On Mar 13, 4:50=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:16 pm, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 1:50 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > <parrthe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >
>news:2fb6d24e-0ec7-442d-86ee-e18262dc8abf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > =A0 =A0 Quick! =A0What was No. 46 on the 1978 annual rating
> > > > list for OTB? =A0Know it? =A0Quick! =A0What is the
> > > > approximate strength of a player claiming to be 2300+
> > > > ELO? =A0Any chess person can answer the latter question
> > > > -- a strongish master.
>
> > > Exactly the point. Someone who understands chess well
> > > enough to reach 2300 in correspondence chess does know
> > > the game well enough to not be considered "weak". It refutes,
> > > honestly and efficiently, the ad hominem "weak" attack
> > > made by Sloan. That it surpasses the chessplaying
> > > credentials of both Sloan and yourself is a source of
> > > pleasure to me, if not to Kingston himself.
>
> > While we're reminiscing about the halcyon days of rgcp, when the
> > average poster was marginally saner than today, I'd like to point out
> > that the original "weak" charge was made not by Sloan but by Parr
> > himself:
>
> > > "Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing this
kind
> > > of analysis." (5 June 2005, 1:31 PM).
>
> > This was the comment that provoked TK to protest that he was "a tad
> > better than weak". Not surprising that in the latest threads, Parr has
> > been portraying Sloan as the original provoker, a version of events
> > which Sloan is plainly happy to go along with. Makes a better story,
> > doesn't it?
>
> > Aside from this detail, I'd say that David Kane's take on the whole
> > matter is pretty much on the money.
>
> > LT
>
> Thank you for pointing this out.
>
> I never call any chess player "weak" for the simple reason that chess
> strength is relative. A 1400 player is "strong" compared to the vast
> majority of non-tournament chess players. I think I have read or heard
> that a 1600 rated chess player knows more about chess than the holder
> of most PhD degrees know about his respective field.
I would propose:
1400 - HS grad
1600 - BS
1800 - MS
2200 - PhD
|
