<ttk5079@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a9bfda87-4f6d-4ae7-916a-80befd24c5ec@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 30, 3:22 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Taylor Kingston is trying to detract attention away from his false
> claim to have once been a chess master by attacking my title of master
> of Chinese Chess.
Sam, can you never get *_anything_* right? I am questioning your
claim to have been THE WORLD CHAMPION OF CHINESE CHESS. You may well
have a xiangqi master title. That's not the issue. The issue is that
you said you were THE world champion.
**Can Taylor Kingston quote Sam Sloan with THAT emphasis? The emphasis
which
says 'THE'? I do not contest Taylor Kingston's claim to have been awarded
a
title as postal master - except for the idiocy of making masters of 1800
players instead of 2200 players, which is to attach USCF to this nonsense,
rather than Taylor Kingston.
**But if someone said to me that he was a master, I would assume 2200
USCF,
not 1800 postal. And if they said 2300+ Elo I would consider that OTB not
postal.
**If someone said I have a world title, I would ask them to qualify it,
the
same way! And if they /then/ said it was as non-Chinese player, then I
would
not think them to have been trying to deceive me - but if they did not
make
this clarification when asked, they so obviously were trying to pull wool
over my eyes.
**There is plenty of stuff to dislike about Sloan's claims - and he will
think I am a very unlikely ally for any cause of his - but in this
instance
he seems to have made proper qualifications about his achievement, and not
waffled or made denials. That's fair. And that's all we need *****s.
**Phil Innes
And that's a lie, isn't it, Sam?
Here again is the recording of your speech. Your lie comes about one
minute into it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAON2vgw1kc
> However, there is a distance.
Yes, by all means, please keep your distance.
> Taylor Kingston's claim to have been a
> chess master is based on a "conversion formula" that nobody but he
> recognizes.
No, Sam, I was awarded the title of Postal Chess Master by the USCF.
No "conversion" of any sort was involved in my winning that title.
Your thought processes are terribly muddled, aren't they?
> I am the author of what is widely regarded as the best book on Chinese
> chess, "Chinese Chess for Beginners":
And this makes you world champion?
> The official rating list of the World Chinese Chess Federation is
> published at:http://wxf.dyndns.org/xq/xqdb_index.html
Does it list you among its world champions?
> If you will search under "CM,FM" which means Chinese Master, Foreign
> Master, you will see me listed as an FM which means "Foreign Master"
> and is the equivalent of the FIDE Title of FIDE Master.
And this makes you world champion?
> I am one of only three non-Chinese Westerners to hold the FM title and
> there are no Westerners who hold the higher title of GM or IGM, so I
> am one of the three top non-Chinese players in the Western World.
And this makes you world champion?
> The other two are Simon Henke of Germany and Gary Arvin of Canada. I
> have never played Gary Arvin but I played a long hard-fought draw
> against Simon Henke in the World Champion****p of Chinese Chess in
> Singa****e in 1995. We seem to be about even.
And this makes you world champion?
> By the way, I do not consider myself to be a real master-strength
> player. I consider my real strength to be about 2100,
Then why did you say you were world champion?
> which is about
> what my chess strength also was at the time. However, my title is
> legitimate, won in competition over-the-board. I won two games back-to-
> back against Mr. CK Lai, who was the Champion of Europe. The games
> were published in the tournament bulletins.
And this makes you world champion?
|
