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.
The media is definitely in the tank for Hilary Clinton. I watched a bio of Hillary on Canadian television which described her early career and her time on the Watergate commission but somehow neglected to mention that she was fired for dishonesty and a complete lack of integrity. Odd that they would use that as an example of her stellar career while omitting a very important fact which kind of tarnishes the whole story of her time on the Watergate commission law staff as a high point on her resume.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 2nd October, 2016, 01:26 PM.
Now Vlad is predicting the future. His record so far is pretty dismal, though.
Nate Silver (538) now has Clinton favoured by three to one, and the Princeton Election Consortium (which has a better historical accuracy rate) has her favoured just over 17 to 3 or just under four to one depending on whether you use a Bayesian prior or assume random drift.
And the betting markets immediately put Clinton basically back at her peak after the Democratic convention right after Donald "won" the debate according to Vlad.
But Vlad believes the great businessman who according to his own tax return lost most of a billion dollars running Casinos in Las Vegas. Who the hell loses money running a casino?
Nate Silver (538) now has Clinton favoured by three to one,.....
Ed, I follow this forecast which can be updated several times a day.
Currently he has Clinton as 66.8% probabililty of winning, and Trump 33.2% probability of winning.
I think that is 2 to 1?
Anyway, the election is still way too close to call.
I would have thought after the first debate, Clinton would have a much larger lead by now.
My faith in the US voters continues to drop.
After all, they did elect George W. twice.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 2nd October, 2016, 03:37 PM.
Now Vlad is predicting the future. His record so far is pretty dismal, though.
Nate Silver (538) now has Clinton favoured by three to one, and the Princeton Election Consortium (which has a better historical accuracy rate) has her favoured just over 17 to 3 or just under four to one depending on whether you use a Bayesian prior or assume random drift.
And the betting markets immediately put Clinton basically back at her peak after the Democratic convention right after Donald "won" the debate according to Vlad.
But Vlad believes the great businessman who according to his own tax return lost most of a billion dollars running Casinos in Las Vegas. Who the hell loses money running a casino?
Trump was probably the very worst candidate in the whole republican field in terms of ability to win the election. Cruz or Rubio or even Fiorina would probably have been the best choices. We have the choice of a person who is behaving like a buffoon but has some ability as a persuader versus a person who is quite corrupt and indirectly implicated in 10,000 deaths in Haiti which led to her brother being given a gold mine in Haiti as part of the compensation for her and the Clinton foundation's activity over there.
Assange has already apparently been the target of an professional assassination attempt inside the embassy where he sought refuge. I recommend he avoid balconies. I don't see Obama being behind that as the damage Assange has done there has been largely contained so who would profit from Assange's death?
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 2nd October, 2016, 04:57 PM.
The rest of us live in the real world. I hope you continue to be happy in your imaginary one.
There were several changes changes of circumstances and yet the Wizard of persuasion Donald Trump emerged victorious. Before it could be brought into the real world, it had to be imagined. So who was living in a fantasy world?
"Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." REM at a Hillary event...
Now Vlad is predicting the future. His record so far is pretty dismal, though.
<SNIP! mainstream media disinformation polls>
I got this one right. You got it wrong. You saw a debate won by Hillary. I saw a series of neurolinguistic killshots which were the same kind of slow poison unleashed in the primaries against the Republican field.
I got this one right. You got it wrong. You saw a debate won by Hillary. I saw a series of neurolinguistic killshots which were the same kind of slow poison unleashed in the primaries against the Republican field.
"neurolinguistic killshots"........ a phrase you've stolen from Dilbert creator Scott Adams...... and if fact you've stolen this whole notion of hypnotic suggestion from the same. You are only seeing it in retrospect, you presented no such phrase or notion at the time.
As to those "killshots".... they were likely the Trump lies from the debate, as I outlined here: Trump Debate Lies
And I liked the reply someone gave on a forum (not this one) to Adams' idea of Trump having these "kill shots"....
"it's really not necessary to explain Trump. He's popular because xenophobia and racism are popular, and he's the guy who speaks that language."
Meanwhile, you definitely have a pathology that needs addressing.... or not, seeing as you are such a harmless specimen of nothingness right now, stealing all your ideas and delusions of self-grandeur from comic strips and popular music lyrics. We can only hope it stays that way. I for one will be keeping track.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
"neurolinguistic killshots"........ a phrase you've stolen from Dilbert creator Scott Adams...... and if fact you've stolen this whole notion of hypnotic suggestion from the same. You are only seeing it in retrospect, you presented no such phrase or notion at the time.
I didn't need to. I made a somewhat outrageous prediction which came to pass. A few intellectually challenged individuals took issue with my prediction. Even some rational people took issue.
I have been aware of the killshot idea at least since the 1990s when I became aware of NLP. It certainly came in handy when I engaged in flame wars with some master level practitioners including one who was later portrayed by Tom Cruise in a movie.
Tweet
Comment