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.
I'll take a shot at an easier one.....sesquicentennial??
Bob A
I know this one! 150 years.
Okay, so I did google it to be sure
So, I looked up pilloried while I was at it.
Pilloried - attack or ridicule publicly
Yup, it's called a political campaign. But I think Bernie has been quite fair in his attacks on Clinton. I think her campaign has done most of the damage by dismissing Sanders in an arrogant fashion.
Trump is a loud mouth real estate businessman with zero experience in Foreign Policy. HRC has a track record of creating a failed state in Libya, now a nursery for jihadists and terrorists, and gloating over the gruesome death of a Head of State. Her own supporters describe the "withdrawal" of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq as her greatest FP success. But both of those countries are now disasters/failed states. She also has the support, unusual for a Democrat candidate, of pro-war neo-cons like Robert Kagan. She is most certainly the war candidate and has the experience to prove it.
How people can believe that Trump is the more dangerous individual is amazing to me. Sure, he's a clown. Sure, he has no political experience. But HRC has proven repeatedly that she is dangerous. Not only in the Middle East:
Tom, you are hilarious.
In the categories of pathological liar and warmonger, none larger that Trump.
He has a HUGE lead in the lying department.
Warmonger, he could start a war with anybody.
Trump is a loud mouth real estate businessman with zero experience in Foreign Policy. HRC has a track record of creating a failed state in Libya, now a nursery for jihadists and terrorists, and gloating over the gruesome death of a Head of State. Her own supporters describe the "withdrawal" of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq as her greatest FP success. But both of those countries are now disasters/failed states. She also has the support, unusual for a Democrat candidate, of pro-war neo-cons like Robert Kagan. She is most certainly the war candidate and has the experience to prove it.
Yup........Sanders is now in a bit of a bind, having pilloried HRC since February.
Bob A
Oh Bob, don't make me look up words like "pilloried"
Sanders "in a bind"? no. He was always a long shot come from behind candidate. He's closing the gap, could win California, and change the minds of super delegates. Sure, the math is still on her side, a long steep climb up for Bernie, but he is not mathematically eliminated. When she makes that claim, well, she is doing everything possible to lose it.
But evidently not smart enough to avoid the pathological liar and warmonger that is HRC.
Tom, you are hilarious.
In the categories of pathological liar and warmonger, none larger that Trump.
He has a HUGE lead in the lying department.
Warmonger, he could start a war with anybody.
True, and this argument is used to trumpet the argument that Sanders supporters will switch to Trump.
Not gonna happen. Sure, a tiny few will, but the vast majority will support Clinton.
Sanders supporters are too intelligent to fall for the Trump bullshit and circus act.
My second post on this theme is what could happen in the presidential election if none of the candidates (assuming that Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and Bernie Sanders runs as an Independent or Green Party candidate) were to be able to win a majority at the Electoral College level in the general election.
The procedure then is that the House of Representatives (Congress) would choose the next president. This has only happened once. In the 1824 presidential election, before the current structured party system took hold, there were four presidential candidates, with none of them winning an EC majority. John Quincy Adams was chosen as President by Congress, despite having fewer EC votes (84) than leader Andrew Jackson (99).
If Sanders does run as a third-party candidate, he would likely have a stronger campaign than Ross Perot in 1992. Perot won nearly 20 million votes, but NO EC votes, and the way he split the right-of-centre vote handed the presidency to Democrat Bill Clinton! :)
All arguments seem to assume that Americans will vote the same way in the presidential election as they have in the primaries.
This is a very tricky assumption, since registered independents can vote in primaries for either party in certain states. Also, turnout levels in the primaries, where delegates are selected on a statewide basis, are much lower than in the general election.
But the enormous interest generated by this campaign's presidential nominee races may point to higher turnout levels in the general election. That is good for democracy in general. What it will do to the outcomes has even the experts baffled this time! :)
True, and this argument is used to trumpet the argument that Sanders supporters will switch to Trump.
Not gonna happen. Sure, a tiny few will, but the vast majority will support Clinton.
Sanders supporters are too intelligent to fall for the Trump bullshit and circus act.
It would be silly for Trump to debate Sanders. Sanders is not the Democratic party nominee. At this point it is all about winning the election. The whole point about pretending to want to debate Sanders is to keep Trump's name out there and to embarrass Hillary. The real chicken here is Hillary for not following through on a debate that she previously agreed to (at least that is my understanding). Hillary is probably smart not to engage Sanders in any more debates. She has things locked up. Why would she give him a chance. In chess, we might call this playing with your food.
I disagree. I think Trump's original idea was terrific. Trump and Sanders share some common ground. Foreign "entanglements" and trade to name two things.
Trump has the opportunity to look Presidential, even a bit deferential/agreeable to Sanders (and his supporters). He can paint himself as anti-establishment and therefore the logical choice for those Sanders supporters who want change. Finally, he looks generous in giving Sanders a chance to get his word out there to the nation. The ratings for such a debate would be YUUUUUGE. Raising a pile of money for say women's shelters wouldn't hurt Trump, either.
I don't underestimate Trump. I think he has a very good chance of being President, which should scare the shit out of all of us.
But I do note that CNN just reported that Trump has chicken out of a debate against Sanders.
It would be silly for Trump to debate Sanders. Sanders is not the Democratic party nominee. At this point it is all about winning the election. The whole point about pretending to want to debate Sanders is to keep Trump's name out there and to embarrass Hillary. The real chicken here is Hillary for not following through on a debate that she previously agreed to (at least that is my understanding). Hillary is probably smart not to engage Sanders in any more debates. She has things locked up. Why would she give him a chance. In chess, we might call this playing with your food.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Saturday, 28th May, 2016, 09:00 AM.
I don't underestimate Trump. I think he has a very good chance of being President, which should scare the shit out of all of us.
But I do note that CNN just reported that Trump has chicken out of a debate against Sanders.
Trump says scary things. Clinton does scary things. I'd pick the loudmouthed boor over the screeching harpy any day.
He won't want to debate Sanders. He can only attack Sanders as a "pinko" and Sanders has charisma similar to the Donald. So that may not work out so well. And Hillary will pound him mercilessly about his still-being-fudged tax returns.
Steve
Hillary has her own issues with tax returns and what they show especially if you go back a few years. Throw in the returns for the Clinton foundation and things get really messy.
Bernie didn't want to talk about email servers but if he had wanted to perhaps he would be the Democratic nominee.
I think that you can toss a coin as to who will win the next U.S. election.
Leave a comment: