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.
California 55
Connecticut 7
DC 3
Delaware 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 20
Maine 3
Maryland 10
Massachusettes 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
Oregon 7
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
Wisconsin 10
These blue states appear to be solidly in the Clinton camp.
But let's add:
Pennsylvania 20
Colorado 9
as very likely Clinton wins.
Total is now = 239+20+9=268
Bob's battleground states- total 54
New Hampshire 4
Nevada 6
Florida 29
North Carolina 15
She needs to win just one of these.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Monday, 7th November, 2016, 03:46 PM.
California 55
Connecticut 7
DC 3
Delaware 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 20
Maine 3
Maryland 10
Massachusettes 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
Wisconsin 10
Can Hillary hold these and add 7 votes to win?
Mostly likely battleground states:
Colorado 9
North Carolina 15
New poll: Puts Florida into the toss-up/battleground category as well.
New poll: Puts Florida into the toss-up/battleground category as well.
Bob A
I only listed the most favourable battleground states that can put Hillary over the top.
Besides Florida: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio are also widely considered battleground states.
But I wouldn't want to hang my hat on any of those. :(
I only listed the most favourable battleground states that can put Hillary over the top.
Besides Florida: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio are also widely considered battleground states.
But I wouldn't want to hang my hat on any of those. :(
Quite wise...........
I think it is a horse-race, despite the lock Hillary seems to have on the states you listed.
In my view, Trump is rebounding and may have momentum now. The issue is how much?
Can he sweep all the other states and the battleground ones, and come up a winner? Before the sexual assault allegations, and before the FBI-gate, I had picked Trump to win....I think then I was likely in about a 10-20% group. But I am still holding my ground, despite these two post-prediction events (NOT supporting Trump, just making a factual prediction).
Do you think my percentage of those expecting a Trump victory, from North America at least, was right at the time I predicted (about 3/4 way through the campaign)?
Do you think my predicting group has grown now from my prior 10-20% estimate?
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 31st October, 2016, 10:54 AM.
Can he sweep all the other states and the battleground ones, and come up a winner? Before the sexual assault allegations, and before the FBI-gate, I had picked Trump to win....I think then I was likely in about a 10-20% group. But I am still holding my ground, despite these two post-prediction events (NOT supporting Trump, just making a factual prediction).
Yes, Trump can win. If he gets all the red states and battleground states (plus the 1 vote from Maine) his total is 275. But if Evan McMullin can win Utah, then Trump has 269. Then it gets even crazier. See the other thread for details.
Yes, Trump can win. If he gets all the red states and battleground states (plus the 1 vote from Maine) his total is 275. But if Evan McMullin can win Utah, then Trump has 269. Then it gets even crazier. See the other thread for details.
Bob, a few things to mention. In your scenario, you have Maine giving 3 of its electoral votes to Hillary, given that it is a blue state. And you have Utah going to McMullin.
But you are giving 1 electoral vote from Maine to Trump. Since Maine uses a "ongressional district" system of allocating its electoral votes, this means you are predicting Trump will win the popular vote in 1 of Maine's 2 congressional districts. This is the only way Hillary could only get 3 of Maine's 4 electoral votes.
In the 2012 election, all 4 of Maine's electoral votes went to Obama, and all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes went to Romney (Nebraska is the only other state to use a congressional district system, and in the 2008 elections, Obama actually won 1 of Nebraska's electoral votes because he won the popular vote in Nebraska's 2nd congressional district, comprised of Omaha and surrounding area. Given the importance of each electoral vote in this election, I do wonder if the Clinton campaign has done any events in Omaha to try and steal that electoral vote this time around.)
But since you are giving Utah to McMullin, you don't need to predict Trump will win a congressional district in Maine. He could lose all 4 of Maine's electoral votes and thus only get 268 total, and Clinton would have 264, with McMullin having the 6 from Utah.
But if you instead gave Clinton victory in Utah, leaving McMullin out of the scenario altogether, then yes, you'd have to have Trump stealing one of Maine's electoral votes to have Trump and Clinton tied at 269 each.
Or another thing you could do: All of Maine's electoral college votes go to Clinton, and all of Nebraska's go to Trump. Give all the battleground states to Trump, but give Colorado to Clinton. Then give Wisconsin to Trump. Then they tie at 269 each.
Personally, I love the McMullin scenario, with the House vote then deciding that McMullin is the "least bad" candidate and electing him President.
Regarding battleground states, the states of New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvannia are by no means locked up for Clinton. New Hampshire is very hotly contested, both Trump and Clinton have been making multiple trips there in the past few weeks. And you haven't mentioned Nevada, which according to 538.com is leaning towards Clinton (I just checked this morning).
So if we move NH, Wisconsin and Pennsylvannia into battleground states, Clinton only starts off with 229 sure electoral votes. Similarly if we put Nevada, Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, Florida, Arizona and the 2 states you mentioned Colorado and North Carolina into battleground states, Trump starts off with only 165 sure electoral votes. And if we put Utah into battleground status, then Trump goes down to 159 sure votes.
Then you have 150 electoral votes up for grabs in 12 battleground states.
So here's what can be done.... from a starting point where Clinton has 229 sure electoral votes, and Trump has 159 sure electoral votes.... simply run a Monte Carlo simulation to determine what % chance each side has of winning the election. That is, run 10000 simulations where each battleground state winner is determined by random chance. For each simulation, tally up the votes to see who wins.
