On Mar 31, 3:26 pm, Kenneth Sloan wrote:

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


A careless error; try "...before chess computers
THAT STRONG existed".

It is presumably impossible to do anything but
the most basic tactics checking using computers
from that era -- except for individuals who had
access to super-computers and who could write
their own code. A look inside the pages of old
issues of Chess Life should reveal the top-rated
machines for each year, but who can say
whether TK even owned the weakest tactics-
checking device ever made?


-- help bot

OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER

Dear Rev. Walker,

I suppose that the really important issue here
is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
on my behalf.

Having said that, I was asked whether there was
some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.

On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
I never wrote differently.

If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
this whole matter.

Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.

There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!

In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
very own Taylor Kingston.

NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
four-figure money for said encounter.

We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.

Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:

"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.'"

Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
that the average reader would know that he was talking
about postal ratings because at some undefined point
several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
name the average player has never heard).

According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
the average person hearing someone assert that he was
"2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
decades back.

Horsefeathers.

Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
whizdinger.

Yours, Larry Parr



samsloan wrote:
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

Dear Mr. Parr,

It is well past time for me to duck out of this particular discussion.
Thank you for indulging my desire to try and establish one concrete fact
in the midst of the acrimonious differences that are as yet unresolved.

Now I must turn my attention to my newly assumed duties at the Ranch
Drive-in and also I must prepare a brief speech for the lunch meeting I
am going to have with the aliens from outer space tomorrow.
--

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


===

wrote:
OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER

Dear Rev. Walker,

I suppose that the really important issue here
is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
on my behalf.

Having said that, I was asked whether there was
some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.

On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
I never wrote differently.

If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
this whole matter.

Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.

There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!

In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
very own Taylor Kingston.

NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
four-figure money for said encounter.

We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.

Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:

"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.'"

Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
that the average reader would know that he was talking
about postal ratings because at some undefined point
several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
name the average player has never heard).

According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
the average person hearing someone assert that he was
"2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
decades back.

Horsefeathers.

Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
whizdinger.

Yours, Larry Parr



samsloan wrote:
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

"WE HAVE PROVEN THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE.
YOU NEVER HAD AN ELO RATING AT ALL.. END OF STORY."
-- Sam Sloan to Taylor Kingston

It really ain't to do with Elo and rather more to do with ego. --
Phil Innes

Dear Phil and Sam,

Taylor Kingston is still trying to brazen it out.

To begin with, there is the strawman that he and
a couple of his confreres offer up because, after all,
this writer never argued differently.

The strawman: a few decades back a postal rating
of 1800 or so was equal on an old scale developed by a
man named Ken Harkness, who is long-forgotten by
most chess players, to 2300+ Elo or thereabouts.
(I, for one, have never quarreled over whether 1806 on the
old Harkness postal scale is equal to 2250+ or 2300+ Elo.)

The issue, as you and most others understand,
is what the average reader of a posting, who knows
nothing about postal rating scales 20 or 30 years ago,
will think when someone claims, quite baldly, to be
"2300+ Elo" in playing strength without citing postal chess.

Taylor Kingston is still peddling his ancient
lie because he made the mistake of getting involved in
a long-term dispute with Slammin' Sammy Sloan, who
once he starts chewing on your pants leg will never
let go. He just chews and chews and chews and chews.

Still worse, as you may recollect, NMnot Kingston
adopted that ludicrous pose about being too far above
Sam in terms of bathing habits to play the man a chess
match. NO ONE BELIEVED THAT -- not even, I daresay,
a couple of the toadies.

Why couldn't NMnot have written something like
this? "I don't want to play a chess match with Sam
Sloan because, knowing a bit about the man's ability
and the fact that he just defeated Bill Brock in a match,
I figure he will also defeat me over-the-board. I don't want
to take a chance on losing to that *******. Period."

If NMnot Kingston had wished, he could have
written the following, and NONE OF US would have
disputed a word:

"Still, on the subject of playing strength, I never claimed
to be any great player, but I think with a peak postal rating
of 1806 at a time when this number corresponded roughly with
2200-2300 on today's Elo or USCF scales and a top postal
ranking of, as I recall, No. 46 in the country, I was a tad better
than 'weak' if one judges strength on deep study of positions at
home. Before the emergence of computers, I showed some
UNDERSTANDING of positions in my better games."

Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
20 or 30 years ago."

However, that is not his current argument.

The man, at some level, is hoping that someone
will buy his line. Not even Larry Tapper, who often carries
the man's water, initially imagined that this absurd claim
represented NMnot Kingston's finest moment.

The problem is not with my assessment of NMnot
Kingston. The problem is with his own assessment
of himself.

