|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > August 2006 > Sam Sloan: "I used to be a rated chess master"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sam Sloan: "I used to be a rated chess master"
|
|
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-20, 11:37 pm |
| Note that on Google video, you can slide the cursor underneath the
video directly to the referenced time..no need to listen to the whole
speech.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...an+for+Governor
The self-proclaimed world champion of Chinese chess (at 1:01) says (at
4:38):
"I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
hold a master rating anymore [...]"
Thought experiment for Larry Parr: imagine the speaker is Taylor
Kingston.
Discuss.
| |
| Advanced 2006-08-21, 7:37 pm |
| I take it that Sloan was never a rated master? I see his rating
now is hardly above 1900 - not even an expert. As a matter
of fact, when he gave that speech at the convention, he was
rated 1921! Not even close to expert! Lies!
politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> Note that on Google video, you can slide the cursor underneath the
> video directly to the referenced time..no need to listen to the whole
> speech.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...an+for+Governor
>
> The self-proclaimed world champion of Chinese chess (at 1:01) says (at
> 4:38):
>
> "I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
> chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
> hold a master rating anymore [...]"
>
> Thought experiment for Larry Parr: imagine the speaker is Taylor
> Kingston.
>
> Discuss.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-08-21, 7:37 pm |
| politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> Note that on Google video, you can slide the cursor underneath the
> video directly to the referenced time..no need to listen to the whole
> speech.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...an+for+Governor
>
> The self-proclaimed world champion of Chinese chess (at 1:01) says (at
> 4:38):
>
> "I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
> chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
> hold a master rating anymore [...]"
>
> Thought experiment for Larry Parr: imagine the speaker is Taylor
> Kingston.
>
> Discuss.
In my experience, Parr's attitude toward factual truth in such
matters bears a strong resemblance to that of Stalin and his
prosecutors in the purge trials of the 1930s. Discussing the Pyatakov
trial of 1937, British historian Ronald Hingley wrote:
"So far as domestic consumption was concerned, the very
implausibility of the proceedings had an important part to play in
disciplining the Soviet population. Had the despot presented his
subjects with pageants less outrageously bizarre, there would always
have been a danger of the people swallowing his assertions on the
grounds of their apparent credibility: not -- as was essential for
purposes of control -- because the dictator himself had propounded them
....
"Against this lurid background even the most patent fabrications of
the trials had a part to play. When one defendant ... testified that he
had met Trotsky's son at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen in 1932, it
was felt by some observers that the trial-riggers had made a grave
error: the hotel in question turned out to have been pulled down
fifteen years before the alleged rendezvous. This was duly pointed out
in the foreign press, and there was even some attempt on the Soviet
side to cover up ...There was no need, however, for such
self-exculpation by the riggers of a trial expressly designed to
ensure, not only that injustice should be done ... but also that it
should manifestly be seen to be done. Nor, at the Trial of the
Seventeen, could Stalin's position be seriously shaken when it was
similarly proved ... that Pyatakov could not in fact have met Trotsky
in Oslo on 12 December 1935, as he had confessed in court. From such
apparent blunders the dictator could only gain, since one function of
the trials was to mount an assault, almost metaphysical in character,
on truth itself." -- "Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend," Smithmark
Publishers, New York, 1974, page 252.
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-21, 7:37 pm |
| To be fair, Sloan was a strong expert for virtually all of his playing
career, is still rated 2000 in quick chess, and is capable of playing
at the expert level today, as I know from experience :-) . So a
current claim of "rated expert" is more than tenable.
But I know of no basis for his claim to have been a "rated chess
master."
| |
| Mike Murray 2006-08-21, 11:36 pm |
| On 21 Aug 2006 15:42:33 -0700, "politikalhack@gmail.com"
<politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>To be fair, Sloan was a strong expert for virtually all of his playing
>career, is still rated 2000 in quick chess, and is capable of playing
>at the expert level today, as I know from experience :-) . So a
>current claim of "rated expert" is more than tenable.
quote:
>But I know of no basis for his claim to have been a "rated chess
>master."
It's not unlikely that a strong expert could spike into a Master's
rating for a month or two. A bigger stretch would be to argue that an
*unpublished* spike went over 2200. Maybe he's claiming he made
Master in some club or regional environment (it better not be a postal
rating or he'll catch no end of flak). If Sam wants to defend his
claim with something like this, he should be able to cite the year,
the event, and the approximate month.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-21, 11:36 pm |
| FACTUAL TRUTH
<In my experience, Parr's attitude toward factual
truth in such matters bears a strong resemblance
to that of Stalin and his prosecutors in the purge
trials of the 1930s.> -- Taylor Kingston
On June 5, 2005, at 5:23 p.m., the 1800-rated
NMnot Taylor Kingston wrote as follows: "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."
Straightforward enough.
And how NMnot Kingston must hate Sam for being
among those who outed his baldfaced lie!
Now, then, Sam Sloan was a rated expert for many
years with a peak published rating of about 2160-2180,
if memory serves. (Sam will correct me, if I am far
wrong.) My understanding is that he spiked over 2200.
His claim to be an expert is evidently well-founded;
his claim to be a "rated" master may possibly have
been true for a short period. It is not self-evidently a lie.
Is what NMnot Taylor Kingston wrote self-evidently a lie?
First, does one sense any irony in NMnot's
phraseology? One sees none. He tells us that
although he "never claimed to be any great player," he
nonetheless did have "a peak Elo of 2300+." We have
here a claimed modesty of endeavour based on an arrant lie.
Secondly, does one notice any jocose
phraseology, attempts at humor? NMnot Kingston's
statement speaks for itself. He begins by discussing
the "subject of playing strength." He tells us that
he is not "any great player"; he says that he had "a
peak Elo of 2300+"; he says that he was ranked, oh,
roughly "#46 in the country"; and he peevishly
concludes, after several attacks from Sam Sloan, that
he "was a tad better than weak." One gets a brief
glimpse of cold anger and defensiveness. There is not
one whit of jocosity.
Thirdly, what would any group of chess players
conclude from our NMnot's statement? What does it
mean among chessplayers to speak blandly about having
"a peak Elo of 2300+"? What conclusion would they
naturally draw from the statement? Would they
conclude that the person was claiming to be an OTB
master? I believe that 99 percent of any
undifferentiated chess audience would so conclude. It
surpasses credulity to think otherwise. When someone
says, "I am a 2300 Elo player," we figure that he is
calling himself a strong master, and we figure that
the man making the claim knows what he is saying.
Now NMnot is apparently reading some Soviet
history, trying to play intellectual catchup. He quotes
from a volume by Ronald Hingley and compares this
writer's attitude toward truth with that of Joe Stalin.
Let's consider the attitude toward truth for a moment.
Did our NMnot claim to be 2300+ Elo? Was
there a scintilla of irony or jocosity in the claim?
Can our NMnot answer whether he posted messages
on rgcp in praise of his positions under the screen names
of Paulie Graf and Xylothist? Was the invention of false
names to praise oneself (for Pete's sake!) an honest act?
There is a recorded game that exists between
Stalin and his police chief Yezhov. It is an invention
-- a bogus game that is used by way of praising
Stalin's intellectual prowess.
One sees similarities between our NMnot's regard
for fact and truth and that of Stalin. That much is certain.
So, then, how do we weigh the claims of Sam
Sloan to be an expert, though he has currently dropped
to 1900 and a "rated" master? How do we evaluate the
claim by 1800-rated NMnot Kingston to possess "a peak
Elo of 2300+"?
First, who is trying to mislead?
Sam was a strong expert for many years with
victories over numerous masters in tournaments. One
victim was GM Walter Browne. Does Sam have the
leeway to categorize himself as an expert given the fact
that he carried such a rating for decades? When asked
to label himself as a player, must he call himself "a
former expert" and then explain his career? Or is he
permitted to say, "Oh, I'm an expert"?
I don't believe that Sam was trying to mislead
when calling himself an expert. It was shorthand for
his playing career, and most players will accept such
a self-description if someone was thus rated for many years.
Now, we come to Sam's claim to be a "rated"
master. Here, I think, Sam should have written that
he likely peaked over 2200 and was a "rated" master
for a period, during the days before rating inflation.
He did not. He has to take his lumps.
Yet I see no icy lie in what Sam wrote about
being a "rated" master. I see carelessness, and I see
a statement that is borderline accurate.
Now, then, what do we make of 1800-rated NMnot
Kingston claiming to have "a peak Elo of 2300+"?
How did our NMnot word his statement? We have
already noted that one looks in vain for either irony
or humor. There is none. We have discussed how any
undifferentiated group of chessplayers would
automatically leap to the conclusion that our NMnot
was calling himself a strong OTB master.
But I am now talking about something else in
NMnot Kingston's lie. Notice the cadences of the faux
Winterian language. "Still," he tells us as if
retailing an afterthought, he has something to say
about "the subject of playing strength." This
introductory sentence to the paragraph tells us that
he is carefully, if unwisely, retailing a cold lie.
Then comes the next sentence with the smarmy
modesty about not being much of a player, though
having that non-existent "peak Elo of 2300+." NMnot
tells us ("as I recall," as he puts it) that he was
"#46 in the country." Then he concludes, in response
to Sam Sloan's attacks, that such a claimed strength
and eminence is "a tad better than weak."
NMnot Kingston's lie was stately, considered,
peevish -- and above all else, cold.
It was an error in judgment derived from a flaw
in character.
On balance, in spite of Sam's many faults, give
me a warmblooded man like Mr. Sloan any day to a cold
fish such as our NMnot.
Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
>
> In my experience, Parr's attitude toward factual truth in such
> matters bears a strong resemblance to that of Stalin and his
> prosecutors in the purge trials of the 1930s. Discussing the Pyatakov
> trial of 1937, British historian Ronald Hingley wrote:
>
> "So far as domestic consumption was concerned, the very
> implausibility of the proceedings had an important part to play in
> disciplining the Soviet population. Had the despot presented his
> subjects with pageants less outrageously bizarre, there would always
> have been a danger of the people swallowing his assertions on the
> grounds of their apparent credibility: not -- as was essential for
> purposes of control -- because the dictator himself had propounded them
> ...
