If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Paul, I didn't read your whole post; life's too short. However, this paragraph jumped out at me. I wonder if you have the right game number: in game 9 both players castled on the kingside.
Good catch, John, and of course I was mistaken. The advances were on opposite wings, but the castling wasn't.
What you wrote about reading the whole post... that's exactly why I don't play chess anymore! :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Ok, Nigel, but in the meantime I'm providing the pgn of the solution to the diagram. First, here is the diagram again:
Although this position looks symmetrical, it actually isn't. That's because the Black King is closer to the Black 8th rank than the White King is to the White 8th rank. Somehow this trivial seeming fact actually has a huge influence on the evaluation. What do I mean by that? Well, if you switch White's King and Queen, OR if you switch Black's King and Queen, OR if you switch both White's King and Queen and Black's King and Queen, Stockfish will find multiple lines that are all outright winning for White. It is only this particular configuration of the Kings and Queens that causes White's winning lines to be limited to 1 surefire winning line and 1 slightly better line.
The key starting move here for White is 1. Nc1! Hard to believe that with all the complications coming of multiple promoting pawns and multiple Queens on the board, such a quiet positional move would be 4 pawns better in evaluation than any other White move. And the other good White move is 1. Rc1, again not exactly an aggressive play. A much more aggressive looking move, 1. Rxh8, actually gets evaluated as -1.21 by Stockfish, meaning 1.2 pawns to the good for Black! Here's the pgn to prove it:
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "R6r/NP4pn/BP4pb/QP4pq/KP4pk/BP4pb/NP4pn/R6r w - - 0 1"]
[Comment "All analysis by Stockfish 2.3.1. First number is search depth, second is score, + for advantage White, - for advantage Black"]
{ This (not legal, not possible) chess position is basically the equivalent of
rotating all the pieces by 90 degrees. Notably, this means Pawns that would go
to the 1st and 8th ranks must disappear. The lines show that White
has only ONE LINE that realizes a large advantage, and ONE OTHER LINE that
realizes an advantage at all, less than a Pawn. ALL OTHER LINES for White
lead to an advantage for BLACK! }
1.Nc1 ({25 +4.84})
( 1.Rc1 ({25 +0.80})Rxc1 2.Nxc1 g1=Q 3.Ne2 Qg2 4.Rxh8 Qxe2 5.b8=Q g2 6.b7 g1=Q
7.b6 Qf3 8.Qc7 Qgd1 9.Bc4 g3 10.b8=Q Nf6 11.Rd8 Nd7 12.Bd5 Qdxd5 13.Qxd5 Nxb8
14.Qxb8 )
( 1.Rxh8 ({25 -1.21}) Rxa1 2.b8=Q g1=Q 3.b7 Qf2 4.Qd6 g2 5.b8=Q g1=Q 6.Rxh7 Rxa2
7.Qac7 ({The only good move:})
( 7.Qe5 ({21 -9.77}) Nf3 8.Qc3 g3 9.Rxh6 gxh6 10.b6 g2 11.b7 Qxa7 12.Qd6 Qgd4
13.Qdxd4+ Qxd4 14.Qxd4+ Nxd4 15.b8=Q g1=Q 16.Qd5 Be6 17.Qe4+ Qhg4 18.Qbe5
Qxe4 19.Qxe4+ g4 20.Bc4 Bf5 )
( 7.b6 ({21 -12.52}) Qxb2 8.Bc4 Rxa3+ 9.Kb5 Rxa5+ 10.bxa5 g3 11.Qe8 Bf1 12.Ka6
