Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 02:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

OUR FOREMOST EGOIST

How can I possibly deny my USCF Postal Master rating and my #45 rank
in the country in 1985 when it was published by none other than Larry
Parr? -- Taylor Kingston

In January 1986 Mr. Kingston is not listed in the top OTB 50. Nor is
his name listed as an OTB master or even on the general OTB list.

What #45 on postal ratings is he referring to?

April 1986 postal list cites Kingston, Taylor T (California) 1560.

April 1985 cites Kingston at 1806.

Taylor Kingston lied about his chess strength.
Flat out. He wrote about being 2300+ Elo, fully
understanding that the vast majority of his readers
would assume that the reference was to OTB play. It
was not. Later on, when caught out, he claimed it
was a postal rating.

Did Taylor Kingston post here as Xylothist or Paulie Graf?
He won't answer that question. Did he use a false name
to bolster his ego and to take the heat off during
argumenta with this writer?

NM Kingston, the 2300+ ELO cyclotron, is our
foremost rgcp egoist.

  #2   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 02:31 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

I have come to the conclusion that Innes and Kingston are the same
person.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 03:28 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

Larry Parr wrote (28 Dec 2005 18:20:58 -0800):

... He won't answer that question. ...


_
For years Larry Parr has been making accusations
and subsequently refusing to talk about them.
_
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
Why hasn't Larry Parr produced a quote to back up
his claim or clearly admitted that he has no quote
to back up his claim?
_
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Larry Parr gave no evidence at all. On 14 Jun 2005
12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that I had not contributed
any quotes to the discussion that involved 'as' or 'like'
words. Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence" and still wrong.
I complained again on 15 Jun 2005 13:07:10 -0700,
and I saw nothing further from Larry Parr on the
subject. Again, why hasn't Larry Parr produced a
quote to back up his claim or clearly admitted that
he has no quote to back up his claim?
_
"[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)

  #4   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 04:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

YE OLDE SNIPPER

Our Louie Blair cannot bring himself even to
repeat my question to Taylor Kingston, so evidently
does it sear.

Once again, to Taylor Kingston: did you post
messages on rgcp under the name of Xylothist or Paulie
Graf? In the case of Xylothist, the evident motive
would have been to seek "support" from yourself under
another name. I call that intellectual cowardice; you
possibly term it a higher moral calling.

As for our Louie, he is currently unable to
answer whether he will accept my offer of a $10,000
bet to test with a polygraph whether I posted here or
had a hand in messages from any pseudonym
he would care to name.

The old character is amazing: he cannot even
state that he will not answer the question. He can
snip questions; he cannot answer them.

At any rate, his posting has nothing to do with this thread.
Whether NM Kingston was #45 at a rating of 1806 is a far
cry from his claim of 2300+Elo.

  #5   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 04:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Louis Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

Larry Parr wrote (28 Dec 2005 20:07:19 -0800):

Our Louie Blair cannot bring himself even to repeat
my question to Taylor Kingston, so evidently does
it sear.


_
"I see no reason why I should be obliged
to get involved in a Larry Parr dispute
with Taylor Kingston." - Louis Blair
(16 Nov 2005 11:41:15 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 Dec 2005 20:07:19 -0800):

As for our Louie, he is currently unable to
answer whether he will accept my offer of a
$10,000 bet to test with a polygraph whether
I posted here or had a hand in messages from
any pseudonym he would care to name.


_
"Our Louie has since suggested that we
could have the polygraph test ..." - Larry
Parr (23 Nov 2005 17:21:42 -0800)
_
"Larry Parr is not very eager to offer to
do his test in a setting where a large
amount of money is not at stake"
- Louis Blair (22 Nov 2005 12:37:55 -0800)

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 Dec 2005 20:07:19 -0800):

The old character is amazing: he cannot even
state that he will not answer the question. He
can snip questions; he cannot answer them.


_
Larry Parr has been snipping questions of mine
for years. Some recent examples are below.

_
Larry Parr wrote (28 Dec 2005 20:07:19 -0800):

At any rate, his posting has nothing to do with
this thread.


