A number of years ago I was driving to a weekender in country NSW, and IM Ben Martin was a passenger in my car. We were discussing the topics of arguments/feuds in chess (apparently they do occur from time to time) and he made a comment that I found most insightful.
"The problem with arguing with idiots" he said, "is that the spectators cannot tell who is who".
And I feel it is an excellent piece of advice. Consequently I've tried not to fall into the trap of having to seen to be right. If I am involved in an online discussion where there is a disagreement I usually make one attempt to state my case. Normally I do this by posing a question with the intention of finding out how much the other person knows. If however I find that the other person either dodges the question or answers it in a way that indicates they aren't arguing from a factual basis, I normally leave it at that. No point in wasting time with someone who will not/cannot listen.
But to each their own. Where would chess be without the arguments? Probably better off I would guess, but for some people the attraction of chess probably is the arguments, whether they are engaged in them, or just watching them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Where does the human habit of: Stating a hypothesis based on incomplete knowlegde. fit into your modus operandi?
Indulging in speculation, hypothising or provisional conclutions, is in the real world of less than100% knowledge, part of being a non-autistic normal.
Perhaps [a hypothisis] you [ an incomplete data set] are too arrogant [ a ;-) ] to slum it [ a fact] with exponents of hindbrain party tricks [ a smidgen of self afacement.]
On a more sober note, when it comes to your (SP) entering a debate or not, I recall a quote, "All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world is for good men to to nothing." - Edmund Bourke
If the purpose of the argument is to extend both sides understanding of the topic, fine.
And that is what I implied with my description of my own arguing technique (ie find out what the other person knows).
But a lot of arguments don't aim for this outcome, and instead are just about who is the "winner". Those arguments I'm happy to leave to others.
Shaun,
Probably paraphrased from the same source as IM Martin's quote, but equally applicable.
"Never argue with an idiot, they will soon bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Has anyone even considered that this latest 'debate' began becourse individual/s made a mistake in not acknowledging one club's "bid/proposal/idea" because that club's official marked the submission as confidential. Would seem to be a case of apologies from both sides and move on to be the order of the day.
Phil
Phil
I posted 'Now, to be fair, that hamstrung some of the ACF comments for a while,'( 3/7; 19.27pm).
But, I am more inclined to think that the seed was the definitive statement in the newsletter #405 ....that 'There have also been other indications of some interest in the event but none of these has yet led to a formal bid '. This seemed to have little to do with confidentiality.
I have moved on as you suggest.
Post a Comment