Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:17:39 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 14:33:16, Peter Berger wrote: >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". It doesn't say anything about the state of "no chance to win" being the condition. Based on what I said, any of the following can be true: "no chance to win" -> "participation" "no chance to win" -> "no participation" > >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.