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 will say this about the defenders of Marxism out in the real world beyond the confines of chesstalk, many of them write well ... almost poetic ....
The truth about anything is not revealed by how well you praise it ... it is substantiated by the reasons you give for why you say it is good, and the explanations you give about why the reasons being given for it being bad are not true...
Those who cannot do this, and just say: 'let us agree to disagree' are simply misguided folks...
I am sure you aren't defending the policies of Mao, who if there were a contest for the worst human of all time, would be a strong contender for the gold medal.
It is interesting that the number of people who emigrated from China to the West must surely dwarf the reverse. I wonder why is that?
Actually Bob is defending the policies of Mao, he just wants us to divorce ourselves from the inevitable fruits of those policies and pretend that this time things will turn out differently, despite all evidence to the contrary based on experience with the poisonous fruit of these doctrines.
I will say this about the defenders of Marxism out in the the real world beyond the confines of chesstalk, many of them write well in the sense of their almost poetic defense of the the indefensible existential evil that is its heart and soul.
... I know a Canadian Chinese entrepreneur, successful in the restaurant/coffee shop business (two locations in Toronto, with a major renovation of one just completed), who is pro-Communist Chinese Government. ...
Bob A
Let me see if I get this straight. This person is pro-Communist China so they/their family moved halfway around the world to set up a business in a Western country?
I will write this on here yet again: when a person's talk doesn't match their actions, believe the actions.
...go see for themselves what has been done for the small entrepreneur...
Bob A
She did hit the bullseye...
And very likely she migrated to USA when this had not yet started...
As mentioned in a separate dedicated link here, the current Chinese government is not communist... it just values the common man without a capital of his own...
Bob Holliman is a USA citizen who is a chess player (I think maybe expert level). He is not a member here on CT to my knowledge. He is a member of my Fb chess group: Chess Chat: A Project of Chess Companions of Caissa (https://www.facebook.com/groups/340524269771672/).
He is also an avid Trump supporter (I'm not sure if Trump's latest activities all meet with his approval).
I know a Canadian Chinese entrepreneur, successful in the restaurant/coffee shop business (two locations in Toronto, with a major renovation of one just completed), who is pro-Communist Chinese Government. She advised that those criticizing the regime should take a broader view (It is far from perfect), and go see for themselves what has been done for the ordinary Chinese worker and small entrepreneur. Don't know how many more Canadian Chinese are of this same opinion.
I am unsure the reason she originally came to Canada. I believe she was born in China and came to Canada as an immigrant (Not sure what age).
I am sure you aren't defending the policies of Mao, who if there were a contest for the worst human of all time, would be a strong contender for the gold medal.
It is interesting that the number of people who emigrated from China to the West must surely dwarf the reverse. I wonder why is that?
Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."
Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).
Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.
Bob A
Students of History know very well that the Mao Zedong era, the 1950s-1970s, was a disaster for China's economy and society, with all the misery one always sees in Marxism. However in the 1980s, China started privatizing its economy, and wealth production began to improve. It was then that the USA had to resort to cheap imports from China in huge amounts, and that led to a great resurgence in Chinese economy. The especially good thing was that it happened in a Libertarian manner, in which the smart and hard working individuals even without huge capital of their own could privately increase production because of governmental policies valuing the common man.
The reason why Capitalism is unsustainable is that the holders of Capital are able to bribe the politicians into passing a myriad laws discouraging competition from those without their own capital, even when they are smart and hard-working, from starting businesses of their own. This gradually leads to huge and ever-widening wealth inequality and society's collapse. Libertarianism is the solution, as it provides easy access to capital and guarantees ease of starting businesses, thereby increasing wealth production with efficiency, and without price-gouging, given the huge competition...
So, to sum up, Marxism destroys the economy rapidly, making everyone poorer, Capitalism increases wealth production and makes many people rich for quite a while, but huge and ever-widening wealth inequality eventually takes its toll on the society, while Libertarianism is the best solution for permanent increases in the society's wealth...
Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 1st June, 2025, 05:35 AM.
Tom O'Donnell & Bob Holliman: "In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history."
Bob Armstrong: "The lifting of millions out of poverty has also been achieved in China from the time of the revolution under Mao Zedong to the present (Xi Jinping) - old-style USSR Communism (Now altered by some integration of capitalism within the new Chinese Communism).
Note: Capitalism's roots are not in the masses. It is the eventual creation of the era of Kings, the Lords, and finally Oligarchs - is it surprising that now the system provides the most benefit to the elite? Is it surprising that, of necessity, capitalism involves an ever-widening wealth/income gap.......wider now than ever in the history of capitalism!! It is inherently unsustainable.
1) Agreed about one world government. I think it is impractical. I also like the idea that people can choose from a variety of different cultural practices where they want to live.
I think it is also impractical to have a set of common norms that are acceptable to everyone, or even say 95% of people world-wide.
Take something like female genital mutilation (FGM). There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where a doctor was performing this. Should this be a crime? If that's a crime, what about circumcision?
Hi Tom,
'One World, One Nation' would be impractical if we let politicians dictate over the citizens (other than enforcing the Natural Law, which, incidentally, would cover the issue of FGM. Circumcision does have medical benefits, and hence does not violate the Natural Law).
It would work very well if citizens were free to do what they chose, and choose to join others with similar 'cultural practices', forming their circles, so long as they do not harm anybody...
1) Agreed about one world government. I think it is impractical. I also like the idea that people can choose from a variety of different cultural practices where they want to live.
I think it is also impractical to have a set of common norms that are acceptable to everyone, or even say 95% of people world-wide.
Take something like female genital mutilation (FGM). There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where a doctor was performing this. Should this be a crime? If that's a crime, what about circumcision? You will never get people to agree on this world-wide.
