On Mar 31, 2:52 am, " wrote:

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.


Poor Larry Parr does not seem to know when
he is, quite simply, outclassed.

Here, our village idiot tries to ignore the fact
that the USCF's free Web site lists all rated
players by name, and anybody -- even the
dullest of folks, like these Evans ratpackers
-- can just type in a name and instantly fetch
the information requested.

Even those newbies who don't know about
this will have no trouble if they bother to do a
Google search on words like "chess" and
"ratings" in their quest to discover the actual
numbers, but I can understand how Mr. Sloan
has managed to "forget" -- if indeed he ever
knew -- the discussion of ratings conversion
from 2005 which I somehow recalled easily.

Of course, it's all a ruse, for the sinister
Evans ratpackers are unable to face the
music when it comes to defending their
fearless leader's wild speculations. GM
Evans laid claim to being the "only one"
smart enough and strong enough at chess
to "see" his delusions, and indeed such
delusions were found to be "invisible" to
even stronger players than he was; one
example was GM Nunn, who dismissed it
as a bunch of nonsense. But we didn't
need any experts to tell us that, since the
whole shebang falls apart in terms of
elementary logic and reason.

Mr. Parr would like to have a discussion
about who was better: Larry Evans at his
all-time peak, or Taylor Kingston right
now, but this vanity project would reveal
nothing about the merits of GM Evans'
article, which was the original topic of
discussion. You can always tell when an
Evans ratpacker has given up all hope by
the fact that he /changes the subject/ to
personal attacks on the critics who have
nailed some of the many weaknesses of
the ratpackers' indefensible positions.

Some folks wave a white flag; others go
silent; but these Evans ratpackers know
only one way to surrender: spewing ad
hominen, ad nauseum; it is a surrender
of all reason, of rational discussion and
of sanity itself.


-- help bot

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
Actually, you get 100 bonus points [at least] if you claim Elo, since
2300+ elo is [at least] 2400 uscf, therefore the difference is a clean
600 points [!]
This is false.

So what is true?

What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
far, indistinguishable from denial.

What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
its okay to shut up.

PI

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

Larry Parr wrote:

Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense...

In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never 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.

This still seems wrong. My last USCF postal chess rating was:

[ http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353 ]
12499353: GUY MACON
Regular Rating (Unrated)
Quick Rating (Unrated)
Correspondence Rating 1901
State CA
Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09

....which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
player from 4 years earlier! No way was I ever that good.
Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.


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

On Mar 31, 8:31*am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Larry Parr wrote:

Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense... *

In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never 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.

This still seems wrong. *My last USCF postal chess rating was:

[http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353]
12499353: GUY MACON
Regular Rating (Unrated)
Quick Rating (Unrated)
Correspondence Rating 1901
State CA
Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09

...which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
player from 4 years earlier! *No way was I ever that good.
Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.

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

Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
height is the same whether given in feet or meters.

The classes under the Harkness system we

Senior Master: 1900+
Master: 1700-1898
Expert: 1500-1698
Class A: 1300-1498
Class B: 1000-1298
Class C: 700-998
Class D: 700 and below

The above is from the official USCF postal tournament rules, 1979
edition.
Checking the postal rating list in the April 1983 Chess Life, there
are about 6,300 players listed. Of those, 9 are Senior Masters, rated
1918 to 2030. About 150 are Masters, among them myself, then rated
1758.
I trust this clears things up for you.

On Mar 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
far, indistinguishable from denial.

What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
its okay to shut up.

PI

Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.

Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.

And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 31, 9:14 am, wrote:

Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
height is the same whether given in feet or meters.

The classes under the Harkness system we

Senior Master: 1900+
Master: 1700-1898
Expert: 1500-1698
Class A: 1300-1498
Class B: 1000-1298
Class C: 700-998
Class D: 700 and below

Mr. Kingston,

Why do you keep using the words "Harkness system". Kenneth Harkness
had nothing to do with the postal rating system. The USCF did not
have postal chess when Harkness was there. The rating system was the
Chess Review rating system which the USCF acquired when it bought out
Chess Review in 1969.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

You are displaying your ignorance again.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:14 am, wrote:

Guy, the switch of USCF postal ratings from the Harkness to the Elo
system took place around 1987, as has been explained several times in
this group. Had you been playing when I was, 1981-1984, your 1901 Elo
rating would have been about 1400 Harkness.
That does not mean you would have been a worse player, it was just a
different system. Tthe different numbers mean the same thing, just as
your weight is the same whether given in pounds or kilograms, and your
height is the same whether given in feet or meters.

