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.
gives stats. Interestingly, Mexico's official per million death count is lower than Canada's. That's after so many were wondering why it was so deadly in Mexico.
Nothing about shaking hands, but the British Championship had a:
FLU POLICY
If you are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, characterised by feeling unwell and having an elevated temperature, we are sure you would not wish to infect anyone else and you would probably not be in the mood to play chess.
In these circumstances, after you have obtained medical help, please e-mail Neville Belinfante or telephone the Acting Manager of the British Championships on 07835 398518.
If you are unfortunate enough to suffer symptoms, please bear in mind that the period of being infectious roughly coincides with the period during which the symptoms occur. We will have a thermometer to enable you to check for elevated temperature if you start to feel unwell at the Championships.
National guidance recommends that people without symptoms should just behave normally.
Call me contrary, but I say bring it on. I figure the sooner I get it the better. It seems to be rather benign right now (for someone in my age group), so it probably isn't going to kill me and my body can build up some antibodies. If the virus does become more virulent, those antibodies would be our best defense.
That said, I find it suspicious that governments care so much about this H1N1 "epidemic" when almost no one (relatively speaking) has died from it, that the common flu kills thousands worldwide yearly, and that the numbers who die from this thing are highly unlikely to be more than die from, say, smoking each year.
A few points (not all directed at Tom):
1. There is no such thing as "the common flu". Each strain is different. Each one can be deadly, but mostly for people with compromised or not fully-developed immune systems.
2. This strain is a very legitimate pandemic at this point, not an epidemic (most people don't know what the words mean).
3. The reason there is concern about this particular strain of flu is the way it has spread, when it has spread, and where it has spread, and whom it has killed including young people with sound immune systems. There is very good scientific reason to believe that this strain may be far more deadly than others.
4. To compare a deadly virus spread by casual contact with smoking is introducing a red herring. (Smoking is very controlled and taxed and requires a certain sense of will in addition to being a cumulative effect.) Many people die from old age each year too.
5. As Neil points out, hand sanitizers aren't likely to do much against a virus more than normal hygiene would, although I do realize we are talking about chess-players, many of whom are frequently hygiene-impaired.
6. If a virus is spread at a chess tournament it is likely because of airborne transmission, not because of something such as shaking hands.
7. I totally agree that panicking is pointless. If people are extremely concerned, get a flu shot, although that's no certainty. Or live in a cave and have no human contact for the next year until this strain runs its course.
8. Governments (which I know Tom generally detests) are concerned about this because: a) it is their mandate to take action on behalf of the public about such things; b) the scientific experts (who know about such things) are concerned; c) it is more cost-effective to give people a flu shot (assuming its effective) than to treat them afterward.
Call me contrary, but I say bring it on. I figure the sooner I get it the better. It seems to be rather benign right now (for someone in my age group), so it probably isn't going to kill me and my body can build up some antibodies. If the virus does become more virulent, those antibodies would be our best defense.
The difference between a mild case and a severe case of Swine Flu appears to be that in a severe case a person is intubated for breathing. I don't know if there is any way of predicting who will get a mild case or a severe case.
8. Governments (which I know Tom generally detests) are concerned about this because: a) it is their mandate to take action on behalf of the public about such things; b) the scientific experts (who know about such things) are concerned; c) it is more cost-effective to give people a flu shot (assuming its effective) than to treat them afterward.
Steve
a) Perhaps my point was a bit obscure. It is that if government really cared that deeply about their citizens they would make smoking totally illegal or extremely, prohibitively expensive. Why? Because smoking (and second- and third-hand smoke) kills a lot of citizens. That's guaranteed. Meanwhile H1N1 *may* end up killing lots of people. Surely it is more rational to defend against the certain threat than the uncertain one.
b) Scientific experts are concerned about many things. Y2K, for example. That doesn't mean that I think that H1N1 is Y2K, or a tempest in a teapot (though it may be).
I like to keep in mind this axiom of politics: "Never let a crisis go to waste" and its corollary "If you don't have a crisis simply manufacture one". In sum I am not sure that if this is a real crisis, government trying to take advantage of this crisis (e.g. the Conservatives call off an election on the grounds that it is dangerous to have all these citizens collecting together and spreading H1N1), or the government manufacturing a crisis (e.g. big pharma pays the government off and everyone gets vaccinated at a couple of bucks a shot).
c) Your point is indisputable, in my opinion.
