Anders Thulin wrote in message ...
Soph Omore wrote:

It's too simple. That's the problem.

Hypothesizing is always simple. You have to go from
there to a demonstration that the hypothesis is correct.

Have you?


I mean the structural differential is so simple, it is easy not to see
its potential value. As far as the substitutions I have suggested, I
believe they are correct.

Question: What is more important: a single chess game, or the total
possible chess games out of which a single game is abstracted?

Answer: No matter how important a single game is, the total
possibilities are more important.

Q: What is more important, a single chess game or the outcome
(win,lose,draw)?

A: No matter how important the outcome is, the single chess game is
more important. The single chess game determines the outcome!

Q: What is more important, the outcome of a single chess game, or the
postmortum analysis?

A: No matter how important the postmortem analysis is, the outcome is
more important. However, when the postmortem analysis is carried far
enough, it becomes potentially more important than the Outcome, and
even potentially more important than a single game of chess. It
becomes Game Theory. Therin lies the rub.

Soph O'more