regarding chess opening theory... i hope you are not condemning future
generations of grandmasters to read raymond keene because that may result in
a avery small crop of players.
-marc
"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"sandirhodes" wrote in message
...
OK folks, we're on!!
I, for one, have been waiting for this confrontation for months.
I knew it was only a matter of time. Let's get ready to rum-bllle!!!

You might be disappointed. Is your ticket refundable? :-)

Kevin Bachler might enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but I don't intend
to
argue with him about whether or not God exists or Christian beliefs are
true.

My modest proposal is simply that some writers here could make better use
of their time if they would read more of 'the relevant past discussions in
philosophy' before they write more in this thread.

Should not someone study the historical development of chess opening
theory
before one attempts to write something new about a chess opening? I think
so.

"My father's religion would have been unsatisfactory without a hell."
--E.W. Howe (The Story of a Country Town)

--Nick

..
"Nick the liar" has raised an interesting question: should not a writer first
study the historical development of chess openings theory before attempting to
add to it?

Generally speaking, yes.



But there is one exception: computers. Computers may actually add to or
change openings theory without any need to have "studied" anything which
preceded them. They can do this by sheer calculation and objective evaluation,
which is best performed with no intervention of pre-existing biases, such as
those we humans rely upon. A computer program may correctly "decide" that any
given variation is playable, despite what humans have written in books to the
contrary.

In essence, while humans may think in terms such as "in such-and-such
variation, Black should (or must) always attack with his pawns on the
Kingside," a computer program, whose "mind" is relatively free from such
over-generalizations, may discover that this is not always correct.

"Nick" wrote in message
"sandirhodes" wrote in message
OK folks, we're on!!
I, for one, have been waiting for this confrontation for months.
I knew it was only a matter of time. Let's get ready to rum-bllle!!!

You might be disappointed. Is your ticket refundable? :-)


I am asking for one small clarification, please. Are you implying that the
battle will be swift and decisive, or that it will be non-existant? Thank
you in advance for your response.

Kevin Bachler might enjoy arguing for argument's sake, but I don't intend
to
argue with him about whether or not God exists or Christian beliefs are
true.

My modest proposal is simply that some writers here could make better use
of their time if they would read more of 'the relevant past discussions in
philosophy' before they write more in this thread.

Should not someone study the historical development of chess opening
theory
before one attempts to write something new about a chess opening? I think
so.

"My father's religion would have been unsatisfactory without a hell."
--E.W. Howe (The Story of a Country Town)

--Nick

..
"Nick the liar" invented the following:

--
("NoMoreChess"), who has been obsessively
'trolling' me for months, seems to believe that I am being unfair to Mr. Sloan.
--

In fact, my response to "Nick the liar"'s posting in no way indicated any
such thing.
Unsurprisingly, "Nick the liar" distorted what I wrote to suit his latest whim.

It would probably require some effort to be "unfair" to Mr. Sloan, who often
gets just what he asks for.

My posting, far from being any attempt to defend Mr. Sloan, was simply made
to point out "Nick the liar"'s latest gaffe, his non sequitur assertion which
fell flat on its face.

Sam Sloan made a sweeping "attack" upon Christians in general, and knew full
well what he was getting into.
"Nick the liar"'s desire that I should "come to the rescue" of such a loon
tells us just a little bit more about his latest delusions -- only this, and
nothing more.

(Nick) wrote in message . com...

"Conspicuously failing to support" their charges against me has
been a universally consistent characteristic of trolls such as
Tim Hanke, Stan Booz, "Briarroot", Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"),
and Lance Smith ("Liam Too").

Nick,

I posted only once on the above mentioned subject to drahmiel, but I
couldn't find any charge that I made against you.

It's not that I don't want to be in the group that you stated above
because contrary to your belief, IMO, they are all intelligent
debaters, who in one way or another would oppose each other at a drop
of a hat, in numerous subjects, if their beliefs are in contrast with
the other.

The bottom line is that like I said before, I will not stoop down to
your level and resort to name calling like you did above.

Lance Smith

(Liam Too) wrote in message . com...
(Nick) wrote in message . com...

"Conspicuously failing to support" their charges against me has
been a universally consistent characteristic of trolls such as
Tim Hanke, Stan Booz, "Briarroot", Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess"),
and Lance Smith ("Liam Too").