2) The goal of free trade is to increase "happiness" (admittedly an inexact word, maybe an economist would use satisfaction or improved situation or ...?). In the FGM case above, someone paid the doctor to do this. The doctor presumably got money and the parents of the girls got what they wanted. If a country allows this, even if you or I think it is barbaric - I certainly do - then people pass laws to disallow it. But expecting every country to do this is unlikely and I am not going to judge the standards of other cultures, so long as those practices are not performed here.
In the case of something like green energy, if demand for say windmill farms or nuclear power plants is great enough, if there is money in it, someone will supply it.
3) In the general case, capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything in human history. If you strive for perfection, presumably you have to meet people's basic needs first. This will involve people making errors about how capital is allocated. Trying and failing is the precursor to trying and succeeding, most of the time. There is no person, or group of people, so intelligent that they can predict what works and what doesn't in all cases, which is what central planning attempts but fails to do. Perhaps some sort of computer will eventually be able to do it, but as it stands now you can wish that people had this level of foresight but that's all it is, wishing.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Thursday, 29th May, 2025, 11:48 AM.
1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.
This relates to our previous discussion about borders. The increasing fragmentation of the world into countries, each with their own set of laws, seems to create chaos. I am not advocating for one world government, BUT some things need to be agreed to UNIVERSALLY.
The U.S. Constitution is often cited as the best example so far in human history of this ideal set of universal principles.
Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. .....
No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole.
THESE TWO STATEMENTS SEEM TO STRONGLY CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
The first statement is an absolute fallacy.
The second statement is not true in practice even in modern democracies. In PRACTICE, we allow our elected governments to tell us what transactions are of value to society as a whole. As one example. Trump voters and supporters seem to agree that green energy transactions are NOT beneficial to society as a whole. How did they decide this? Probably because Trump said it.
Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.
If this were true, we would be heading towards perfection here on Earth and every increase in population, by the mere fact of increasing these billions of voluntary transactions, must be improving society.
The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?
And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.
Again, when you say "misses out" you are supposing that the overall trend is towards perfection. Misallocation of capital is a HUGE problem, as China is currently discovering. China is in a downward tailspin economically because of such misallocation.
We definitely SHOULD want to solve that problem as much as humanly possible.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Thursday, 29th May, 2025, 09:32 AM.
When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.
The Natural Law would cover the problem you describe, as it would most problems. A lot of specific laws are not only unnecessary, but often become contradictory, making lawyers play around with them preventing the ones harmed from obtaining justice...
1) When I wrote "assuming there is no law against it" I meant that there are some things that a particular society might consider so detrimental overall that they collectively decide to outlaw it. An example might be someone trying to sell heroin or a bioweapon. Each country would have different laws. What might be okay in one country (e.g. marijuana) might be strictly prohibited in another. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who thinks there should be no laws.
2) Something that increases value to an individual also increases overall value to the country. Billions and billions of tiny, voluntary transactions will incrementally increase the overall value to the society.
No person or group of people are capable of determining on a case-by-case basis if any particular transaction is of value to the society as a whole. How would it be possible to determine this?
The only way we can know is by the revealed preference of people spending their money on goods and services at various price points. For example, if John Doe spends $500 on a widget it is reasonable to conclude that he values the widget more than the $500. If he didn't buy the widget yesterday at $600 it is also reasonable to conclude he values the widget less than $600. The value to Doe of the widget can only be determined by how he chooses to spend his money. There is no other way, is there?
And sure, there will be misjudgments as businesses misallocate capital. Even experts in their specific fields make errors. There is no system that can solve that problem, nor would we want to, imo. Without making these errors society also misses out when companies create things whose approximate net value isn't determined until decades later.
Let's deal with this part first. Lots of things create no value to me. An example: I don't own a television. It would not hurt me at all if there was no television. If you gave me a free television I would not take it unless I could sell it.
However, just because I derive no value from something doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold to people who want it. If there's a market for something then, assuming there is no law against it, buyer and seller can try to come to a fair price.
No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Except when the government taxes you; if you don't "buy" what they are "selling" you go to prison.
So, lottery tickets, astrologers, there was even a person who bought a piece of art that was literally nothing:
Should this person be forbidden for selling this? Should the buyers (note: the final sale price was based on competitive bidding) be prevented from buying it? No, as long as both parties understand what they a selling/buying. I think it's nuts, but my opinion is irrelevant. The transaction has nothing to do with me. If someone wants to buy something voluntarily this implies that they value the good/service more than the money, again assuming they are informed about what they are buying.
When I mentioned pet rocks, I wasn't suggesting it should be illegal to ATTEMPT to sell pet rocks since that product doesn't do any harm to society.
I guess there are 2 types of value in this discussion: (1) value to individuals or individual entities, and (2) value to society as a whole.
If all we have is free market capitalism with no government regulation, we end up with lots of (1) and very little of (2).
Let's deal with this part first. Lots of things create no value to me. An example: I don't own a television. It would not hurt me at all if there was no television. If you gave me a free television I would not take it unless I could sell it.
However, just because I derive no value from something doesn't mean they shouldn't be sold to people who want it. If there's a market for something then, assuming there is no law against it, buyer and seller can try to come to a fair price.
No one is forcing anyone to buy things. Except when the government taxes you; if you don't "buy" what they are "selling" you go to prison.
So, lottery tickets, astrologers, there was even a person who bought a piece of art that was literally nothing:
Should this person be forbidden for selling this? Should the buyers (note: the final sale price was based on competitive bidding) be prevented from buying it? No, as long as both parties understand what they a selling/buying. I think it's nuts, but my opinion is irrelevant. The transaction has nothing to do with me. If someone wants to buy something voluntarily this implies that they value the good/service more than the money, again assuming they are informed about what they are buying.
Leave a comment: