Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:24:44 10/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 2002 at 00:46:11, Telmo Escobar wrote: >On October 02, 2002 at 20:56:19, stuart taylor wrote: > > >>And the first 3 games are statistically much more substantial than any other 3, >even consecutive, somewhere later on. >> > > >S.Taylor > > >>maybe you should go back to school... > > Christophe > >>That's a bit deeper than what you are thinking about! >> >>to me it is quite an intriguing subject, and I'm sure there is more than what >>meets the eye. It must be looked into some time by someone like Einstein, or >>even by some of us, together. >>I don't really have the head and time for it now, but no one has ever responded >>much to some of my thoughts. >>(I think Nunn would appreciate this subject) > > >S.Taylor > > Stuart, I feel you are right. This is deep and for this reason people, even >intelligent people, can misunderstand the point when they think about it. > Yet people, even dupes, understand the point perfectly when they have to apply >it in real life. > > Let me explain: let us assume that I have uttered some 2000000 statements till >now. If somebody (God, say) has recorded the stuff and selects three consecutive >statements from mine, apparently stupid, to prove that I'm a dupe, you don't >need to feel convinced. Maybe God, as pervert as usual, has selected three rare >cases of particularly foolish affirmations (made, who knows, when I was drunk or >the like) in order to fool you. > But if you just meet me for the first time, and the first three statements of >mine that you hear are stupid ones, you will deduce that I am a dupe, and that >will be a quite reasonable deduction. > > Telmo Yes! I meant it along those lines. You illustrated it quite nicely! S.Taylor
This page took 0 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.