Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 07:18 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selective Umbrage

DESPICABLE

Taylor Kingston convinced readers not to buy the books by Eric
Schiller,
Raymond Keene, Larry Evans and Larry Parr. Had they known that Taylor
Kingston was only a 1811 player, they would have paid no attention to
his book reviews and more importantly no publisher would have been
willing to publish them. I think that because of this lie, Taylor
Kingston should be sued, prosecuted, deballed and whatever. He is
certainly a despicable person. -- Sam Sloan

Personally I don't care much about who is or isn't making inflated
claims of chess prowess. But I do care about Sam Sloan's tendency to
make up stories that fit his character assassination project of the
moment, and stick with them regardless of the actual facts. I don't
like to see anyone labelled "despicable person" on the basis of made-up
stories. Sam's argument here is 99% hogwash. Taylor Kingston is _not_
representing himself as a 2300 player in his Chess Cafe book reviews,
and hence misleading innocent readers into thinking that he is a more
credible reviewer than he actually is. This whole dismal 2300 thing
came up for the first time in the _chess newsgroups_, not in Kingston's
book reviews. And it happened only recently, at the beginning of June,
when TK indignantly responded to Larry Parr's claim that "Mr. Kingston,
a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind of analysis." I
imagine that Kingston now regrets responding at all to Parr's "weak
player" remark. His response (regardless of its objective merits) only added fuel to the fire. Now Parr rarely mentions Kingston's name without derisively referring to him as a soi-disant master or some such. Be that as it may, Taylor Kingston definitely does not deserve to be accused of making fraudulent claims of chess expertise in his book reviews. I've been reading his reviews for a long time now, and I was never led to believe he was anything but a decent journeyman player with an eye for detail and a special interest in chess history. And as Parr himself has acknowledged, Kingston's reviews are better than most. Sam really ought to be ashamed of himself for writing this, but I'm not the first to note that shame doesn't seem to be in his repertoire. -- Larry Tapper


Right. NM Taylor Kingston -- the 1800-rated but self-proclaimed
2300+ ELO Macedonian phalanx -- did not hype his strength in book
reviews at the Cafe. Or, at least, in the several reviews I read over
the years. I did not write tepidly, as Mr. Tapper would have it, that
NM Kingston's reviews are better than most. I put him in the top 10%
as a chess book reviewer.

Having said that, I once again find Larry Tapper's selective
umbrage unfair. Compared with the animal language and seething hatred
directed at Sam Sloan -- excremental effusions, four-letter screaming,
wild charges repeated daily and never with proof -- Sam's responses are
a model of restraint and decorum.

Now, then, Sam talks about deballing NM Kingston and the like,
and we all understand that there is jocose hyperbole there. Even when
making a serious point, Sam is smiling a bit. Of course, there is none
of the twisted sexual and excremental imagery of a Stan Booz or a Bill
Brock.

This writer has been accused of not only supporting child
molestation and sexual assault but also dividing up young girls in a
scheme hatched with Mr. Sloan. Nothing Mr. Sloan writes about an NM
Kingston, whom he describes as despicable, matches the utterly
unsupported excremental and profane attacks launched routinely, almost
daily, by a Bill Brock or a Stan Booz.

I find Larry Tapper's selective umbrage to be ... despicable.

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 11:37 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PARR'S SELECTIVE SINS

Had they known that Taylor Kingston was only a 1811 player, they would have paid no attention to his book reviews


Your selective umbrage is worse than anyone's.

It has been established that TK did hold a master's level rating in
postal chess, despite your "self-proclaimed 2300 Elo coulee firewall
stone mountain blah blah blah Gambolpudding of Ulm" repetition designed
to smear him. He has never said he was any more than 1800 OTB, and it
is (was) not unusual to see such discrepancies - even in the
pre-computer days.

You could have similarly attacked my late friend David Mote, who was a
strong master but only held an 1800-1900 rating in postal. Was he no
longer an NM because one of his ratings did not reflect NM strength?
No, it was because he liked playing postal, but did not put a full
effort into it; he saw it as practice for OTB and never put the same
amount of time in making moves as his opponents did (in fact, he used
about as much time making moves in postal as OTB - something I tried
and I have to admit it is great practice!).

Book reviews are written for an audience; in many cases it is important
that the reviewer be able to place himself in the shoes of the readers;
I would think an OTB 1800 would be ideal for that purpose for many
books. Especially one with good writing skills, a sense of chess
history, and years of experience.

We could similarly state that book reviews by anyone rated under 2200
are worthless. In that case, Larry, please withdraw all of your book
reviews. And any books you may have written as well.