Nick,

I posted only once on the above mentioned subject to drahmiel, but I
couldn't find any charge that I made against you.


You need to look in the right places. You should also perhaps start to
worry
about your memory, which seems not to be functioning.

It's not that I don't want to be in the group that you stated above
because contrary to your belief, IMO, they are all intelligent
debaters, who in one way or another would oppose each other at a drop
of a hat, in numerous subjects, if their beliefs are in contrast with
the other.


You need to look up the definition of "sophister".

The bottom line is that like I said before, I will not stoop down to
your level and resort to name calling like you did above.


You need to look up the definition of "namecalling".

I just posted the following two quotes as advice to Nick.

You, too, might do well to heed what they say (assuming you're capable
of understanding the same, which I'm beginning seriously to doubt):

'There is a way of asking us for our reasons that leads us not only to
forget
our best reasons but also to conceive a stubborn aversion to all
reasons. This
way of asking makes people very stupid and is a trick used by
tyrannical
people.'
--Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

'There is a sort of man who goes through the world in a succession of
quarrels,
always able to make out that he is in the right, although he never
ceases to
put other men in the wrong. The least that can be said of such a
person is that
he has an unhappy aptitude for eliciting whatever evil there may be in
the
natures with which he comes in contact; and a man who is sure to cause
injuries
to him wherever he goes, is almost as great an evil and inconvenience
as if he
were himself the wrongdoer.'
--Sir Henry Taylor (The Statesman, 1836)

--Mark

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick says...
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem
'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are not
well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this thread
are probably much better read than you anticipate. Real life eventually
intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day work. But I think
several are familiar enough with classic philosophy to get around.
Kevin L. Bachler

In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect
to "the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put it?

Since I did not claim that any of the posts to date would clearly
demonstrate that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.
What I said is that I suspect several of the posters are better read.

Yes, you did.

No, I did not. What I said was specific -- I claimed nothing about the
specific posts, I made a claim about the POSTERS.
Only YOU made a claim about the posts.

It's untrue that *only Mark Houlsby* has "made a claim about the posts".
When I wrote, "Most of the arguments (in *posts*) advanced in this thread
(not only yours) seem 'naive'...", I was making "a claim about the posts".

I can know better than Kevin Bachler what *my intent* was when I wrote
my statement.

You did it, however, in the context of having described
Bourbaki's suggestion as "naive",

For the record, Kevin Bachler wrote: "highly naive".

This makes no claim about the posts. It makes a claim about the posters.

Kevin Bachler dismissed *my whole statement*, which includes "making a claim
about the posts", as "highly naive". Hence, evidently, Mr. Bachler was making
a contrary "claim about the posts".

but you conspicuously failed to support this charge.

The term 'charge' here refers to Kevin Bachler's criticism of Nick Bourbaki's
original statement as "highly naive".

Because it isn't necessary. At least some of the posters have advanced
degrees, at least some attended reputable liberal arts institutions.

Here's a point of comparison between what Kevin Bachler has written:
1) Bachler's original position: "*Many* of the people in this thread are..."
2) Bachler's revised position: "*At least some* of the posters have..."

"At least some" is a weaker assertion than "many".

Also, why should there be a *necessary connection* between having advanced
degrees or attending "reputable liberal arts institutions" and having been
"well-acquainted" with academic philosophy? As far as I know, it's quite
possible for a student at a "reputable liberal arts institution" in the
United States to earn an advanced degree without ever having studied much,
if any, philosophy. Indeed, I have known some persons with advanced degrees
from "reputable liberal arts institutions" in the United States who have had
little acquaintance with academic philosophy.

His charge is therefore, questionable on its face.

Perhaps Kevin Bachler has misunderstood my intent for writing that comment.
I would not characterise my statement as a 'charge' (Bachler's term) about the
posters. I simply expressed my impression that "most of the arguments advanced
in this thread seem 'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are
not well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy".

I was hoping to encourage most writers in this thread to become better
acquainted with "the relevant past discussions in philosophy".

I would dispute that what I wrote must be "questionable on its face".

Your understanding of the rebuttal is also questionable.

Kevin Bachler's understanding of some points seems questionable.

"The whole world's a ball, as scholars have it; and so 'tis right to make
one ballroom of it."
--Herman Melville (Moby Dick)

--Nick

From: (Nick)
Date: 07/10/03 01:02 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Nick says...
Most of the arguments advanced in this thread (not only yours) seem
'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers are not
well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy.

