Checkers Championship - additional information
Jonathan Schaeffer
I would like to provide some more details about the checkers match
status. Several posters are jumping to conclusions without knowing
the facts. It is very distressing to me and my team that we have to
waste time responding to stupid accusations that are ill-founded
and without basis. Right now, we have other things on our mind.
TINSLEY'S HEALTH
Contrary to what people might infer, Tinsley's health problem is
long term and has nothing to do with any stress related to playing
Chinook. I have not been told the specifics of what is wrong with
him, but it is related to a medical problem he had in the 1950s.
Tinsley is in good spirits and not in any pain.
PLAYING CONDITIONS
A rather persistent poster seems to believe that Tinsley is playing
under adverse conditions that are favourable to the machine. In a previous
post, I mentioned some of the things we have done to make this match as
pleasant as possible for Marion. Here, I would like to add one more data
point. Tinsley played in the US Open 2 weeks ago - 32 games in 6 days
(an average of 5.3 games a day). Normal World Championship matches are 40
games in 11 days (average of 3.6 games a day). This match is 30 games in
11 days (2.7 games a day). Tinsley is delighted with the playing conditions
and schedule. In 1992, Tinsley said the conditions were the best he had
ever played in, and that for the first time in his life he was being
treated as a World Champion. The 1994 playing conditions are better than
in 1992 and he has said so.
A poster says that Tinsley is doing us a large favour by agreeing to
play us. In part this is true, however we are doing Tinsley a larger favour
by agreeing to play him. Tinsley *wants* to play us because there are
no more challenges left for him with human opposition. He relishes the
chance to play us. He loves the publicity he receives (he was thrilled to see
his picture on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, a paper he reads
daily). He thinks this match is good for the game and hopes that it can be
used to further popularize it. As well, he is getting money for playing,
more than he has ever received for playing checkers before.
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
Resigning the match and declaring Chinook World Champion was done by
Tinsley without consulting us. According to the rules, this is the correct
procedure and it has been endorsed by the ACF and BDF. We *DO NOT* want
this title under these conditions. To be "world champion" while Tinsley is
still alive and undefeated is ridiculous. Nevertheless, whether we like it or
not, we have the title and must keep it at least until the end of next week
(the Lafferty match).
LAFFERTY MATCH
We did not want to play this match, but out of respect to the sponsors,
organizers and venue, we agreed. I do not see anything wrong with this.
After all, these people have gone to a lot of time, trouble and money to
make this match possible. It would be irresponsible of me to not follow
through with what they feel is best.
I would also like to state that we were ready to pack our bags and leave.
It was Tinsley's idea to have the Lafferty match.
Chinook 1994 is considerably stronger than all its predecessors. So far
this year, we have played almost 140 serious games against strong op-
position without losing a game. In this run, we have defeated all the
best players in the world... except Tinsley and Lafferty. Tinsley and
Lafferty are the only 2 humans with more than 1 win to their credit against
Chinook. We came to play Tinsley but, since this is not possible, play-
ing Lafferty at least allows us to try and demonstrate that we deserve to
be #1 or #2 in the world.
CHINOOK TEAM
We are devastated by what has happened. Tinsley is a personal friend of mine
and we are very concerned for him. By staying and playing Lafferty, we are
doing what he wants us to do.
FUTURE
We have no interest in the World Championship title. We are only interested
in a scientific data point: is it possible to build a checker-playing
entity that is better than all humans. Until we play Tinsley, we will not
know. Our sincere hope is that his medical problem is not serious and that
he will be able to play us in the near future. We have offered to play
him whenever he feels up to it.
Steven L Harrington
sportsmans. If you had no choice but to accept the title and are
truly only interested in the games and/or the science betwixt
you and Tinsley then you are exhibiting the spirit of the true
sportsman. Like I said, I was prepared to retract it if information
proved me wrong...
Good luck in your upcoming match...
-s.l.h.
ics:cowboy
Don Fong
>It is very distressing to me and my team that we have to
>waste time responding to stupid accusations that are ill-founded
Not sure which accusations you're referring to... I haven't seen any
stupid accusations in this thread. As long as you're going to waste time
responding, you might as well tell us exactly what you're responding to.
With regard to the one accusation i have seen here (namely poor
sportsmanship), most of what you've written is irrelevant to that issue.
The additional info is welcome anyway.
>A rather persistent poster seems to believe that Tinsley is playing
>under adverse conditions that are favourable to the machine. [...]