It is indeed frustrating in that even though you were never much of a
writer or editor, you at least expressed interesting opinions here at
one time. Now it is simply attack, attack, attack. Rather like the 900
who thinks he can force the Fool's Mate at any turn. Your writings have
regressed to this level. Please consider withdrawing from rgcp and all
other writing so at least the 2 fans you have left will have a positive
memory of you.

BROCK AND BOOZ

Stan has always expressed himself in a style that is best described as
an almalgam of Harry Truman and Richard Prior. But such posts of his
are brief, and easy to skip over until he has something of substance to
say. And I do believe most of his "potty posts" are meant to be funny,
and maybe people find them funny. I don't, but different strokes....

As to Brock, the one time I met Bill, he was the ultimate gentleman and
analyzing our game afterwards was great fun. One of those one-time
experiences you don't forget; it is indeed fun to analyze with someone
who makes comments like "Jeesh, I think I had this position in the 1972
Canadian Open, and was just as confused about it then," showed that he
had the humbleness associated with one who has played a long time and
knows he has a certain base knowledge, but like most (myself included),
he is a fish. In the "amateur" pool, we are all fish, just of varying
sizes.

Why Bill has become obsessed with Sloan is beyond me. He has almost
singlehandedly rescued the ICA from extinction, and is successful in
his life endeavors. My advice to him would be to give it up, at least
for awhile, until he can proceed on firmer ground. He made his point,
but then hammered it into us so many times that many stopped listening.

DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE PARR BEHIND THE CURTAIN

However, I see your attacks on Brock and Booz as misdirection designed
to get us just far enough away from the topic at hand, and hope we
agree with you. That little trick may work where you live, but most of
us here are well educated enough to recognize the sophomoric debate
trick.

If you are reduced to misdirectional tricks that most of us learned in
a high school debate or speech course, and were chastized for using
them then, I see no reason why you, an experienced author and editor,
should not be called on the carpet for using similar weasel tactics.

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 02:41 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

DIFFERENT STROKES

It has been established that TK did hold a master's level rating in
postal chess, despite your "self-proclaimed 2300 Elo coulee firewall
stone mountain blah blah blah Gambolpudding of Ulm" repetition designed
to smear him. He has never said he was any more than 1800
OTB...regressed to this level...Stan has always expressed himself in a
style that is best described as an almalgam of Harry Truman and
Richard Prior... And I do believe most of his "potty posts" are meant
to be funny, and maybe people find them funny. I don't, but different
strokes....As to Brock, the one time I met Bill, he was the ultimate
gentleman ... Why Bill has become obsessed with Sloan is beyond me...
-- James Rynd

James Rynd rants about book reviewers, but I
already granted that TK is in the top 10%. He then mounts
an impassioned defense of the lies of Kingston, Booz and Brock.

My view is that it is a bit of a stretch to imagine that in a
group of thousands of undifferentiated chessplayers
such as on rgcp, that the vast majority of them would not
understand that OTB strength is meant when baldly claiming,
without irony or elaboration, to be 2300+ ELO.

I would note that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated
but self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO shredding machine, did
not offer that kind of argument in defense. He understood
that even his allies would balk at endorsing such a view.

He argued that he MUST have been intending a polemical trap for
Sam Sloan when making the bald claim because he knew
in advance that his claim would be checked out by the eager
beavers on rgcp. Someone called it The Horsefeathers Defense.

My response was that the man made his boast
baldly, and he only retracted it -- a la Stan Booz who
is always claiming he was "joking" after being
confronted with his lies -- when faced with proof that
he retailed an ego-driven lie. I argued that the man
did something stupid after being ragged unmercifully
by Sam Sloan. NM Kingston then came up with a short claim
about his strength, knowing how it would be understood
by the vast majority, without thinking through what he
was pounding out on the keyboard.

Get it? I am asserting a motive behind NM
Taylor Kingston's falsehood -- which he even admits is
false -- without offering proof. Bill Brock accuses
Sam Sloan of being a child molester without offering
proof. My treatment of NM Kingston is the same: an
assertion of motive, in this case, without offering proof.

And here we come to the real distinction. Mr. Brock
made an assertion of physical fact about Sam Sloan: he
molested a child or children. I was making no such
assertion about NM Kingston. I was asserting and
offering evidence as to the man's motivation: I
argued that he was ego-driven (his ludicrous excuses
for not playing Sam Sloan a match even when money is
offered by third parties) and that in a moment in
which he did not calculate the ensuing moves very
well, he lashed out with a pitiful defense, figuring
that he could use a 20-year-old correspondence rating if
pressed about making a bald claim, without humor or
irony, that he was 2300+ Elo. He likely did not
consider that nearly everyone, including several
allies, would not perjure themselves by accepting the
idea that a bald assertion of 2300+ ELO would not
be understood by the vast majority of players to mean
over-the-board strength.

