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.
Well, my worries about a Trump victory were correct. Nailed it! :(
okay, except at the last minute when I predicted she would limp across the finish line.
By the way, who said "You can't insult your way to the White House!"?
Anyway, most pollsters got it wrong. They failed to understand the wide variations in the polls. When that happens, ignorance can lead you to believe whatever you want to be true. It reminds me of the credit rating agencies before the financial collapse of 2007. All the toxic bullshit was given triple A ratings and everyone continued on in ignorance.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Wednesday, 9th November, 2016, 09:08 AM.
Instead of just leaving it at that, and in fact PREDICTING a Trump victory, you decided that media bias was going to spoil the vote for Trump.
Wrong. I said it remains to be seen, I did not predict a decision either way. I said only that my opinion was that Trump would win a fair election in a landslide, but that I did not believe it was fair, and we will see what happens.
Clearly you did not read the other thread on this subject where polling methodologies were discussed and why IBD and Rasmussen were among the few that were correct. They relied on both cell phone and land line surveys the other relied on land lines only which are typically old ladies in the suburbs that participated. Garbage in Garbage out! Furthermore the mainstream weighted the polls by selectively choosing who was interviewed. Similar problems with Brexit.
I must admit that my faith in Nate Silver and the other gurus of "modern" polling with the latest statistical methods has been shattered by the results of the US presidential election (not to mention Brexit and Alberta). Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (or three times), shame on me.
I must admit that my faith in Nate Silver and the other gurus of "modern" polling with the latest statistical methods has been shattered by the results of the US presidential election (not to mention Brexit and Alberta). Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice (or three times), shame on me.
Hi Gord:
A friend of mine has opined that the reliability of the on-line polling factor now in predictions has not been appreciated by the polling companies......they think it is no different than the telephone contact factor of the prediction. I myself also believe that in today's monitored society (And more of the populace now accept this, not as their future, but their present), those surveyed are much more concerned about privacy, and their honest opinion going into their government monitoring file, and later coming back to bite them. So they simply refuse to participate, or outright lie (To look like the current majority, in hopes it will protect them and not in any way centre them out). Polling companies have a huge problem now with their industry.
Rasmussen basically predicted a statistical tie (within the margin of error). Rasmussen's main difference from the other polling companies is that the system does not use human operators so the propensity for folks to say who they truly support is higher. IBD uses more cell phones and Rasmussen non human intervention. These polling companies are non mainstream controlled so less prone to deliberate and skewed sampling methodologies. Five Thirty Eight relies too much on mainstream land line polls and also is not dynamic enough in averaging meaningless historic results into their equation as the political race evolves. Wikileaks does clearly show discussions around manipulating mainstream polls.
Rasmussen does not "hedge bets" , they do not control what is reported back to them. Interesting Rasmussen throughout the entire process was consistently correct even at a time when Hillary was shown a 12 point lead by the mainstream.
I predicted a very close coin flip here on chesstalk and on the basis of the popular vote that was the result. I did predict a Trump victory a few nights before the election to a chess playing friend on a mobile online chess network.
Originally posted by Sid Belzberg
Nov 5 2016 6:06 PM
"When I look at the Five Thirty Eight web site and and add up all Republican leaning states throw in New Hampshire and Nebraska cd 2 and voila Trump is exactly at 270.I think Clinton's corruption at the DOJ and State Department is too much for Americans to swallow. They would rather hold their nose vote Trump and hope that the congress keeps him in line if hoe guess too far over the top.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Thursday, 10th November, 2016, 06:52 AM.
Well, my worries about a Trump victory were correct. Nailed it! :(
okay, except at the last minute when I predicted she would limp across the finish line.
By the way, who said "You can't insult your way to the White House!"?
Anyway, most pollsters got it wrong. They failed to understand the wide variations in the polls. When that happens, ignorance can lead you to believe whatever you want to be true. It reminds me of the credit rating agencies before the financial collapse of 2007. All the toxic bullshit was given triple A ratings and everyone continued on in ignorance.