I didn't see anyone claim "adverse" conditions. ?
>Normal World Championship matches are 40
>games in 11 days (average of 3.6 games a day). This match is 30 games in
>11 days (2.7 games a day). Tinsley is delighted with the playing conditions
>and schedule. [...]
Tinsley's a real champ. Nevertheless, IMO conditions still favor
the machine. Because in a normal human/human match, both contestants are
subject to fatigue; whereas in a human/machine match, only the human is.
You've reduced the avg number of games by almost 1 per day to compensate,
but that's still about 3 games a day for 2 weeks. How can you be so sure
fatigue will not be a factor such a pace?
>We did not want to play this match, but out of respect to the sponsors,
>organizers and venue, we agreed. I do not see anything wrong with this [...]
I don't object, and i haven't heard anyone else object either. ?
>We have no interest in the World Championship title.
This is the umpteenth time you've said it. If as you've said in
various posts:
We take no satisfaction in "winning" this title. [...]
We did not ask for the title. [...]
We *do not* want the title. [...]
The title is meaningless to us . [...]
We *DO NOT* want this title under these conditions. [...]
etc, then you have my permission to resign it at any time.
>We are only interested
>in a scientific data point: is it possible to build a checker-playing
^^^^^^^^^^ engineering (:-)
>entity that is better than all humans. Until we play Tinsley, we will not
>know. [...]
After you play Tinsley, you still won't know. (:-)
BTW thanks for posting some info about Tinsley's state.
Hope he recovers.
--- Don Fong
Mike Lease
J> I would like to provide some more details about the checkers match
J> status. Several posters are jumping to conclusions without knowing
J> the facts. It is very distressing to me and my team that we have to
J> waste time responding to stupid accusations that are ill-founded
J> and without basis. Right now, we have other things on our mind.
J> TINSLEY'S HEALTH
[deletia]
J> PLAYING CONDITIONS
[deletia]
J> WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
[deletia]
J> LAFFERTY MATCH
[deletia]
J> CHINOOK TEAM
[deletia]
J> FUTURE
[deletia]
I, for one, applaud your sportsmanship and the positions you
have outlined here. I sincerely hope that your post will lay to
rest the accusations and poorly-informed comments that you have
had to endure due to the unfortunate resignation of Mr. Tinsley,
and I also join you in your hopes for his recovery and the
opportunity to stage a rematch.
-Mike
-- SPEED 2.0c #1034: Spare the rod and boil the child.
Johannes Fuernkranz
>You've reduced the avg number of games by almost 1 per day to compensate,
>but that's still about 3 games a day for 2 weeks. How can you be so sure
>fatigue will not be a factor such a pace?
Not talking about Tinsley's other severe hardware limitations like limited
memory capacity and processing speed.
>Hope he recovers.
Yes. We all do.
Juffi
Darse Billings
>[garbage deleted]
The accusations of poor sportsmanship on the part of the Chinook team
are ridiculous, and I am appalled by the utter lack of class shown by
some posters on this topic. A public apology is called for, but it
appears that some people are too small to admit when they are wrong.
The ending of the Tinsley - Chinook match was tragic and unforeseen,
and must have been a bitter disappointment to Jonathan and everyone
else involved.
Perhaps you do not understand how important Tinsley is to the Chinook
project, and how highly they hold him in regard. When Chinook was
first developed, it was almost immediately grandmaster strength. One
consequence of this was that it was very difficult to teach the program
to play better -- who could it learn from? The answer was Tinsley.
Chinook's evaluation function was fine-tuned by using Tinsley's games
as a model of near-perfect checkers play.
Since that time, it can be said that Chinook has been developed and
groomed with one main goal in mind: to defeat Tinsley. He represents
the first great challenge to the Chinook team, and only solving the
game will surpass that accomplishment. I can tell you that they feel
honoured and fortunate to have the opportunity to play the greatest
human checkers player ever (past, present and the foreseeable future).
It has always been important to the Chinook team that they challenge
Tinsley while he is still at the peak of his powers. The fact that
he did not lose a single game during the entire decade previous to
the first Chinook match demonstrates that he is still in fine form.
Jonathan has long feared that the break-through would come too late,
and that the hard-earned achievement would be diminished by defeating
a less-than-perfect Tinsley.