In the absence of a confession, there is NO WAY
TO PROVE MOTIVATION. We can only offer evidence,
which I did. When one asserts motivation, one can
only offer circumstantial evidence in the vast majority
of cases and let others decide whether it adds up.

In the case of the Brockster, he also made
positive accusations against Mr. Sloan that are
susceptible to physical proof. Does he have it? No,
not a scrap of it.

"Different strokes" indeed.

  #4   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 03:56 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James Rynd rants about book reviewers, but I
already granted that TK is in the top 10%. He then mounts
an impassioned defense of the lies of Kingston, Booz and Brock.


I did no such thing. I did not defend Bill's behavior, although I will
say that I think much of what is says is not "lies" at all, but truth,
but to repeat it dozens of times ad nauseum is beyond me, and I think I
indicated as much. But your ad infinitum, ad nauseum "2300 ELO atomic
bomb rat trap vacuum cleaner AK-47" nonsense is no better, and just as
grating.

Stan? I must admit I have seen no lies of his, but definitely opinions
you would disagree with. There is a substantial difference. If he did
lie (and you seem to go far beyond, say, Sissela Bok's definition of
"Lying," when you call someone a liar), I haven't seen it, nor have I
heard others, except perhaps some of those in the USCF political
machine, accuse him of lying.

As to Kingston's apparent "lie," at best one could call it the type of
misdirection you routinely practice. So, Larry, heal thyself, would be
my command. But I have not found it uncommon for CC chess masters to
offer lessons, and represent themselves as masters, even with OTBs of
1800-2000 or so. I suspect that if TK had said, "I am currently rated
about 1800 by the USCF OTB, but held a correspondence chess master's
rating by the USCF," you would still try to smear him in some way. In
one breath, you place him in the top 10%, and almost without stopping
for air, you say that no one would have published or read his book
reviews. Nonsense. The review speaks for itself, and is independent of
the reviewer's rating. Because, let's face it, your beef with TK stems
from your beef with ChessCafe and the fact that they don't sell some of
the Crapdoza books. That *truth* needs to be at the forefront of your
argument, else, the "liar" is apparent......

  #5   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 04:35 PM
cynic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

* In one breath, you place him in the top 10%, and almost without
stopping for air, you say that no one would have published or read his
book reviews. Nonsense. * James Rynd

You need to get your facts straight, sir. Actually Sam Sloan said
that about Taylor Kingston's reviews and Larry Parr clearly disagreed
with him.

You also deny seeing any lies by Stan Booz. You need to change your
pair of rose colored glasses. He repeatedly claimed Parr was lobbying
for the job of Chess Life editor when he knew it to be totally false.
The guy also besmirched the reputation of Joel Channing's wife (a
shoplifter) as well as Erik Anderson of AF4C (on the take) which raised
record prize funds for the defunct U.S. Championship,

Taylor Kingston bleated for weeks about four words being deleted
from a letter he submitted to Chess Life which, when finally revealed,
turned out to be vapor.

Bill Brock has demeaned only himself with libelous charges against
both Sloan and Parr. .

Indeed, and so it goes.



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 05:19 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[Event "Canadian Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Brock, Bill"]
[Black "Lemainis"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D32"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1974.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7.
Qxd5 Bd7 8.
e3 Nf6 9. Qd1 Bc5 10. Nf3 Qe7 11. Bd2 O-O 12. Be2 Rad8 13. O-O Bf5 14.
Qa4 Nb4
15. Rac1 Nd3 16. Bxd3 Bxd3 17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. Ne2 Ne4 19. Nf4 b5 20. Qa5
Nxd2
21. Qxd2 Bb4 22. Qd1 Bc4 23. Qc2 Bxe1 24. Nxe1 Rc8 25. b3 Be6 26. Qb2
Rxc1 27.
Qxc1 Rc8 28. Qb2 Qb4 29. Kf1 Qc3 30. Qxc3 Rxc3 31. Nxe6 fxe6 32. Ke2
Rc1 33.
Kd2 Ra1 34. Nc2 Rxa2 35. Kc3 Kf7 36. e4 a5 37. f3 b4+ 0-1

[Event "redacted to protect not-so-secret identity"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2001"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Brock, Bill"]
[Black "James Rynd"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D32"]
[Annotator "Bill Brock"]
[PlyCount "71"]

