Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 04:21:51 12/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 2003 at 21:29:48, Thomas Mayer wrote: >So your definition is somehow different. Mine is more like "How you do" and not >your "What you do"... of course this has nothing to do with extra rights and >impostering moves... This is a difficult topic because who tells you what is done and who tells you how? Experts is what you need in such a case. - Also it is very interesting to communicate in a different language because you can analyse certain fallacies in one's thinking without the bombastic veil of automatisms in one's native language. Just take a minute and you will notice that the two terms are not so far away and basically they are identical. BTW on my homepage I deal with malpractice of medical doctors. In that field it is well defined what "appropriate" practice means and where malpractice begins. So in that example you have the identity of what and how. For the patients it is not so important to know how their doctor did exactly do it to achieve the good result. It's all about avoiding the bad result. See http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/MedizinKunstfehler.html or also http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/12engl.html for a special responsibility of academics. This is also the point in the Graz event. The case is as follows: The TD and the board did NOT act following the rules and when they screwed up they justified their decision. That is as if a medical doctor would cut off the wrong leg in case of diabetes and later argued that the still sane leg would shorten the life of the patient because he could attain sweety cafes with cake and such stuff. Of course in the latter case everybody would say that the doctor had something sweety in his own head... Your "how" is the same as "what", however it is not so important with what speed Prof vdHerik approached the table of Jonny vs Shredder. It is all about what he did once he was standing at the board. There he screwed the case because he did NOT order a take-back of the new move Zwanzger had entered. This is crystal clear and a crass failure for an arbiter. I am almost certain that the arbiter facing the already known good chessplayer Zwanzger did NOT look through the 3-fold situation on the board and was confused to put it mildly by the operator's wants. But to make this clear, an arbiter is exactly there because he should _not_ let himself be confused. Like a doctor shouldn't drink before he starts his tour through the operations in the early morning. I'm talking about alcohol and other drogues. J. Zwanzger should have been warned or punished for his intentional disrespect for the machine's output. It is strange that besides Bob nobody takes care of this fallacy. Rolf
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.