Qxb3 13.Bb5 g2 14.b7 Bxb5+ 15.Nxb5 Qh1 16.b8=Q g1=Q 17.Rh8 Qa4 18.Qee5 Qf4
19.Rc8 Ng4 20.Qee6 Qge3 21.Qbb6 Qxe6 22.Qxe6 Ne5 23.Rc5 )
7...g3 8.b6 Qge1 9.b7 g2 10.Qxg7 Bxg7 11.Qxg6 Qd1 12.Qxh2 Qe3 13.Qxh5+
Qxh5 14.Rxh5+ Kxh5 15.b8=Q g1=Q 16.Qxg1 Qxg1 17.Qe8+ )
( 1.Rg1 ({25 -1.65}) Rxg1 2.Nc3 Ra1 3.Ne2 g1=Q 4.Nxg1 Rxg1 5.Rxh8 )
( 1.Rxh1 ({25 -1.65}) gxh1=Q 2.Rxh8 g2 3.b8=Q g1=Q 4.b7 g3 5.Qg8 Qxa7 6.b6 Qaxb7
7.Bxb7 Qxb7 8.Qc4+ Qg4 9.Qa7 Qxc4 10.bxc4 Qc6+ 11.Ka5 Nf3 12.b5 Qxc4 13.b7 Nd4
14.b8=Q g2 15.b3 Nxb3+ 16.Ka6 Nd4 17.Qac7 Qa4+ 18.Qa5 Qxa5+ 19.Kxa5 g1=Q 20.Rxh7
Nb3+ 21.Ka4 Qd4+ 22.Kxb3 Be6+ 23.Kc2 Qf2+ 24.Kd3 Qxa2 )
( 1.Nc3 ({25 -1.88}) Rxa1
( 1....Rb8 ({23 +3.35}) 2.Rxb8 Rxa1 3.Ne2 Re1 4.Nxg3 Kxg3
( 4...g1=Q ({23 +3.35}) 5.Nxh5 Ra1 6.Rd8 Qf2 7.Rd1 Rxd1 8.b8=Q gxh5 9.Nc6
Ra1 10.Ne7 Bf1 11.Nf5+ Qxf5 12.Qxh2+ Bh3 13.b7 g3 14.Qe2 Bf1 15.Qe3 )
5.Rc8 g1=Q 6.b8=Q+ Kh4 7.b7 Bg2 8.b6 g3 9.Rc3 Bxb7 10.Qxb7 g4 11.Rc5 Ng5 12.Qd7
Rd1 13.Qc7 g2 14.b7 Qh1 15.b8=Q g1=Q 16.Bc8 Nhf3 17.Nc6 )
2.Ne2 Re1 3.Rxh8 Rxe2 4.b8=Q g1=Q 5.b7 g2 6.b6 g3 7.Qc7 Be6 8.Bc4 Qd1
9.Rd8 Qe1 10.b8=Q g1=Q 11.b7 Bxc4 12.bxc4 )
1...g1=Q 2.Rxh8 Qe3 3.b8=Q g2 4.b7 g3 5.Re8 Qf4 6.Qbd8 Nf6 7.Ne2 Rxa1 8.b8=Q g1=Q 9.Nxg1
Rxg1 10.b6 Bd7+ 11.Bb5 Rd1 12.Bxd7 Rxd7 13.Qdc8 Qd1 14.b7 g2 15.Qxf4+ gxf4 16.b8=Q g1=Q
17.Qab6 Qgf1 18.Rh8 Nhg4 19.Nb5 Ne4 20.Qbc6 *
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Wealthiest 1% earn 10 times more than average Canadian
The richest of the rich in Canada earn about 10 times more than the average Canadian income of $38,700 and are generally married, middle-aged, white men, the final release of data from the National Household Survey shows.
Is this a problem? If so, why?
Bob A
P.S. I assume that the $ 38,700 is a single individual income. If so, I am surprised that it is this high these days. It seems to me that many in the 25-40 year olds range, are having difficulty finding decent paying full-time jobs, and that many are underemployed (many with first University degrees), many working more than one low-paying part-time job just to survive. Is anyone else surprised by the individual average?
That problem is easy enough to solve. Annoy and tax them enough and they will move away to someplace where they are appreciated. They may take quite a few jobs along with them.
That problem is easy enough to solve. Annoy and tax them enough and they will move away to someplace where they are appreciated. They may take quite a few jobs along with them.
The big empty threat. Millions of manufacturing jobs have already moved overseas, and more recently also services like call centres. Minimum wage retail like Wallmart isn't going anywhere. Hospital Administrators aren't going anywhere. Who's moving: Lawyers, wall street traders, real estate, athletes, members of the Senate? Maybe some Hollywood actors and rock stars have moved. For decades the top used to pay much more taxes and prospered. They can afford to pay more taxes and still be filthy rich.
The big empty threat. Millions of manufacturing jobs have already moved overseas, and more recently also services like call centres. Minimum wage retail like Wallmart isn't going anywhere. Hospital Administrators aren't going anywhere. Who's moving: Lawyers, wall street traders, real estate, athletes, members of the Senate? Maybe some Hollywood actors and rock stars have moved. For decades the top used to pay much more taxes and prospered. They can afford to pay more taxes and still be filthy rich.
They can afford to pay more taxes and still be filthy rich.
They can but they won't. Warren Buffett who is one of the super rich who argues for more taxes shows by his behaviour that he is quick to punish those jurisdictions which act in this manner. I am currently reading "the everything store" by Brad Stone. One interesting tidbit on how Amazon wound up located in Washington state is that it offered a relatively low population so that it minimized the percentage of people who Amazon would have to collect sales taxes from. The heroes of yesteryear will arrange their affairs to minimize the taxes paid regardless of their public statements. The future heroes of entrepreneurship will simply bypass jurisdictions with high costs. The jobs that will be lost will be the high pay ones that are only a glimmer in someone's eye at the moment.
You can't game these people. They are smarter than the average politician and can locate anywhere they like.
The big empty threat. Millions of manufacturing jobs have already moved overseas, and more recently also services like call centres.
I couldn't quantify the number but know many have closed in Canada. I used to service some of those companies and talk to the executives when they thought there was an error in their energy bill.
Used to be a big garment industry in this country. I worked for one, one summer when I was a teenager. Not very high paying, for sure. They were making winter jackets and coats. What I did was carry the bundles of pieces to the machine operators so they would have them as soon as they finished the bundle they were working on. They were working piece work so I had to make sure they had their bundle before they finished the one they were using. It was OK for a summer job and an incentive to go back to school.
Regarding call centers, I worked in a 200+ person one which was 24/7. Did time off, vacations, scheduling, lined up overtime, etc. It was the last job I worked. I'm pleased they could afford me.
Last time I called the Toronto Star I asked the person who answered where he was located. It was offshore. No complaints about his performance. I was also reading they are outsourcing some advertising jobs. I have shares in Torstar but don't get the Toronto Star. I didn't renew my subscription. I subscribe to the Globe an Mail. Frankly, I like the G & M reporting better. When I subscribed the person who answer the phone said she was located in Canada. I asked.
When a business can't make money and has a negative cash flow and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, it doesn't matter how much money the owner has. He has to decide if he wants to personally bankroll the losses, or shut it down, or move it.
Last time I called the Toronto Star I asked the person who answered where he was located. It was offshore. No complaints about his performance. I was also reading they are outsourcing some advertising jobs. I have shares in Torstar but don't get the Toronto Star. I didn't renew my subscription. I subscribe to the Globe an Mail. Frankly, I like the G & M reporting better. When I subscribed the person who answer the phone said she was located in Canada. I asked.
When a business can't make money and has a negative cash flow and there is no light at the end of the tunnel, it doesn't matter how much money the owner has. He has to decide if he wants to personally bankroll the losses, or shut it down, or move it.
Interesting that the left wing Toronto Star who you would expect would be somewhat consistent with its rhetoric and not move its operations to foreign shores, is quick to do so. The call for new taxes is silly. The Harper government is going to balance the budget fairly soon despite some unexpected surprises. There is no will there to raise taxes. The provincial Liberals will raise taxes to fund their stupidity particularly green energy and the billion dollar costs of buying a few seats to prop up the government. It is interesting that the Toronto Star is taking the lead on the $90,000 Mike Duffy scandal and the Rob Ford scandal but just continues to whistle when questions about the multiple billion dollar boondoggles that the Ontario governing party is involved in arise. Do we really need to give these guys more money to blow on their pet projects. I don't think so. Gas plants, green energy, E-health, the list goes on and on and the amounts involved dwarf the Senate scandal.