1. d4 e6 2. c4 d5 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qd1 exd5 7.
Qxd5 Bd7 8.
Bg5 (8. e3 Nf6 9. Qb3 Bc5 10. Nf3 Qe7 (10... O-O 11. Be2 Be6 12. Qa4 a6
13. O-O
b5 14. Qc2 Nb4 15. Qb1) 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. O-O g5 13. Nd4 Bxd4 14. exd4
Nxd4 15.
Qc4+ Bc6 16. Be3 Qe5 17. Rad1 Nxe2+ 18. Nxe2 Rxd1 19. Rxd1 Re8 20. Nc3
h5 21.
h3 g4 22. Bf4 Qf5 23. Nb5 Qxb5 24. Qxf7 Qa5 25. Qxf6 Re1+ 26. Rxe1
Qxe1+ 27.
Kh2 gxh3 28. Qd6 Qa5 29. Kxh3) 8... Nf6 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. e3 O-O-O 11.
Qb3 Be6
12. Bc4 Ne5 13. Bxe6+ fxe6 14. Nf3 Nxf3+ 15. gxf3 Qxf3 16. Qxe6+ Kb8
17. Qe4
Qh5 18. Rd1 Rxd1+ 19. Nxd1 Bd6 20. Nc3 Be5 21. h3 Rd8 22. Qg4 Bxc3+ 23.
bxc3
Qd5 24. O-O Qxa2 25. Rd1 Rxd1+ 26. Qxd1 Qe6 (26... a5 27. Qd8+ Ka7 28.
Qd4+ Ka6
29. e4) 27. Qd8+ Qc8 28. Qd6+ Ka8 29. e4 (29. Qd4 a6 (29... g6 30. e4
a6 31.
Kg2) 30. e4 Qxh3 31. Qxg7) 29... a6 30. e5 (30. Kg2 Qxc3 31. e5 Ka7 32.
e6 Qf6
33. Qd7 Qg6+ 34. Kh2 Qf6 35. Qf7 (35. Kg2 Qg6+ 36. Kf3 Qf5+ 37. Ke2
Qe4+ 38.
Kd2 Qh4 39. e7 Qxf2+ 40. Kd3 Qf1+ 41. Ke4 Qe2+ 42. Kd5 Qd3+ 43. Ke6
Qxh3+ 44.
Kd6 Qd3+ 45. Kc7 Qc3+ 46. Kd8 Qf6 47. Qd5 Qh4 48. Ke8 h5 49. Qe5 Qf2
50. Kd7
$18) 35... Qe5+ 36. Kg1 Qg5+ 37. Kf1 Qc1+ 38. Ke2 Qc2+ 39. Kf3 Qd3+ 40.
Kg4
Qe4+ 41. f4 Qg2+ 42. Kf5 Qd5+ 43. Kg4 Kb6 44. f5 Qe4+ 45. Kg3 Qe3+)
30... Qxh3
31. e6 Qg4+ 32. Kh1 Qh3+ 33. Kg1 Qg4+ 34. Kf1 Qc4+ 35. Kg2 Qg4+ 36. Kf1
1/2-1/2

  #7   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 05:19 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmmm, "turned out to be vapor." A favorite phrase of Parr's... to say
nothing of "and so it goes."

Please post under one name only Larry....

As to my mistake, yes, it appears I did misquote Chess Life's worst
editor ever by attributing a quote to him that actually came from his
favorite village idiot.

  #8   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 06:18 PM
Catalan
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"cynic" wrote in message
oups.com...

You also deny seeing any lies by Stan Booz. You need to change your
pair of rose colored glasses. He repeatedly claimed Parr was lobbying
for the job of Chess Life editor when he knew it to be totally false.


The only person who fell for it is you. Everyone else knew I was jabbing him
back for claiming Tim Hanke was going to get the much sought after job of
Chess Life editor,

The guy also besmirched the reputation of Joel Channing's wife (a
shoplifter)


Never once did I say that she was a shoplifter nor do I even think she is.
That is you saying that.

as well as Erik Anderson of AF4C (on the take) which raised
record prize funds for the defunct U.S. Championship,


Never siad he was on the take. I complained about their Board Members being
on the payroll and I mistakenly assumed a woman with the same last name was
his wife. But you're the only one suggesting he is on the take.

Larry, Don, or whatever your name is, bite me.



  #9   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 06:34 PM
cynic
 
Posts: n/a
Default

* Please post under one name only Larry.... * James Rynd

One might ask you the same question, whatever your name is.

But some of us think it's more important to deal with what is said
rather than who says it.

  #10   Report Post  
Old September 24th 05, 06:43 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WHEN CAUGHT IN A LIE...

...our resident CPA says he was only joshing.

Perhaps Louis Blair will provide your quote about reporting AF4C to
the IRS.

Never siad he was on the take. I complained about their Board Members
being
on the payroll and I mistakenly assumed a woman with the same last name
was
his wife. But you're the only one suggesting he is on the take. Stan
Booz (Catalan)

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
Selective Umbrage [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 29 September 26th 05 05:59 PM
selective search and Chessmaster 8000 DMB rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 December 28th 03 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 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