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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Regarding leaders of nine known nations to have nuclear weapons as of 2 June 2026
Regarding leaders of nine known nations to have nuclear weapons as of 2 June 2026
Here's the entire quote of a fresh post that I've recently made on LinkedIn's website that viewers here on chesstalk may find interesting, re: political matters:
"Here's Google AI's answer to question: Are any of nine known nations that have #nuclearweapons that also have as their leaders #trump #modi #putin #netanyahu #starmer #macron #PakistanLeader #Xi #NorthKoreanLeader provably not led by a #worldleader who is corrupt incompetent evil or insane on 2 june 2026 (note that AI answers may vary even if same search keywords are used per search that's tried):
Result of a Google AI search result (as I posted first on LinkedIn today) re: Are any of nine known nations that have #nuclearweapons that also have as their leaders #Trump#Modi#Putin#Netanyahu#Starmer#Macron#PakistanLeader#Xi#NorthKoreanLeader provably not led by a leader who has violated International Law or Just War Theory in some act of aggression by 13 June 2026 (note: AI answer may vary for each search attempted even if same keywords are used)?:
Answer One called a 5% (= 1 in 20 odds) or less risk of WW3 as very low (experts);
Answer Two more or less implied that two space shuttle disasters (an average of 1 in 67.5 missions) by the time the fleet was retired was a catastrophic failure rate, historically speaking.
As I wrote online earlier, I am not a prophet (I'd also note that I'm not a statistician, either).
However, I also noted online earlier that it may be a good idea to #Pray (ideally asap, I would think). Anyone can visit my Profile Page on LinkedIn if they wish to, say if they'd like to investigate my posts or comments there that have the 3 LinkedIn hashtag phrases that are in this (present) post that's not on LinkedIn
As of September 1, 2026, military analysts and intelligence experts assess the direct odds of a full-scale World War III breaking out before the end of the year as very low (estimated at 5% or less). [1]
Current Risk Factors
Regional Flashpoints: Ongoing fighting in Ukraine, military escalations involving Israel and Iran in the Middle East, and friction near Taiwan keep international tensions elevated. [1, 2]
Public Anxiety: Opinion polls show that many people believe the global security situation is deteriorating, but public fear does not equal an expert prediction of an imminent world war. [1, 2]
Why a Global War Remains Unlikely
Nuclear Deterrence: The concept of mutually assured destruction still forces the U.S., Russia, and China to avoid direct military engagement. [1, 2]
Economic Interdependence: Global trade and financial systems link these major powers, meaning a total war would trigger catastrophic mutual economic collapse. [1, 2]
Asymmetric Tactics: Major nations continue to rely on localized proxy conflicts, economic restrictions, and cyber operations instead of declaring open global war. [1, 2]
If you'd like, I can break down the current status of specific flashpoints like:
The Middle East
Eastern Europe / Ukraine
The Pacific / Taiwan Strait
Let me know which area you would like to explore."
Google AI re: what were the odds of another space shuttle disaster by the year that the space shuttle program was cancelled?:
By the time the space shuttle program was cancelled in 2011, NASA's official Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) estimated the odds of a catastrophic loss of the vehicle and crew at roughly 1 in 90 to 1 in 100 per mission. Wikipedia +2
Historical Risk Estimates
Early Program/Pre-Challenger: NASA management originally claimed the odds of a disaster were as low as 1 in 100,000, while working engineers estimated the real risk was closer to 1 in 100. A later 2011 internal safety retrospective revealed that the first nine shuttle flights actually carried a staggering 1 in 9 chance of catastrophic failure. NPR
Post-Columbia (2003–2005): Following the Columbia disaster, NASA reassessed its metrics and pegged the per-mission risk of failure at around 1 in 100, up from earlier post-Challenger estimates of 1 in 250. Science | AAAS +1
Actual Program Outcome: The program completed 135 total missions with 2 catastrophic losses (Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003), resulting in an actual historical catastrophic failure rate of approximately 1 in 67.5 missions. Reddit·r/todayilearned +2
If you're interested, I can also break down:
The specific safety upgrades made between the Columbia disaster and the 2011 retirement
How modern commercial crew vehicles (SpaceX Dragon, Starliner) compare to those risk metrics"
Regards, Kevin Pacey
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
A follow-up to my previous Post in this chesstalk Discussion Board non-chess Forum Thread, from a Reply (to that quote) that I got to it on LinkedIn 5 days ago, that went:
'...Hi Kevin, I appreciate this examination of probability frameworks. I wonder if the focus on expert consensus for WW3 risk creates a blind spot for high-impact, low-probability edge cases? Does adoption friction increase as the complexity of risk assessment grows?...'
{my reply [to Kanishk Widhani] - admittedly limited to my virtually quoting 2 further Google AI search results that I made after the Comment that I made here on ChessChat as well, due to such factors as LinkedIn's character limit per Post/Comment/Reply made on it by a given LinkedIn Member, and my own quite limited understanding of what might be called 'b for Business jargon':}
'Google AI re Q1 (Does focus on expert consensus for WW3's probability create a blind spot for high-impact low-probability edge cases): asks if relying only on experts re WW3 makes us miss unlikely catastrophic scenarios
Expert consensus =Average view of most specialists
High-impact,low-probability =Events that're very unlikely but'll cause total devastation if do, i.e. Black Swan events
Edge cases =Unconventional scenarios that're outside normal predictions
Core Argument =Experts often look at historical data & rational behavior. By doing this they may ignore wildcards eg technical glitch triggering a nuclear launch or irrational decision by 1 leader
AI re Q2 (Does adoption friction increase as complexity of risk assessment grows): asks if tools/methods are harder for people to accept/use if they get more complex
Risk assessment =Method used to weigh dangers/threats
Adoption friction =The resistance/slow down/difficulty users face in trying to implement a new system
The Core Argument =If a safety framework/software needs too much data/advanced math/confusing steps people will push back. They may reject it entirely/prefer simpler instinct-based choices/use the tool incorrectly. Complexity slows down down-to-earth usage...'
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
Wikipedia +2
Comment