It was Jeb Bush in the primaries who said directly to Trump, "You can't insult your way to the Presidency -- that isn't going to happen." I think Rand Paul might have repeated it later on.
I think the turnouts at the rallies were a better indicator than any of the polls. And based on that, we can postulate that Bernie Sanders could very well have won the White House if he had gotten past Hillary.
The analysis that seems to cover what happened is twofold:
1) the rural uneducated white male vote was way beyond what the polls expected in states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan
2) Obama's core of supporters just weren't excited enough about Hillary to get out in the numbers required in cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, etc.
In a "pure" democracy like the U.S., it is a no-brainer to say they get the leaders they deserve. It always comes down to turnout, and in this case, the rednecks won the battle of the two Americas.
The one person who I think must be most affected is Obama. Basically everything he has built up is going to be torn down. There will be nothing left of his legacy, except for the killing of bin Laden and the saving of the auto industry (which Bush himself would have done if he'd had another term). Obamacare will be rescinded and replaced by "something else". The only clue Trump has given is "lots of competition between the health care companies". Right. But there's also going to be lack of regulation, so you can bet the farm on continued price gouging by the health care companies. And in the energy and industrial sectors, the repeal of environmental regulations will lead to worsening AGW and other toxic disasters -- last week's explosion of the gasoline pipeline serving the entire southeast will seem like small potatoes. Obama is literally going to watch everything he worked for disappear, and it will happen fast. We will all look back at the Obama era, even with all its warts, as the last of the great American eras. The slogan "Make America Great Again" will be seen as the greatest irony of this election.
But the one sure thing I'll predict is this: if we survive to still be here 4 years from now, the U.S. economy and unemployment situation will be MUCH worse than it is now. Trumped-up trickle-down is a fail waiting to happen.
The late-night comedians are salivating.....
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
It was Jeb Bush in the primaries who said directly to Trump, "You can't insult your way to the Presidency -- that isn't going to happen." I think Rand Paul might have repeated it later on.
I think the turnouts at the rallies were a better indicator than any of the polls. And based on that, we can postulate that Bernie Sanders could very well have won the White House if he had gotten past Hillary.
The analysis that seems to cover what happened is twofold:
1) the rural uneducated white male vote was way beyond what the polls expected in states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan
2) Obama's core of supporters just weren't excited enough about Hillary to get out in the numbers required in cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, etc...
He won the white woman's vote. He won the white men's vote. He beat Romney's vote with blacks by a significant margin. The percentages on the Hispanic vote were not worse than Romneys. To put this on uneducated white male is simply to be spinning a narrative which is not true. Trump rewrote the rules on campaigns. He was tied with Hillary despite only spending a fraction of the $2 billion that her campaign did. The RNC apparently made some adjustments after the last two losses so the disparity in the ground game of the two did not turn out to be in Hillary's favour as the media would have had us believe. This was the wikileaks election. I was flicking channels and saw Whoopi Goldberg attacking the use of Wikileaks by the Trump campaign. This was a rejection of celebrity culture, of Hollywood elites, political elites and the cozy Washington insiders and the incestuous media which helped Hillary at every opportunity but didn't understand the skill of the man they were up against in Trump.
One interesting report was that they hacked the Trump campaign as well but didn't release those because the public face and private face of Trump were the same. That is if you believe Assange who in this case did a public service to reveal the lies and corruption of the Clinton campaign. I have the feeling that Trump will not be able to do many of the things he promised but that he will surround himself with capable people. He has to if he wants to build his brand which I am sure he does.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Wednesday, 9th November, 2016, 03:09 PM.
He won the white woman's vote. He won the white men's vote. He beat Romney's vote with blacks by a significant margin. The percentages on the Hispanic vote were not worse than Romneys. To put this on uneducated white male is simply to be spinning a narrative which is not true. Trump rewrote the rules on campaigns.
Everything you categorized was expected for months and factored into the polls. All I kept hearing about was Trump doing better with married suburban white women, throughout the campaign, which puzzled everyone because these are women with children, women who should have been appalled at Trump's objectification of women. But it was there and it was factored in. Hillary was doing better with single white women.