Of course Chinook should now be declared champion, for whatever that is
worth. There are many ways to win or lose a match, and default wins
are part of any sport. The score of the match is irrelevant. A tennis
player who must retire due to injury loses the match, even if she was
about to serve for match point. Who would dare call her innocent
opponent a poor sportsman? I say only an ignorant ass.
We should all empathize with the Chinook team, rather than criticizing
them for circumstances beyond their control. Imagine how you would
feel if you trained for years to win the gold medal at the Olympics,
only to achieve a hollow victory when your greatest rival was absent
because his country boycotted the games. Would you decline the gold
medal? You know that there will always be an asterisk beside your name
in the record books, but all you can reasonably do is accept it, and
hope for another chance to prove that you are a worthy champion.
I sincerely hope that Marion Tinsley makes a complete recovery, and
again is able to challenge the machine in this most *human* drama.
- Darse Billings.
Don Fong
>The accusations of poor sportsmanship on the part of the Chinook team
>are ridiculous,
you address the issue that was raised. Jonathan Schaeffer admitted that
the title had not been legitimately won. Is it not poor sportsmanship
to accept a title that has not been legitimately won? If not, why not?
Now tell me whether the better party won the match, and justify your
answer. Jonathan Schaeffer said the point was to find out whether it is
possible to build an entity that plays better than all humans; not an
entity that wins by default should the human fall ill.
>and I am appalled by the utter lack of class shown by
>some posters on this topic. A public apology is called for, but it
>appears that some people are too small to admit when they are wrong.
No kidding.
--- Don Fong
Jonathan Schaeffer
> Ridiculous? then instead of posting irrelevant trivia, why don't
>you address the issue that was raised. Jonathan Schaeffer admitted that
>the title had not been legitimately won. Is it not poor sportsmanship
>to accept a title that has not been legitimately won? If not, why not?
Mr. Fong, you are not a very careful reader. We won the title LEGITIMATELY
according to the rules of the match. The fact that we do not like how this
happened is irrelevent.
>>and I am appalled by the utter lack of class shown by
>>some posters on this topic. A public apology is called for, but it
>>appears that some people are too small to admit when they are wrong.
Unfortunately, there are some people who will argue their point forever
and never admit they were wrong. My experience is that they always must
have the last word. Kindly make one last post (your last word on the
subject) and then move on to other (presumably) more important things
in your life.
Thank you.
Darse Billings
To my view, Tinsley still has the advantage in terms of "hardware".
His memory capacity for opening knowledge is larger and more reliable
than Chinook's. Chinook is limited to published knowledge, which is
clearly inferior to Marion's encyclopedic memory and years of private
research. Most of Chinook's previous losses are a direct result of
opening errors, some of which were considered "best" in the references.
Tinsley's search algorithm is more efficient, resulting in an effective
processing speed which greatly surpasses Chinook's in certain positions.
Other positions favour Chinook's abilities, so it is a contest to see
who can obtain those positions which best suit their styles, just as in
any contest between humans. I give Tinsley an edge here.
Endurance and fatigue? In the first Tinsley - Chinook match, the only
game that was clearly determined by physical weakness was Chinook's
forfeit in game 18 -- the turning point of the match for Tinsley, who
trailed 2-0 at the time. Tinsley did have some trouble with the tight
schedule, but it is not clear that that contributed to either of his
losses. With the increasing complexity of the Silicon Graphics hardware
used for these matches, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that
Chinook's risk of mechanical failure is greater than Tinsley's.
The only arena in which Chinook can claim an edge is in it's knowledge
of endgames. Even then, Tinsley seldom loses in this phase of the game,
and has found many difficult draws in the past. Small edge to Chinook.
In this light, the natural question is: Which one is the machine? :-)
Cheers, - Darse.
--
Go is better than Chess. Poker is more lucrative. Sex is more fun.
Darse Billings, 7 kyu; 2065 CFC; meaningless IRC sb/hand ratios:
(rayzor on IRC) Hold'em +0.22 ; HiLo Omaha +0.56
Feng-Hsiung Hsu
>you address the issue that was raised. Jonathan Schaeffer admitted that
>the title had not been legitimately won. Is it not poor sportsmanship
>to accept a title that has not been legitimately won? If not, why not?
It should be obvious to any sensible person that Don is only interested in
word games. I could not find any taker for the bet that Don will ever
publically apologize for his wrong, unfounded and abusive accusations.
