Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:02:03 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 12:27:14, martin fierz wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 09:41:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Basically, I disagree with the reasoning that lead the ICGA to the decision, >>>but I disagree with all people that think the decision was unreasonable. >> >> >>That is simply an impossible statement to understand. > >this is so simple to understand that it's impossible to understand that you >don't understand it :-) > >we're back to logic class: >"bad reasoning A leading to some decision X" does not mean "decision X is >unreasonable". This isn't logic. "I disagree with the reasoning" but "I don't think the result was unreasonable". The "reasoning" is the only thing that _led_ to the ridiculous "decision"... > >BTW, the arbiter's decision is always final in *lots* of activities, e.g. in >most team sports. it can be wrong, but it's the arbiter's decision. you have to >live with it... Yes, but in most cases the arbiter is competent to arbitrate. :) > >cheers > martin
This page took 0.01 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.