Yes North America has high costs compared to the third world. Personal Income Tax on the richest isn't a factor in the high costs and won't contribute to moving their business. Even with zero tax the costs are too high (due to high wages, workplace safety, health insurance, housing prices, food). The most profitable place is Communist China, but I don't think business leaders want to live there.
Yes there is no will to raise taxes, it isn't popular but is necessary to reduce the deficit which we're paying milions in interest on. It is un-conservative to waste taxpayers money on interest and to push the deficit onto future taxpayers.
Yes the Liberal provincial waste list is enormous. Of course, Harris filled in the subway tunnel which we're redigging now and made megacities, etc. and the NDP went on a spending spree. Politicians.
Do we really need to give these guys more money to blow on their pet projects. I don't think so. Gas plants, green energy, E-health, the list goes on and on and the amounts involved dwarf the Senate scandal.
I get a laugh out of the meeting they are reporting Wynne is having with Harper today. The part about her asking them to put up 1 Billion for the Ring of Fire infrastructure project. Never mind the gas plant scandal wasted at least that much.
If she can get the Prime Minister to put up a Billion, the people of Canada will be helping indirectly to cover the billion wasted on the gas plant cancellations. It would be great to have wasted the billion and have the feds replace the money so it can be used on a project in the middle of the wilderness.
Rae had the government in bad economic times. I thought that after a rocky year or two he did a reasonable job for the remainder of his term. Probably not many agree with me but maybe Bob A. does.
As I recall, the NDP platform was to bring in public auto insurance like in other provinces. Once he won the plan changed and it never happened. Also, many unions stopped supporting him. This is just the way I remember it so a history book would likely be more accurate.
Harris has made people a lot of money if they held shares in the companies where he's on the board. I think he's still the Chairman of the Board at Chartwell Seniors Residences.
Yes North America has high costs compared to the third world. Personal Income Tax on the richest isn't a factor in the high costs and won't contribute to moving their business. Even with zero tax the costs are too high (due to high wages, workplace safety, health insurance, housing prices, food). The most profitable place is Communist China, but I don't think business leaders want to live there.
Yes there is no will to raise taxes, it isn't popular but is necessary to reduce the deficit which we're paying milions in interest on. It is un-conservative to waste taxpayers money on interest and to push the deficit onto future taxpayers.
Yes the Liberal provincial waste list is enormous. Of course, Harris filled in the subway tunnel which we're redigging now and made megacities, etc. and the NDP went on a spending spree. Politicians.
The deficit might be a problem in the U.S. It is not a problem in Canada as a whole. It will be eliminated by the time of the next election by simply not spending everything which is in the budget. The Conservatives are already doing this. There would not even be a deficit if the minority Conservatives had not been forced into it to stave off overthrow when they had a minority parliament. It was then amusing to see the opposition blame the government for the deficit.
I certainly do not want to see the provincial government get their hands on more money. They will waste it.
If they want to save money kill all subsidies to green energy. The side effect will be lower electricity prices and more jobs.
The last years of the NDP had "Rae days", sharing days off among all rather than layoffs, which lost labour support. They also had excellent govt-labour-business programs which the Tories sacked.
The US deficit is mostly the costs of wars under Obama & Bush.Very profitable for investors.
The feds can balance the books as the deficit was pushed down (started by Martin) to the provinces to the cities.
I think Hudak would be more incompetent on complicated chores like e-health. Like Harris bring in US tea party flunkies to run prisons & punish battered women, single mothers, low income workers, pot smokers, and other artsy, pinko whiners.
I have problems with Hudak as well but he seems to me to be the lesser of three evils. Hudak seems politically naive. Harris was the greatest Ontario premier in recent memory. I have an entirely different recollection of his time than the one that you are putting forward. My one beef with him is the entirely useless "temporary" emissions testing tax which we can't seem to get rid of but might if Hudak becomes premier. It is simply not possible to be more incompetent or corrupt on e-health. One thing that is certain is that Hudak won't have the free pass from the press that the current provincial government seems to enjoy.
I am well aware that Martin offloaded a great deal on provinces and cities.
I am not really concerned about the tea party bogeyman. To bring it up seems to me to betray a certain rigid ideology on your part.
Tweet
Comment