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.
The drug thing is a little hard to imagine, but yes, I'd make the donation.
(In fact, I probably have, I forget everything these days. ;))
actually, that means you would be willing to make the donation twice, three times,.... as long as the drug holds out. :-)
So, as part of the thought experiment, you have to entertain the possibility that whoever is administering the situation will do it repeatedly to you - in itself, a reason not to make the donation.
Ok, the part about the person administering it over and over is a good one, but I'll stipulate that they will only make the offer once, will do only what they say they will do, no shenanigans, etc.
My point is that I think very, very few people would agree to this. Not because it is dangerous and open to abuse (since it is only a thought experiment I will stipulate that there is no chance of any of that happening), but because they would receive absolutely no benefit, tangible or not, for their donation. As David very self-awaredly(?) pointed out, he got to make some nice posts, got to make his point, maybe embarrass a few people, etc. He didn't get "nothing" for his donation. He didn't get anything worth nearly a G-note in my opinion, but whatever floats his boat. ;-)
"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.
Ok, the part about the person administering it over and over is a good one, but I'll stipulate that they will only make the offer once, will do only what they say they will do, no shenanigans, etc.
My point is that I think very, very few people would agree to this. Not because it is dangerous and open to abuse (since it is only a thought experiment I will stipulate that there is no chance of any of that happening), but because they would receive absolutely no benefit, tangible or not, for their donation. As David very self-awaredly(?) pointed out, he got to make some nice posts, got to make his point, maybe embarrass a few people, etc. He didn't get "nothing" for his donation. He didn't get anything worth nearly a G-note in my opinion, but whatever floats his boat. ;-)
well, some people do make anonymous donations, and some people also anonomously return lost objects such as wallets full of cash. Not everybody I'll grant you but some people.
In addition, I don't find it inconceivable that what motivates a particular donation is that an event takes place. So, if your donation is necessary to make the event take place, your memory is wiped but the event takes place and you are happy without knowing the particulars of how the event was funded. So no, I would say some people would make the donation under your specified conditions. And by some I mean the something larger than the fraction of people who anonomously make donations now and who return found wallets. A percentage that is less than 100% but not I think something I would describe as 'very very few'.
well, some people do make anonymous donations, and some people also anonomously return lost objects such as wallets full of cash. Not everybody I'll grant you but some people.
When my kids were young my oldest son found a wallet with a lot of money and other things. I phoned the number on the ID and the guy came and got it.
My neighbour a couple of doors away had a roomer who was a junior hockey player. The guy whose wallet it was had come to pick him up. He thought it fell out of his pocket when he got back in his car. I think it was $20. he gave my son for a reward, if I remember correctly.
It wasn't an anonomous return but the guy did get his belonging returned.
Well, I once did find a wallet full of cash... a couple of hundred, anyway, and returned it. The guy - a very old guy - gave me $5, which I thought was a little cheap. Oh well, virtue is its own reward, etc.
I almost always make anonymous donations.
As regards the thought experiment, I assumed everything was on the up-and-up. Silly me.
As David very self-awaredly(?) pointed out, he got to make some nice posts, got to make his point, maybe embarrass a few people, etc. He didn't get "nothing" for his donation. He didn't get anything worth nearly a G-note in my opinion, but whatever floats his boat. ;-)
I got a mention in spraggetts blog. Can you really put a value on such a thing?
Seriously Tom makes the same point I do. If someone is wiling to give money to something you want them to, then you have to give them as much return (whether financial, goodwill, or just feeling special) as you can. In reality if a real sponsor was treated like I was, they just would say no or not return the call next time, leaving us wondering why a sponsor had been lost after a (by all standards) successful tourney.
Well, I once did find a wallet full of cash... a couple of hundred, anyway, and returned it. The guy - a very old guy - gave me $5, which I thought was a little cheap. Oh well, virtue is its own reward, etc.
I almost always make anonymous donations.
As regards the thought experiment, I assumed everything was on the up-and-up. Silly me.
I think I have found a wallet with cash 3 times or so (returned) and once my wallet with cash was returned so my personal statistics on this are that 100% of wallets with cash are returned :-)
It occurred to me after I posted that there are any number of behavioural economics experiments that show a fair fraction of the population in double blind anonymous situations will hand over cash that there is absolutely no external reason for them to do so. Not quite Tom's posited situation - their minds aren't wiped, amounts are small, and there is personal self knowledge of the transaction but still. Although the paradigm of rational self interest is a useful model it is not a complete or necessarily correct description of the world at large and the behaviour of people.
It occurred to me after I posted that there are any number of behavioural economics experiments that show a fair fraction of the population in double blind anonymous situations will hand over cash that there is absolutely no external reason for them to do so. Not quite Tom's posited situation - their minds aren't wiped, amounts are small, and there is personal self knowledge of the transaction but still. Although the paradigm of rational self interest is a useful model it is not a complete or necessarily correct description of the world at large and the behaviour of people.
In my opinion it makes a HUGE difference that you know what you have done. For proof I need only mention a few of the posts preceding this that go "I remember I did X and thanks to what I did ..." that's a reward though a non-monetary one: people get to boast (even if only in their heads), they get to feel good about themselves, they provide an example for their children or others around them, they create good karma, they add to the civility of our civilization and place in it. You do exactly the same below:
"I think I have found a wallet with cash 3 times or so (returned) and once my wallet with cash was returned so my personal statistics on this are that 100% of wallets with cash are returned :-)"
My point isn't to slag you, but to point out that when people make a donation (or do a good deed) they definitely expect something for it, but perhaps asking the recipients - and it seems maybe even non-recipients in the case of asking for thanks from people who didn't win part of the prize - to be explicitly thankful about winning an extra couple hundred bucks is maybe asking too much. ;-)
"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.
