Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 21st 05, 08:36 PM
Taylor Kingston
 
Posts: n/a
Default Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer.

"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
Proverbs 11.

Sam Sloan wrote:
This entire thread started when Taylor Kingston claimed to be a 2300+
Elo rasted player. Kingston made numerous insulting remarks and
personal attacks on Grandmaster Larry Evans among others.

I thereupon challenged Taylor Kingston to a chess match for one
thousand dollars cash money. Since Taylor Kingston claims to be nearly
400 points stronger than me, he should have no hesitation in accepting
this offer.

Of course, Taylor Kingston was lying. He has never been close to a
2300 player. The highest his rating has ever been was 1853. A player
at that level would have no chance against me.

However, rather than admit that he is a liar, Taylor Kingston claimed
that he was too busy and such a wealthy man of the highest ilk that
one thousand dollars was too small an amount to interest him.

Then, Bauer barged in and challenged me to a match for one thousand
dollars which I immediately declined in view of his 2304 rating.

However, I later examined his tournament record and realized that he
was probably not really a 2304 player. His email address is
. This shows that he is very proud of his
2300 rating and advertises it.

However, in his entire career as a chess player, Bauer never had a
rating over 2300 untril he played a match against a friend which gave
him 5 more points to raise his rating from 2299 to 2304. That was in
1997 and Bauer has never played a regularly rated game since then.

Bauer did play in one quick rated tournament. He lost to a player
rated 1988. Under the traditional system, Bauer would have lost 30
points in this game. However, under the new Glickman System Bauer only
lost 10 points. I feel that this is a flaw in the Glickman System
which needs to be examined.

I have never claimed that I can beat Bauer. I merely state that I feel
that his current strength would be about 2150 if he played. I base
this on the fact that Bauer was rated around 2170 back in 1994 when he
was active, he got his rating up by playing only in carefully selected
weak events against carefully selected opponents, he has not played in
eight years and the rating system has deflated by more than 100 points
since then.

When Bauer got his 2304 rating, my rating was 2107. I have played and
my rating has dropped. Bauer has not played. I believe that his actual
strength is only about 200 points more than mine, which is much less
than the rating system suggests.

Nevertheless, even if Bauer is only a 2150 player as I claim, he is
still strong enough to beat me easily. I have not challenged Bauer to
a match for money.

Next came Brock, who is rated only slightly higher than me. Brock has
offered me draw odds and I believe that I can beat him, although I am
by no means guaranteeing victory.

However, kindly recall that this all started with my challenge to play
Taylor Kingston a match after Kingston repeatedly insisted that he is
a 2300+ player. Everybody, including Bauer and Brock, realized that
Kingston is lying and that he would have no chance, zero, none
whatever against the great me. Kingston is not a chess player at all
and never will be. Kingston gets his jollies by personally attacking
grandmasters like Larry Evans, Raymond Keene and Bobby Fischer. He
feels that he elevates himself to their level by attacking them.
However, everybody else realizes that Kingston is merely a bafoon with
no chess playing ability at all.

Sam Sloan


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 05, 01:50 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sam Sloan wrote:

Then, Bauer barged in and challenged me to a match for one thousand
dollars which I immediately declined in view of his 2304 rating.

However, I later examined his tournament record and realized that he
was probably not really a 2304 player. His email address is
. This shows that he is very proud of his
2300 rating and advertises it.


I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to
type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work email,
and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type 2300, much
easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how this has any
bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than advertised, or
my rating for that matter.

Instead, it's typical Sloan distortion and innuendo. He provides few facts,
and those he does spew out are often shown to be incorrect. I will provide
the facts once more for the reader to judge.

However, in his entire career as a chess player, Bauer never had a
rating over 2300 untril he played a match against a friend which gave
him 5 more points to raise his rating from 2299 to 2304. That was in
1997 and Bauer has never played a regularly rated game since then.


For starters, Sloan has no way of verifying this fact. He started off his
attack on my record by suggesting I had never beaten a rated master. When I
trotted out at least 20 such players I had defeated in tournaments,
including several game scores and published annotations, he backed off of
that one. Now the claim is that since I am only now a 2300-rated player I
must not be a 2300 rated player.

What Sloan fails to mention is that I gained rating points in 9 of the last
10 tournaments I played. It's kind of far-fetched for me to believe that
these were all flukes and my strength was that much below that rating.
Further, Sloan also fails to note I was also a master in the mid to late
1980s, before the MSA on the USCF website. At that time, after, for
example, winning the Iowa Closed State Championship with a 4-1 score in a
field of all masters and experts, my rating was somewhere over 2260. I
played at least 80 games as a rated master in that earlier time frame, which
also included a 5-0 win in a tournament in Circle Pines MN (I believe it was
1986), which included wins over 2 NMs and 2 experts. In that same time
frame, in 2 successive Oklahoma tournaments, I went a combined 4-1 in two
games against SM Paul Kuroda, two games against NM Tom Amburn, and one game
with NM Cliff McLaughlin.


Bauer did play in one quick rated tournament. He lost to a player
rated 1988. Under the traditional system, Bauer would have lost 30
points in this game. However, under the new Glickman System Bauer only
lost 10 points. I feel that this is a flaw in the Glickman System
which needs to be examined.


Big deal, I've never cared about my 5 minute rating. The player I lost to,
Pete Karagainis, is a fast rising young player with a 2170 rating, by the
way.