Taylor Kingston felt an urge to up his general
self-esteem as a player and wrote, quite baldly and
without irony, that he was "2300+ Elo." It was the
equivalent, as we have noted, of a Robert Hux, a
top-ranked US postal player of many years back,
writing that he was 2580 Elo without offering any
other specification except a national ranking from an
unmentioned period in his past of, possibly, several
decades back.

The irony is that my judgment of NMnot
Kingston's playing strength was more generous
than his own because, after all, he felt a need to
lie about his rating when goaded by Slammin' Sammy.

Yours, Larry Parr




J.D. Walker wrote:
Dear Mr. Parr,

It is well past time for me to duck out of this particular discussion.
Thank you for indulging my desire to try and establish one concrete fact
in the midst of the acrimonious differences that are as yet unresolved.

Now I must turn my attention to my newly assumed duties at the Ranch
Drive-in and also I must prepare a brief speech for the lunch meeting I
am going to have with the aliens from outer space tomorrow.
--

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


===

wrote:
OUR 2300+ ELO WHIZDINGER

Dear Rev. Walker,

I suppose that the really important issue here
is your possible surrogate duty at the Ranch Drive-in
on my behalf.

Having said that, I was asked whether there was
some kind of master claim on a given page of Chess Life
dealing specifically with Taylor Kingston. There was not.

On the other hand, I have no problem in saying
that NMnot Kingston's postal rating was just above
1800 enabling him to make a claim to postal mastery.
I never wrote differently.

If NMnot Kingston, in a response to Sam Sloan,
had written that he was rated 1806 on a postal scale
a few decades earlier and that he can thereby lay
claim to a postal master rating on a system developed
by a guy called Harkness, then we would not be discussing
this whole matter.

Alas, that is not what Taylor Kingston claimed.

There was a time in 1985 when Robert Hux was
top-rated in U.S. postal chess, but we never heard him
add 500 points to his 2080 or so postal rating and brag
that he was "a tad better than weak" at 2580 Elo!

In fact, I can recollect no postal player with
an ego so enormous as to write such a thing except our
very own Taylor Kingston.

NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred
at a time when he was prancing about with the proud
man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match
with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered
four-figure money for said encounter.

We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for
refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr.
Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or,
possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever.

Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a
bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's
ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew,
chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5,
2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences:

"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.'"

Once again, NMnot Kingston's current excuse for
the lie (his explanations shifted over the years) is
that the average reader would know that he was talking
about postal ratings because at some undefined point
several decades back it was possible to be No. 46 at
about 1800 in a scale developed by Ken Harkness (whose
name the average player has never heard).

According to those who would fetch water for NMnot,
the average person hearing someone assert that he was
"2300+ Elo" would not conclude that said person was
claiming to be a strong OTB player. He would conclude
the person was talking about a postal rating a number of
decades back.

Horsefeathers.

Harkeness = Elo = NMnot Kingston, our 2300+ Elo
whizdinger.

Yours, Larry Parr



samsloan wrote:
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

wrote in message
...


Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
20 or 30 years ago."

I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
The correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
the moron prize and state that he was so
ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
You?

On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" wrote:
wrote in message

Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
20 or 30 years ago."

I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
The correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
the moron prize and state that he was so
ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
You?


I believe they all are deserving of such a prize,
just as Louis Blair /deserved/ untold millions in
prizes for his submissions in the Prove Parr
Lies contests. But you have to have some
sort of limits, you know.

----------------------------------------------------------------

The way I understand it, Taylor Kingston
claims to have started off well below his true
strength, then racked up a huge plus-score to
land with a *peak* rating which he typically
erred in converting by something like 50 points.

But if you throw out the hand-selected starting
rating and were to re-rate his actual results, I
imagine his 2300+ number is not beyond the
realm of possibilities. But then, you would
have to do the same thing with everyone else
in the rating pool, so let's just fugettaboudit.

It's all a misdirection trick, to divert attention
from Larry Evans' gaffe. GM Evans, you may
recall, once claimed that he, *and he alone,* was
smart enough and strong enough to "see" what
he thought he saw in one of his many delusions.

Upon due consideration by saner -- and stronger
-- folks like GM Nunn, this imaginary "evidence"
was found to lack any real substance, and the
whole approach was simply rejected.

Oh well, it made for a good story. Much like
the story about a supposedly evil player who,
according to the deluded mind of Larry Evans,
had won a chess game by refusing to resign
and his opponent later suffering a heart attack.
That particular delusion was finally laid to rest
by Edward Winter, who relied on research
rather than delusions, or "memory", which as
Mr. Evans himself has observed, plays tricks
on him.

As I see it, poor Larry Parr is a mind-slave
who seems incapable of rationally assessing
such "stories"; he is forced to attack those
who point out the many flaws in his mentor's
"stories", for ad hominem is all that remains
after reason is utterly abandoned. It's a pity
that Larry Evans cannot seem to find anything
to write about in the realms of non-fiction... .


