| Sam Sloan 2005-09-22, 8:35 pm |
| On 21 Sep 2005 17:01:21 -0700, "politikalhack@gmail.com"
<politikalhack@gmail.com> wrote:
quote:
>It's the Unpardonable Sin, Larry baby.
>
>But jeepers, Sloan misrepresented his rating!
I never misrepresented my rating. I never said what my rating was at
all.
A person who as far as I know is not a tournament chess player wrote
in a non-chess group that I am a chess master.
Bill Brock attacked that person, saying that I am a Class-A player.
As far as the outside world is concerned, by that I mean the real
world of real people, there is no difference between a master, an
expert and a grandmaster. All of us are in the 99.9% percentile of all
chess players in the world (note that I am referring to ALL chess
players, including casual or friendly players, not just tournament
players).
Let us say that there are 40 million chess players in the USA. There
are 400,000 USCF rated chess players. There are 4,000 players rated
2000 or better . (I am just suggesting numbers. I do not know. Perhaps
somebody else does).
So, a player rated over 2000 is the top 1 in 10,000, or in the 99.99%
of all players.
Do you think it is meaningful in a non-chess forum read by people who
only know that there is a game called chess which is something like
checkers to attack a poster over the distinction between a master, an
expert and an A-player?
Note that Bill Brock has made no comment about the fact that in a
chess politics group Taylor Kingston, who has written more than 100
published reviews of chess books, LIED when he wrote that he had a
2300+ Elo rating, when in reality he has never had an Elo rating at
all and his USCF rating has always been lower than 1900.
The term "chess master" existed long before there was a USCF rating
system. The outside world considers chess masters to be people very
knowledgable, experienced and capable in chess. They do not know nor
do they care than when a player's rating goes from 2199 to 2200 he
ceases to be an expert and becomes a master.
Sam Sloan
|