In my opinion it makes a HUGE difference that you know what you have done. )
well maybe. Without the hypothesized drug to induce amnesia the point is rather moot isn't it? Essentially this just becomes an exercise in your promotion of your beliefs about what some people have called "hyper rationality" - the idea that everyone's actions at all times are driven by by some thought of personal benefit.
A [paraphrased] quote from Amartya Sen (the winner of the Economics Nobel Prize for his work in micro credit) goes something like this (sorry, don't have the time to dig up the precise quote):
You ask me directions to the train station. I say sure it is right over there (pointing at the post office). While you are there, could you mail this letter for me? You say "Sure" while fondling the envelope thinking of what might be valuable inside.
His point being that not everything is driven by considerations of direct personal benefit.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Tuesday, 31st May, 2011, 02:09 PM.
well maybe. Without the hypothesized drug to induce amnesia the point is rather moot isn't it? ...
... that not everything is driven by considerations of direct personal benefit.
Not moot at all. Joe Blow gives money to a tournament. Joe has certain expectations that Y will happen (people won't agree to draws, they will play fighting chess every game, they will thank him profusely for his donation, they will name their firsts-born after him, whatever). But to the recipients Joe hasn't done enough for them to alter their actions to accommodate Joe. Perhaps they think that Joe is getting plenty enough from his donation already (e.g. I donate five hundred bucks for a new perpetual trophy to the winner of the Canadian Closed and name it the "Tom O'Donnell Trophy" should I really be thanked for this?). Judging from Kevin Spraggett's blog post regarding the "Ottosen Prize" I think I can imagine at least one other individual who might think like that.
If it were true that Joe got absolutely nothing from his donation then indeed his actions are truly altruistic and deserving of high praise. But that can never happen. The donator always gets some return. Perhaps not as much as they like, but that's tough. The people who get the money might see it oppositely and think he got too much. ;-)
A final thought:
I see a few tournaments lately with the advertisement is "Z will give $X for a perfect score in this event". Yippee. I'll give $500K to any Canadian who beats World Champion Anand 6-0 in a match in the next 15 seconds. Do I deserve praise for my enormous financial contribution to chess?
"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.
Be that as it may, David's prize was not in this category at all. He's had over 1,000 views. When somebody (anonymously) gives $49.95 to the Olympic Fund of the CFC, do they get more than 50 views?
You have the opportunity to donate as much as you like to a good cause, but not one that you or anyone you know will benefit from personally. Bill Gates will match your contribution 1,000:1. The only catch is that not only is your contribution undocumented (i.e. you get no credit for it whatsoever and no one else will know what you have done) but further you must submit to being injected with a drug that will wipe all memory of the contribution and everything associated with it (but only that) from your mind. In other words, no one - not even you - will ever have any idea of your donation.
Not moot at all. Joe Blow gives money to a tournament. Joe has certain expectations that Y will happen...
yeah yeah - you state that a particular some one will make a donation with the expectation of receiving something and conclude that ALL people will donate only for those reasons. A logical fallacy.
Meanwhile, we do have numerous examples of people who donate in real life or forgo benefits under anonymous conditions who don't receive any obvious apparent direct benefit. True they have self knowledge of the event and you say - AHA: their preferences are such that this knowledge is the benefit and without that knowledge they would not donate. This is an arguement of circularity - another logical fallacy. You simply refuse to accept the possibility that they gave the money 'just because'.
Incidentally, there are donations to tournaments, at least the ones I organize, that are made anonymously. I suppose I could presume that these people are acting solely for their own personal benefit but really, it is simpler to take them at their word.
You have the opportunity to donate as much as you like to a good cause, but not one that you or anyone you know will benefit from personally. Bill Gates will match your contribution 1,000:1. The only catch is that not only is your contribution undocumented (i.e. you get no credit for it whatsoever and no one else will know what you have done) but further you must submit to being injected with a drug that will wipe all memory of the contribution and everything associated with it (but only that) from your mind. In other words, no one - not even you - will ever have any idea of your donation.
Do you still make the donation?
Some people do believe in a cause strongly enough to wish for it ahead of their own personal interests. Some of these people are recognizable by the fact that even if you show them with logical irrefutable proof that their cause would do more overall harm than overall good, they will deny the proof and insist that their cause is "just" and "good".
People like Sarah Palin come to mind. She would gladly awake tomorrow morning to the news that abortion has been prohibited worldwide, whether she was given any personal credit for it or not.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Some people do believe in a cause strongly enough to wish for it ahead of their own personal interests. Some of these people are recognizable by the fact that even if you show them with logical irrefutable proof that their cause would do more overall harm than overall good, they will deny the proof and insist that their cause is "just" and "good".
People like Sarah Palin come to mind. She would gladly awake tomorrow morning to the news that abortion has been prohibited worldwide, whether she was given any personal credit for it or not.
People can have a irrational reason for wanting something but still be acting in their self-interest to make it happen. A guy strapping dynamite to his chest and taking out a bunch of mall shoppers, for example. A noble act or a deluded person but one still acting in his self-interest (to get 50 virgins or make a name for himself in the paper or get revenge against the crypto-consumerist overlords or whatever)?
I don't know enough about Sarah Palin to know if you what you write is an accurate characterization of her but if it is, then she could still benefit in the sense that she receives (or *thinks* she will receive) more benefit than harm from what would happen next.
"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