Whatever miniscule improvement Trump had with blacks was of no real consequence. He won Wisconsin and Michigan by tens of thousands of votes. Maybe a few hundred blacks sprinkled in there. But the analysis of the outer rural counties showed much, much higher turnout.... of the rednecks because that's where they live. And the inner city core counties showed significantly lower turnout than with Obama. This combination is what made the difference. What put Trump over the top were those 2 states, although that same trend was evident in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina also. Not to mention Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, Missouri......
This was a rejection of celebrity culture, of Hollywood elites, political elites and the cozy Washington insiders and the incestuous media which helped Hillary at every opportunity but didn't understand the skill of the man they were up against in Trump.
Two points on that: I wouldn't call it skill to tell people exactly what they want to hear, I'd call it pandering in pure politician style. Sure, tell them you'll build a wall and Mexico will pay. Tell them you'll rebuild the military. Tell them you know more than the Generals fighting ISIS. Tell them you'll be the greatest Jobs President ever. Tell them you'll replace Obamacare with something much better. Tell them everything they want to hear, and yes, they will vote for you because people are gullible. You are a perfect example, Vlad. You rail against media, yet everything that you post here on Chesstalk is something you heard from one media outlet or another. You pick and choose which ones you believe, and you believe them.
Secondly, yes, the VOTERS rejected celebrity culture etc. etc. But it makes no difference, because as The Who put into words decades ago, the new boss shall become "same as the old boss". It will make your head spin how fast there becomes a NEW celebrity culture, a NEW set of political elites, a NEW set of cozy Washington insiders. The process has begun already.
I have the feeling that Trump will not be able to do many of the things he promised but that he will surround himself with capable people. He has to if he wants to build his brand which I am sure he does.
I rest my case.... except I'd replace "capable" with "political" even if some of them have no prior political experience. People become politicians as soon as they enter the system, there is no getting around it.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Scott Adams of Dilbert fame who predicted the ascension of Trump long before it happened.
He really should turn his entire "Trump: the Master Wizard/Persuader" series of blog posts into a book. His predictions may turn out to be completely fluky but from where I sit they seemed eerily prescient. Made fun reading, too.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
He really should turn his entire "Trump: the Master Wizard/Persuader" series of blog posts into a book. His predictions may turn out to be completely fluky but from where I sit they seemed eerily prescient. Made fun reading, too.
I'm not sure if he did it for all the debates but he analyzed Trump's first debate performance and talked about the various techniques he was employing in his arguments and the effect of his arguments.
I'm not sure if he did it for all the debates but he analyzed Trump's first debate performance and talked about the various techniques he was employing in his arguments and the effect of his arguments.
He did it with all the debates (in a general way) and spoke on Trump's skill set long prior to the first debate.
He also predicted Trump's ultimate success more than a year before the election:
A read of the posts subsequent to that one show him predicting a number of the twists and turns that made up this election. I particularly like the "Three Act Play" series of posts where he likens Trump's rise to that of a movie character like John McClane in Die Hard.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Hi Tom, thanks for posting that article. It was an interesting read. I saw an interview with Scott Adams (Dilbert) last year where he predicted the rise of Trump and explained his skills as the “master persuader”, a term Vlad has used numerous times. While we can acknowledge his skills as a “master persuader” (or con man), approving of such methods to win the presidency is a completely separate issue. Has Trump now deepened the divide and just made everything worse?
I think I will go ahead and buy the book “The truth about Trump” by Michael D’Antonio. I have seen the author interviewed numerous times. He acknowledges Trump’s skills and goes into depth on Trump’s past and his narcissistic personality disorder. So I pose the question: Did Trump learn his “negotiating skills” the old fashioned way, or is it just a product of his narcissism?
So now after a lifetime devoid of ethics and morality, 18 months of insulting everyone who doesn’t kiss his ass, we get a week of him appearing rational and 24 hours of sounding conciliatory. So some now want to give him the benefit of the doubt as a way of dealing with the election result. Me? I am not buying it. He is still lower than pond scum.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Thursday, 10th November, 2016, 10:11 AM.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Tweet
Comment