> "Against this lurid background even the most patent fabrications of
> the trials had a part to play. When one defendant ... testified that he
> had met Trotsky's son at the Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen in 1932, it
> was felt by some observers that the trial-riggers had made a grave
> error: the hotel in question turned out to have been pulled down
> fifteen years before the alleged rendezvous. This was duly pointed out
> in the foreign press, and there was even some attempt on the Soviet
> side to cover up ...There was no need, however, for such
> self-exculpation by the riggers of a trial expressly designed to
> ensure, not only that injustice should be done ... but also that it
> should manifestly be seen to be done. Nor, at the Trial of the
> Seventeen, could Stalin's position be seriously shaken when it was
> similarly proved ... that Pyatakov could not in fact have met Trotsky
> in Oslo on 12 December 1935, as he had confessed in court. From such
> apparent blunders the dictator could only gain, since one function of
> the trials was to mount an assault, almost metaphysical in character,
> on truth itself." -- "Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend," Smithmark
> Publishers, New York, 1974, page 252.
| |
| help bot 2006-08-22, 2:36 am |
|
DUMBER AND DUMBERER
Mr. Parr demonstrates an amazing lack of comprehension
here. The truth of any claim to be, oh say, an "Expert", lies
in the tense being used (past or present), along with a simple
check at www.uscf.com (or whatever) of the number on file.
(For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore both FIDE and
the lag time between when a game is played, and when it
is officially rated/published.)
If, for example, a player named "Ima Bragger" writes that she
is a Class C player, but the current number on file at the USCF is
less than 1400, she has retailed a lie (unless she herself is
confused/stupid).
If Ima Bragger writes that she *was* a Class C player, then
the current number on file becomes irrelevant, because of her
use of the past tense.
Now if someone named "Ura Hogg" were to claim that she
*is* a master, we simply go to the USCF Web site, looking
for the magic number, 2200, or higher. Because Ura used
the present tense, we need to look only at the current number,
not her rating history, in order to determine whether or not
Ms. Hogg lied. Simple.
-----------------
Some people just can't understand simple concepts, on
account of their ever-present need to slant things their own
peculiar way, for whatever reason. Larry Parr is obviously
one of these people.
----------------
Here's my interpretation of Mr. Parr's very slanted story:
1. Sam Sloan used to be an Expert, possibly a Master.
2. Sam is now a strong Class A player.
3. Taylor Kingston used to be very strong at correspondence chess.
4. But he *is* (present tense) not quite so good OTB.
5. Larry Parr desperately needs to pretend that correspondence
chess doesn't count as real chess, because of his ongoing "war"
with Taylor Kingston.
6. Edward Winter was thrown in from out of the blue, because
of Larry Parr's ongoing "war" in that sector (He has a pact with
Evans of mutual defense during wartime -- i.e. all the time).
7. According to all the experts, it is unwise to conduct warfare
on multiple fronts; thus, Mr. Parr must pretend all his "enemies"
belong to a single unit, regardless of the facts. This explains
why names like Winter keep popping up from out of the blue.
(Winter does not post here.)
8. The subject of Taylor Kingston's playing strength came up
originally during an ad hominem attack by Keene -- another of
Larry Parr's evil-Axis allies. As far as I can see, Ray Keene
showed up here to "retaliate" by returning fire on some of his
critics. It goes without saying that most chess book reviewers
are not GM strength, yet those who are seem too lazy or
stuck up to fairly critique other authors. An example would
be Miles, who instantly shot down one of Keene's books
intended for much weaker players. Miles' ego couldn't handle
the egotistical bragging of Keene (the world's foremost expert
on chess, mindsports, wine-tasting, women, backgammon,
cooking, shooting, ping-pong, horseback riding, and the
world's greatest liar!).
-- Pecos Bill
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-22, 2:36 am |
| << I never said that I was a master. >> -- Sam Sloan, Sept. 20, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/lmosk
<< I do not recollect Sam Sloan stating he was a rated master, though
his strength back in the 1960s was probably near the master level. >>
-- Larry Parr, Sept. 21, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/rwlcn
Parr has yet to comment on Sloan's claim to have "won the World
Championship of Chinese Chess in Beijing, China, in 1988."
| |
| Advanced 2006-08-22, 7:40 pm |
| I don't understand parrthenon's point. What does Taylor's
rating have to do with the time of day? I don't recall Taylor
going on TV whilst running for a political office and claiming
to be something he wasn't.
The point is, Sloan lied when he said "I am a rated chess
expert". At the time, he was a low-rated class A (1921).
How anyone can support Sam Sloan is beyond me, and
anyone else at the local chess scene.
politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
quote:
> << I never said that I was a master. >> -- Sam Sloan, Sept. 20, 2005
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lmosk
>
> << I do not recollect Sam Sloan stating he was a rated master, though
> his strength back in the 1960s was probably near the master level. >>
> -- Larry Parr, Sept. 21, 2005
>
> http://tinyurl.com/rwlcn
>
>
> Parr has yet to comment on Sloan's claim to have "won the World
> Championship of Chinese Chess in Beijing, China, in 1988."
| |
| Larry Tapper 2006-08-22, 7:40 pm |
|
help bot summarizes l'affaire Kingston as follows:
quote:
> Here's my interpretation of Mr. Parr's very slanted story:
>
> 1. Sam Sloan used to be an Expert, possibly a Master.
>
> 2. Sam is now a strong Class A player.
