<German grandmaster Robert Hübner prefers an even more specific and restrained use of move evaluation symbols:

"I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks ... I have distributed question marks in brackets to moves which are obviously inaccurate and significantly increase the difficulty of the player's task ...

There are no exclamation marks, as they serve no useful purpose. The best move should be mentioned in the analysis in any case; an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator.">

Seems to me that

<an exclamation mark can only serve to indicate the personal excitement of the commentator>

is how participation trophies start!

If you simply want to twist words and ideas.

You could say:
"A question mark can only serve to indicate
the personal contempt of the commentator."

Regarding notation: this is an interesting question. I think the intended audience has a lot to do with proper notation. If you’re writing a book for beginners, you might put an exclamation point after a normal developing move in the opening, when the alternative was to maybe capture a pawn, which would make a stronger impression upon the reader. But if you were annotating one of your own games for your own studying purposes, you’d probably not mark the move.

In my games, I give myself a ? If I missed a better or much better continuation. I give myself a ?? if I make a blunder, like allowing a bishop to fork two rooks just because I was superficial and failed to methodically look at each response.

I give an exclam if it was a critical position and I picked the right move according to stockfish, as long as it wasn’t an obvious choice. I also give an exclam if a deep analysis with engines show that a certain move in the opening is definitely best. The exclam helps me remember it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...

Heh heh. I read some of it. This part in particular stood out:

<Because of our conditioning, I imagined everyone looking at my recycled outfit and judging me for it.

However, one week into my experiment, nobody mentioned anything.

And in that silence, I was liberated.>

It made me think of Seinfeld:

http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheP...

<To Elaine

GUY: The membranes get dried and it just starts bleeding. Since I was a

kid so I have to stick tissue up there

ELAINE: (very uninterested) Uh, you have to work like that?

Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanity. Our age knows better. What was formerly merely sickly now becomes indecent—it is indecent to be a Christian today. I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7c...

You posted the link in my forum on April 9th:

< Big Pawn: Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7c...

thegoodanarchist chessforum (kibitz #809)

I checked and it appears that altright.com is down. There appears to be another purge in the works.

<GoDaddy pulled white nationalist Richard Spencer’s ‘alt-right’ site offline>

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/4/1...

Gee, do you think Godaddy hosts any sites of any rappers that promote violence? Think they pulled those too?

In order to censor someone, all they need to do is label you a Nazi or white supremacist or something similar, and then they deplatform you. They can say "hate speech" and deplatform you.

What this means is that anything not liberal can be deplatformed because anything not liberal is hate speech, of course.

This is a big mistake as it infringes on our freedom of speech. Look at it this way. Why not let these "hateful" sites stay up so that the regular folks can visit them and see how wrong they are?

I think they're afraid of them. They are afraid that there is some un-liberal truth to be found on those sites and they don't want that getting out.

Ok, thanks for this. I remember now - it was good, but the host was annoying.

<GoDaddy pulled white nationalist Richard Spencer’s ‘alt-right’ site offline>

This needs to go to the SCOTUS. I suspect it falls under equal time, but I don't know if equal time is still in force.

I was pissed at McConnell when he blocked Obama's nominee, Garland I think his name was.

Well at least the rest of the world is finally starting to catch on.

<‘Facts Are Now Seen As Hate’>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess...

<! The only move which maintains the current evaluation of the position: if the position is theoretically drawn, this is the only move which does not lose; if the position is theoretically won, this is the only move which secures the win. An "!" is used no matter how trivial the move in question; the only exception is if it is the only legal move.>

Being weak to the juniors does not help them. There is no kindness in niceness. The truth is the only thing if any real value, so if you have it give it. Peoples feelings should never disqualify them from the truth. Give them the ??.

<Ruby Hamad, The Guardian, May 7, 2018

That the voices of “women of colour” are getting louder and more influential is a testament less to the accommodations made by the dominant white culture and more to their own grit in a society that implicitly – and sometimes explicitly – wants them to fail.

At the Sydney writers’ festival on Sunday, editor of Djed Press, Hella Ibrahim, relayed the final minutes of a panel on diversity featuring writers from the western Sydney Sweatshop collective. One of the panellists, Winnie Dunn, in answering a question about the harm caused by good intentions, had used the words “white people” and “@#$%” in the same sentence. This raised the ire of a self-identified white woman in the audience who interrogated the panellists as to “what they think they have to gain” by insulting people who “want to read their stories.”

In other words, the woman saw a personal attack where there wasn’t one and decided to remind the panellists that as a member of the white majority she ultimately has their fate in her hands.>

Do you believe in the article you posted? Are you against crying White Women?>

<N.J. high school says cheerleading team must take everyone or be disbanded>

Gonna have some fat, ugly cheerleaders!

Gonna have some fat, ugly cheerleaders!>

Rush Limbaugh:

There was an Indian prophet (Sadhu) who said Trump will win (when Trump was behind the polls). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2q...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_...

Well, that's not what it's <all> about. Lethal defense against criminals is common sense, but the real threat is a perpetual one from the government.

The libs have tricked some of the good folks into thinking "sensible" gun laws are okay. After all, they're sensible. Who can be against anything labeled sensible?

But we really need to be as armed and dangerous as the gov't as that is the primary reason for the second amendment. "Sensible" gun laws would allow only the gov't to have the serious guns, which takes the spirit right out of the second amendment.

This will not do.

The people shall be armed and extremely dangerous at all times - a dangerous liberty indeed, and the gov't shall shake in its boots when thinking about oppressing the people.

We had a chance to talk politics, namely, immigration policy for Muslims.

She had nothing but the typical hard-Left talking points.

It's "racist", "on the wrong side of history" (how is that even an argument? it's nothing more than an idle boast!), and "immoral".

But we were busy with a family function, so I didn't get enough time to deconstruct her "immoral" claim. But since she is agnostic, it wouldn't be difficult to deconstruct it. Just as it is so easy to do when <GSM> passes judgement.

As for the "racist" claim, I asked here why? She said because Muslims are brown people!