President Joe Biden will tout his economic agenda in remarks Wednesday as he campaigns for a second term amid low polling numbers on his job performance and the direction of the country....
If there were a singular Bidenomics bill, I would agree. In this case, running for reelection, he needs to anchor discussion around his accomplishments. Historically, name-onomics has been a successful positive campaign pitch for presidential reelections. The risk is having the name tied to a downturn, which is (thankfully) not entirely under the president's control.
A YouTube music subscription also gets you YouTube Premium. Granted, you might just use ad blockers for the primary benefit of Premium, but if you're going to pay for one thing you can technically get for free, that same purchase might as well get you something else that's free.
We all know the feeling of being down to just a few seconds on the clock, trying to make a move before time runs out. But is losing on time a better outcome than being forced into a stalemate? Let's discuss....
Both are part of the game, so draw > loss. However, both outcomes can be appreciated from a holistic view of your own progress in the game. If you never run out of time, could you get better outcomes overall by calculating more? Could you earn a better rating using the same time per move at a lower time control? I'm not saying that half your losses should be to the clock, but maybe 1-5% is healthy depending on your format. There have to be some complex positions where you could earn wins if you were willing to calculate and put the clock at risk. If you never take that chance, you might be losing more games by rushing yourself through the early-mid game than you would to timing out.
Stalemate traps are just part of endgame play. In fact, they're the most basic part. Like if you learn things like queen+king, rook+king, or two bishops checkmates, you're fundamentally learning how to avoid drawing those positions (which you can't lose) where you have earned the clear advantage. The key to those patterns is to constrain the opposing king's movement in a very precise way, and avoiding stalemate is implicitly part of those strategies. If you let an opponent stalemate trap you in a more complex winning end game, that's just a game where you didn't know or successfully implement the correct checkmate pattern. At the end of the day, your endgame knowledge can only go so far. If you put dedicated effort into learning to avoid stalemates, that would pay off in more wins and fewer draws, but would it pay as well as studying opening theory or advanced tactics? It might, but at some point you have to prioritize your practice time and leave less of one area than would be ideal.
"Bidenomics" - Biden's vision for economic growth 'from the middle out and bottom up' aims to move beyond 'trickle down' economics (www.nbcnews.com)
President Joe Biden will tout his economic agenda in remarks Wednesday as he campaigns for a second term amid low polling numbers on his job performance and the direction of the country....
"We're shocked that Joe Rogan would do this" - people who watched Joe Rogan do this to everyone else (www.axios.com)
A feud on Twitter highlights the perils of engaging on the platform and a growing tension among researchers and medical professionals.
Losing on Time vs. Stalemate: Which is the Better Outcome in Chess?
We all know the feeling of being down to just a few seconds on the clock, trying to make a move before time runs out. But is losing on time a better outcome than being forced into a stalemate? Let's discuss....