>
> 3. Taylor Kingston used to be very strong at correspondence chess.
>
> 4. But he *is* (present tense) not quite so good OTB.
>
> 5. Larry Parr desperately needs to pretend that correspondence
> chess doesn't count as real chess, because of his ongoing "war"
> with Taylor Kingston.
>
> 6. Edward Winter was thrown in from out of the blue, because
> of Larry Parr's ongoing "war" in that sector (He has a pact with
> Evans of mutual defense during wartime -- i.e. all the time).
>
> 7. According to all the experts, it is unwise to conduct warfare
> on multiple fronts; thus, Mr. Parr must pretend all his "enemies"
> belong to a single unit, regardless of the facts. This explains
> why names like Winter keep popping up from out of the blue.
> (Winter does not post here.)
>
> 8. The subject of Taylor Kingston's playing strength came up
> originally during an ad hominem attack by Keene -- another of
> Larry Parr's evil-Axis allies.
Mr. Bot,
I concur with your take on the matter except for this detail. It is
actually worse than that --- the subject of TK's playing strength came
up originally during an ad hominem attack by Parr himself:
quote:
> "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this kind
> of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
The context was Kingston's ability to evaluate Keres-Botvinnik
analysis. Keene's rgcp attack on Kingston came much later.
So Parr has been harping on a statement he provoked himself. And boy,
has he been harping. According to Google, there are at least 78
messages in rgcp authored by parrthenon which include the words
"Kingston" and "2300". This tally does not include numerous scornful
variations on the theme such as "chessplaying juggernaut Taylor
Kingston" and "NotNM Taylor Kingston".
The question arises whether Parr sincerely believes that he has exposed
some sort of moral turpitude on Kingston's part, so heinous that it is
worth repeating a hundred times. I used to think that this endless
repetition of a dubious charge was just a Rovian tactic designed to
keep Kingston on the defensive, but lately I'm not so sure.
Larry T.
quote:
> As far as I can see, Ray Keene
> showed up here to "retaliate" by returning fire on some of his
> critics. It goes without saying that most chess book reviewers
> are not GM strength, yet those who are seem too lazy or
> stuck up to fairly critique other authors. An example would
> be Miles, who instantly shot down one of Keene's books
> intended for much weaker players. Miles' ego couldn't handle
> the egotistical bragging of Keene (the world's foremost expert
> on chess, mindsports, wine-tasting, women, backgammon,
> cooking, shooting, ping-pong, horseback riding, and the
> world's greatest liar!).
>
>
> -- Pecos Bill
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-22, 7:40 pm |
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156221809.392806.293760@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> DUMBER AND DUMBERER
<long prologia snipped>
quote:
> Some people just can't understand simple concepts,
Our Greg hasn't been able to understand single ideas, nevermind concepts,
for the past week. Somehow they always wind up becoming very complicated,
turn into their opposites, and then these dissapointments over his practice
of thinking turn into someone's fault!
-- and isn't it DUMER and DUMSTERER week? {i did like Greg's title)
quote:
> on
> account of their ever-present need to slant things their own
> peculiar way, for whatever reason. Larry Parr is obviously
> one of these people.
>
> ----------------
>
> Here's my interpretation of Mr. Parr's very slanted story:
>
> 1. Sam Sloan used to be an Expert, possibly a Master.
LP just wrote that he never seemed to rise over 21xx
quote:
> 2. Sam is now a strong Class A player.
Last thing I saw Sam write was that he was 1900
quote:
> 3. Taylor Kingston used to be very strong at correspondence chess.
>
> 4. But he *is* (present tense) not quite so good OTB.
If only taylor Kingston could write so clearly as Greg Kennebot! BUT - even
here Greg messed his copy book, since the difference between 2300 and 1800
is 500 rating points. Isn't that a bit more of a difference than 'not quite
so good'?
quote:
> 5. Larry Parr desperately needs to pretend that correspondence
> chess doesn't count as real chess, because of his ongoing "war"
> with Taylor Kingston.
Other people think that spending hours with your database or computer
software before each move is also a bit different to playing 'real chess'.
In fact, doesn't everyone think so?
quote:
> 6. Edward Winter was thrown in from out of the blue, because
> of Larry Parr's ongoing "war" in that sector (He has a pact with
> Evans of mutual defense during wartime -- i.e. all the time).
O! I think Edward Winter inserted himself - or did Taylor Invite him, we'll
have to wait for the Kingston Files, since there is one letter in particular
with a plaint in it, copied Winter, on the very subject!
The dread subject of Evans and Laurie, why they suck, and why Kingston
couldn't get yet another letter printed about it in Chess Life, even though
it was ever so boring. [whoops! I ranted]
quote:
> 7. According to all the experts, it is unwise to conduct warfare
> on multiple fronts; thus, Mr. Parr must pretend all his "enemies"
> belong to a single unit, regardless of the facts. This explains
> why names like Winter keep popping up from out of the blue.
> (Winter does not post here.)
As I remember it, Botvinnik never actually played Winter, he played Keres.
At least that's what Larry Evans wrote about.
Greg Kennedy doesn't like the idea of the commentators on Botvinnik and
Keres being mentioned, except of course, that that is how we learn anything
about the original subject.