David desJardins
was some legitimate concern that some people might take the situation
the wrong way, and so it was worth explaining the true facts. Now that
that's been done, as far as I can tell, there is just one bozo who has a
problem with the match. There's always going to be at least one person
with a chip on the shoulder about something or other. I suggest that we
all just ignore him and eventually he will go away.
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1994 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
Don Fong
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>> Ridiculous? then instead of posting irrelevant trivia, why don't
>>you address the issue that was raised. Jonathan Schaeffer admitted that
>>the title had not been legitimately won. Is it not poor sportsmanship
>>to accept a title that has not been legitimately won? If not, why not?
>Mr. Fong, you are not a very careful reader. We won the title LEGITIMATELY
Who's being careless here? Do you deny posting the following:
``Had we legitimately won the title, we would have immediately
resigned it and the program would have probably been retired.''
Your own words. Now you're saying the win was legitimate *according to
the rules of the match*. However that is a different sense than the one
which YOU yourself alluded to in the above quotation. Which is the sense
my comment about sportsmanship was apropos to.
Who's being careless here? Your previous posts (apparently in response
to something i wrote?) addressed many "points" that neither i nor anyone
else raised in this thread. (Were they raised in another newsgroup
perhaps?) Such as the "adverse" conditions, and the propriety of the
Lafferty match. I didn't see anyone claim "adverse" conditions, nor did i
see anyone object to the Lafferty match. You also wrote a lot about the
current match conditions, whereas (IF you read carefully) my original note
referred to the conditions of the PREVIOUS match being favorable to the
machine. It looks to me like you're just trying to obfuscate the issue.
>Unfortunately, there are some people who will argue their point forever
>and never admit they were wrong.
No kidding. Also there are people who think they can win a debate
without addressing the actual arguments made by the other side,
simply by calling the other side stupid or ignorant, or by inventing
and then pretending to refute arguments that the other side never made.
>My experience is that they always must
>have the last word.
Hey remember, i'm dealing with a dude who claimed the championship
when his opponent defaulted. (:-) Or do you deny posting the following:
``Chinook is now the "man-machine" world champion [...]''
After winning not one game.
>Kindly make one last post (your last word on the
>subject) and then move on to other (presumably) more important things
>in your life.
I can see the world championship has gone to someone's head.
--- Don Fong
Jonathan Bright
>Tinsley's search algorithm is more efficient, resulting in an effective
>processing speed which greatly surpasses Chinook's in certain positions.
>Other positions favour Chinook's abilities, so it is a contest to see
>who can obtain those positions which best suit their styles, just as in
>any contest between humans. I give Tinsley an edge here.
Just exactly how would one measure Tinsley's processing speed in these
different types of positions? I think that your claims are stated
in an overly scientific manner. Clearly, if the game of checkers
can be divided into two parts, A (opening + middlegame) and B (endgame),
and Chinook plays B positions perfectly yet still manages to lose
to Tinsley in a match, then Tinsley is better in type A positions.
This certainly is not a deep observation. I'm just not certain what
effective processing power means, or to say that his search algorithm
is more efficient.
>Endurance and fatigue? In the first Tinsley - Chinook match, the only
>game that was clearly determined by physical weakness was Chinook's
>forfeit in game 18 -- the turning point of the match for Tinsley, who
>trailed 2-0 at the time. Tinsley did have some trouble with the tight
>schedule, but it is not clear that that contributed to either of his
>losses. With the increasing complexity of the Silicon Graphics hardware
>used for these matches, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that
>Chinook's risk of mechanical failure is greater than Tinsley's.
It would be interesting to see if the performance of Chinook was better
in the second and third games played in a day, as opposed to the first games.
Presumably, Tinsley would be sharpest for the first game, and would fall
off after that. Checkers match conditions sound as if they were intended
for competition between 2 humans, with the assumption that fatigue will
affect both of them equally. Maybe even two games in one day is an unfair
advantage for a computer, and a statiscal analysis of previous matches may
shed some light on this.
Jon Bright
Glenn Rhoads
>TINSLEY'S HEALTH
><text deleted>
>PLAYING CONDITIONS
><text deleted>
>WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP
>Resigning the match and declaring Chinook World Champion was done by
>Tinsley without consulting us. According to the rules, this is the correct
>procedure and it has been endorsed by the ACF and BDF. We *DO NOT* want
>this title under these conditions. To be "world champion" while Tinsley is
>still alive and undefeated is ridiculous. Nevertheless, whether we like it or
>not, we have the title and must keep it at least until the end of next week
>(the Lafferty match).
