On Mar 29, 3:11 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:
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.

Since this has been pointed out many times before, we can conclude that
it is an intentional falsehood.

Sorry, we can't. P Innes might be incapable of understanding the
discussion, or insane. Perhaps both. So it's a hasty conclusion he is
lying.

wrote:
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."


Thanks, Larry. The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
there.

Earlier Taylor stated: "... I have a scanner. However, I don't know how
to post an image on the internet. In any event, the issue of Chess Life
in which my postal master status and #45 rank on the USCF list appeared,
has been posted here many times: April 1985, page 36..."

This in itself suggests inaccuracy in the use of source material by the
claimant.

It has been a long time and perhaps memory plays tricks. To settle this
one minuscule point it would be really helpful, Taylor, if you could
photocopy that certificate of postal chess mastership and send the copy
to a scan capable friend for posting to the group. Perhaps Mr. Murray
could help.

Lest it seems that I am making too much of this, it would really be a
great relief for me to see an actual fact get established in this
debate. When you get into the anon and pseudonym aspects of the
argument I fear nothing will be proven by anyone -- ever.
--

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

On Mar 31, 11:26*am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
wrote:
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."

Thanks, Larry. *The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
there.

Rev, as usual our Larry omits inconvenient facts. He neglects to
mention that the rating range for a USCF Postal Master then was
1700-1898. Therefore the 1806 rating Parr attests to is exactly the
"claimed evidence of postal chess mastership" that is required.

wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:26 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
wrote:
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."
Thanks, Larry. The claimed evidence of postal chess mastership is not
there.

Rev, as usual our Larry omits inconvenient facts. He neglects to
mention that the rating range for a USCF Postal Master then was
1700-1898. Therefore the 1806 rating Parr attests to is exactly the
"claimed evidence of postal chess mastership" that is required.


Taylor,

This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
rating systems and context. It is unnecessary. If you can supply us
with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
Harkness and Elo systems. In other words, your statement incorrectly
implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
upon. Not so. The certificate could save us a long weary debate. I
think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
evidence of postal chess mastership. What comes after that in this
debate, I cannot say.
--

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

On Mar 31, 10:26 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
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.

Yes. I wrote the above. That is all by me.

The director of postal chess at Chess Review was Jack Straley Battell.
When the USCF bought Chess Review in 1969, Battell moved to Newburgh
where the USCF was headquartered and continued to work on postal
chess.

I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
or the postal chess rating system.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 31, 11:43*am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Taylor,

This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
rating systems and context. *It is unnecessary. *If you can supply us
with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
Harkness and Elo systems. *In other words, your statement incorrectly
implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
upon. *Not so. * The certificate could save us a long weary debate. *I
think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
evidence of postal chess mastership. *What comes after that in this
debate, I cannot say.

Rev, have a look he

http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/

I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
I also include scans of the March 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
rating.
Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
them.
If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.

Regards, Taylor Kingston

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."

The documentary evidence of Taylor Kingston's claim to being a master
appears in Chess Life, April 1985, page P1 (the 1985 Annual Rating List
insert)

It reads:
"To recognize their special achievement, senior masters (those rated 1900
and above) and masters (those rated 1700-1898) are listed first
alaphebetically."
(looks like a typo where 1898 should be 1899)

In the "Postal Masters (1700-1899)" section is:

"Kingston, Taylor T CA 1806"

- Tom Martinak

wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:43 am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Taylor,

This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
rating systems and context. It is unnecessary. If you can supply us
with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
Harkness and Elo systems. In other words, your statement incorrectly
implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
upon. Not so. The certificate could save us a long weary debate. I
think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
evidence of postal chess mastership. What comes after that in this
debate, I cannot say.

Rev, have a look he

http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/

I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
I also include scans of the March 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
rating.
Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
them.
If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.

Regards, Taylor Kingston

Thanks Taylor. You have convinced me that you were a postal master as
you claimed. I had to download the rating list and enlarge it to see
your entry. The scan was low DPI, but I could just make it out.

How that fits into the rest of the argument remains to be seen.
--

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

I am certain that Harkness never had anything to do with postal chess
or the postal chess rating system.

May be "Harkness" do not have any relation with Postal Chess. But he
devised the Ranking System. And the formulas are being used in many
Countries.

So I think Postal Chess used formmulas simmilar to Harkness rating
system and they found the relation of Postal Chess Ranking and USFC
and FIDE Ranking.

Can someone give me the real Formulas. I will recalculate the
Mathematical relatoin between Postal Chess and other Rankings. I have
good Maths So I can do that.

Just send me the Formulas used by both Ranking System.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Mar 31, 12:13*pm, wrote:
On Mar 31, 11:43*am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:



Taylor,

This statement you make is what leads into the whole argument about
rating systems and context. *It is unnecessary. *If you can supply us
with a copy of the certificate we will not have to endlessly discuss the
Harkness and Elo systems. *In other words, your statement incorrectly
implies that the rating system arguments have been resolved and agreed
upon. *Not so. * The certificate could save us a long weary debate. *I
think reasonable people would agree that the certificate would be good
evidence of postal chess mastership. *What comes after that in this
debate, I cannot say.

* Rev, have a look he

*http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk60/TaylorKingston/

* I have placed there several scans. One is a scan of the official
1983 USCF Postal Rating list. You will find me listed under "Postal
Masters" halfway down the far left column. In case the print is too
fine to read, there are enlarged details showing the official range
for Postal Master (1700-1799) and my own rating of 1758.
* I also include scans of the March 1984 Postal Chess Bulletin. Only
USCF Postal Masters were published here. An article of mine appeared
on page 14 of that issue. I include a detail of that page which shows
my rating then to be 1806, i.e. 106 points about the minimum master
rating.
* Each of the images may be seen full full size simply by clicking on
them.
* If I had the April 1985 issue, I'd scan that too, but I do not at
this time. I hope to have it soon. The certificate, alas, remains
unfound. However, the scans shown here should be adqequate
documentation even for hard-to-convince man like yourself.

* * *Regards, Taylor Kingston

I have added a page from the July 1985 Postal Chess Bulletin,
showing one of my better games. It also clearly identifies me as a
Postal Master.
One hopes that Larry Parr is suitably ashamed of himself for trying
to give the impression I was not a postal master. One hopes, but one
doubts.
Below is a link to a video showing Larry's spiritual predecessor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAur_I077NA