Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:19:32 11/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2005 at 00:30:18, Stephen A. Boak wrote: >On November 16, 2005 at 10:55:31, Uri Blass wrote: > >> >>2)Kramnik is not the best player based on rating. >> >>Usually I am not going to consider 2 as a serious reason but in this case >>poor results were used against Shirov when sponsors prefered Kramnik >>to play against kasparov so it is only fair if they are used now against >>kramnik. >> >>Uri > >Beautiful, Uri! >Impeccable logic, as usual. ;) > >Do not forget that young people often visit this bulletin board. Sometimes they >are overly sensitive to logical arguments and may feel pressured to agree, even >if they do not understand. > >Please consider the following statements, then answer the below Test Question: > >1. Two wrongs do not make a right. > A. This is *not* like mathematics: -1 * -1 = +1 > >2. If you mix a weak argument with a strong argument, you diminish the value of >your opinion, and perhaps also the value of the strong argument. > A. The proponent of a strong argument diminishes himself by scraping the >bottom of the barrel to come up with the additional (weak) argument. > >3. Sponsors were wrong in their treatment of Shirov; therefore, I, Uri, may >treat Kramnik wrong, and my treatment of Kramnik is therefore fair. > A. General Rule--if A mistreats B to the benefit of D, then I, C, may >mistreat D, because it is fair. > >TEST: > >Which of the above statements is TRUE? > >NOTE--Do not reply using one or more *negatives* ['no', 'not', and similar] or >zero credit will be given. :) > >A. 1 only >B. 2 only >C. 1 & 2 only >D. 3 only >E. All of the above >F. None of the above >G. Other. Please describe in full (Remember, *no* negatives, else zero credit) >_________________________________________ > >H. There are many other illogical arguments in favor of being unfair. This is >only one of them. Therefore, please do not attempt to critique my opinion >solely through the use of logic, or by defeating this singular opinion. I have >more arguments available, believe me, and if necessary, I will freely draw upon >any or all of them. > >I. Do not bother me, I am only a mathematician doing the best I can. I did not >major in logic, or it was so long ago I have forgotten the basics. > >Your Answer (enter appropriate capital letter, A - I): ______. > >--Steve :) A I do not agree with 3 because I do not think that it is general rule. It is ok in the case of kramnik but not ok in other cases I can give example when it is not correct If some player won a game thanks to illegal move then it is not fair to play illegal move against him in another game. The opponent of the player who play the illegal move may ask for 2 minutes on the clock but if he does not do it then it does not mean that opponents of the player who played illegal moves are allowed to play illegal moves(note that I know one case when a player saved himself from losing on time thanks to this law in 25 minute per game tournament when he got 2 minutes twice when in the first case the opponent simply tried to capture by the enpassent rule when it was illegal because the last move was something like pawn c6-c5 and in the second case the opponent did not escape from check,note that third illegal move means losing the game but the sides decided to agree to a draw so there was no third time). Uri
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.