THESE ARE THE FACTS

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." --
Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005

On March 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."

On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."

KINGSTON REPLIED

April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." -- Taylor Kingston

Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"

On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
cited.
among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.

KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG

A correction: It was April 1985, page 36. -- Taylor Kingston, March
26, 2008

Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
to be found.

In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
Kingston (ca) 1806.

In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
top 50 postal players.

For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
points by a "conversion" formula.

However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
OTB rating was 1806.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?

Please READ THIS

April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." -- Taylor Kingston

So the Problem is solved. He got 1806 Rating which he earlier
converted to 2300+ by mistake but later confirmed it to be 2250. So he
is correct.

Say at GetClub Help Bot is rated 1500 But that actually means he is
1800+ as at GetClub the Levels give very low ranking.

Different Systems has different grading scales.

Say in an exam I get 5/ 10 That is 50%

So if I give an exam of 20 marks I will get 10 matks.

So if I give an exam of 50 marks I will get 25 matks.

So if I give an exam of 100 marks I will get 50 matks.

So he has just converted from one scale to another. Just like we
convert inces to cms and miles to km.

So there is nothing to worry about for Taylor Kingston. As he
clarifies the point bt saing

----------------
April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." -- Taylor Kingston
--------------------

At GetClub Chess Taylor Kingston is Ranked 5. It is very difficult to
get into top 10 at GetClub Chess.

Bye
Sanny

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

wrote in message
...
THESE ARE THE FACTS

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." --
Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005

On March 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him
2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF,
Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor."

On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the
2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston."

KINGSTON REPLIED

April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal
rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow.
You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness
rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer
claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a
tad better than "weak." -- Taylor Kingston

Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life
for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560"

On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even
cited.
among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass.

KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG

A correction: It was April 1985, page 36. -- Taylor Kingston, March
26, 2008

Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his
postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo
to be found.

In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T.
Kingston (ca) 1806.

In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points
between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the
top 50 postal players.

For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim,
Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating
points by a "conversion" formula.

However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor
Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his
OTB rating was 1806.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical
math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?

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
[!]

I found earlier in the week that to be 2400 USCF postal would be in the top
10 in 1985.

And so the 'obviously postal' reference is a nonsense in three respects, (a)
you could not be 'obviously 2300+ Elo and 47th and (b) where did that 2300+
[or now, 2250] come from?

Ridiculosly, we now have;

I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo,
but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250.

And 2250 elo is 2350 uscf. So who exactly 'converts' 1806 to any other
number at all?

Finally, (c) was there an 'Elo' for postal players in 1985?

While Taylor may think other people are nutz for asking, this is merely the
normal jurisdiction of what people propose about themselves on usenet. After
all, he did propose this rating in order to be able to compete with the
Evans analysis of Keres Botvinnik - that's the context, and Taylor still
smarts from what happened.

I should add that pointing this out does not validate Evans, it merely
disqualifies Kingston's approach to the topic.

Phil Innes

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.

--
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/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
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.

So what is true? I know people who would have put the differential in 1985
at 125+ points between US rating and how the ROW scores it.

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

Since Ken Sloan has said nothing, as above, many times before, we can
conclude he is a bore, or faking it, and since he can't resist not saying
anything factual the back his opinions, definitely odd!

Phil Innes

--
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/

Chess One wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
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.

So what is true?

What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF.

--
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/

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.

It is statistically very unlikely and nearly impossible for a player
to have exactly the same rating under the two systems.

The most likely explanation would be that there has been a
typographical error.

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.

Sam Sloan

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? 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."

wrote:
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? 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."

Suggestion, scan the certificate and post it here, then maybe this sorry
topic can be laid to rest... crossed fingers
--

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

On Mar 30, 11:06*am, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
wrote:
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 (seehttp://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? 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."

Suggestion, scan the certificate and post it here, then maybe this sorry
topic can be laid to rest... *crossed fingers

I don't have the means to do that, Rev. It might be more fitting for
Larry Parr to scan and post the Top 50 Postal Players list from the
April 1985 Chess Life, as a penance.