< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 45 OF 46 ·
|May-03-10|| ||plang: A well played game - kudos to both players.|
|May-03-10|| ||Richard Taylor: < danielpi: <eric><Why is it that when someone doesn't ignore you, which you seem to prefer so that you don't have to consider how your behavior affects whether the community discussion can be about chess, you resort to ad hominem attacks on the idea of community?>|
An "ad hominem" argument is when you attack the ARGUER rather than attacking the argument itself. Suppose Smith argues that 2+2=4, and proves it from Peano axioms. Then an "ad hominem" (counter) argument would be that Smith got an "F" in math. You are not addressing the substance of his proof, and are instead attacking the bona fides of the person making the argument. This would be no less true if Smith were wrongly arguing that 2+2=5. Good rebuttals attack arguments, not arguers. Ad hominem arguments are actually quite common (particularly in political discourse), but are very often misidentified. An insult or dismissal is not, ipso facto, an ad hominem argument. I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy in my response to you, and it is simply incoherent to launch an "ad hominem attack" on an idea, much less the "idea of community". ...>
This guy does longer posts than me even! [But surely 2+2=7 ?
|May-03-10|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: An extremely well played game where both players were able to demonstrate some of their finer qualities.|
|May-03-10|| ||BobCrisp: I hope you all get well soon!|
|May-03-10|| ||danielpi: Whew. I am not sure I entirely understand what happened here. Will have to play through this for a few days to get a handle on what it was all about. Surely, both sides missed opportunities, but I can't imagine either missed something huge. Talk about the razor's edge. Both players walked the tightrope with nary a jitter. Exciting stuff.|
|May-03-10|| ||majnu108: If these 2 contestants play another Catalan I will scream! I am already fed up.|
|May-03-10|| ||moronovich: <Bob Bisp > The same to you;)|
|May-03-10|| ||moronovich: Perhaps one of the best games ever in a WC match.|
|May-03-10|| ||kellmano: <moronovich: Perhaps one of the best games ever in a WC match.>|
Good call. This is probably the most enjoyable match I have ever watched live in a WC match. Should be GOTD for sure tomorrow.
|May-03-10|| ||queenfortwopawns: See you all on Wednesday for the first win for black.|
|May-03-10|| ||Ulhumbrus: Suppose that instead of 10 Nxc6 White plays 10 a4. On 10...Nd5 11 Na3 Nxf4 12 gxf4 Black may face problems similar to those he has faced in previous games.|
|May-03-10|| ||chrisowen: Can Anand break out? Dig if you will the picture. Have imprints this path covers up the sign of not wanting to risk it. Brushing up on his endgame the vish did. Good gain of defensive mind under these conditions is the aim. Filling in sac of knight wouldnt work since towers are off and d2 advanced. Each way bets says that Topa's tunnel vision wanted more rather than draw.|
|May-03-10|| ||chessic eric: <danielpi:...I did not commit an ad hominem fallacy in my response to you, and it is simply incoherent to launch an "ad hominem attack" on an idea, much less the "idea of community".|
As I say, I have no problem with you personally. If you have a problem with my tone, then I invite you to put me on your ignore list to preserve your own sense of decorum and community, rather than asking me to change what I find to be a comfortable mode of discourse. Frankly, I'm not really interested in participating in a "community" in the sense that you seem to want. That's not an attack nor an argument. It's just... how things are.>
Agreed on the definition of ad hominem, but not on its applicability to your statement. To make my meaning clear I should have said "ad hominem attack on those who assert the idea of community." The point being that rather than engage in a conversation about the content, i.e. what types of comment or commenting style make for a good chess community, I felt you caricatured me as not being able to handle disagreement because I was making an argument from the idea of community.
Your claim about not wanting to be in the community you think I'm describing <is> the beginning of that genuine conversation about community. I wouldn't characterize my ideal community as having anything to do with flowers, and as having plenty of room for disagreement, which is in part why the 'ignore' option is too easy (as we're demonstrating). Calling someone an <imbecile> is not part of the community I want, and seems to violate the rules <Chessgames.com> has enumerated for kibitzes. As you can tell, I'm more inclined to negotiate communication norms than rely on rules, and I don't happen to find cursing, for example, to be offensive, but rather uniquely expressive. I do think calling people stupid or the like is damaging to new or existing members who in my view become less likely to venture posts from which they and others can learn, if or when they get the feeling from members (premium especially) that the site is really for posting expert analysis with no mistakes - this is part of why there is so much computer analysis drivel. I do want the discussion to be at a high level too, but at the risk of repeating myself, that can be done inclusively without having to be without standards or looking like a letter from somebody's grandmother.