Must keep the title? Are you claiming to be devoid of will like a
lemming? If you feel that it is ridiculous to be the champion while
Tinsley is alive and undefeated, then why don't you immediately resign
the title?
>LAFFERTY MATCH
><text deleted>
>CHINOOK TEAM
><text deleted>
>FUTURE
><text deleted>
I never had any problem with the rest of this and I don't know anybody
who did. But I'm sure most, if not all, appreciated the update on
Tinsley's health.
-- Glenn Rhoads
Glenn Rhoads
>Is anyone still listening to this guy? At first it seemed that there
>was some legitimate concern that some people might take the situation
>the wrong way, and so it was worth explaining the true facts. Now that
>that's been done, as far as I can tell, there is just one bozo who has a
>problem with the match. There's always going to be at least one person
>with a chip on the shoulder about something or other. I suggest that we
>all just ignore him and eventually he will go away.
I still have not seen one valid argument countering the claim that the
chinook team displayed less than ideal sportsmanship. If you want to
express your opinion, then argue the merit of your position. Personal
attacks only reflect poorly on yourself.
-- Glenn Rhoads
Bruce_L...@transarc.com
>chinook team displayed less than ideal sportsmanship.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. It is you who are required to provide
valid arguments.
Let me suggest what is required. To prove poor sportsmanship, you have to find
two opposing sportsmen, one of whom thinks he has been wronged. I think you'll
have a hard time in this case. Since Tinsley more or less directed the course
of events (he specified that the title should go to the Chinook team), he
doesn't think he has been wronged. If Tinsley were to complain about poor
sportsmanship, you might be justified in lining up behind him. But he didn't.
> Personal
>attacks only reflect poorly on yourself.
>-- Glenn Rhoads
An accusation of poor sportsmanship is a personal attack. Enough said.
David Forthoffer
: 1: The title was not fairly won. ...
:
: This has been established. Even the chinook team has admitted
: this; to quote Jonathan, "Had we legitimately won the title ..."
: "To be 'world champion' while Tinsley is
: still alive and undefeated is ridiculous."
No. As has already been pointed out, Jonathan was using the
term "legitimately" in the moral sense, as is indicated by the rest of
his quote.
In the legal sense, they clearly won the man-machine championship title.
That shoots down the rest of your arguments.
--
David Forthoffer NEC Technologies Printer Division
dav...@lpd.sj.nec.com 110 Rio Robles, San Jose CA 95134
"I'm not speaking for NEC unless I explicitly say so."
Glenn Rhoads
>: 1: The title was not fairly won. ...
>:
>: This has been established. Even the chinook team has admitted
>: this; to quote Jonathan, "Had we legitimately won the title ..."
>: "To be 'world champion' while Tinsley is
>: still alive and undefeated is ridiculous."
>No. As has already been pointed out, Jonathan was using the
>term "legitimately" in the moral sense, as is indicated by the rest of
>his quote.
>In the legal sense, they clearly won the man-machine championship title.
>That shoots down the rest of your arguments.
Nope! The moral sense is precisely what is meant by "The title was
not fairly won." You just agreed with 1: and hence, supported my
argument. Try again.
-- Glenn Rhoads
Glenn Rhoads
Bruce_L...@transarc.com writes:
>>I still have not seen one valid argument countering the claim that the
>>chinook team displayed less than ideal sportsmanship.
>The burden of proof is on the accuser. It is you who are required to provide
>valid arguments.
Already did that. Perhaps you missed them. If so, then let me repeat
it.
1: The title was not fairly won.
2: The title was accepted and not resigned.
3: To accept/not resign a title that was not fairly won is poor
sportsmanship.
4:Therefore, the chinook team showed poor sportsmanship.
1: This has been established. Even the chinook team has admitted
this; to quote Jonathan, "Had we legitimately won the title ..."
"To be 'world champion' while Tinsley is
still alive and undefeated is ridiculous."
2: Obviously true.
3: True under the normal definition of poor sportsmanship.
4: Follows logically from 1 -- 3.
To the claim that the chinook team accepted the title to please the
sponsors, I say that this is in no way a valid excuse. You are always
free to act as you wish and are thus, always responsible for your own
actions. Trying to abdicate the responsibility for your own actions
does not cut it.