_
It was Larry Parr who chose (28 Dec 2005
18:20:58 -0800) to raise the question-answering
issue here. It seems to me that that makes
it appropriate to bring up Larry Parr's own
record when it comes to question answering.
_
For years Larry Parr has been making accusations
and subsequently refusing to talk about them,
much less, answer questions.
_
_
"The latest Louie Blair variation is he did not
know about my repeated statement that Mike
Murray reproduced what I wrote without material
difference." - Larry Parr (19 Oct 2005
18:35:36 -0700)
_
"This is false. Larry Parr should apologize
promptly." - Louis Blair (19 Oct 2005
18:53:08 -0700)
_
Why hasn't Larry Parr produced a quote to back up
his claim or clearly admitted that he has no quote
to back up his claim?
_
_
"Louis Blair's essential dishonesty has been to
quote statements by this writer in which he left
out the 'as' or 'like' words referring to similes."
- Larry Parr (14 Jun 2005 09:00:03 -0700)
_
Larry Parr gave no evidence at all. On 14 Jun 2005
12:46:41 -0700, I pointed out that I had not contributed
any quotes to the discussion that involved 'as' or 'like'
words. Larry Parr came back with:
_
"So, then, Louie Blair did indeed post some
'names' that I allegedly called that included
as 'as' and 'like' similes.
_
That's called dishonest." - Larry Parr
(14 Jun 2005 20:07:48 -0700)
_
Still "without a shred of evidence" and still wrong.
I complained again on 15 Jun 2005 13:07:10 -0700,
and I saw nothing further from Larry Parr on the
subject. Again, why hasn't Larry Parr produced a
quote to back up his claim or clearly admitted that
he has no quote to back up his claim?
_
"[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear." - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)



  #6   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 05:26 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Tom Martinak
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

How can I possibly deny my USCF Postal Master rating and my #45 rank
in the country in 1985 when it was published by none other than Larry
Parr? -- Taylor Kingston

In January 1986 Mr. Kingston is not listed in the top OTB 50. Nor is
his name listed as an OTB master or even on the general OTB list.

What #45 on postal ratings is he referring to?


As I posted at Jun 6, 12:47 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

and on Jun 7, 5:58 am:

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. We don't know his peak rating
just the rating of 1806 which appears in the 1984 annual top 50
listings, when he was 45th in the nation.

- Tom Martinak

  #8   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 10:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

Louis Blair wrote:

"Larry Parr is not very eager to offer to
do his test in a setting where a large
amount of money is not at stake"
- Louis Blair (22 Nov 2005 12:37:55 -0800)


Louis' version makes a lot of sense to me
(while a $10K bet is silly and prone to abuse).

The loser should cover the direct cost of the test,
and should buy a diner for two (for himself
and for the winner).

Happy New Year 2006,

Wlod

  #9   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 01:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim

The loser can eat my shorts.

Sam Sloan

  #10   Report Post  
Old December 29th 05, 01:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Chess One
 
Posts: n/a
Default Checking Kingston's claim


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
How can I possibly deny my USCF Postal Master rating and my #45 rank
in the country in 1985 when it was published by none other than Larry
Parr? -- Taylor Kingston

In January 1986 Mr. Kingston is not listed in the top OTB 50. Nor is
his name listed as an OTB master or even on the general OTB list.

What #45 on postal ratings is he referring to?


As I posted at Jun 6, 12:47 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

and on Jun 7, 5:58 am:

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.


No its not. It has no equivalency. You have to play regular rated chess to
get an OTB rating. How can slow time control [move a day or whatever] plus
access to chess books and computers, be calculated to have any equivalence?

As to the ratings: Gerzadowicz's book is comprised of all postal games - and
of the top US players - almost uniformly in the 2300-2450 postal range.
Those certainly do not equate to 400 points higher OTB - where these players
are not even as strong as their postal ratings!

The April 1986 CL scandalises the rating system.

Phil Innes

We don't know his peak rating
just the rating of 1806 which appears in the 1984 annual top 50
listings, when he was 45th in the nation.

- Tom Martinak



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
Taylor Kingston's Odd Insistence and Ultimate Irrelevance. Chess One rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 11 November 16th 05 12:58 PM
Taylor Kingston's Odd Insistence and Ultimate Irrelevance. [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 November 14th 05 05:53 PM
Taylor Kingston's Negative Review of Schiller book on Fischer Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 15 October 24th 05 04:59 AM
Taylor Kingston's Negative Review of Schiller book on Fischer Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 14 October 23rd 05 09:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.

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