Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 03:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston

FROM LARRY PARR

Dear Taylor,

... if I may.

In a posting of June 6 (10:45 a.m.), which I
will present in toto, you addressed me in the second
person. So, this time around, I reciprocate the
practice. Fair enough?

I think the posting is YOU, Taylor. It bears
all the hallmarks.

Before examining the posting sentence by
sentence, let us recollect the subject matter. We are
talking about the treatment accorded subjects Soviet
in the first edition of the Oxford Companion to Chess.

Let us take the entry on Boris Gulko, the famed
refusenik who was kicked in the belly at one
tournament in the Soviet Union and whose best years
were spent, shall we say, away from chess.

Fair enough, Taylor? Still there? You are not
leaving in a huff once again? Ah good.

Gulko was famous throughout the chess world as a
refusenik. Both he and his wife suffered. The entry
on Gulko remains SILENT on this subject unless one
counts as a coded allusion the phrase, "For a time his
chess activities were reduced."

I gave the Companion authors this much credit: I
figured they were hinting without saying. If it is true, as
you have insisted, that the quoted phrase appertains to
an earlier period in Gulko's career, then my conclusion
is that the authors wrote an entry on Gulko and his wife
that was morally more vile than I suggested.

But not for you, Taylor. No, sirree. You don't
wish to discuss the subject of how the Companion
authors treated subjects Soviet, entry by entry.

Now, then, let's look at your posting. Fair enough?

You begin by quoting me, "The account on Gulko
in the first edition of The Oxford Companion to Chess
is written with a stunning vagueness."

You respond with this counterattack, "Unlike the
rgcp posts of Larry Parr, which are written with a
stultifying, tediously repetetive [sic] medacity [sic]."

Now, Taylor, if this counterattack is relevant to my
point that you quoted, you are saying that the entry on
Gulko, which makes no mention of the best-known fact
about the man and his wife, is not vague because this
writer is stultifying.

If that is not your point, then you are simply launching
a counterattack to change the subject from the Companion's
treatment of Gulko to your evaluation of my postings on rgcp.
Fair enough, Taylor?

Okay, then, your next sentence reads: "Larry, it's impossible
for me to take you seriously any more." Taylor, forgive me for saying
so, but you lie.

You have written myriad postings such as the one I am
now quoting in which you discuss only my person. Just
as you have repeatedly announced Grand Departures from
these forums, so you have repeatedly announced that you
are not taking me seriously.

Yet you are evidently taking SOMETHING quite seriously.
You will not discuss the ompanion's treatment of subjects Soviet,
entry by entry, but you will discuss my person.

You continue, "And I think you've made it impossible for just
about everyone else on this group, with the exception of your
sock-puppet jr and the ludicrous Innes."

Now, Taylor, don't forget Louie Blair, whose sheer production
of my quotations suggests he takes my words or my person
very seriously indeed OR that he is a cankerous old man with
nothing else to do except to write pointless questions innocent of
grammar, the subjunctive mood and, on several occasions, formal
sense. (Louie is forever confusing the words "whether" and "if." One
wonders whether he has yet mastered the distinction.)

Taylor, what is your reason for repeating for the
umpteenth time that neither you nor, as you would have
it, anyone else takes this writer seriously? Your
point is clear enough: you are offering an implicit
excuse for once again ducking an entry by entry
discussion of how the Companion treats subjects
Soviet. You don't wish to be dragged into defending
the indefensible, and you don't want to contradict
Edward Winter and cronies in that old exchange some 20
years earlier in Chess Notes re my book review of the
Companion. Hence we have another of your traditional
announcements that neither you nor anyone else takes
me seriously. Fair enough, Taylor?

Now, we come to the question session in your
posting. You begin by saying, "I just would like to
know." And what do you wish to know?

Your first question: "1. Do you really believe
the nonsense you post here? Especially the obviously
false stuff that anyone can check inside of two minutes?"

To what would you be referring, Taylor? My
comments on the Oxford Companion entry for Boris
Gulko, which was the subject of the quotation you
excerpted to begin your posting? Are you saying that
the authors discussed the fact of greatest notoriety
about the Gulkos in that entry and that I missed it?
Are you saying that you never claimed to be 2300+
ELO in a posting devoid of any irony or jocosity?

Your second question: "2. When you post
obviously false stuff, do you think no one will
bother to check it? Are you really that oblivious?"

Taylor, you appear to be arguing that I hope
people will not check for themselves your
straightforward avowal to be 2300+ ELO. On the
contrary, I have quoted the statement several times,
and I urge everyone to reproduce it. Perhaps Louie
could do so. Or are you wondering whether people will
check the Oxford Companion to discover whether
Korchnoi is described as having simply "left the
Soviet Union"?

I hope that every reader of this forum will discover for
themselves whether I have quoted the Companion accurately.
On the other hand, I don't think you want them to be so assiduous
in their researches. Fair enough, Taylor?

Your third question: "3. When you are caught in
an abject lie, as in the case of my Soltis review,
your silly excuses make you look downright stupid. Are
you really that dumb?"

My, my Taylor. You are huffy for a man who does
not take me seriously. Can we agree on this much:
once you forget having written the current posting under
discussion, you will once again be attacking my person
to deflect discussion from the subject at hand?

Just as you are forever departing these newsgroup
(only to slink back shamelessly without acknowledgment
of having issued one of your Grand Departures) so you are
forever announcing that no one takes me seriously. It's your
shtick. Fair enough, Taylor?

I agree that one of us has been caught in "abject" lies.
That person is you, Taylor. Your false claim about your chess
strength, your ludicrously involved explanation for why you lied,
your posting here under false names in praise of yourself -- these
are all profoundly dishonest acts.

Your further statement that you are a man with "standards,"
even though you are aware of your record, speaks for itself.

You third question references, in truth, the game
Duras-Teichmann. My point was that the game, which
has been widely anthologized, is famous for the
position following move 42. o mention that game is
to highlight, perforce, that position. You consider
my point to be an abject lie; I consider it to be an
apprehension, either correct or incorrect. I do not
consider this judgment on my part to be remotely
comparable to your inventing hundreds of rating points
for yourself. Fair enough, Taylor?

All the best,

Larry Parr

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 06:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston




I think that posting answered all of Taylor Kingston's "questions"
regarding Larry Parr.

For one, Mr. Parr openly admits he is fully aware of the technique of
"changing the subject" by launching a counterattack; yet he is
blissfully unaware that this is one of his own biggest problems.

Mr. Parr routinely will, with a perfectly straight face, accuse
someone of lying or changing the subject, and then in the very same
post, if not the same paragraph, do precisely that. He pretends to
truly desire a discussion of a single issue -- here, the treatment of
Gulko in the Oxford Companion of Chess. (No, make that *to* Chess.)
Nonetheless, Larry Parr cannot restrain his canker; he invariably falls
back to his default setting: attacking the person.

Even while sternly scolding Taylor Kingston for "changing the
subject" by discussing the person of Larry Parr, Mr. Parr will launch a
*personal attack*. Even when attempting to defend himself against
accusations of lying, Mr. Parr cannot help but repeat his repertoire of
stock lies, such as the one about TK exaggerating his rating by five
hundred points!

This is precisely why I maintain that even the great Dr. Blair cannot
resuscitate the dead brain of Larry Parr; it's far too late. When a
brain has been deprived of oxygen (or, in this case, reason and
morality) for a long time, it simply can never fully recover; the
tissue damage is too extensive for repair, and the only workable
solution is a brain transplant.

Trouble is, there are certain technical difficulties with this kind
of operation at the present time. For one, a suitable donor must be
secured. Secondly, the patient must be *willing* to undergo the
operation. Thirdly, the body will normally reject a new brain as
"foreign" and try to destroy it. Fourthly, the cost of such an
operation is immense, and because the USCF recently squandered $50K
they do not have the required funds available. Fifth, FIDE has
tentatively agreed to finance the deal, but they insist that Mr. Parr
be given, quote: "another pea-sized brain". I'm not exactly a FIDE
fan, but I don't see why they should be allowed to dictate terms to
chess players; hence, I reject their conditions on principle. A
rematch clause I can live with, but this is going too far.


-- help bot

  #3   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 09:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
jr jr is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 311
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston

*Mr. Parr cannot help but repeat his repertoire of stock
lies, such as the one about TK exaggerating his rating by
five hundred points!* (Help Bot)

*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 5:23 pm)

  #4   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 10:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 173
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston

*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 5:23 pm)


As I posted at Jun 6, 2005, 12:47 pm, the minor correction is:

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, 2005, 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 (so
it might have reached an equivalent to 2300) just the rating of 1806
(equivalent to 2262) which appears in the 1984 annual top 50 listings,
when he was 45th in the nation.