BTW, I rarely go shopping, but I noticed today that both of the banks that I deal with and the currency exchange business I used to convert some foreign money had sanitizers on their walls. I suspect the reason is to look like they are doing something (and money is pretty dirty so the idea is otherwise a good one), since I don't recall seeing these even a few months ago. Perhaps there is a golden opportunity to invest in companies that make them?
"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.
5. As Neil points out, hand sanitizers aren't likely to do much against a virus more than normal hygiene would, although I do realize we are talking about chess-players, many of whom are frequently hygiene-impaired.
6. If a virus is spread at a chess tournament it is likely because of airborne transmission, not because of something such as shaking hands.
I agree with most of your post, but you are in error on these two points. First, the hand sanitisers are about as effective as soap and water. Used properly they will remove the vast majority of viruses and bacteria from the skin of your hands. H1N1 is as vulneralble to them as any other virus.
The key is "used properly" though, which for soap and water means keeping soap on your hands for at least thirty seconds.
Second, communication of the disease by the hands is quite normal and not at all rare. To get it via air you have to be in close personal contact. To get it via hands all you have to do is touch a doornob that someone with the flu has used, then later touch your hand to your nose or eyes.
Like I said I agree heartily with most of your post. But on these two points you are just wrong.
I agree with most of your post, but you are in error on these two points. First, the hand sanitisers are about as effective as soap and water. Used properly they will remove the vast majority of viruses and bacteria from the skin of your hands. H1N1 is as vulneralble to them as any other virus.
The key is "used properly" though, which for soap and water means keeping soap on your hands for at least thirty seconds.
Second, communication of the disease by the hands is quite normal and not at all rare. To get it via air you have to be in close personal contact. To get it via hands all you have to do is touch a doornob that someone with the flu has used, then later touch your hand to your nose or eyes.
Like I said I agree heartily with most of your post. But on these two points you are just wrong.
I guess I wasn't clear about the hand sanitizers. I agree with what you say, and they certainly aren't going to hurt (although the development of resistant bacterial strains is a debate for another day.)
Regarding transmission, I meant that if anyone is going to be in a relatively confined space with an infected person, or sitting directly across a chessboard from them for several hours, transmission was likely going to occur regardless of an initial handshake. A single sneeze is likely to do far more. My use of the word "airborne" was incorrect.
a) Perhaps my point was a bit obscure. It is that if government really cared that deeply about their citizens they would make smoking totally illegal or extremely, prohibitively expensive. Why? Because smoking (and second- and third-hand smoke) kills a lot of citizens. That's guaranteed. Meanwhile H1N1 *may* end up killing lots of people. Surely it is more rational to defend against the certain threat than the uncertain one.
b) Scientific experts are concerned about many things. Y2K, for example. That doesn't mean that I think that H1N1 is Y2K, or a tempest in a teapot (though it may be).
BTW, I rarely go shopping, but I noticed today that both of the banks that I deal with and the currency exchange business I used to convert some foreign money had sanitizers on their walls. I suspect the reason is to look like they are doing something (and money is pretty dirty so the idea is otherwise a good one), since I don't recall seeing these even a few months ago. Perhaps there is a golden opportunity to invest in companies that make them?
The hand sanitizers may be to deal with the traces of cocaine on most of our currency :-)
As I said, with smoking there is a certain will involved and the hazards of smoking have been documented and disseminated for decades. Presently there is a huge tax levied on the end user and of course there are the corporate taxes on companies that make the products. Those taxes, along with other forms of regulation (such as severe advertising restrictions) are what governments of all stripes have chosen to do about it. If people actually *liked* H1N1 and it was available as a consumer product, you can bet the government would tax it too.
Regarding Y2K, most experts weren't all that worried about it. The media panicked about it. The only area that was likely to be seriously affected by it was the financial services industry. There actually *was* a real risk that telephone systems would go down at midnight of Y2K, but that was because there was a huge risk that *everyone* would pick up the phone to see if it was still working and in the process overload the system.
Tweet
Comment