Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 10:39:49 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 02:51:02, Russell Reagan wrote: >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? No. (~A and B) can refute (A <-> B), but not (A -> B). >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.