I think your comment highly naive. Many of the people in this thread

are probably much better read than you anticipate. Real life
eventually
intrudes to cause one to specialize in day to day work. But I think
several are familiar enough with classic philosophy to get around.
Kevin L. Bachler

In the light of Mr. Hart's reply to Mr. Bourbaki, can you cite several
*specific examples* posted by the "Many" in this thread which clearly
demonstrate that not a single one of these "Many" is naïve with respect
to "the relevant past discussions in philosophy", as Mr. Bourbaki put
it?

Since I did not claim that any of the posts to date would clearly
demonstrate that, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.
What I said is that I suspect several of the posters are better read.

Yes, you did.

No, I did not. What I said was specific -- I claimed nothing about the
specific posts, I made a claim about the POSTERS.
Only YOU made a claim about the posts.

It's untrue that *only Mark Houlsby* has "made a claim about the posts".
When I wrote, "Most of the arguments (in *posts*) advanced in this thread
(not only yours) seem 'naive'...", I was making "a claim about the posts".

I can know better than Kevin Bachler what *my intent* was when I wrote
my statement.

You did it, however, in the context of having described
Bourbaki's suggestion as "naive",

For the record, Kevin Bachler wrote: "highly naive".

This makes no claim about the posts. It makes a claim about the posters.

Kevin Bachler dismissed *my whole statement*, which includes "making a claim
about the posts", as "highly naive". Hence, evidently, Mr. Bachler was
making
a contrary "claim about the posts".

but you conspicuously failed to support this charge.

The term 'charge' here refers to Kevin Bachler's criticism of Nick Bourbaki's
original statement as "highly naive".

Because it isn't necessary. At least some of the posters have advanced
degrees, at least some attended reputable liberal arts institutions.

Here's a point of comparison between what Kevin Bachler has written:
1) Bachler's original position: "*Many* of the people in this thread are..."
2) Bachler's revised position: "*At least some* of the posters have..."

"At least some" is a weaker assertion than "many".

Also, why should there be a *necessary connection* between having advanced
degrees or attending "reputable liberal arts institutions" and having been
"well-acquainted" with academic philosophy? As far as I know, it's quite
possible for a student at a "reputable liberal arts institution" in the
United States to earn an advanced degree without ever having studied much,
if any, philosophy. Indeed, I have known some persons with advanced degrees
from "reputable liberal arts institutions" in the United States who have had
little acquaintance with academic philosophy.

His charge is therefore, questionable on its face.

Perhaps Kevin Bachler has misunderstood my intent for writing that comment.
I would not characterise my statement as a 'charge' (Bachler's term) about
the
posters. I simply expressed my impression that "most of the arguments
advanced
in this thread seem 'naive' insofar as they might imply that their writers
are
not well-acquainted with the relevant past discussions in philosophy".

I was hoping to encourage most writers in this thread to become better
acquainted with "the relevant past discussions in philosophy".

I would dispute that what I wrote must be "questionable on its face".

Your understanding of the rebuttal is also questionable.

Kevin Bachler's understanding of some points seems questionable.

"The whole world's a ball, as scholars have it; and so 'tis right to make
one ballroom of it."
--Herman Melville (Moby Dick)

--Nick


Careful, Nick, you're wasting Kevin's time now....

--Mark

..
The bottom line is that like I said before, I will not stoop down to
your level and resort to name calling like you did above.


I am adding this one to my book. The odds of it ever showing up in one of
"Nick the liar"'s vain self-advertisments are estimated to be one in
ten-bazillion.

Not being particularly rich, I will risk just one penny.
If I win, mail my penny (don't forget to affix the 35 cent stamp) to me in a
plain, brown envelope.
If I lose, I will have to make a long series of shipments, and I would advise
investors to go long on copper futures, as well as zinc! :-)

Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In article , Nick says...
Kevin L. Bachler wrote in
message ...
In relation to Sam Sloan, nothing would confer wisdom.

'Nothing'? Not even divine intervention? Surely, Sam Sloan's existence
cannot be evidence that God is not omnipotent, can it? :-)

Sam would never receive divine intervention.
Kevin L. Bachler

If Kevin L. Bachler were God, then He could be certain that's true.

'How much kinder is God to us than we are willing to be to ourselves!'
--Anthony Trollope (Barchester Towers)

--Nick