138. Pancake 4d vs Loons 1d

Loons · #1

What a delicious sounding game. Even, Japanese rules? I'd prefer open book/database, but I am also fine with closed book. (And closed comments, as per normal).

You can pick odd or even and check;

Have a fun game.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

PS: Pretty sure almost everyone just copies the diagram code and edits by hand, however eg. drago also has an export ASCII position option.

EdLee · #2

Have fun, Loons and Pancake.

pancake · #3

I choose odd.

Open book is fine with me, but I probably won't try it myself for the fun of reading the corrections in the comments afterwards

.

Have a nice game!

edit: I picked wrong, your choice..

Loons · #4

I'll take black

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Marcus · #5

Whoah! Loons is 1d now? Congrats!

I missed that.

Loons · #6

Hah, the secret is; 1d isn't very good at all. You'll understand when you get here

. Pursuant to the slight confusion at the start of Ed & I's game, I thought it may be useful for everyone to see our KGS ranks in the title...

(My KGS account is a secret, because I get self-conscious of playing if too many people are watching me...)

ez4u · #7

Loons wrote:

...

(My KGS account is a secret, because I get self-conscious of playing if too many people are watching me...)

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do."
- Olin Miller

daal · #8

Loons wrote:

(My KGS account is a secret, because I get self-conscious of playing if too many people are watching me...)

I feel this way sometimes too, and while ez4u's quote is often applicable, I sometimes cringe at what observers say about my moves. The question remains however, how private do you think a Malkovitch game is? :shock:

Loons · #9

daal wrote:

I feel this way sometimes too, and while ez4u's quote is often applicable, I sometimes cringe at what observers say about my moves. The question remains however, how private do you think a Malkovitch game is? :shock:

Touché. I still feel Malkovich and timed server games are quite different beasts though.

pancake · **#10**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . W . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Loons · **#11**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bcm1 $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Bill Spight · **#12**

Hmmm. Is it that people who are slightly depressed are realistic, or that people who are realistic are slightly depressed?

ez4u · **#13**

I don't know. I wondered the same thing. He was quoted in a book. I searched his papers available on-line, but could not find the source to clarify it!

Edit:
Bill's previous and the resulting thread highjacking :mrgreen:

refer to a previous sig of mine:
“Overconfidence is, we think, a very general feature of human psychology... Almost everyone is overconfident – except the people who are depressed, and they tend to be realists.” -- Stefano DellaVigna, professor of economics, UC Berkeley

Bill Spight · **#14**

ez4u wrote:

I don't know. I wondered the same thing. He was quoted in a book. I searched his papers available on-line, but could not find the source to clarify it!

Both claims are supported by psychological research.

Kirby · **#15**

Bill Spight wrote:

ez4u wrote:

I don't know. I wondered the same thing. He was quoted in a book. I searched his papers available on-line, but could not find the source to clarify it!

Both claims are supported by psychological research.

It's not clear to me how to scientifically quantify what might be "realistic", because this seems to be a subjective term.

Loons · **#16**

I remember - not in any detail - that "there was a study" where people were put in a chamber with a switch that did nothing and a light that turned on and off randomly, and people (I think self-described optimists?) were more likely to wrongly conclude that the switch was affecting the light somehow.

Edit:
Out of interest, I appear to be crudely alluding to Alloy and Abramson 1979 which some modern people do seem to be contesting. Thank you google scholar for understanding "lightbulb optimism realism".

Kirby · **#17**

Loons wrote:

I remember - not in any detail - that "there was a study" where people were put in a chamber with a switch that did nothing and a light that turned on and off randomly, and people (I think self-described optimists?) were more likely to wrongly conclude that the switch was affecting the light somehow.

Edit:
Out of interest, I appear to be crudely alluding to Alloy and Abramson 1979 which some modern people do seem to be contesting. Thank you google scholar for understanding "lightbulb optimism realism".

Thanks, Loons. That's an interesting idea for a study. It looks like it costs money to buy the paper, but I wonder if the research included an alternative: construct an environment in which the button has a correlation with the observable effect, which is difficult to ascertain. I would hypothesize that the "depressed" subjects would more likely feel that there was no correlation. In this case, the non-depressed subjects would be "more realistic" (it seems to me, anyway).

hyperpape · **#18**

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

ez4u wrote:

I don't know. I wondered the same thing. He was quoted in a book. I searched his papers available on-line, but could not find the source to clarify it!

Both claims are supported by psychological research.

It's not clear to me how to scientifically quantify what might be "realistic", because this seems to be a subjective term.

I've never read the research in question, but it's not so hard to test. One way is to give objective tests of some sort and compare self-evaluation vs. actual performance. I know some studies on self-evaluation work this way. Another way is to use statistics: if optimists think they're in the 75% percentile on average, then they are almost certainly wrong, as a group.

Luckily, you don't have to come up with a complete measure of realism, just a few handy tests.

Kirby · **#19**

hyperpape wrote:

...
I've never read the research in question, but it's not so hard to test. One way is to give objective tests of some sort and compare self-evaluation vs. actual performance. I know some studies on self-evaluation work this way. Another way is to use statistics: if optimists think they're in the 75% percentile on average, then they are almost certainly wrong, as a group.

Luckily, you don't have to come up with a complete measure of realism, just a few handy tests.

I see. Of the two methods you mention, I prefer comparing self-evaluation to actual performance, since particular individuals could very well be in the 75th percentile on average. Anyway, I don't feel like "realism" is limited to self-evaluation, so maybe such a test could be extended to evaluation of any particular area, compared to actual results in a particular area. For example, I suppose if somebody has a particular evaluation on what will happen when the government does X, their evaluation could be compared to the actual result of X when it happens to get a measure for how realistic a person is in their evaluation.

If we use this as a method of quantifying realism, though, it seems to me that people might be deemed as "realists" depending on the subject matter. For example, if I know a lot about the weather, I can potentially better predict the weather, and be a "realist" when it comes to weather predictions, while perhaps being far from a realist when it comes to predicting other things, such as how well a basketball team will do this season. On the other hand, if I know a lot about basketball, I might be better at predicting that than the weather.

Without doing any particular study, I'd guess that it'd be intuitive to hypothesize that "those that know enough about X are realists when it comes to X", at least compared to the general public. Coming back to the example you've provided, if one knows well about oneself, perhaps one can be more of a realist when evaluating one's abilities.

Maybe we can accept this measure of realism, and say that a realist is one that knows more about a particular area of study. Then, if we say in general, a realist is slightly depressed, from earlier posts, can we guess that this could lead to the assumption that "those that know more about a particular area become slightly depressed"? :mrgreen:

Perhaps, as they say, "ignorance is bliss".

Loons · **#20**

A very interesting direction of this with respect to go may be- the feeling of getting stronger vs the rate at which you're getting stronger (ie for different training regimena*).

It may be worth checking the abstract of that paper (which is of course public and cursorily contains what they did and what they found) as my memory of it was quite misleading.

Anyway- we could perhaps pursue this in another thread. Sorry pancake

.

*Evidently this is how you pluralise regimen. Regimes may have been a better word.

138. Pancake 4d vs Loons 1d

Who is online