On Apr 1, 10:10 am, " wrote:
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.

And ICCF. You are no doubt aware that ICCF calls their rating search
program "Eloquery."

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

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?

You should go for it yourself! For example, when //was// 2300+ Elo

[which I ask you to note is what Taylor Kingston wrote in the first place]

in the top 50 OTB in the US ~ Do you know what year that was?

And while you are at it, how much '+' is necessary to achieve being #46?

Taylor Kingston did not indicate a 'when' and since he is about 60 years
old, you may have to look back 40 years.

Why you should assume postal rating is strange to me, since anyone asked
their rating has to qualify it, no? Like, with opening books and postal, I
am ... But that's not chess rating - its postal chess rating, and to chess
players that's no small difference.

Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I am
a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level, which I didn't ask for -
but its a joke for me to only say the rating without qualifying it as
postal, no?

Thirdly, if /you/ truly think it was always a postal reference, then /you/
are the odd-man out here, and understand differently than chess players, who
you accuse of being morons, &c.

Phil Innes

On Apr 1, 7:51 am, "Chess One" wrote:
I never heard of any American talking Elo and meaning postal. Never,
not in 25 years.

Phil Innes

Spending time with chessplayers might help, Philsy.

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.

Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my
statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and
times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out:

** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread:

Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM:
Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing
this kind of analysis.
Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot
understand these simple and obvious points.

Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. 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."

Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM:
You are a liar.

************************************************** *******
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."
************************************************** *******

[I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how
easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were
interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK]

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.

*** end excerpts.

I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite
adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or
that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was
deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging
his brain.

It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

wrote:

....
It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

Taylor,

All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. I would sure like to
see an actual chess style conflict as a result. The build up has been
great. Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?
--

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

On Apr 1, 10:24 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Secondly, if this blessed Harkness rating were applied to me, can I say I am
a 2800 GM? I DO have a postal norm for GM level,

Where and when was this 'norm' achieved? ICCF membership records show
only one fellow named Innes, and he's been inactive for 8 years at
least. His first name isn't Phil, Philip, Philsy, etc.

On Apr 1, 12:10*pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
wrote:

...

* It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

Taylor,

All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. *I would sure like to
see an actual chess style conflict as a result. *The build up has been
great. *Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?

The relevance of your suggestion eludes me completely, Reverend. The
facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:10:23 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:

wrote:

...
It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,
for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and
accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of
them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they
in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a
rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy.

Taylor,

All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build
up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. I would sure like to
see an actual chess style conflict as a result. The build up has been
great. Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match
on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result?


I second the motion. We want to see blood.

Given there's some difference in the respective OTB ratings, some time
odds in the game might be appropriate (the odds-giver just waits "x"
amount of time before making his first move).

I was once challenged to such a match by the late Tom Klem, but we
could never come to agreement on who would proctor it.

On Mar 31, 1:09 am, help bot wrote:
On Mar 30, 5:55 pm, Chess Nuggets wrote:

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."

Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always
have been,
always will be. OK? All right now!

Dude, you like need to get a grip; a "patzer"
is someone rated lower than you or that you
just beat; it isn't somebody rated 1800 USCF,
'cause they would probably just *demolish*
someone as weak as you are! In fact, an
1800 beats 80% of patzers like you, and 95%
of all players, including non-rated duffers.

Okay, I just made those numbers up; but
the thing is, TK said he was "a tad" better
than weak, so he left his hind side covered
with a Kevlar fanny-pack. Meanwhile back at
the ranch, a poster known as nearly-IMnes
made a bald-faced claim to royal titles and a
2450 rating that never even existed! Don't
you feel dumb for missing that? Here, let me
help you: click on this link and type in the
name "Innes, Sir Phillip, Esquire"; find any
titles? Or ratings?

www.fide.corrupto.chess.org/ratings

Nothing there, huh? Not to worry, here is
another link:

www.uscf.goichbergrules!.org/ratings

Look for Sir Phillip of Brattleboro; he'll be
near the very top of the rating list, just under
Bobby Fischer (deceased). Sir Phil was
given the nearly-an-IM title for defeating
the famous master, Anon, in a long match.
It turned out that Anon was actually Rob
Mitchell, but that is a mere technicality.

-- help not

Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a
patzer.
EOF

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The
facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public
record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played
now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as
something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the
question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that
Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.

Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and
Saddam settle things in the cage? We're talkin' bread and circus
here.