you even
contemplate this Mr. Elo character as knowing
anything about chess ratings, when Sam Sloan
*himself* says otherwise? It boggles the mind... .


-- help bot

On Mar 30, 5:55 pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:

I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter
the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above
link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad
better than "weak."

Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
have been,
always will be. OK? All right now!


Dude, you like need to get a grip; a "patzer"
is someone rated lower than you or that you
just beat; it isn't somebody rated 1800 USCF,
'cause they would probably just *demolish*
someone as weak as you are! In fact, an
1800 beats 80% of patzers like you, and 95%
of all players, including non-rated duffers.

Okay, I just made those numbers up; but
the thing is, TK said he was "a tad" better
than weak, so he left his hind side covered
with a Kevlar fanny-pack. Meanwhile back at
the ranch, a poster known as nearly-IMnes
made a bald-faced claim to royal titles and a
2450 rating that never even existed! Don't
you feel dumb for missing that? Here, let me
help you: click on this link and type in the
name "Innes, Sir Phillip, Esquire"; find any
titles? Or ratings?

www.fide.corrupto.chess.org/ratings

Nothing there, huh? Not to worry, here is
another link:

www.uscf.goichbergrules!.org/ratings

Look for Sir Phillip of Brattleboro; he'll be
near the very top of the rating list, just under
Bobby Fischer (deceased). Sir Phil was
given the nearly-an-IM title for defeating
the famous master, Anon, in a long match.
It turned out that Anon was actually Rob
Mitchell, but that is a mere technicality.


-- help not