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.
Want to comment on the new Republican Party Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, owner of Breitbart News Network?
Bob A
And let us not even bother commenting on the possibility of Rudy Guiliani (spelling?) as Attorney-General. Trump seems to be surrounding himself with idiots and I am not just referring to his family. May as well appoint Ivanka as ambassador to wherever too. What a gong show (and it has barely started!)
Edit: my mistake, Giuliani is being touted as Sec of State not A.G. In any case, I think he is a poor choice for anything with his simplistic views (eg: when he pointed out that poor people could take advantage of the same tax loophole that Trump used to declare a real estate loss to carry forward... right-the poor should get right on that.
Last edited by Kerry Liles; Tuesday, 15th November, 2016, 09:51 PM.
Reason: clarification
Want to comment on the new Republican Party Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, owner of Breitbart News Network?
Bob A
A brilliant pick, going home with someone who brought you to the dance. I understand that the left would seek to drive wedges between Trump and his most effective advisors. Divide and conquer. I reject the mainstream media attempts to paint Breitbart as something it was not. Even if it was something it was not it does not mean Bannon was responsible for every headline and article.
I visited Breitbart from time to time and have seen no white supremacist or anti-Semitic content. One of the allegedly anti-Semitic articles (actually a headline) was written by a Jewish person about another Jewish person. The headline might have been in poor taste. When I visited Breitbart, I saw a right wing website which seemed to support Israel and was not very nice to the Democrats or AGW which is fine by me. If a website is anti-Semitic wouldn't it be anti-Israel as well? If I had seen a hint of that I would have rejected Breitbart as I have a number of other websites over the years.
Beyond admiring Donald Trump's powers of persuasion and calling the election result after watching the first debate I was not a Trump supporter though I did see Trump as the lesser of two evils. I have read most of Trump's books mostly over a decade ago. I found his books useful. I think he and Barack Obama use some very powerful persuasion techniques which interest me and have interested me since my undergraduate days in my various sociology, business and psychology classes. Of course I continued to study these things outside of classes and it interested me when I read Scott Adams writings about how the Donald was using persuasion techniques in his campaign. I watched the first debate which many said ended in a Trump loss but I saw it a bit differently and so apparently did many of the voters.
And let us not even bother commenting on the possibility of Rudy Guiliani (spelling?) as Attorney-General. Trump seems to be surrounding himself with idiots and I am not just referring to his family. May as well appoint Ivanka as ambassador to wherever too. What a gong show (and it has barely started!)
I think he is more likely as secretary of state. I did cancel my subscription to one newsletter because an anti-Rudy Guilliani article. Not sure why you have such antipathy towards the former NY mayor.
We can say that at least one chess playing Nazi supports Trump.
A brilliant pick, going home with someone who brought you to the dance. I understand that the left would seek to drive wedges between Trump and his most effective advisors. Divide and conquer. I reject the mainstream media attempts to paint Breitbart as something it was not. Even if it was something it was not it does not mean Bannon was responsible for every headline and article.
I visited Breitbart from time to time and have seen no white supremacist or anti-Semitic content. One of the allegedly anti-Semitic articles (actually a headline) was written by a Jewish person about another Jewish person. The headline might have been in poor taste. When I visited Breitbart, I saw a right wing website which seemed to support Israel and was not very nice to the Democrats or AGW which is fine by me. If a website is anti-Semitic wouldn't it be anti-Israel as well? If I had seen a hint of that I would have rejected Breitbart as I have a number of other websites over the years.
Beyond admiring Donald Trump's powers of persuasion and calling the election result after watching the first debate I was not a Trump supporter though I did see Trump as the lesser of two evils. I have read most of Trump's books mostly over a decade ago. I found his books useful. I think he and Barack Obama use some very powerful persuasion techniques which interest me and have interested me since my undergraduate days in my various sociology, business and psychology classes. Of course I continued to study these things outside of classes and it interested me when I read Scott Adams writings about how the Donald was using persuasion techniques in his campaign. I watched the first debate which many said ended in a Trump loss but I saw it a bit differently and so apparently did many of the voters.
Furthermore, if Liberals detest Trump's picks, I know he has done the correct thing!! They are afraid of what those picks can do to further Conservatism. It would worry me if they liked any of Trump's picks, unlikely as that would be!
Furthermore, if Liberals detest Trump's picks, I know he has done the correct thing!! They are afraid of what those picks can do to further Conservatism. It would worry me if they liked any of Trump's picks, unlikely as that would be!
Yes indeed. I think the next four years will see the media sliding further into irrelevancy. It is not surprising that they found Hillary more appealing as she and her PACs spent billions in advertising with the media and they still lost to a campaign that spent only a fraction of that but relied on non-traditional media to get their message out.
