True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

Hey! hey, I'm all sorts of ready to admit that David Taylor is a hell of a chess player.  I just can't understand the necessity to inflate an already impressive number.

What's that word you like so much?  Bloviate?

Just to clear things up. The 2382 is an old chess review rating from very long ago.  I currently have a 2538 ICCF Correspondence rating that is inactive but is still a rating.  There were many games in the prelims of the United States Chess Correspondence Championship which were not counted or I would have a permanent and higher rating. My rating is based on 27 games but there were many games above the 27 not counted.

I have only a 2188 USCF rating and this has been fixed since 1973. However in 1973 I met the requirements to be a USCF master of over 2200.

After obtaining my 2188 USCF rating I played in two USCF 4 game tournaments and won both with a score of 4 wins and no losses and no draws.

I do have some records which will never be broken. The one I am most proud of is in the Finals of the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Tournament I won all my games with Black  7 out of 7.

However now my chess has greatly deteriorated [just in the last 3 months] and I do not play or play at a very low level.

I am sometimes cranky and always opinionated. Often, I will go on too long defending my position and here I am at great fault and will try and do better.

Bigpoison do you under stand now that you cannot take a sheet of paper with outdated or incomplete information on it to say I am not telling the truth. Always be on side of caution if you wish to indicate someone is making something up?

No, I don't understand.  I take things as fact when they can be corroborated. 

Somebody can tell me that the sky is blue, but I'm not the type to believe it without going outside myself.

Yes.  If we get our FACTS straight.  We can (intelligently) discuss just about anything.

The sky is blue.  Roughly half of the day, I believe.       

bigpoison many years ago and now there is what is called a tournamen just for correspondence in the same entity that has the Golden Knights. [USCF postal]

I found the players in APCT to be stronger and switched my playing to both APCT   [where I was ranked #1 for a while] and also to the big tournament called USCCC.  So, I stopped playing in the venue where I had the low rating [2382 USCF Postal] for the stronger and best correspondence. In the later, my rating increased to 2538.

You are looking at a rating that is very long ago that they just kept but it is for the weak USCF postal venue..

Back in the day the strongest player in APCT and CCLA and USCF postal were seeded in the finals of the  stronger tournament which was and is United States Correspondence Chess Championship.

If you look at my fast play rating on chess.com it is very low around 1600 but those were not my games. My son played them one day without my knowledge.

If you look at my relative low USCF over-the-board rating [2188] that was my rating in 1973.  After obtaining that rating I played in two USCF chess tournaments and won both with a perfect score thus meeting the requirements to become USCF NM.

So looking at a two ratings  both very old and you are not aware of other venues you made the assumption I was not telling the truth and inflating.  It turns out you were not correct. You had made assumptions without knowing all the facts.  If the assumptions would tend to say I was lieing--instead of publishing them you could have messaged me?

I am just saying be very careful if you want to publish something to disparage as there may be more to it than meets the eye.   Even my 2538 rating is artificially low as at the time they decided not to rate games from the prelims where I did better than a 2538 standard.

Just your (former) title convinces me, @Ponz.  I'm persuaded.  

No reason to assume your OTB necessarily lines up with you CC rating.  Regardless of when someone takes a "snapshot" of the rating.

Best Wishes.

I think there is a distinction between assuming a rating is made up, and not assuming that a rating is real. Perhaps bigpoison simply thought there was a chance you were making it up. After all, he can't be as certain of the truth as you ponz. Even if you personally know what you say is true, other people can't know this same thing without evidence.

Elubas    Here is my point.  bigpoison thought that I was not telling the truth or that I was inflating my rating.   So, he wanted to "expose me"

He did have something that looked on the surface as evidence.

What, he did not think of is that I would have no reason to lie as I would be caught. 

So, instead of just saying I was inflating my rating he could have and should have messaged me.  I am saying before you decide to disparage someone--just first give the person a chance to defend himself.

[this reminds me of  another incident]

I didn't disparage you.  I asked "2500 what"?

You answered.  What's the problem?

Uneducated oik. Don't you have some manual labour to be going on with?

Here is somewhat of an anology.

In Ponziani Power Vote Chess somebody set up 3 fake accounts and all 3 one day voted for a move to give up our queen for nothing.

Many suspected a certain individul of doing this dark deed.  I also suspected but was not sure.

This, person, [who was really sort of my enemy] contacted me and asked that I represent him to clear his name!

I decided this person should be allowed a defense.

I asked the  super and other high ups to listen to his defense.  They refused to listen to the defense and also some were angry with me for defending him.

As it turned out, later, this person I was defending did not do the dark deed.  Also, we found who, exactly, did this bad deed.

It was a person who lived near London who just wanted to upset the votechess  group Ponziani Power.

The super did not like this at all and this eventually led to my situation now where I am no longer part of that group.

Moral of story?  We should go to great lengths to  allow a defense   before we trash someone...

How can Ponz not be in the Ponziani group....

bigpoison  I did not answer "what's the problem" and you did quite a bit more than what you are saying now,.  Just look at your previous post.

Well, this oik can see that there's no mollifying you.

I don't need to look at my previous post, I wrote it, I know what it said.  Had you written that you were 2500+ on some internet chess site rather than saying, "I'm 2500" I never would have written what I did.

I'm more impressed with your 20+ year old otb rating than any of the other stuff, but hey, that's just me.

Now, where's that shovel?

bigpoison   I did not say "What's the problem?"  You said that. You also said "2500?  You're a GM nowadays.? Were the score sheets lost too?"

You say  you do not want to go back to what you posted but you are saying that I said something that  in reality you said.

Also my USCF over the board rating is not 20 years old--it is 40 years old.

When I was cheated out of becoming a NM I decided I loved correspondence chess better anyway...

It looks like the rating episode is taking over the thread, when it should not have occured in the first place.

ponz might be a 800 player, or Kramnik, this does not change the value of his argumentation in the thread. Both the claim of a rating and the questioning of said claim were useless.

However, 'rating discussions' come up naturally (not in this case) when someone makes stupid statements about chess.

Sometimes trolls dominate a forum (who have nothing to say about chess), and they impress others by sheer presence (repetition). Pointing to a low (or no) rating of a troll may help that people will stop taking him serious.  

I read closely this tread.  It's quite entertaining.  Really.

Better than any Frick and Frack cartoon I have encountered.  Onward!  

I am or was in a no win situation.  What to do if I am personally attacked unfairly with evidence which might look like I am guilty but the truth is I did not lie.

1. I can defend myself and show statements disparaging me are not true.

If I do so I am accused of spamming and going off subject.

2. Or I could just  not respond and then  it will be assumed I did what I was accused of...

Is there a third alternative?  [this happens fairly often so please someone give a third alternative that makes sense]