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.
I also come across this all the time. I have asked both Vlad and Gary how many books or scientific papers they have read pertaining to climate change. Each time I ask I never get a response. Yet they seem to think they are experts on the topic; without educating themselves on the topic. Go figure...
I also come across this all the time. I have asked both Vlad and Gary how many books or scientific papers they have read pertaining to climate change. Each time I ask I never get a response.
You have to know how to ask proper questions. More accurately would have been to ask how many scientific papers by reputatable scientists.
If someone wants to give me a large grant to write a book either for or against climate change, I could do it.
You have to know how to ask proper questions. More accurately would have been to ask how many scientific papers by reputatable scientists.
If someone wants to give me a large grant to write a book either for or against climate change, I could do it.
Ah yes, the old "my experts are more expert than your experts" ... I was wondering when this would surface. Instead of "reputable" how about substituting "peer-reviewed and published"? That might be more interesting.
Now I suppose we will hear howls of protest that "peer-reviewed" by whom?
It never ends. The Internet and Wikipedia have created a whole bunch of new experts on a lot of subjects.
Kerry, you just hit the nail on the head. The internet and wikipidia allow people to take any position on any topic and argue it to the nth degree.
Gary, lets do an experiment. Pick a topic like gravity for example. I could argue ad nauseum that it does not exist, it is only a theory and you have bought into the Religion of Gravity, to use Vlad's terminology. Or that you are a Gravity Hugger. What topic would you like to debate?
Kerry, you just hit the nail on the head. The internet and wikipidia allow people to take any position on any topic and argue it to the nth degree.
Gary, lets do an experiment. Pick a topic like gravity for example. I could argue ad nauseum that it does not exist, it is only a theory and you have bought into the Religion of Gravity, to use Vlad's terminology. Or that you are a Gravity Hugger. What topic would you like to debate?
Gary, lets do an experiment. Pick a topic like gravity for example. I could argue ad nauseum that it does not exist, it is only a theory and you have bought into the Religion of Gravity, to use Vlad's terminology.
As a student of the stock market I would argue gravity does exist. You may argue all you want that gravity does not exist. However, if you really beleive that you will fare about as well as the money managers who watched the effects of gravity on the stock charts and their assets.
The trick is not in arguing the existance of gravity. The trick is in making gravity work for you.
For the stock market I think that people confuse gravity-like effects with regression to the mean; which is a statistical phenomena as opposed to a gravitational phenomena.
No, No! It's the Winawer Defence of the French Defence. I'm no longer anti-Winawer defence. I've started to enjoy watching aspiring players get creamed in an important game by a higher rated player who knows how to handle the Winawer.
For the stock market I think that people confuse gravity-like effects with regression to the mean; which is a statistical phenomena as opposed to a gravitational phenomena.
There you go Paul. By admission of a gravitional phenomena, you appear to have reversed your stance gravity does not exist. By my giving an unsound example, you have embraced the scientific view, reversing your side of the argument, to show I have erred.
I don't proof read much and every so often the spelling mavens pick me up.
It has been a good day, though. Paul started out arguing against gravity and ended up admitting it does exist. I bought a cheap stock in B.C.. You compared my spelling to your dictionary.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs do sheep have?
I'm afraid I cannot provide multiple peer-reviewed papers from prominent scientists in the field of sheep legs and tails to answer that question intelligently.
"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.
Tweet
Comment