|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-30-18
 | | Domdaniel: Fascinating to see how this match was received. A key factor is the American disdain for drawn games, mainly due to the fact that none of the main American sports regularly end in draws -- that, and a feeling that true competition requires a winner. This anti-draw bias is significantly weaker in countries where soccer, draws and all, is a main sport. |
|
Nov-30-18
| | Domdaniel: Rapid chess is still 100% chess. Chess has been played at relatively fast rates for centuries. You could argue that 'classical' time controls are a modern innovation, brought in after the introduction of the chess clock - just as increments or delays came in after the arrival of digital clocks. The idea that the WCC is properly a classical contest is risible. It is mainly a function of a historic coincidence: international tournaments, the use of clocks, and the world championship all began at roughly the same time. |
|
| Nov-30-18 | | rogge: <Domdaniel: Fascinating to see how this match was received. A key factor is the American disdain for drawn games, mainly due to the fact that none of the main American sports regularly end in draws -- that, and a feeling that true competition requires a winner. This anti-draw bias is significantly weaker in countries where soccer, draws and all, is a main sport.> Excellent point. |
|
| Nov-30-18 | | mikealando: I second that! Excellent point Domdaniel |
|
| Nov-30-18 | | alshatranji: <Domdaniel: Chess has been played at relatively fast rates for centuries. You could argue that 'classical' time controls are a modern innovation, brought in after the introduction of the chess clock - just as increments or delays came in after the arrival of digital clocks.> This argument is flawed, not only historically, but logically too. If chess clocks are a new invention, then how can we confirm that rapid chess (which by definition is limited to a specific amount of time) was played for centuries? As for history, my understanding is that clocks were introduced to limit, rather than to expand, game duration. Without clocks, players in tournament play would take as much time as they wanted, and why shouldn't they if the stakes are high? Some games used to take for ever (not literally), so the point of chess clocks was to end this problem. |
|
| Nov-30-18 | | alshatranji: As for the supposed anti-draw bias being American, it's frankly part of the anti-American bias you sometimes find online. I'm not American. I love soccer. I don't understand baseball, and I don't care for basketball or hokey. Yet, I don't like the way this match ended. It's not about draws. The complaints on this website are mainly not about the match ending in a draw, but simply about the way the win (which has to be achieved anyway) was decided, i.e. rapid chess, which is of lower quality than classical chess, and so, it is argued, should not be used to decide the world champion. Add this to the logical contradiction of deciding the classical world championship with rapid games, when there is actually a separate rapid world chess championship. Imagine the FIFA World Cup being decided by a futsal game. |
|
| Nov-30-18 | | mike1: Well, the FIFA world cup might as well be decided by penalty shoot out....
even over time or 2x15 min prolonging is hardly a new match. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | achieve: <Imagine the FIFA World Cup being decided by a futsal game.> Overtime and penalty shootout are pretty much equivalent to a Rapid format to determine a tie in Classical Chess, either that or declare Carlsen the winner, as Caruana was the challenger. |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Domdaniel: <alshatranji> -- You mention logic, but it is not logical to put oneself forward as an exception which somehow proves a rule. I'm not at all anti-American. And I find the very idea that the USA should be a hotbed of anti-Americanism a bit strange, given how much of cyberspace originates there. That said, you have a point when you say that clocks were first introduced to limit excessive time consumption. Of course, chess tournaments and chess clocks emerged at much the same time in the mid-19th century. What I meant was that many historic games - including many of Morphy's, were played at informal rapid rates. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: < Domdaniel: <alshatranji> -- You mention logic, but it is not logical to put oneself forward as an exception which somehow proves a rule. ...> Oh my, could you, <Domdaniel> off all, kindly put a "I have spoken" a la <Richard Taylor> under that nonsense? Rules are not proven, rules are set. etc. etc. etc. Hope this will be posted even though I am suspended. The matter is too serious and <Domdaniel>'s "expertise" in logic too dangerous. |
|
Dec-01-18
 | | OhioChessFan: In the phrase, "The exception proves the rule.", it's the secondary sense of "prove", to wit, "test", that is under consideration. I find such things very interesting. I am pretty sure Dom does, maybe 2 or 3 others on the site. Anyway, as you were. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: <OhioChessFan> <Domdaniel> was talking about logic (or what he thinks it is). In logic "exceptions" do not prove a "rule" but contradict it/ question it. |