In case I didn't mention it enough already [nobody has for 3 years] the
subject was Botvinnik and Keres.
quote:
> 8. The subject of Taylor Kingston's playing strength came up
> originally during an ad hominem attack by Keene -- another of
> Larry Parr's evil-Axis allies.
Keene? I know that name, possibly Rudolphus Keene or Panzer Keene?
quote:
> As far as I can see, Ray Keene
> showed up here to "retaliate" by returning fire on some of his
> critics.
Did we forget the nominal subject already? You see, Keene spent quite a bit
of time in Moscow and might be thought to know a thing or two, whereas
Karenina Kingston dislikes Tolstoi on the Russian Character and prefers
something far less specific. Perhaps this is too subtle a difference for
Pecos Bill? Am I being obscure?
quote:
> It goes without saying that most chess book reviewers
> are not GM strength, yet those who are seem too lazy or
> stuck up to fairly critique other authors. An example would
> be Miles, who instantly shot down one of Keene's books
> intended for much weaker players. Miles' ego couldn't handle
> the egotistical bragging of Keene (the world's foremost expert
> on chess, mindsports, wine-tasting, women, backgammon,
> cooking, shooting, ping-pong, horseback riding, and the
> world's greatest liar!).
It is odd to understand why such a resentful fella as either Panzer or
Rudolphus, whatever his name is, would then write a very good biography of
Miles - Tony had the emotions of a wanton teenager.
Cordially, evil Phil
quote:
> -- Pecos Bill
>
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2006-08-22, 7:40 pm |
| parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> FACTUAL TRUTH
>
> Yet I see no icy lie in what Sam wrote about
> being a "rated" master. I see carelessness, and I see
> a statement that is borderline accurate.
BORDERLINE ACCURATE
Here Liarry gives leeway to those in his favor -- writing off Sloan's
bald-faced lie to people who know no better that he was a "rated chess
master" -- and in the same breath chastises TK for not elaborating that
it was his *correspondence* chess rating that was over 2300. He gives
Sloan a pass and labels this misleading information as merely
"careless."
So let's take a look at this logically, shall we? (Liarry, try to keep
up. I know logic isn't your strong suit.)
Taylor Kingston:
- claimed that he was rated #46 in the country at one time and his
rating peaked at +2300.
- Made this claim on this forum, knowing full well that those he made
the claim to had the knowledge and know-how to check the accuracy of
this claim.
- Later went on to explain *his* "carelessness" to those who pointed
out the ambiguity of his statement that he was speaking of his
correspondence rating rather than his OTB.
- Was later vindicated as being right.
Sam Sloan:
- claimed that he was a "rated chess master."
- Made this claim at a Libertarian Party rally in NYC in the hopes of
impressing potential voters with his supposed intelligence, knowing
full well that few (if any) of these potential voters had any reason to
question the validity of his statement and even if they did, may not
know where or how to check its accuracy.
- Has never explained this misinformation, never offered an proof to
those in the know, and has yet to even offer a feeble excuse for his
out-and-out lie.
- Will never be proven right in this case because it simply isn't true.
Them's the FACTS, Liarry.
Your brain can try and process that any way you want, but no matter how
you spin it, no matter how much you try and chalk up Sloan's lie as
merely "carelessness," you and everyone who reads this forum knows that
if anyone in this case was "borderline accurate" in their statements in
question, it was Taylor Kingston -- NOT your beloved Sam Sloan.
See what happens when you try and explain and excuse Sloan's many
moronic mishaps? You end up sharing the egg that's all over Sloan's
face.
And that's the way the mop flops.
| |
| Ange1o DePa1ma 2006-08-23, 2:35 am |
| "Advanced" <vray@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:1156174757.187547.120790@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I take it that Sloan was never a rated master? I see his rating
> now is hardly above 1900 - not even an expert. As a matter
> of fact, when he gave that speech at the convention, he was
> rated 1921! Not even close to expert! Lies!
>
>
> politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
Sam will obviously have to qualify this. He did have a rating floor of 2000
back in the early-mid-1990s. Does that mean he peaked above 2100, or 2200?
Before the current MSA and rating systems were set up I believe I had a peak
rating that was somewhat higher than any of my published ratings. Is it
possible he earned a master's rating at one point, then lost it the very
next weekend before the rating could be published?
Lying about one's rating is one thing that's very hard to get away with,
unless you're talking pre-1991 
| |
| politikalhack@gmail.com 2006-08-23, 2:35 am |
| << Sam will obviously have to qualify this >>
In order to specify the relationship between his various statements and
reality?
Are we talking about the same person?
| |
| help bot 2006-08-23, 2:35 am |
|
Larry Tapper wrote:
quote:
> Mr. Bot,
>
> I concur with your take on the matter except for this detail. It is
> actually worse than that --- the subject of TK's playing strength came
> up originally during an ad hominem attack by Parr himself:
>
>
> The context was Kingston's ability to evaluate Keres-Botvinnik
> analysis. Keene's rgcp attack on Kingston came much later.
Interesting. So Larry Parr, perhaps a Class A/B player, flatly
lied when he described Taylor Kingston as "a weak player".
quote:
> So Parr has been harping on a statement he provoked himself. And boy,
> has he been harping. According to Google, there are at least 78
> messages in rgcp authored by parrthenon which include the words
> "Kingston" and "2300". This tally does not include numerous scornful
> variations on the theme such as "chessplaying juggernaut Taylor
> Kingston" and "NotNM Taylor Kingston".