|May-03-10|| ||danielpi: <Eric><Agreed on the definition of ad hominem, but not on its applicability to your statement. To make my meaning clear I should have said "ad hominem attack on those who assert the idea of community." The point being that rather than engage in a conversation about the content, i.e. what types of comment or commenting style make for a good chess community, I felt you caricatured me as not being able to handle disagreement because I was making an argument from the idea of community.>|
That is still not an ad hominem argument. Put more clearly still, fallacies are invalid arguments. I was not offering an argument, much less a rebuttal to your comment, which was also not an argument, but a complaint. An argument is premise, inference, conclusion. There were no arguments made on either side, ergo it doesn't make sense to accuse me of committing a fallacious argument, ergo no ad hominem.
As for community, I didn't pay my dues for the privilege of "educating" patzers on the difference between stalemate and zugzwang, and I expect no "education" from those members who would likewise consider me a patzer. Sorry if this is inconsistent with the sort of community you want, but I'm disinclined toward "reforming", and I frankly don't share your goals. I don't really care if you ignore me or not, I'm just suggesting it for your benefit, if you have a problem with me. If not, then that's fine too.
|May-03-10|| ||beenthere240: If you replace "ad hominem" with a pejoritive adjective like "vitriolic" or "mean-spirited." the post makes more sense. As in "your nasty old attack on the community."|
|May-03-10|| ||whiteshark: draw agreed, hmmm, quok.|
|May-03-10|| ||lost in space: Well, all said: a well played game. Please let me add: A well played game! Well, weller, wellest.|
|May-03-10|| ||dougrhess: "Then Topalov asked Anand if the 3 fold repetition had occured. Anand confirmed immediately with a nod." Didn't Topalov demand that the players not speak to each other as a rule for the match?|
P.S. How about we drop the meta-commentary? Maybe that can be a new posting guideline?
|May-03-10|| ||dougrhess: So.... What's the reason for not playing 46. Kf3? Did this get addressed in the post game statements? Are they doing those? Or was it not a move he considered?|
|May-03-10|| ||chessic eric: danielpi: About the ad hominem business, its applicability turns on whether it is acceptable as a adjective modifying attack to characterize what i felt was the intent of the post, versus its use as a declaration of fallacy reserved only for logic. The linguistic question of whether a term's original context settles its use once and for all is an interesting one for me, but not amenable to being settled by definition. As you said, no one was making arguments understood in the sense of logic. If you want to reserve that expression only for that context, you certainly are justified in doing so. I think there are reasons for using it as an adjective precisely because people make that kind of statement so often, but agree that that use is a bad thing to the extent that it makes people forget the original meaning. |
I hope it is still clear that I'd prefer to have you around than to not, because of both the chess posts and your value for rigor. That is why the ignore option isn't good for me - I don't get to see the chess posts, etc. I get that we're different concerning purpose, and I'm cool with that; I don't intend, as <Bobcrisp> vapidly asserted, to make anyone conform to the <purposes> I find valuable as a means of making community - I know i'm not, nor would i want to be, the sole arbiter of the purposes of <cg.com>. Taking a cue from the kibitzing rules of the site, the more one's <conduct> in pursuing whatever diversity of purposes becomes ridicule or the like, the more unacceptable the post. I don't want to in any way imply that every post of yours this afternoon sits on the wrong side of the line along that continuum, but that at least one, possibly a few did. If you don't, okay; <cg.com> can decide for us in those cases what their community includes - again, i'm inclined to talk about it. That's all, and a lot of effort to say so, I know. This really will be my last post on the topic (which i indulged in because the game ended), because I can see a 'last word' problem developing here, and I don't want to insist on having it (which is not to say I'd take a reply from you as such). Part of what is going on is I have a lot of undergrad papers to grade and would rather be watching chess, even debating the meaning or purposes of community, than doing that :-).
|May-03-10|| ||chessic eric: <CG.com> if it is possible to move my off topic posts and/or thread from the WCC game page to my forum, please do so so that users don't have to slog through or past it when checking out game 7.|
|May-03-10|| ||Archswindler: <dougrhess: So.... What's the reason for not playing 46. Kf3?>|
46... Qf6+ followed by 47. ...Qxc3. I don't see how white can win after that, even if an engine might evaluate it as a slight advantage.
|May-03-10|| ||Wade Keller: 26. Rc7
Right? How not right?
|May-03-10|| ||dortam888: what about E4? the D4 is so annoying and you did nothing but D4 with 4 catalans stop it|
|May-03-10|| ||Timberman: Hi,
Why not 28. Qb2?
Wouldn't that be better?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 45 OF 46 ·