>Let me suggest what is required. To prove poor sportsmanship, you
>have to find two opposing sportsmen, one of whom thinks he has been
>wronged. I think you'll have a hard time in this case. Since
>Tinsley more or less directed the course of events (he specified that
>the title should go to the Chinook team), he doesn't think he has
>been wronged. If Tinsley were to complain about poor sportsmanship,
>you might be justified in lining up behind him. But he didn't.
Wrong! To prove poor sportsmanship, you have to show how somebody
acted in an unsportsmanlike manner. The fact that Tinsley is such a
nice guy is irrelevant.
>>Personal attacks only reflect poorly on yourself.
>An accusation of poor sportsmanship is a personal attack. Enough said.
Your taking this out of context. I was referring to the ad hominem
attacks such as your calling someone a bozo. Providing arguments to
support a claim of poor sportsmanship is NOT an ad hominem attack.
-- Glenn Rhoads
Glenn Rhoads
>: 1: The title was not fairly won. ...
>:
>: This has been established. Even the chinook team has admitted
>: this; to quote Jonathan, "Had we legitimately won the title ..."
>: "To be 'world champion' while Tinsley is
>: still alive and undefeated is ridiculous."
>No. As has already been pointed out, Jonathan was using the
Robert Williams
important points made by both sides:
>>>I still have not seen one valid argument
> less than ideal sportsmanship.
>
It is you who are required to provide
> Perhaps you missed them.
> not fairly won.
>poor sportsmanship.
> 4:... poor sportsmanship.
> Trying to abdicate the responsibility
>>poor sportsmanship,
> been wronged. poor sportsmanship,
> Wrong!
> acted in an unsportsmanlike manner.
> nice guy is irrelevant.
>>Personal attacks
>> poor sportsmanship
>>personal attack.
>out of context.
> ad hominem attacks
> bozo.
> poor sportsmanship
> ad hominem attack.
>=============
Gentlemen, and I use that term loosely, don't you think this topic has been
flogged enough? In exchanging these barbs, are you expecting one side or
the other to say "Wow! I never thought of that, you ARE right." Yeah,
right.
skip
Leonard Augsburger
Uh, can we just sum up all this checkers stuff with the following
and be done with it:
* Chinook is either playing perfect checkers now or will be soon.
* Tinsley plays perfect checkers when he is good shape and mentally
in condition.
* Given that they both can play perfect checkers, why not call them
both world champions.
Len.
David Forthoffer
OK.
1. The title was legally won.
2. The title was not legally resigned.
3. To not legally resign a title that was legally won is not poor
sportsmanship.
Or:
1. The Chinook Team did not win the title in the moral sense.
2. The Chinook Team denied being "world champions" in the moral sense.
3. To deny being world champions (in a moral sense) after not winning
the title (in a moral sense) is not poor sportsmanship.
The following argument is fallacious:
1. The Chinook Team did not win the title in the moral sense.
2. The title was not legally resigned.
3. To not legally resign a title that was not morally won
is poor sportsmanship.
Glenn Rhoads
>1. The title was legally won.
>2. The title was not legally resigned.
>3. To not legally resign a title that was legally won is not poor
> sportsmanship.
The fact that the title was legally won implies only that the Chinook
team is not required to resign the title.
>1. The Chinook Team did not win the title in the moral sense.
>2. The Chinook Team denied being "world champions" in the moral sense.
>3. To deny being world champions (in a moral sense) after not winning
> the title (in a moral sense) is not poor sportsmanship.
To deny being champions in the moral sense is good sportsmanship and
shows that the Chinook team has an honest and proper sense of
humility. However, not resigning the title is certainly a lot less
honorable and noble of an action.
>The following argument is fallacious:
>1. The Chinook Team did not win the title in the moral sense.
>2. The title was not legally resigned.
>3. To not legally resign a title that was not morally won
> is poor sportsmanship.
Apparently, we have different standards of sportsmanship. Thus, we
will never agree with each other. Let's just say that reasonable,
rational people can disagree and leave it at that.
Also, this is my LAST post on this subject (I can hear the sighs of
relief from thousands of people across the net :-) )
because the fall semester has just started and I won't have the time
to respond. No matter, I believe we've both said what we wanted to.
-- Glenn Rhoads
Paul Powell
May I should post some info on Boxing. Its closer to chess then checkers!
R,
PJP
Maurice Broverman
In a previous article, pjpo...@marlin.ssnet.com (Paul Powell) says:
>Checkers!?
>
>May I should post some info on Boxing. Its closer to chess then checkers!
>
Only if you're punchdrunk!