>
> The question arises whether Parr sincerely believes that he has exposed
> some sort of moral turpitude on Kingston's part, so heinous that it is
> worth repeating a hundred times.
Personally, I believe that Mr. Parr is just spewing more of
his usual rhetoric. The very idea that Larry Parr cares about
anything relating to morals is silly.
quote:
> I used to think that this endless repetition of a dubious charge was
> just a Rovian tactic designed to keep Kingston on the defensive,
> but lately I'm not so sure.
Mr. Parr's persistence is the direct result of Taylor Kingston's
refusal to withdraw from the field of battle. Here's the problem:
each side knows full well that the challenger is not the one who
gets choice of weapons, so neither man can force a duel w/o
effectively committing suicide. If TK were to challenge LP, the
latter would choose mud as the weapon of choice, and win
easily. Yet if LP were to issue the challenge, TK could simply
choose chess, with the loser having to fall upon his own sword.
It looks like a stalemate to me.
-- help bot
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-08-23, 2:35 am |
| WHAT NM-not WROTE
By Larry Parr
"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 (rgcp, June 5, 2005; 5:23 p.m.)
Matt Nemmers tries to defend a lie retailed
here by NMnot Taylor Kingston.
The defense amounts to this: NMnot Kingston was
speaking about correspondence chess rather than
over-the-board chess, thereby creating an ambiguity in
his meaning. Further, our NMnot told the lie on a
forum that had members whom he knew would check his
OTB rating.
The initial defense of the ratpackers was rather
different. NMnot Kingston, being a correspondence
player, figured that his audience would know he was
talking about postal ratings, not realizing that his
listeners would assume that he was speaking about OTB
performance.
That first line of defense was breached by NMnot
himself, who rightly reckoned that no one would buy
such a tortured attempt at exculpation. For we all
know that when someone talks about his rating in
unadorned terms, any group of players will assume that
the person is gauging his OTB play.
NMnot Kingston, therefore, told us that he was
really talking about his postal rating. Whereupon,
the ratpackers adopted his explanation as theirs,
though they had proffered another explanation only a
few hours earlier.
WHERE DO WE STAND?
NMnot Taylor Kingston is rated about 1800, and he
wrote in unadorned, straightforward fashion -- without
a scintilla of irony or humor -- that although he
"never claimed to be any great player," he did have "a
peak Elo of 2300+." Rather peevishly, he added that
such strength "was a tad better than 'weak.'"
Let's compare the above piebald lie with what
Sam Sloan claimed.
Sam was a rated expert for decades (not, say, a
1500-rated player claiming to be 2000), and he scored
numerous wins over top masters, including a victory
over GM Walter Browne. He called himself an expert
after his rating slipped during the past few years.
The issue here is whether someone who was an
expert for decades is a bloody liar when calling
himself an expert. Or is the bloody liar the
1800-rated player who blandly, without a hint of
irony, calls himself a strong Elo 2300-plus master?
Sam was the man who was an expert for decades,
and who called himself an expert-level player. NMnot
Kingston was the class A player for, perhaps, decades
who called himself a 2300-plus Elo master.
For a Matt Nemmers, Mr. Sloan is the liar,
whereas NM Kingston is, well, possibly the
truth-teller. I hereby reverse that answer.
Next, we come to Mr. Sloan's claim to be a
"rated" master. We know that Mr. Sloan was a strong
expert for many years, and the issue becomes whether
his rating ever spiked to 2200. It may have. But
even were such the case, Sam ought to have explained
himself further, as I wrote earlier.
My view is that Sam's claim to be a "rated"
master is not an evident lie because such is within
the realm of possibility for a 2160- or 2180-rated
expert. My further view is that NMnot Kingston, an
1800-rated player, told an evidently lie when claiming
to be "2300+" on the Elo scale.
Finally, we come to the postal defense. The
idea here is that whatever one may think about NMnot
Kingston's personal character, he is not a clunkhead.
He would not have written such a lie about his rating,
knowing that his claim would be checked. The response
is that he wrote a stately, studied locution of a lie,
exercising very poor judgment in the process. Yes, he
hoped that the reference to "#46" would be a fallback
position if his lie were caught, but the peevish claim
to be "a tad better than 'weak,'" when the subject was
OTB strength, underscores his intent to deceive. He
was angry and hurt, and he lashed out before giving
the matter enough thought.
Well, thanks to Sam Sloan and others, NMnot did
not get away with the ploy.
There was nothing ambiguous at all in NMnot's
claim to be 2300+ Elo. Any group of players, as NMnot
surely understood, would assume that he was talking
about OTB play. His purpose was to mislead a group of
players about his strength as a player.
Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
> BORDERLINE ACCURATE
>
> Here Liarry gives leeway to those in his favor -- writing off Sloan's
> bald-faced lie to people who know no better that he was a "rated chess
> master" -- and in the same breath chastises TK for not elaborating that
> it was his *correspondence* chess rating that was over 2300. He gives
> Sloan a pass and labels this misleading information as merely
> "careless."