Now for some good news, Bob! I created a Python script that runs just that exact Monte Carlo simulation, with the starting conditions I just gave. Each of the 12 battleground states is determined by using Python's pseudo random number generation, seeded with the system time of the computer. Depending on that outcome, either Clinton or Trump gets the electoral votes of that one particular battleground state. When all 12 states are done, the totals are compared to determine overall winner. And this is repeated 10,000 times.
10,000 times may seem a bit of overkill, because the max number of different distributions of the 12 battleground states between Trump and Clinton is 2 to the power of 12, which is 4,096. Not only that, but 3 battleground states have the same number of electoral votes (Utah, Iowa, Nevada all have 6). And then there are cases such as Arizona + Ohio = Florida or New Hampshire + Georgia = Pennsylvannia. So the exact number of truly unique distributions is likely well below 4,000. So 10,000 runs isn't overkill and in fact a million would be even more "accurate" *, because each possible result is equally likely to occur by random chance. In effect, I am assuming that for each battleground state, a Trump or Clinton victory is equally likely.
* "accurate" only has meaning in probability BEFORE the event occurs. If you win the Lotto 6/49 jackpot the very first time you buy a ticket, how "accurate" were the odds against you?
Anyway, here are the results:
Clinton wins 91.15% of the time
Trump wins 8.29% of the time
Electoral Vote Tie 0.56% of the time
It is evident that Trump's path to victory is remarkably unlikely. And this doesn't take into account the "McMullin factor" where McMullin has maybe close to a 1 in 3 chance to win Utah and create more possibilities for a less-than-270 result for all candidates.....
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
* "accurate" only has meaning in probability BEFORE the event occurs. If you win the Lotto 6/49 jackpot the very first time you buy a ticket, how "accurate" were the odds against you?[/I]
Before the draw they were exactly the same as before every draw, one chance in slightly less than 14,000,000. After the draw the probability then becomes 100% that you won, given that you won. But they are two different events so of course they have two different probabilities. The first event was purchasing the ticket. The second event was actually winning.
Regarding battleground states, the states of New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvannia are by no means locked up for Clinton.
Paul, thanks for all the analysis. I have edited my first post, leaving those states in the blue column, and adding Colorado, but also adding the percentages as per Nate Silver 538 website, so we can watch for states under attack. I would have liked to add North Carolina, but it seems to have fallen off the table.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Wednesday, 2nd November, 2016, 01:25 AM.
Paul, thanks for all the analysis. I have edited my first post, leaving those states in the blue column, and adding Colorado, but also adding the percentages as per Nate Silver 538 website, so we can watch for states under attack. I would have liked to add North Carolina, but it seems to have fallen off the table.
I think its pretty safe to say that Trump is probably leading now as the latest polls do not yet fully factor in the effect of the FBI director's announcement. At one point as recently as last Thursday Hillary was clearly leading even considering the margin of error but now it looks like the momentum has swung. If Hillary and her media sycophants have anything new on Trump it is time to let it all hang out. Trump and his proxies have a huge war chest given the recent announcements of new PAC funding from his billionaire allies who will saturate the air in the swing states with anti-Hillary messages. Not to mention wikileaks is providing a steady drip of incriminating emails against Hillary and her campaign.
I think its pretty safe to say that Trump is probably leading now .....
I don't think it is safe to say anything!
Watching the Clinton campaign is like watching the Maple Leafs late in the game with a 3 goal lead. They should win, but you are have this overwhelming sense of impending doom.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Wednesday, 2nd November, 2016, 08:54 AM.
Watching the Clinton campaign is like watching the Maple Leafs late in the game with a 3 goal lead. They should win, but you are have this overwhelming sense of impending doom.
I still believe that Trumpers are vastly overconfident about his chances and that the silent majority ( ie women and certain ethnic minorities ) will win the election. However, if somehow Trump the sociopath were to win, the economic impact on the US could be devastating short term. Stock markets will correct deeply after the election and if his protectionist trade ideas get through he'll damage the US economy ( higher unemployment and a higher federal debt ). I'm not sure if the US has ever had a fascist leader and how much he can get done under current rules. Clinton might not be perfect but her party is the more sensible one of the two choices.
I still suspect he'll be a footnote in history and the US will dodge a major bullet here.
However, if somehow Trump the sociopath were to win,
A more important point to ponder is who is the worst sociopath. The points below in the most recent news about Hillary put the very essence of American Democracy in question.
Here is Real Clear Politics quoting Fox News. The last time this happened where a sitting president was indicted was Richard Nixon elected by a massive landslide of 49(!) states., he lasted 18 months.
Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 3rd November, 2016, 11:52 AM.
I still believe that Trumpers are vastly overconfident about his chances
What drives me crazy is that all politicians and pundits always tell you they are winning, even when the exact opposite is obvious. I would love to someday hear a politician or pundit come out and say clearly, "yes, we are losing". They could then go on and argue their case as to why they are the better candidate, but the honesty would be refreshing.
If you look at the current polls this morning, and you believe in momentum, Trump will win.
Clinton needs to win battle ground states Colorado and New Hampshire, and fend off attacks in blue states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. On the current trajectory, this all looks unlikely.
Of course, Trump will likely lose if he goes on another rant. If he can just hold it together for another few days, he wins.
OMG, look how low we have set the bar for him.
May God have mercy on the USA.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 3rd November, 2016, 08:45 AM.
What drives me crazy is that all politicians and pundits always tell you they are winning, even when the exact opposite is obvious. I would love to someday hear a politician or pundit come out and say clearly, "yes, we are losing".
Tweet
Comment