- Tom Martinak

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 01:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 385
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston

Yes, "TK claimed to be a 2300 player" strikes me as substantially
similar to "Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet". In neither case
does the incessant repetition of the charge reflect well on the
judgment of the repeater.

LT


Tom Martinak wrote:
*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 5:23 pm)


As I posted at Jun 6, 2005, 12:47 pm, the minor correction is:

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, 2005, 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 (so
it might have reached an equivalent to 2300) just the rating of 1806
(equivalent to 2262) which appears in the 1984 annual top 50 listings,
when he was 45th in the nation.

- Tom Martinak




  #7   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 02:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston


"jr" wrote in message
oups.com...
*Mr. Parr cannot help but repeat his repertoire of stock
lies, such as the one about TK exaggerating his rating by
five hundred points!* (Help Bot)

*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+,


Elo! No less. Elo is only an OTB rating - and USCF equivalent = 2350ish

and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46


ah! but that #46 is a correspondance rank.

in the country, I was a
tad better than "weak."* (Taylor Kingston June 5, 2005 5:23 pm)


I am sure almost-helpful-bot will explain how these two statement can be
respectably mixed and matched together, to be specific, OTB 1800 and 2350 is
a differential of 550 points - GAWD 550! Even I don't lie that much! ).

Almost-IM Innes


  #8   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 03:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
ps.com...
*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 5:23 pm)


As I posted at Jun 6, 2005, 12:47 pm, the minor correction is:

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, 2005, 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.


ROFL! Not!

Not 2300 ELO --- did you overlook the 'Elo' Tom?

Phil

We don't know his peak rating (so
it might have reached an equivalent to 2300) just the rating of 1806
(equivalent to 2262) which appears in the 1984 annual top 50 listings,
when he was 45th in the nation.

- Tom Martinak



  #9   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 04:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2005
Posts: 173
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston

Chess One wrote:

So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.


ROFL! Not!

Not 2300 ELO --- did you overlook the 'Elo' Tom?


The USCF rating system for both OTB and correspondence chess are ELO
systems with roughly equivalent meanings to the ratings. He did not say
FIDE or USCF OTB ratings, he said ELO which is appropriate.

Try doing a google of "Elo rating"and you'll see that the term refers
to rating systems for chess, go and other two-player games.

Also, it does seem a bit much for you to complain about someone's
representation of their rating when you said:

"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450..."

That is much much farther from the truth than anything Kingston has
claimed. He was off by 38 rating points (worse than what he remembered)
and 1 place in the top rating list (actually better than what he had
remembered). And when presented with these corrections, he acknowledged
and accepted them.

- Tom Martinak

  #10   Report Post  
Old June 7th 06, 05:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 5,003
Default Open Letter to Taylor Kingston


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chess One wrote:

So 1806 is equivalent to about 2262.


ROFL! Not!

Not 2300 ELO --- did you overlook the 'Elo' Tom?


The USCF rating system for both OTB and correspondence chess are ELO
systems with roughly equivalent meanings to the ratings. He did not say
FIDE or USCF OTB ratings, he said ELO which is appropriate.


So you think no clear difference needs to be made from a correspondance
rating and an OTB rating - or do you think someone attained one, then
claimed the other.

Try doing a google of "Elo rating"and you'll see that the term refers
to rating systems for chess, go and other two-player games.

Also, it does seem a bit much for you to complain about someone's
representation of their rating when you said:

"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450..."


Why strange? In a humanities newsgroup the hapless Brennen was making a hash
of some chess exlanation, and to clarify something of the board position I
said I could, and why - I have otherwsie never mentioned my rating in a
chess newsgroup. Brennan continued to explain to Rob Mitchell why
Elizabethans were examining a C17th painting

That is much much farther from the truth than anything Kingston has
claimed.


Say who?

He was off by 38 rating points (worse than what he remembered)


No - he indicated an OTB rating. If he meant some other doo-dad rating
system maybe he should have mentioned it? Like on-line ratings where we are
all GMs no? Not even 'almost'.

Phil Innes

and 1 place in the top rating list (actually better than what he had
remembered). And when presented with these corrections, he acknowledged
and accepted them.

- 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
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM
Open letter by Bessel Kok regarding proposal for Chess Unity Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 May 18th 06 04:58 PM
MY OPEN LETTER ON FIDE ELECTION chessdon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 18th 06 04:03 PM
Open letter to new editor [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 243 April 9th 06 12:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 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