Author: Peter Berger
Date: 11:33:16 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 13:51:19, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 15, 2003 at 10:12:13, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Omid, >> >>I don't really get your point in this discussion. I think you can not claim Bob >>that he would only participate when he thinks that he can win - > >Let's review again what I said: > >"If you think you have a chance to win, you will participate". > >"chance to win" -> "participation". > >This statement doesn't say *anything* at all about the state of "no chance to >win". For some reason Bob thinks that > >"chance to win" -> "participation" > >is equivalent to > >"no chance to win" -> "no participation" > >which is terribly wrong. Your claim is partly wrong, isn't it? Your statement *does* say something about the state of "no chance to win". Basic logic tells us: "no participation" -> "no chance to win". ;) Peter
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.