I have never claimed that I can beat Bauer. I merely state that I feel
that his current strength would be about 2150 if he played. I base
this on the fact that Bauer was rated around 2170 back in 1994 when he
was active, he got his rating up by playing only in carefully selected
weak events against carefully selected opponents, he has not played in
eight years and the rating system has deflated by more than 100 points
since then.


This claim, that I only played in "carefully selected weak events against
carefully selected oppnents" is an absolute lie. My last tournament, the US
Amateur Team Midwest, had 225 players competing -- quite a carefully
selected field! In it I beat former and future master Peter Stein (2193) as
well as two experts rated 2054 and 2039. My next to last tournament was the
South Dakota Governor's Cup, which was won by GMs Serper and Palatnik ahead
of GMs Wolf and Kudrin (to whom I lost in the 4th round). It also included
13 other masters, and besides losing to Kudrin, I beat players rated 2124
and 1930 and drew a player rated 2153. It includes an Ames Chess Festival
where I tied for first with NM Sharrafuddin ahead of NM Kevin Burnett and
future NM Ilya Karasek. It also includes a Waterloo tournament where I
finished clear first ahead of NMs Bob Jacobs (with whom I drew in the 4th
round in a game I should have won), NM Dan Harger, and future NM Ilya
Karasek (who I beat in the last round).

Also included is a Goichberg tournament in Kansas City where I finished in
the money but behind the winners, which included IM Mike Brooks, NM Jim
McLaughlin (I drew with him in the last round) and tied with NM Mark
Schiffner (we drew in round 4) and ahead of NMs Andrew Witte, Bob Jacobs,
Ken Thomas, Mark Bohannan, and Alan Piper (who I beat in the third round).

There are also 3 Iowa State Closed Championships. Twice I finished second
behind NM Kevin Burnett and once third behind Burnett and IM Martin Olesen
(in all three of those events I drew with Burnett in our game, and I also
drew with Olesen the year he finished ahead of me). There are also at least
2 tournaments where I finished second behind IM Mike Brooks. In half of the
tournaments I competed in as a master, I came in either first or second.

In short, there were lots of competitive tournaments with many strong
players.

In fact, in the 72 games on the MSA where I was a master that Sloan could
have reviewed, there are a total of 4 losses, 19 draws, and 49 wins, which
is over an 80% winning percentage. The losses were to players rated 2596,
2249, 2598, and 1979. That works out to an average rating of 2356.

The draws were with players rated 2153, 2232, 2235, 2338, 2237, 1802, 2000,
1800, 2323, 2238, 2222, 2597, 1725, 2139, 2359, 2408, 2034, 2380, 2046.
That works out to an average rating of those I drew of 2172. Hardly a weak,
hand picked field.


When Bauer got his 2304 rating, my rating was 2107. I have played and
my rating has dropped. Bauer has not played. I believe that his actual
strength is only about 200 points more than mine, which is much less
than the rating system suggests.


This is a logical fallacy -- because your rating has declined, all ratings
in that time frame can be assumed to decline. In fact, as noted on the MSA
site, I gained rating points in 9 of the last 10 tournaments I played. It
is just as likely to assume I would have gained another 50-100 points. If
deflation is, in fact, the cause of your decline (and not, say, advancing
age or just a good result or 2 that took you to 2107), I would suggest it is
just as possible that I would have settled back into a rating of around
2250, based on current ratings of some opponents I am familiar with.

In fact, it appears from looking at Sloan's MSA record that he got to 2100
on the strength of 2 tournament results. This, as opposed to a steady climb
in 9 of 10 tournaments, suggests his peak rating, not mine, was the fluke
result.

Nevertheless, even if Bauer is only a 2150 player as I claim, he is
still strong enough to beat me easily. I have not challenged Bauer to
a match for money.


The only logical analysis you have made so far.

Randy Bauer

Sam Sloan




  #3   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 05, 04:50 AM
Angelo DePalma
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Randy, I know you're a good player but were you really rated 9530 at one
point??

"Randy Bauer" wrote

I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to
type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work email,
and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type 2300, much
easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how this has any
bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than advertised,
or my rating for that matter.



  #4   Report Post  
Old June 22nd 05, 04:57 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Angelo DePalma" wrote in message
...

Randy, I know you're a good player but were you really rated 9530 at one
point??


Probably not, although those bonus points were out of control at one time.

"Randy Bauer" wrote

I have 3 Yahoo email addresses, each with my name followed by an easy to
type and remember 4 digit number. Two I keep for personal and work
email, and one for chess. It's very easy for me to remember and type
2300, much easier than, say, 1749 or 9530 or such. I fail to see how
this has any bearing on your argument that my chess strength is less than
advertised, or my rating for that matter.





Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Grudge Match - Sloan vs. Brock: Need $200, an arbiter, & Sloan to agree on date Tyrone Slothrop rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 32 June 23rd 05 09:13 PM
Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Jerzy rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 39 June 23rd 05 09:49 AM
Grudge match: Sloan vs. Kingston or Sloan vs. Bauer. Randy Bauer rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 7 June 19th 05 09:46 PM
A FLASHBACK WITHOUT REGRETS - by Lev Khariton tomic rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 July 15th 03 11:54 PM
Ponomariov - Losing Match Mentally !! Gunny Bunny rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 26 July 7th 03 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017