| klgore@mailinator.com 2005-08-30, 8:31 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 21:26:21 -0700, "politikalhack@gmail.com"
> <politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wait a second. Taylor Kingston has no such published rating. Taylor
> Kingston claimed to have had a 2300+ Elo rating. He never used the
> term "correspoindence master".
>
> Taylor Kingston has had no such rating and has never even been close.
> His current rating is 1811 and the highest his rating has ever been
> is about 1850.
Note that that rating (correspondence) is equivalent to 2300+.
Certainly you aren't going to begrudge him the conversion are you??
quote:
>
> Remember also the context in which Taylor Kingston made this
> statement. He claimed that he was strong enough at chess to dispute
> published analysis by Grandmaster Larry Evans.
>
That was not his claim. Regardless, since the discussion revolved
around _analysis_, not realtime, at-the-board play, certainly
a correspondence rating is a useful measure, possibly even a BETTER
one because care and exhaustive searches are exactly the skills needed
for both analysis and correspondence chess. When you're looking to
beat a dead horse, it's best not to pick an XXX. Time to move on.
K
quote:
> Sam Sloan
|