>
> So let's take a look at this logically, shall we? (Liarry, try to keep
> up. I know logic isn't your strong suit.)
>
> Taylor Kingston:
> - claimed that he was rated #46 in the country at one time and his
> rating peaked at +2300.
> - Made this claim on this forum, knowing full well that those he made
> the claim to had the knowledge and know-how to check the accuracy of
> this claim.
> - Later went on to explain *his* "carelessness" to those who pointed
> out the ambiguity of his statement that he was speaking of his
> correspondence rating rather than his OTB.
> - Was later vindicated as being right.
>
> Sam Sloan:
> - claimed that he was a "rated chess master."
> - Made this claim at a Libertarian Party rally in NYC in the hopes of
> impressing potential voters with his supposed intelligence, knowing
> full well that few (if any) of these potential voters had any reason to
> question the validity of his statement and even if they did, may not
> know where or how to check its accuracy.
> - Has never explained this misinformation, never offered an proof to
> those in the know, and has yet to even offer a feeble excuse for his
> out-and-out lie.
> - Will never be proven right in this case because it simply isn't true.
>
> Them's the FACTS, Liarry.
>
> Your brain can try and process that any way you want, but no matter how
> you spin it, no matter how much you try and chalk up Sloan's lie as
> merely "carelessness," you and everyone who reads this forum knows that
> if anyone in this case was "borderline accurate" in their statements in
> question, it was Taylor Kingston -- NOT your beloved Sam Sloan.
>
> See what happens when you try and explain and excuse Sloan's many
> moronic mishaps? You end up sharing the egg that's all over Sloan's face.
>
> And that's the way the mop flops.
| |
| Vince Hart 2006-08-23, 5:36 am |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> WHAT NM-not WROTE
quote:
>
> There was nothing ambiguous at all in NMnot's
> claim to be 2300+ Elo. Any group of players, as NMnot
> surely understood, would assume that he was talking
> about OTB play. His purpose was to mislead a group of
> players about his strength as a player.
>
>
>
>
>
This just goes to prove how little Parr knows about chess players.
Any player knows that when someone tells you how good he is in a casual
conversation, he is likely to give you the maximum rating he ever
achieved anywhere whether it is OTB, correspondence or on-line. The
more delusional ones will give you their own estimation based on their
best tournament performance. The most delusional ones will give you
their estimation of their strength based on those games they should
have won if only they had not overlooked the obvious knight-fork.
No chess player would be surprised to learn that Kingston was talking
about his correspondence rating.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-08-23, 5:36 am |
| Larry Parr wrote (22 Aug 2006 23:26:38 -0700):
7 ... the subject was OTB strength, ...
_
"... I seem to recall that Larry Evans didn't interview
anyone for THE TRAGEDY OF PAUL KERES in
Chess Life, October 1996.
_
He wasn't interested in anyone's opinion. His
contention, I seem to recall, is that the best evidence
of a fix was contained in the games themselves. Mr.
Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of
doing this kind of analysis." - Larry Parr (5 Jun 2005
09:14:09 -0700)
_
_
"As everyone who has played over my chess lesson
video will know, I analyzed just one move in one
position in one of the five games between Keres and
Botvinnik and proved conclusively that Keres had an
easy forced draw and no strong player would ever have
played such a weak move.
_
Grandmaster William Lombardy has since told me
that that he knew that the games were fixed ever
since he became a strong player in the early 1950s
because of the numerous suspicious moves in these
games.
_
Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player
that he cannot understand these simple and obvious
points." - Sam Sloan (Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:31:36 GMT)
_
_
"...Hmm. Looking at the article, in front of me right
now, I see the opinions of Fedor Bohatirchuk, James
Schroeder, Bobby Fischer, and an unidentified BCM
writer. So let me also get this straight -- Evans
included these opinions because he was NOT
interested in them?
_
For this kind of issue, game analysis can be at best
only a supporting adjunct. Analysis alone is
completely insufficient.
_
[The Larry Parr and Sam Sloan comments about me
are] Interesting, if not really relevant to historical
issues. 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 (5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700)
| |
| pete johnson 2006-08-23, 7:37 pm |
| Did Sam use the word "Expert" or did he use the word "expert"? to a member
of the general public, a 1900+ player is an "expert".
pete
"Advanced" <vray@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:1156259016.648035.298250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I don't understand parrthenon's point. What does Taylor's
> rating have to do with the time of day? I don't recall Taylor
> going on TV whilst running for a political office and claiming
> to be something he wasn't.
>
> The point is, Sloan lied when he said "I am a rated chess
> expert". At the time, he was a low-rated class A (1921).
>
> How anyone can support Sam Sloan is beyond me, and
> anyone else at the local chess scene.
>
>
> politikalhack@gmail.com wrote:
>
| |
| David Kane 2006-08-23, 7:37 pm |
|
"Vince Hart" <VinnyJH@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156315722.141386.62300@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
>
>
> This just goes to prove how little Parr knows about chess players.
>
> Any player knows that when someone tells you how good he is in a casual
> conversation, he is likely to give you the maximum rating he ever
> achieved anywhere whether it is OTB, correspondence or on-line. The
> more delusional ones will give you their own estimation based on their
> best tournament performance. The most delusional ones will give you
> their estimation of their strength based on those games they should
> have won if only they had not overlooked the obvious knight-fork.
