People often don't agree on what is rational..even in simple thing like Chess (was that a rational move? It was for me since I know what I'll do next, I have some plan. For you it seems stupid since oyu have your own plan and ideas to defeat me. But then Kasparov comes, laugss at both of our sorry asses and defets us in 3 turns...
Rational is rational, if you are beaten you either made mistakes, didn't follow your plan accordingly or your so called "rational moves" weren't "rational" at all.
For example, you may call a mate threat you just made a "rational move", but if you get mated on your next one, it's not exactly "rational". Kasparov is not omniscient (despite all the evidence), so your point is irrelevant. What you are confused about is that in chess most people (for discussion's sake, non-GMs) can't evaluate a position correctly. If you try to apply chess to politics (
Kasparov again comes to mind) you would have to say most people can't evaluate a candidate correctly, which most people find borderline non-democratic (although it has it's hints of truth).