|
Dec-01-18
 | | Diademas: <john barleycorn: <OhioChessFan> <Domdaniel> was talking about logic (or what he thinks it is). In logic "exceptions" do not prove a "rule" but contradict it/ question it.> Good to have you back. You are of course wrong, but that is of minor importance... :) Saying something is logical doesn't really mean all that much because in logic there are always assumptions (major premises, the "if" part of if/then). An assumption can be logic, but still fail to meet empirical tests. You are confusing logic with science. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: <Diademas> with all due respect <An assumption can be logic> cannot be. Assumptions can be plausible, widely agreed upon, a matter of belief, economical etc. pp. but never be logical. Logic is about consequences "if - then" the "if" part is not "logic" but left to the particular science. |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Diademas: < john barleycorn: <Diademas> with all due respect <An assumption can be logic> cannot be. Assumptions can be plausible, widely agreed upon, a matter of belief, economical etc. pp. but never be logical. Logic is about consequences "if - then" the "if" part is not "logic" but left to the particular science.> A clever piece of sophism there, that I will take under consideration once I sober up... |
|
Dec-01-18
| | OhioChessFan: See you next year.... |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Diademas: <OhioChessFan: See you next year....> I'm making no guarantees. :) |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: < Diademas: ...
A clever piece of sophism there, that I will take under consideration once I sober up...> hahaha until then have a drink and get to the state of "white logic". But no kidding. Logic doesn't care about the assumptions as long as they can be assigned a "truth value" ("true" or "false" in classical logic). Truth of the assumptions is an epistemologically issue left to the particular science. No sophistry here as logic was developed to fight sophistry |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Diademas: From one thing to another <john barleycorn>, and still somehow being on topic: How did you enjoy the Championship |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: <Diademas: ...
How did you enjoy the Championship>
Not much. I guess it was more of a gamble then a display of superiority in classical format. |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Diademas: <john barleycorn: <Diademas: ...
How did you enjoy the Championship>
Not much. I guess it was more of a gamble then a display of superiority>Ah, that German positivity shining through. ;) |
|
Dec-01-18
| | Domdaniel: <john barleycorn> - yes, the notion of 'logic' is widely misused. I actually studied logic in college, but I won't pretend that means much now. <Ohio> is quite correct about the secondary meaning of 'prove', ie 'test'. To return to the matter at hand: I think rapid chess is a valid form of the game (even though it is one I'm not very good at). And as a method for deciding a world championship tiebreak, it is better than anything else. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: <Diademas: ...
Ah, that German positivity shining through. ;)> always, we Germans may not always be right but we are never wrong. And definitely we are positive thinkers - the glass is always half full. <Domdaniel> From a "logical" point of view it doesn't matter whether Rapid games are or are not a "valid" form of the game. We had a WCC with rules accepted by both players and FIDE was not asking for a vote by chessfans. It is the way it is. Anyone here bitching about this should find sponsors and set up a different way. (Ask Kasparov and Short if in doubt) Up to then it is all smart and cheap talk. But that is where all the talking stopps. When being challenged. Do or don't. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | Count Wedgemore: <jbc: <An assumption can be logic> cannot be. Assumptions can be plausible, widely agreed upon, a matter of belief, economical etc. pp. but never be logical.> This is true about an assumption standing on its own. However, if combined with another assumption as part of a logical argument, they are definitely part of 'logic'. Only that in logic we call them 'premises'. A premise is an assumption that something is true. In Aristotelian logic, an argument requires at least two such premisses along with a third proposition: the conclusion. In a classic deductive argument this is the basic argumentative structure. So when looked at from this point of view, assumptions are part of logic. |
|
| Dec-01-18 | | john barleycorn: < Count Wedgemore: ...
A premise is an assumption that something is true. ...> No, that's a hypothesis then. Logic also considers the possibity what happens if the assumption is wrong. "true" and "false" in classical logic are undefined terms. In Aristolenian logic nothing asserts you of the "truth" of your assumptions. it only says "if the assumptions are "true" the conclusion is". |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 15 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 