wrote in message
...

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."

Dear Larry,

While your Sloan hit poor Taylor on the back of his head, I have been
getting him right between the eyes for the past week - and thought I
deserved some credit for it? But that is mere petulance on my part.

But its a bleak day here in the USA. Not only is the weather in Vermont
atrocious, but a phone call this morning makes all the above, including
serial fibbing, nothing more than the fag-end of nothing much.

Very heavy things are going on at USCF, and depending who you talk with,
will result not in an IF it will break, but rather who will splinter off.

Sorry to not attend much more to the affairs of Mr. Kingston, though such
trivia is no doubt emblematic of a Decline and Fall... !

Phil Innes

On Mar 31, 12:40*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
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. *

No, it does not remain to be seen at all. It's all been seen
already, nearly three years ago, in this thread:

http://tinyurl.com/326b36

Parr and Sloan just keep repeating their worthless smears, lies and
half-truths even though they were thoroughly refuted back then. You
will notice that despite Parr's claim that I was attempting to deceive
people, several posters immediately knew I was talking about postal
ratings, and none but Parr and Sloan claimed I meant OTB, Sloan
because he always shoots his mouth off before engaging his brain, and
Parr because he always smears anyone who contradicts him.

Some sample quotes from that thread:

Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
You are a liar. (In reply to me)

Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM:
About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about
pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB.

http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/
taylor_kingston_bio.html:

"He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a
Class A OTB player."


Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM:
Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating.

Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM:
"Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of
July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on
request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self-
addressed
envelope." http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html


Tom Martinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM:
The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the
Top 50 Postal Players list:

45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806

Mark Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM:
Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile.

There were also supportive messages from Stan Booz and Louis Blair.

Now if it's quite all right with everyone, I have more important
matters to attend.

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


wrote:

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.

If so, there are a *lot* of people who have the dates
wrong, and not just Sam Soan, either. For example:

"...the Harkness system, developed in the 1950's for the USCF
by Ken Harkness (who also developed the swiss system for
tournaments)... in 1959, Elo was approached by the USCF president,
Jerry Spann, about coming up with a more reliable system (than
the Harkness system which was in place) of calculating ratings.
The USCF adotped the ELO system in 1960 and by FIDE in 1970.
Until 1980 he did all the rating calculations for FIDE, first
with a paper and pencil, then, when the calculator was invented,
he used a Hewlett-Packard calculator."

Source: http://chessgrrl.bravejournal.com/entry/1366

"...the historic 1972 world championship match and the
Fischer boom. The Federation took calculated advantage
of cold war tensions and individual genius to achieve
the greatest membership expansion in its history.
Fischer’s triumph also led to international acceptance
of the Elo system which had mathematically predicted
his astonishing victories despite widespread disbelief."
(Tim Redman, 1999 announcement of his candidacy for the
USCF Executive Board)
Source: http://www.georgejohn.bcentralhost.c...itics/tr1.html

Chess History and Chronology by Bill Wall (Jan 21, 2008)

1959 RATINGS; 1st time the elo system of rating players used.
1960 RATING; Elo rating system adopted by uscf.
1964 RATINGS; 1st international rating list by elo. Fischer and Petrosian (2690).
1970.09 RATINGS; 1st international ratings. Used the Elo system.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...78/history.txt

Also see:
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/...ess_1900_3.htm
http://www.chess-poster.com/english/...ess_1900_4.htm





http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...78/history.txt

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

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.

According to The Blue Book and Encyclopedia of Chess, Harkness
Biography, Page 1, Harkness was the editor of Chess Review magazine
from May 1941 until August 1948. He did not become the business
manager of the USCF until 1952. He left the USCF in August 1959.

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

Sam Sloan

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:03:50 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:


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

You may be wrong, Sam.

The first instance of Chess Review's rating of postal players occurred
in January, 1942. At that time, Battell appeared nowhere on the
masthead and Managing Editor was Kenneth Harkness.

"For a long time we have promised to rate our correspondence players.
We have finally got around to doing it and the results appear on the
next page...Our rating system is fair and accurate, will eventually
portray a player's ability compared with others. The number of points
with which you are credited or debited for each finished game depends
upon the rating of your opponent..." ("Chess Review", January, 1942,
Page 18).

wrote:

talking about pre-1985 correspondence ratings

BINGO! With that info I found this:

"1997 CORRESPONDENCE RATING LIST Correspondence ratings have
been converted to the Elo system, as of July 1, 1987."

Source: http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist0198.html

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

* 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

I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
doubts then

1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.

2. Or He is ill.

3. He is a Troll

4. He has some sort of Complexes.

One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.

So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
Year 1985!!!

And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
Kingston.

Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???

Say in Year 2020 Master start getting a Rating of 4000+ And they start
saying 2500+ rated player is not a Master? That is wrong. When we are
talking about 1985 We have to Consider the Ratings based on that time.

Bye
Sanny

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

On Mar 31, 12:21*pm, "Tom Martinak"
wrote:
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)

Actually, I don't think it was a typo. Under that rating system, the
minimum amount a rating could change was by two points, and all
changes were multiples of two. The number of points to be won/lost in
a decisive game ranged from 2 to 100, depending on the rating
difference, but always in increments of two.
Looking at the 1983 list, I don't see a single odd-number rating,
and looking back at my own rating history (I kept a chart) the rating
was always an even number.

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

"Kingston, Taylor T CA 1806"

*- Tom Martinak

Thanks again for posting this, Tom. I really must get that April
1984 issue somehow. Anyone got one for sale?

On Mar 31, 2:39 pm, Sanny wrote:
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

I think now everyone agrees with Taylor Kingston. If still anyone has
doubts then

1. Either he is a Stupid and do not have any Understanding.

2. Or He is ill.

3. He is a Troll

4. He has some sort of Complexes.

One thing Taylor is saying He got 1806 Rating in Postal Chess. And in
1985 1800 Rating was equivalent to a Master Rating.

So Sam Sloan should understand that Taylor Kingston was a Master in
Year 1985!!!

And Sam Sloan should feel "Sorry" for saying wrong words to Taylor
Kingston.

Is there anyone who has any doubts about that???

Say in Year 2020 Master start getting a Rating of 4000+ And they start
saying 2500+ rated player is not a Master? That is wrong. When we are
talking about 1985 We have to Consider the Ratings based on that time.

Bye
Sanny

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

Sanny, you know nothing about this subject. You have no idea what you
are writing about. Stop changing the title to this thread.

Taylor Kingston started this by claiming that he had a 2300+ Elo
Rating. Elo Ratings are rating calculated by Profesor Arpad Elo in his
office in Wisconsin . Elo Ratings are prestigious. Only a few top
level players in the world had Elo ratings. Taylor Kingston was not
one of those top level players. Taylor Kingston lied.

Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
correlation between the two systems at all.

Now, will you kindly butt out of this conversation which is way over
your head.

Sam Sloan

Now, Taylor Kingston has been saying that he had a 1806 rating in the
old Chess Review postal chess system. He claims that this is the
equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating. This is not true. There is no
correlation between the two systems at all.

Atleast both were Ratings for Chess Games. So they have a big
Correlation.

He claims that this is the equivalent of a 2250 Elo Rating.

Yes This still needs to be proved. I am not a Chess Player So I do not
have much information about the rating Systems.

Bye
Sanny