>
> No chess player would be surprised to learn that Kingston was talking
> about his correspondence rating.
>
Indeed. And Kingston gave his ranking in the initial post, which
*told* anyone with a brain that he was not talking about his
OTB rating.
| |
| Chess One 2006-08-23, 7:38 pm |
|
"David Kane" <davidekane@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EtadnfemVJwoEXHZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> Indeed. And Kingston gave his ranking in the initial post, which
> *told* anyone with a brain that he was not talking about his
> OTB rating.
That's right - especially the 2300 /ELO/ which as ani ful no, is a
correspondence rating. Mig also had an 1800 rating, then flew up to 2300
size, since like me, he played with greats and thought he could get away
with it = he used to post here pre-Gary, now writes a dirt column on chess.
There used to be genuinely strong players in chess misc all the time, and
maybe they got bored with so little chess to comment on, or decent
conversations about chess itself? I couldn't get anyone to go even 4 moves
with me on Adorjan's opening.
-------------
To return on topic, Sam used to be a better expert - not quite a master, but
he seems to have clipped some high ranking players in his time. Tough to
improve when you are 60 years of age. He plays ridiculous openings as I used
to do, which are 'bad' but actually difficult to refute OTB - that is in
real time - and so he is a brawler.
Staying on topic, I would have liked to have interviewed him and Mr. Hough
with the same question set - to assess their orientations, and also to be
able to measure something at the end of the year. Perhaps for poor reasons,
without Sam Sloan the interview would be dead on arrival, [having one
interviewed Baeatriz, and recieved so many null responses, and hedges to
questions, if it was my original idea to interview her, I would have trashed
it] but with both Sloan and Hough the contrast might be interesting.
Sam Sloan declined [by neglect] to be interviewed in written format, and I
have no intention of wrangling with anyone over communications by
telephone - even e-mail has proved a problem. <g>
What I think happens when people become elected to levels of responsibility
beyond any normal ones they previously encountered is that they either grow
up and assume a new mantle of consideration and responsibility, or they
completely indulge themselves and become the same indolent fat politicians
they previously railed about.
I think I just offered a challenge - since Sloan's current work is tending
toward the second possiblity I mention above, and of course, we will not
voluntarily hear anything from other board members.
It occurred to me to add 2 incumbents to the list, making 4 in all, asking
them all the same stuff, and I thought of Bill Goichberg plus that old
villain who hums and hahs and dances around all these topics, - in short the
sort of politico I really quite like, Mr. Schultz - who frequently misspells
my name.
Phil Innes
| |
| help bot 2006-08-24, 2:35 am |
|
Vince Hart wrote:
quote:
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
--------------
[vbcol=seagreen]
> This just goes to prove how little Parr knows about chess players.
>
> Any player knows that when someone tells you how good he is in a casual
> conversation, he is likely to give you the maximum rating he ever
> achieved anywhere whether it is OTB, correspondence or on-line. The
> more delusional ones will give you their own estimation based on their
> best tournament performance. The most delusional ones will give you
> their estimation of their strength based on those games they should
> have won if only they had not overlooked the obvious knight-fork.
>
> No chess player would be surprised to learn that Kingston was talking
> about his correspondence rating.
You are absolutely correct.
In fact, not only do many chess players adorn their
ratings with exagerations and lies, but any random
group of such people, upon being told such a "story",
would result in each individual making his own
assumptions, his own conclusions -- just the opposite
of what Larry Parr tries to peddle above.
Personally, I was a bit surprised to learn that Taylor
Kingston was so good at correspondence chess, all
the more so when it was revealed that his rating was
earned at a time when computers could not have been
a significant factor, as they obviously are now.
The more I learn about this particular dispute, the more
obvious it becomes that Mr. Parr is desperate to "ad
hominize" Mr. Kingston in any way possible, presumably
because he has no viable alternative defense for what
Evans wrote. Sad. Either GM Evans is writing complete
balderdash, or else he, IMO, deserves a far more
intelligent apologist than Larry Parr. If Evans is writing
total swill, then Mr. Parr must be pitied, for he has been
placed in zugzwang; as Evans' appointed apologist, Mr.
Parr is forced to try and defend the indefensible.
-- help bot
| |
| Jürgen Ren 2006-08-24, 5:37 am |
| On 20 Aug 2006 20:21:49 -0700, "politikalhack@gmail.com"
<politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>Note that on Google video, you can slide the cursor underneath the
>video directly to the referenced time..no need to listen to the whole
>speech.
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...an+for+Governor
>
>The self-proclaimed world champion of Chinese chess (at 1:01) says (at
>4:38):
>
>"I'm a chess player. I'm a rated chess expert; I used to be a rated
>chess master. I'm 61 years old now, my rating's gone down, I can't
>hold a master rating anymore [...]"
>
>Thought experiment for Larry Parr: imagine the speaker is Taylor
>Kingston.
>
>Discuss.
Sloan is not a rated Expert and never was a rated Master. So what?
Kingston never had a 2300 Elo rating - neither in face-to-face nor in
correspondence chess. So what?
Larry Parr doesn't even know how the pieces move. So what?
| |
|
| |
|
|