ANOTHER RED HERRING

I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
master. That is not the issue. It is a diversion

THE REAL ISSUE

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. It was an outright
lie.

samsloan wrote:
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

On Mar 31, 3:04 pm, Sanny wrote:
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

I am glad you admit that you are not a chess player. We had already
figured that out.

I doubt that there was even one player who had both an Elo Rating and
a Chess Review Postal Chess Rating.

Since there was nobody rated under both systems, there was no possible
correlation between them.

Sam Sloan

2408 wrote:
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


You've been contributing to this thread, and you didn't already know that?

--
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/

2408 wrote:
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


Now...I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out the time frame for "I had
a 1906 postal rating BEFORE CHESS COMPUTERS EXISTED."



--
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/

On Mar 31, 1:47*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
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).

Mike, if you check page 47 of the February 1942 issue you will see
table of points gained/subtracted for a given game based on the rating
differential of the players. It is virtually the same table as was in
effect in the 1980s, with K=50, and points to be won/lost ranging from
2 to 100, in increments of two.
The only significant difference from the 1980s is in the class
ranges, which we

Class A: 1052 and up
Class B: 950-1050
Class C: under 950

No mention is made of Class D, expert or master titles then. The
class intervals seem to have been adjusted over the next few years;
for example in 1944 it appears that Class A starts at 1200, B at 1000,
C at 800, and a sub-800 Class D has been added.

As you noted earlier, Harkness was on the masthead as Managing
Editor throughout 1942, and there was no editor for correspondence
chess during that year. I see Jack Collins listed as postal chess
editor as of January 1943, then Batell takes over as of October 1944.
Since it's clear that the basic Chess Review postal rating system
was in effect *_before_* either Collins or Battell came aboard,
Harkness seems the most likely author of it, barring more conclusive
evidence.
This does not necessarily rule out Sloan's claim that it was
designed by Battell, but he will have to present more evidence to
establish it.

wrote in message
...
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 (see http://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?

---------

**Shall 'we' stop agreeing on utter nonsense? Who is 'we'. Taylor Kingston
has not a leg to stand on.

There is not the slightest hint on any Harkness nor postal rating indication
in the original post. It has nothing to do with Elo, and he has not
corrected the statement at any time whatever.

The IMPRESSION that he lets stand at the time and ever since until these
recent threads - not even correcting his fixated admirer Paulie Girl and
whoever the other one was, is that the 2300+Elo was in some sense
legitimate - and here he is, dragged to the ground, since that was not the
impressions he originally achieved, despite psychics here who 'knew' it was
postal, despite the fact that he cited an Elo number as if Fide rated, and
all along he was plain old 1800 USCF.

Is it 5 years of not coming to the point since he made these undated
claims - and when challenged for 5 years cannot admit he converted his
rating to an originally unnamed system.

Dammit! That's rich. And all the while he has the gall to call people names
for challenging such a preposterous claim. Still, he wishes to be a USCF
postal master rated 1806 - OK, but let us now understand the scale on which
he writes.

That an 1805 player is weak compared to even a 2300 player is not in
dispute. The scale is not linear and these are decades of difference in
chess skill. In terms of comparing himselfself to a GM's analysis of the
highest levels of engagement in chess, which was the original context, it is
absurd.

If it were not for this last fact, the entire instance of his writing could
be ignored as braggadochio.

Yet still, he cannot admit his own deception [self-deception?] and bullys
on, since it really ain't to do with Elo and rather more to do with ego.

Phil Innes

---


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."

On Mar 31, 3:10*pm, " wrote:

I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
master.

Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
attempt to say black is white.
And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.

That is not the issue. It is a diversion

* * * * * * * * * * * * *THE REAL ISSUE

On June 5, 2005 -- after suffering brutal battering from ball-busting
Sam Sloan

Here, via secret web-cam, we show the "ball-busting" Sam Sloan's
reaction to having his ludicrous nonsense refuted here on rgc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

There was no reference to postal chess. No caveat. It was an outright
lie.

And here, we have a capsule summary of Larry Parr's general method
of argument on this issue over the past three years, which is to
repeat the same bull over and over and over and over and over and
over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG7lbJ7Dljs

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

*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???

On Mar 31, 8:24 pm, wrote:
On Mar 31, 3:10 pm, " wrote:



I neither know nor care whether Taylor Kingston was ever a postal
master.

Larry, the God you claim to believe in is watching. Stop lying to
the people -- He does not approve of it. You know quite well I was a
postal master. You yourself published the very fact. I revel in your
trying to deny it. I delight in your ludicrous contortions, your
attempt to say black is white.
And you care very much. Since you have invested so much in claiming
that I was a "weak player," the fact of my USCF Postal Master title
sticks in your craw like a jagged bone.

Your English is not too goodo, is it?

We said that postal ratings mean nothing. You said that you had a
2300+ Elo Rating.

We have proven that your statement is not true. You never had an Elo
rating at all.

End of Story.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 31, 9:44 am, samsloan wrote:

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.


Hey, even if, as you say, Ken Sloan is the
Mike Tyson of chess ratings, I can still find
problems with his (correct me if I'm wrong)
work; there used to be, and probably still is,
a Web site where one can retrieve a list of
all the USCF-rated chess players, by state.

This list is very handy in determining, for
instance, not only where one stands
compared to "the competition", but could
also be used to select team members by
ratings to meet a predetermined limit, etc.

But if I am not mistaken, the keepers of
the keys to these lists have long allowed
deceased persons to remain "active" for
years after they are no longer, um, at
their former strength; even years after
their play has lost its, er, liveliness. What's
up with that? Are these chess-ratings gods
incapable of telling the living from the dead?

Do they not realize how humbling it is to
be listed as not only weaker than Emory
Tate, but also several dead chess players
I know I can at least draw (now)? I know, I
know... they will transfer the blame to the
dishonest folks who fail to notify the USCF
so they can continue getting that amazing
magazine, Chess Lies, for free.

But I somehow expect more from the gods;
I expect head-butts to be met, tit-for-tat, with
rabid ear-biting. I expect the dead to be
promptly removed from the lists, and I
expect them to fix it so my rating stops
dropping off a cliff! I mean, don't these
gods know that I am the top-rated player
in the world (at GetClub)? Uh... nevermind
about my rating-- back to the un-dead. Is it
not true that with regard to these rating lists,
Kenneth Sloan has fallen short of the gods
(Zeus, Apollo, Elvis, The Beatles, Hera,
Rybka, etc.)?

Oh, sure-- anyone can /look like/ a god
when compared to nearly-IMnes, an idiot,
as you say. But just as with the folks at
www.chessmetrics.com, the rating of
dead chess players reveals a certain
un-god-like quality which to my mind, ranks
these folks a tad lower than Elvis.


-- help bot

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

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.


I wonder why it is that so many people delude
themselves into thinking that rgc is a "debate"
forum or competition. As I see it, there has yet
to be a single competition here apart from the
"off-site" grudge matches, the last of which
was won handily by the Evans ratpackers, as
represented by Sam Sloan.

These newsgroups are merely for discussion,
not debate.


-- helpful bot