-- help bot

wrote in message
...
On Mar 30, 12:08 pm, samsloan wrote:

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.

---

To stay with Elo, I believe Dr E himself has made some objections to USCF's
system of rating which invalidates his own idea, and decoupled USCF from it,
specifically the rating-floor issue which makes an award of a title, but
also screws up the math, and since the Elo system is now a world one, an
adjustment needs be made between ROW and USCF, and that is some 100 points.

That is hardly unknown, and non controversial.

Any claim made in the past 20 years to an 'Elo' would be to a world-rating.

But this is to contest trivia. The original contention was that the 1800
player was 2300+ Elo as well as #46 in the country. This contention is now
reported to be a postal reference, and yet, does it seem like one? After
all, 2300+ Elo could be 2450 USCF. How many people know if there were 45
higher rated players in the country in [?] an unreported year, or
specifically in 1985 in either postal or OTB chess.

If you want to report your postal rating, why 'claim' anything at all? Why
not cite what it is.

If you make a conversion then isn't it deceptive not to mention you
converted something to what you thought was Harkness?

Taylor Kingston could have written that correction at any time in the past 5
years, even if he thought he was being clear, he could have acknowledged
that others didn't see it that way. But he continues to both not acknowledge
that his writing was deceptive to other readers, whether he intended
deception or not - it is /evidently/ deceptive.

Given the context of the initial statement - that he needed a big Elo to
contest Evans, his intention is very suspect indeed.

Again, simply admitting it was loose talk on usenet would be honest. But he
has the gall to have a go at others who talked just as loosely to /non-chess
players/ where brevity of expression is at least understandable, and who
make no bones about it. You can't really deceive people about ratings when
they don't know if a high number is better than a low one!!

This rather removes any idea that he intended to be honest himself, since
again, I never heard of any American talking Elo and meaning postal. Never,
not in 25 years.

Phil Innes

IT MUST BE APRIL FOOL'S DAY

he correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

David Kane has returned.

Let us review his latest attempt to defend
Taylor Kingston's claim -- as a lifelong Class A
player -- to be "2300+ Elo," though others have
proved that Kingston never had an Elo rating.

The argument is that most of you would know what
the top 50 OTB rating list would look like, say, 20 or
30 years back.

"Oh, yeah," our Kanester may be reasonably
construed as now arguing, "if someone claims to be
2300+ Elo, then that claim would mean less to the
average listener or reader of a posting than the
fellow also mentioning that he was No. 45 or so in the
country at some totally undetermined period in the
past. Oh, yeah, this Kingston character must really
be talking about a Harkness postal rating in 1985 when
he says he is '2300+ Elo."

Heh, heh, heh.

The alternative argument goes like this:
"Someone you don't really know walks into your club
and announces that at his peak -- a period that may be
two or three decades ago, since he doesn't bother to
tell you -- he was 2300+ Elo. The average listener
would assume he was talking about OTB rather than some
postal rating employing a different scale about 20 or
30 years back. The average listener would have no
idea what the OTB rating for No. 45 in the country
would have been decades earlier, THOUGH AS IT TURNS
OUT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 2300 ELO IN THE YEAR
1975!! On the other hand, the average listener or
reader has a very fair idea what the phrase, '2300+
Elo," means in terms of playing strength."

After all, that is why NMnot Taylor Kingston
retailed his lie after being under relentless pressure
from Sam Sloan. He wanted people to think he was
"2300+ Elo," which is why he told us he was "2300+ Elo."

In the world of our Kanester, a Bob Hux would
identify himself as 2580 Elo rather than say, "I was
once No. 1 at 2085 or so on a postal rating list using
the Harkness scale back about 1985."

In the world of our Kanester, all kinds of postal
players are going around announcing they are really
2400 or 2500 Elo on an ancient Harkness rating.

Heh, heh, heh.

But, to be sure, Kanester knows better. As
Larry Tapper once observed early on, the entire lie
was not NMnot Kingston's brightest moment.

Yours, Larry Parr



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...


Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be
2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46
at some time in the past, for which he did not provide
a date. His argument is that his reference to a past
undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when
NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must
really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some
20 or 30 years ago."

I don't recall Kingston every making this argument.
The correct argument, which I have made, is that
no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and
a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence,
no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading.

Which of you ratpackers wants to claim
the moron prize and state that he was so
ignorant as to believe that a 2300 rating
placed you in the top-50 OTB? Sam? Phil?
You?

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
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.

If he knows something, then he hides his light soemwhere or other. Its just
a standing joke in the rest of the world that USCF ratings are Elo-100, or
even more in some locations. One rather evident correlation are those US
players to go to Hungary for norm tournaments.