Before attaching any importance to this quote, I would have to see whether the paper is left or right in its politics. Or even the author of the quote.
Before attaching any importance to this quote, I would have to see whether the paper is left or right in its politics. Or even the author of the quote.
Hi Ken:
Most of my friends check other media against the Guardian, to verify the content. So it seems it is pretty reliable. But, at the same time, I believe it is also considered centre-left........but the perspective does not get in the way of accuracy, as I hear it. Anyone know if it is considered centrist, or, centre-left?
Most of my friends check other media against the Guardian, to verify the content. So it seems it is pretty reliable. But, at the same time, I believe it is also considered centre-left........but the perspective does not get in the way of accuracy, as I hear it. Anyone know if it is considered centrist, or, centre-left?
Bob A
I only said that because so many on this website used to say, "Oh, consider the website!" when anyone quoted Fox News or Breitbart.
Something like the NYT? :)
Last edited by Ken MacDonald; Tuesday, 15th November, 2016, 05:28 PM.
I have been looking for an update on the popular vote results.
Most sites show numbers for Clinton and Trump only. I want to see totals for all condidates.
I found a site a few days ago, but I can't locate it now.
If anyone can find it, please post a link here. Much appreciate it.
What, nobody can find votes cast for third party candidates?
Thanks to Peter and Ken for trying.
Peter found a site with detailed information, exactly what I want, all candidates, but only for past elections.
I realize they are still counting votes, but surely the tentative info can be found somewhere?
Ken offered two sites, but the info was not there. And it was quite an effort to cut thru the propaganda and then not find anything.
I am looking for a "neutral site" with the truth.
The internet is vast, "the truth is out there", isn't it?
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Tuesday, 15th November, 2016, 05:45 PM.
...
I am looking for a "neutral site" with the truth.
The internet is vast, "the truth is out there", isn't it?
As Gordon Ritchie pretty much put it to me, how does one tell what on the internet is not worthless? Or as GM John Nunn put it in Secrets of Practical Chess in 1998, "The Internet is wonderful for e-mail, news and specific enquiries for which you can use a search engine. Otherwise it strikes me as being a great time-waster."
Interesting. My own view is that the Problem of Evil arguments cannot be refuted. I think they are sound and I think they hold up. Therefore in my view, if there is a God (and I am agnostic on the subject) He/She cannot be all-good, all-knowing and all powerful.
...
If I recall correctly from my college days, I thought then the Problem of Evil is largely related to the apparent incompatibility between determinism and free will. IMHO it all boils down to how one defines free will, and modest man should never really be confident that he has defined this properly. Again IMHO, it's part of one's faith to believe they are compatible after all, even if we don't see how. Anyone who has had an experience of the Divine, specifically a prophet, knows that they should indeed somehow be compatible, for awe-inspiring determinism has been demonstrated to them as actually occuring in practice.
If I recall correctly from my college days, I thought then the Problem of Evil is largely related to the apparent incompatibility between determinism and free will. IMHO it all boils down to how one defines free will, and modest man should never really be confident that he has defined this properly. Again IMHO, it's part of one's faith to believe they are compatible after all, even if we don't see how. Anyone who has had an experience of the Divine, specifically a prophet, knows that they should indeed somehow be compatible, for awe-inspiring determinism has been demonstrated to them as actually occuring in practice.
That is my understanding as well, Kevin.
One of the arguments presented by those who wish to argue for the existence of a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving is to suggest that evil exists as a result of bad free choices that humans make, which choices have nothing to do with God since He/She gave us a free will and a moral understanding. But then those on the other side of the argument might ask questions such as, if we are free to make a choice then to this extent at least is God not all-powerful? Or, if God knows in advance which choice I will make, then does this not mean that I am not free to make a different choice, therefore the choices are apparent but actually determined, and that I am not free as a result?
This is one of the great and eternal philosophical questions, and no one has the answer. My personal opinion on this question is that we need to lessen our definition of God to a God that is not all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful. God can be very close to this perhaps, and also as I have suggested perhaps God will someday reach this state of perfection.
Then the lion will lie down with the lamb, no more tears or suffering, a return to The Garden of Eden. But maybe we need to help God to get there. Perhaps this is why we were all created in the first place. Maybe over Historical time the process of God's self-awareness increases until there is finally a full self-realization. Now, if all is One, not only metaphorically but in reality, and if the One is mind, then strictly speaking ONLY God exists. This is in fact my own personal philosophical opinion. The One substance is God, and God is all there is, and we are all One with God. And we need to evolve together in a positive direction.
Tweet
Comment