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.
Jason of course has never read Kuhn's book. He is merely citing it in an attempt to sound impressive. He's failing at that, too.
I have read Kuhns book... several times at that and have it on my book shelf. It is one of my favorite philosophical texts. Perhaps YOU should read it.
Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.
Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.
Dawkins is wrong. Read Kuhns book and you will get an actually historical perspective by an expert in the field. Your (and Dawkins) view of science doesnt hold up to the historical evidence.
As for your book, I will look it up as it sounds like an interesting read :)
Last edited by Jason Lohner; Friday, 3rd September, 2010, 03:52 PM.
Science is CONSTANTLY changing? really?? Thats news to me, you must be joking, I thought science just stayed the exact same and never changed and could never be questioned, oh wait that's religion.
Richard Dawkins also talks about that in one of his books, about how science is constantly compounding which is why a child can learn things that the greatest scientists of the past had no idea about.
Dawkins is wrong. Read Kuhns book and you will get an actually historical perspective by an expert in the field. Your (and Dawkins) view of science doesnt hold up to the historical evidence.
As for your book, I will look it up as it sounds like an interesting read :)
Wait what? if science doesn't compound then we would lose all of the science ever proved in all of history. Science has to compound or else the scientific method falls apart. Can you tell me exactly why science doesn't compound or how science progresses without compounding(because to me that is how science advances and becomes more complete).
Wait what? if science doesn't compound then we would lose all of the science ever proved in all of history. Science has to compound or else the scientific method falls apart. Can you tell me exactly why science doesn't compound or how science progresses without compounding(because to me that is how science advances and becomes more complete).
And of course Kuhn never said anything of the sort. His book, these days, is considered interesting and an original viewpoint back in 1962 when it was written. But many flaws and mistakes in it have been pointed out in the 48 years since it was published. Kuhn was not a scientist but a philosopher observing a subset of scientists. Some of what he claimed does occur, but not nearly to the extent he believed. Scientist are, of course, human beings and have the normal set of human faults.
What makes me laugh is that these silly ideas about science are being promulgated on a medium which would not exist without the very science they decry.
No dice. We could send every chess player in Canada and we still wouldn't finish in the top 20. I don't have anything to do with selecting who represents Canada; I leave that to the experts.
Well, where do you figure the team will finish? Maybe we can work something on that.
I get a laugh out of players who get their clocks cleaned in an event and they claim illness. When I started playing chess I made that mistake. It was in the 1950's. An old man at the event took me to the side and told me that nobody ever beats a well chess player. A defeated chess player always has a cold or a flu or didn't sleep well or has a headache.
The man told me when a chess player loses a game and whines about an illness he didn't only lose the game. He lost his pride.
Well, where do you figure the team will finish? Maybe we can work something on that.
I get a laugh out of players who get their clocks cleaned in an event and they claim illness. When I started playing chess I made that mistake. It was in the 1950's. An old man at the event took me to the side and told me that nobody ever beats a well chess player. A defeated chess player always has a cold or a flu or didn't sleep well or has a headache.
The man told me when a chess player loses a game and whines about an illness he didn't only lose the game. He lost his pride.
I'm sure some people actually have occurred problems/illnesses OTB. Back when I was a 1400(I'm 1950 now) I played in the PWC Toronto Open and had 2.5/3 in the U1600 and was playing really well, then I got a migraine...and lost both my next games. So things like that can happen...not saying they always do we have a player in Brantford who is always tired, or was focusing on his job, etc...
Ed Seedhouse, I'm just going to wait for Mr.Lohner to express his opinion on why Dawkins and myself are wrong, and how he can justify saying science does not compound.
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Friday, 3rd September, 2010, 08:46 PM.
I'm sure some people actually have occurred problems/illnesses OTB. Back when I was a 1400(I'm 1950 now) I played in the PWC Toronto Open and had 2.5/3 in the U1600 and was playing really well, then I got a migraine...and lost both my next games. So things like that can happen...not saying they always do we have a player in Brantford who is always tired, or was focusing on his job, etc...
I know it can happen. However, if you are well enough to play the game and lose, it shouldn't be the excuse. I've noticed no matter how sick I've felt during a game, if I win I always feel better. Winning a chess game while I'm sick works better than an antibiotic.
Put up a sign at the club. WHINING AND COMPLAINING AFTER A LOSS SHOULD BE DONE AT HOME.
I know it can happen. However, if you are well enough to play the game and lose, it shouldn't be the excuse. I've noticed no matter how sick I've felt during a game, if I win I always feel better. Winning a chess game while I'm sick works better than an antibiotic.
Put up a sign at the club. WHINING AND COMPLAINING AFTER A LOSS SHOULD BE DONE AT HOME.
I'll have to tell Rob Gashgarian (he's the president) to put that sign up sounds like a good idea.
Ed Seedhouse, I'm just going to wait for Mr.Lohner to express his opinion on why Dawkins and myself are wrong, and how you can justify saying science does not compound.
Just to clarify, because your wording is a bit unclear to me, I did not say that science doesn't compound. It does compound.
Just to clarify, because your wording is a bit unclear to me, I did not say that science doesn't compound. It does compound.
No I know you know science compounds(yeah my wording was awkward, i edited it, should have used the word he instead of you), I was waiting for Mr.Lohner to explain how he can justify saying mine, Dawkins (and probably just about any one who studies any branch of science) view(I'm certain it is a fact) is incorrect that science compounds.
Last edited by Adam Cormier; Friday, 3rd September, 2010, 08:47 PM.
On the question of whether the atmospheric carbon rise is caused my humans or not, the rational among us may care to read "Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?" by Jan Schloerer an actual, you know, scientist.
His explanation of the abundance of various isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere and the conclusions to be drawn from them is only part of his paper, but I quote it below:
"The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly 1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher, p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago. Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings, dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257] [Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2 source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.
The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon, almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom) [Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257] [C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2 source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher, p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?
Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is extremely unlikely."
The citations quoted above may also be found on the web page pointed to above, should you care to read the actual papers cited.
The word "unlikely" is a disclaimer word. Strictly for bumpkins who just fell off a turnip wagon.
But he didn't just say "unlikely" he said "extremely unlikely". But as usual Garriorory can only cherry pick and spin. Spin Glarry spin.
Commonly, by the way, when a scientist says "unlikely" he (or she) usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 5%, and when he says "extremely unlikely" he usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 1%.
To bring in some chess content, a player who beats another player 95% of the time is performing at 470 ELO points better than the other, and a player who beats another player 99% of the time is performing at 677 points better.
Commonly, by the way, when a scientist says "unlikely" he (or she) usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 5%, and when he says "extremely unlikely" he usually means that the likelyhood of being wrong is less than 1%.
To bring in some chess content, a player who beats another player 95% of the time is performing at 470 ELO points better than the other, and a player who beats another player 99% of the time is performing at 677 points better.
Weasel words. 5% is once every 20 times. If someone is doing an operation on you a 95% chance is pretty good. Unless you happen to be one of the 5%.
Your chess rating analogy is meaningless.
Will you be taking part in the labour day parade? If so, will you walk it or ride in a polluting bus?
Will you be taking part in the labour day parade? If so, will you walk it or ride in a polluting bus?
We don't have a labour day parade in my neck of the woods, we have a picnic and I'll probably go because there will be a lot of nice friendly people there.
I'm sure that Garioni will stay at home and stew in his bitterness, though.
Tweet
Comment