If Ken Sloan has information then he can produce it. If he can't and what he
cannot do is serial, then I presume the opposite to what you say, which
cannot avoid fatuous 'nobody' and 'everybody' references.

The last time I asked Ken Sloan for information was in respect of the
disgraced board member who achieved a master's rating floor and nary ever
played a master, just 1800ish typed, in fact, just about half a dozen of
them.

So I asked Ken Sloan 3 things, since he has something to do with USCF
ratings:-

1) How come no-one in the ratings department noticed some guy playing down
400 points for hundreds of games against the same opponents?

2) Even when the Masters title was awarded [by a different office] how come
no-one actually looked at the playing record - should they have, or are
rating floors and titles given out under *special* circumstances for chess
politicicans?

3) How many /other/ instances are there of this type?

Ken Sloan provided no information on any of these subjects - and I think the
challenge is necessary, since he and Delegate Johnson were setting about
rubbishing the Quality Control of other chess rating groups - in abstract
fashion of course - and in your own psychophantic newsgroup!

No answers were received from Ken Sloan, only 'responses', like 'not!' as in
the above.

Now - this is no theoretical matter since Ken Sloan may know everything
about ratings - yet is he competent to administer or communicate about
ratings?

I would say from my 3 questions the answers are demonstrably, no and no.

Phil Innes



And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan

ELO DIDN'T GO POSTAL

This rather removes any idea that he [Kingston] intended to be
honest himself, since again, I never heard of any American talking
Elo and meaning postal. Never, not in 25 years. -- Phil Innes

Phil Innes says that he has never heard of
anyone talking about an "Elo" rating and meaning
postal. Well, we all have heard one person so
describe himself, the inimitable Taylor Kingston.

Moreover, as the argument has developed over the
years, NMnot Kingston will have to go to his grave
pecking away at his keyboard, alleging that when he,
a lifelong "A" player, described himself as "2300+
Elo," he was really saying that some 20 or 30 years
back, or at some unmentioned point in the past, he was
actually referring to a Harkness postal rating!

One feels sorry for NMnot Kingston by now,
and this writer genuinely wishes that TK had
never gotten himself in a slanging contest with Sam
Sloan, who never gives up and chews like a pit bull
until people finally blurt out something they regret.

That is what happened in the case of NMnot
Kingston prancing and mincing about these precincts,
telling everyone that he would not play Sam Sloan
because of the latter's personal habits, etc.

No one believed NMnot Kingston. Why he could
not have written the truth, galling though it was to a
degree, we will never know. He should simply have
said that Sam would beat him in a match, and the
thought of losing to that ******* was emotionally and
egoistically insupportable.

And that would have been that. Sam would have
been satisfied, and NMnot Kingston would have picked
up quite a few brownie points from his water carriers for
having the honesty to speak frankly.

But no-o-o-o-o. Something inside Kingston would
not permit such forthrightness. Instead, he put on
the airs of a contumacious prancer who was too far
above Sam to play the man.

The scectacle was like something out of Scaramouche.

Yours, Larry Parr




Chess One wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message
...
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.

If he knows something, then he hides his light soemwhere or other. Its just
a standing joke in the rest of the world that USCF ratings are Elo-100, or
even more in some locations. One rather evident correlation are those US
players to go to Hungary for norm tournaments.

If Ken Sloan has information then he can produce it. If he can't and what he
cannot do is serial, then I presume the opposite to what you say, which
cannot avoid fatuous 'nobody' and 'everybody' references.

The last time I asked Ken Sloan for information was in respect of the
disgraced board member who achieved a master's rating floor and nary ever
played a master, just 1800ish typed, in fact, just about half a dozen of
them.

So I asked Ken Sloan 3 things, since he has something to do with USCF
ratings:-

1) How come no-one in the ratings department noticed some guy playing down
400 points for hundreds of games against the same opponents?

2) Even when the Masters title was awarded [by a different office] how come
no-one actually looked at the playing record - should they have, or are
rating floors and titles given out under *special* circumstances for chess
politicicans?

3) How many /other/ instances are there of this type?

Ken Sloan provided no information on any of these subjects - and I think the
challenge is necessary, since he and Delegate Johnson were setting about
rubbishing the Quality Control of other chess rating groups - in abstract
fashion of course - and in your own psychophantic newsgroup!

No answers were received from Ken Sloan, only 'responses', like 'not!' as in
the above.

Now - this is no theoretical matter since Ken Sloan may know everything
about ratings - yet is he competent to administer or communicate about
ratings?

I would say from my 3 questions the answers are demonstrably, no and no.

Phil Innes



And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot.

Sam Sloan