Author: Albert Silver
Date: 13:58:50 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 15:25:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 18, 2000 at 15:07:08, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>On May 18, 2000 at 14:21:09, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>On May 18, 2000 at 14:10:08, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>>On May 18, 2000 at 13:38:21, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>On May 18, 2000 at 12:09:19, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>>>>>>On May 18, 2000 at 11:08:59, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>>>Which is it? Is it both? Is it neither?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it's both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I fail to see the bravery/cowardice issue. He is entitled to reject the
>>>>>>participation of a computer program in his national championship, isn't he?
>>>>>
>>>>>*Why* do you think he is rejecting the option of playing?
That seems to be the crux of it doesn't it? The problem is that almost all of
the arguments have had to do with the fear (or lack of) of the opponent. What if
it has nothing whatsoever to do with it? Where will fear (cowardice) or the lack
of (bravery) enter the scheme here?
I think it is great that we may see a PC program play in a top notch tournament
as was announced for Dortmund. I say 'may' in light of the recent FIDE news of
course. I also unreservedly condemn the participation of Fritz in the Dutch
national championships. It isn't because I am afraid of what its results might
be, but because I believe a computer has no place in a national championship. A
national championship IMO is more than a tournament and as such a program has no
place in it. If I were to somehow convince FIDE to allow me to participate in
the Women's World Championship cycle, and the ensuing outrage caused several of
my potential opponents to refuse to play me, would you accuse them of cowardice
or bravery? You could certainly argue both, but I think it is neither, as it
isn't my ability (too much or too little) that is in question. I don't think Van
der Sterren refused to play Fritz based on any opinion he had on the possible
outcome.
Albert Silver
>>>>
>>>>For the reasons he stated. Why should I interpret him? He opposed the
>>>>participation of Fritz. Playing against it would be doing as told, against his
>>>>own judgement. His privilege.
>>>
>>>And yet you are willing to interpret me, even diagnose me as someone who labels
>>>people.
>>>
>>>>>>Refusing to play Fritz is only being coherent and has nothing to do with being
>>>>>>a coward, "play like a man" (other posts on this issue), etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Coherent in regard to what?
>>>>
>>>>See above.
>>>>
>>>>> If someone decides not to play are you saying that
>>>>>the decision is neither brave nor cowardly?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing to do with being a coward, a hero, a "man", a "sissy".
>>>
>>>He is sticking to his principles. You see no bravery in that?
>>
>>This particular adjective didn't even cross my mind. He seems convinced, he acts
>>coherently, both fine with me. Brave, coward, man, sissy? Come on...
>>
>>>>>>I find this sort of
>>>>>>macho talk more revelaing about the poster than about van der Sterren and
>>>>>>Bosboom.
>>>>>
>>>>>What does it say about me then, if it is revealing?
>>>>
>>>>That you think in these terms.
>>>
>>>Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said, "You label me, you negate me."
>>
>>Nice quotation, and I agree with it. But disagreeing with you or with your way
>>of thinking in a specific issue is not labeling you, I think.
>>
>>>>>>It reminds me of the pacifists that refused to go to war and were
>>>>>>accused of cowardice.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you think it is bravery. That's what I was wondering.
>>>>
>>>>Nope. I don't think that being a pacifist has anything to do with bravery or
>>>>lack of it. Same applies to van der Sterren.
>>>
>>>But taking a stand in relation to your pacifism does. Or do you simply not
>>>believe that bravery or cowardice even exist?
>>
>>What I think is that this dicotomy has nothing to do with this issue, in the
>>same way that I find absurd telling van der Sterren and Bosboom to be a "man",
>>not a "sissy", as it has been posted before.
>
>I don't know about being a man or being a sissy. In fact, despite the fact that
>I do believe in cowardice and bravery, I don't believe that people are brave or
>people are cowards. I believe that individual actions are brave or cowardly,
>however. I did not read the message about 'be a man and not a sissy' and so
>perhaps I don't know where you are coming from in this debate.
>
>Cowardice and bravery...
>A man's house catches on fire. Terrified, he runs out. Then he thinks of his
>love for his family and runs back in. He extracts his entire family and even
>goes back in and retrieves the family cat.
>
>Is he brave? Is he a coward? Running out may have been cowardly. Saving the
>family may have been brave. But bravery and cowardice are individual actions.
>
>I have no idea why the notion of bravery and cowardice should be so repellant to
>you. All of us exhibit *both* properties at different times of our lives. And
>what one person "sees" as brave, another person "sees" as cowardly. That's
>because our interpretation of situations is different. And also because we do
>not hold all of the facts of those who made the decisions.
>
>Martin Luther King Junior made a march and a speach against hatred, making
>himself a target of (perhaps) millions of hate mongers. I view this as brave.
>
>Lieutenant William Calley shot unarmed women, old men, and children. I view
>this as cowardly. Warrant officer Hugh Thompson tried to stop them. I view
>this as brave.
>
>I view lots of things as cowardly that may or may not be:
>1. Running away from a challenge from fear of losing
>2. Oppressing someone weaker than you are because you are able
>3. Watching injustice in silence
>4. The list goes on and on. I could never label them all.
>
>I view lots of things as brave that may or may not be:
>1. Facing a challenge with supposedly insurmountable odds
>2. Standing up for someone weaker when it is extremely unpopular to do so
>3. Speaking out or acting against injustice
>5. The list goes on and on. I could never label them all.
>
>For the current matter -- refusing to play computers...
>
>I view the individual refusals to play as brave. People are sticking to their
>guns about their principles.
>
>I view the cause itself as cowardly. People are afraid to play against
>computers.
>
>In short, I find the struggle to be intensely ironic.
>
>Now, it is clear to me that the subject itself has touched some very sore nerves
>indeed. Be that as it may, I do think I am entitled to my opinion.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.