The classes under the Harkness system we

Senior Master: 1900+
Master: 1700-1898
Expert: 1500-1698
Class A: 1300-1498
Class B: 1000-1298
Class C: 700-998
Class D: 700 and below

Mr. Kingston,

Why do you keep using the words "Harkness system". Kenneth Harkness
had nothing to do with the postal rating system. The USCF did not
have postal chess when Harkness was there. The rating system was the
Chess Review rating system which the USCF acquired when it bought out
Chess Review in 1969.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891927

You are displaying your ignorance again.

Sam Sloan

From Wikipedia, and possibly written by Sam Sloan:

"Kenneth Harkness (b. November 12, 1896 in Glasgow, Scotland, d. October
4, 1972 in Yugoslavia) was a chess organizer. He was Business Manager of
the United States Chess Federation from 1952 to 1959. He was also the
editor of Chess Review, which merged into Chess Life.

Kenneth Harkness died on a train in Yugoslavia, where he was on his way
to Skopje to be an arbiter at the Chess Olympiad. He had lived in Boca
Raton, Florida. He became an International Arbiter in 1972. He was a
member of the FIDE Permanent Rules Commission.

Harkness was responsible for bringing Swiss system tournaments to the
United States, and also introduced the Harkness rating system, which was
a precursor to the Elo rating system. One method of tiebreaks in Swiss
systems, where players tied on points are ranked by the sum of the
opponents scores minus the top score and the bottom score, is named
after him. For his services, Harkness is in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame.

Harkness co-authored a book, An Invitation to Chess with Irving Chernev,
as well as being responsible for a number of the first American chess
rulebooks.

Kenneth Harkness was a pseudonym. His real name was Stanley Edgar."

I did a bit of checking and the 1901 census of Scotland does indeed show
a 4 year old Stanley Edgar living with parents John and Grace in
Glasgow, Lanarks, Scotland.

If Mr. Edgar did indeed devise the Harkness rating system, and he was an
editor of Chess Review before it merged with Chess Life, then it seems
reasonable that the Chess Review postal rating system that Sam Sloan
refers to above, may well have been the Harkness System. You may wish
to rethink your statement that "Kenneth Harkness had nothing to do with
the postal rating system..." Mr. Sloan.
--

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

On Mar 31, 8:44 am, samsloan wrote:
On Mar 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/
information - which is sometimes denial, and from what you have written so
far, indistinguishable from denial.

What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know,
its okay to shut up.

PI

Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing.

Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a
specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings.
Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan.

And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan

YES! YES! YES!

SINGLE QUESTION FROM A READER

Larry,

I understand that you have many issues in this argument. However, I put a single question to you in hopes of moving the argument away from this "deja vu all-over-again" stage that it has been stuck in since I began reading this news group. Taylor claims that documentary evidence of his claim to be a postal master is on page 36 of the same issue you just quoted from. Since you, evidently, are blessed with
actual possession of the issue mentioned, could you please check and
see if he is listed there and in what capacities and report back to
us? Then perhaps we can
move on and you can air the essence of your argument with more focus.

P.S. I was going to post this to the newsgroup, but thought better of
it. If it helps, think of me as a bored and possibly inept debate
judge listening to both sides and thinking, "can't we move this along
and get to a point....."

ANSWER: There is NO documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to
being a master in Chess Life, April 1985, page 36. The only mention of
his name appears as #45 on a list of the top 50 postal players, as
follows:

"45. Taylor T Kingston....Ca...1806."


Guy Macon wrote:
Larry Parr wrote:

Good analysis of the Horsefeathers Defense...

In Chess Life, April 1985, page 35, the top postal player was Robert
E. Hux (Pa) at 2084. I have never 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.

This still seems wrong. My last USCF postal chess rating was:

[ http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12499353 ]
12499353: GUY MACON
Regular Rating (Unrated)
Quick Rating (Unrated)
Correspondence Rating 1901
State CA
Expiration Dt. 1991-06-30
Last Change Dt. 1989-03-09

...which puts me a mere 183 points below the top rated postal
player from 4 years earlier! No way was I ever that good.
Something has to be wrong with these numbers -- probably some
sort of "comparing apples to oranges" error.


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

On Mar 29, 9:46 am, " wrote:
THESE ARE THE FACTS

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." --
Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005

On March 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."

On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."

KINGSTON REPLIED

April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." -- Taylor Kingston

Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"

On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
cited.
among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.

KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG

A correction: It was April 1985, page 36. -- Taylor Kingston, March
26, 2008

Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
to be found.

In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
Kingston (ca) 1806.

In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
top 50 postal players.

For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
points by a "conversion" formula.

However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
OTB rating was 1806.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?

As opposed to the famous "nearly an IM" title one of your water-
carriers awarded himself, Larry?