Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 23:51:02 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 01:17:53, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >You gave this as an example of: > > (no winning chances) AND (participation) (1) > >in order contradict what I said, which was > > (winning chances) -> (participation) (2) > >I fail to see how (1) contradicts (2). > >In other words, you tried to contradict > > A -> B > >by giving the example > > ~A and B Isn't that correct? IIRC, ~A and B is equivalent to ~(A -> B), so if (~A and B) is true, then ~(A -> B) is true, which means (A -> B) is false. It's been a while since I've done this stuff though. But really Omid, your statement is flat out false. There are plenty of people who have very good winning chances who do not participate. Bob is one of them, and he has made his reasons clear why he isn't participating. I'm sure he could probably participate if he really wanted to throw his weight around and possibly piss off his boss, coworkers, students, parents of students, his wife, and so on. Apparently that kind of stuff is acceptable to you guys over there? The fact is that there are any number of factors why someone may or may not participate, and I think winning chances is _way_ down the list.
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.