Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 00:14:16 10/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2004 at 01:59:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 25, 2004 at 01:41:24, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On October 24, 2004 at 16:39:42, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On October 24, 2004 at 16:23:38, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>1)The tournament director could pick the winner only in case that he could be >>>>100% sure about the results. >>>> >>>>I see no reason to be 100% sure(I remember that xinix beated Ruffian in previous >>>>tournament so even weak programs can surprise in a good day). >>> >>>It would not be a problem if the tournament director was only 99% sure? Pure >>>nonsense. >> >>You did not understand Uri's comment. >>He is saying "The tournament director can *never* be 100% sure." >> >>--Steve > >You didn't understand my comment. Why does he have to be 100% sure? Is 99% not >enough? > >-- >GCP hi Gian-carlo, Uri said that anything less than 100% certainty would be a problem if the Director intervenes. That is his opinion. The meaning was very clear (to me). It logically implies that Director intervention when less than 100% certainty exists would be a problem. Your case of 99% is less than 100% certainty. Therefore Uri implies that intervention in cases of 99% certainty *IS* a problem. However, you appear to say the opposite (something Uri did *not* say or imply): "It would *NOT* be a problem if the tournament director was only 99% sure?" Please explain: Did you intend that to be 1) a sincere question, 2) a true statement (not a question), 3) expression of disbelief in something Uri said or implied, 4) or perhaps you are expressing a false statement (not a question), as a rhetorical device that uses a contrived 'strawman' to attack a belief that you disagree with. What are you saying would not be a problem in the 99% situation? To intervene? Or to not intervene? If you intend 1), then you are not taking a position on the subject, only asking a fair question. If you intend 2), that is completely opposite of what Uri said or implied. If you intend 3), it is my opinion that Uri did *not* say that, nor imply that, so the expressed disbelief (incredulity) seems misplaced (not proper to direct at Uri). If 1) is the case, then not sure why you replied to my first posting. If 2) or 3) is the case, that is why I believed you did not understand Uri. If you intend 4), it may be proper as a rhetorical device, but it does give the false impression that Uri said or implied something that you disagree with. I do not think he did (but only you could explain if I am incorrect). I can only attribute your reply to Uri, and explanation to me, to a misunderstanding of what Uri said. If I am wrong (I am human and I make lots of mistakes), please explain and correct me. More importantly, however, will you please clarify what your purpose was for what you said to Uri. I suspect English is not your native (best) language, as I suspect it is not the native (best) language of Uri. That is why I commented in the first place--to try to sort out a problem you seem to have perceived (regarding a Uri statement), which I did not perceive (didn't think Uri said or implied). Getting into semantics (detailed discussions of words and meanings) is seldom fun (especially if a misunderstanding has occurred), but it is sometimes very important to be sure that communication is clearly given by the writer/speaker and clearly understood by the reader/listener. I read many posts written in English, from writers from all over the world. I try to understand the meaning of the postings, even if the language is not identical to that of a native speaker. The words do not bother me. It is the underlying ideas that matter, not the exact words. A bit of give and take (patience) is often required. Also, my apologies in advance, if I am completely misunderstanding your point. I would like to understand it (and also understand if I made a mistake in my own interpretation). Regards, --Steve
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.