EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Fenring]

1) As an American, I am very sorry for Mateusz, and the European team deserves to be 4-0. I believe I can say this and simultaneously hold the opinion that a rematch was the fairest option.

2) To those saying this is an easy fix, we can resume just for this one game, no need to worry about slippery slopes, and it won't require referees to have plans in place for other contingencies (e.g., obvious misclicks, less than obvious misclicks), I hope you are right.

3) This is the most divisive thread I have ever read on L19 where trolls were not involved. It has gone beyond bouncing ideas around and has become pretty hard to read.

I know its post-truth and fake news era, but please lying like this is disgusting.
Hard to read so much lies.
Nobody say we have to resume just for this game or don't require referee to have plans in place.
We say "resume the game is better in general" and decision "rematch or resume the game" is independant of the choice to adopt new rules.

[Javaness2]

Let's be careful about what we admit into evidence here in our kangaroo court.

This is a horrible situation. But, from what I have seen, Mr. Surma did not lose because of the American's protest. He lost because his "flag" fell, and he refused a rematch.

Totally agree, it is a horrible situation. But is it publicly stated that he categorically refused a rematch? I understood that he submitted a protest to the rematch decision. It appears somebody else also protested against the rematch decision. If MS really lodged an appeal with the explicit statement that he does not accept a rematch written in it, that would really put matters in a very different light. I think the rematch was the best worst option, and so does George.

To return to another point.

Clock malfunction. A player who suspects a clock has malfunctioned must notify the TD or ATD at once, and not continue play until the TD or ATD directs. A player may not escape the consequences of running out of time by claiming a clock malfunction earlier in the round which was never brought to the TD's attention

The AGA guidelines do not suggest that you should be punished for what you did in earlier games in a competition. They only talk about the current game [the round] and they also talk about notifying the TD at once. I understand that the TD wasn't there to be notified. I also, from experience, don't find netlag to be a constant thing. The AGA guidelines were not in force of course.

What rules do people think would be good to put in place for the remainder of the competition?
I think that there should be a referee present during the games. I think that we can handle netlag in byoyomi. A proctor can watch the clock in overtime. If he clearly sees a loss of a byoyomi period, and the player stops the clock to protest [exits the game] then the referee can direct his opponent to return a byoyomi period [Add 1 minute]. I think this is a fair bodge, as far as bodges go.

[Knotwilg]

I have posted very emotionally about this myself but since the EGF players have decided to move on, so have I.
I can't decide for the rest of you but maybe it's time to put this discussion to rest and return to the more positively enthralling happenings in Go.

[Uberdude]

With my admin hat half on, I wonder if come this Sunday (when the next game Eric Lui 1p vs Ali Jabrain 2p is due to be played, but still no public announcement about new rules) we should split off the lag/time/referee discussion to a separate thread so this one can focus on the rest of the match, or perhaps just make a new one seeing as I don't fancy selecting 550 checkboxes!

[golem7]

Please close this thread!

A loss on time is always frustrating, especially when you're ahead (as I know from experience). But a decision has been made, life isn't fair sometimes, get over it. The best thing you can do in that situation is just to start a new game.

Mistakes have been made, well that's ok, we can learn from them. When the win is on the line we do strange things, we're human after all. That's ok too, even Hikaru struggled with the same thing

To the people bashing the organizers: Shame on you!

Go is (and probably always will be) a niche in the west and everyone investing his free time (often unpaid) and energy into creating events like this in the first place deserves our full support. They don't owe us anything, on the contrary: we owe them a great deal! If you think you're so much cleverer please organize some events yourself and see for yourself what that entails.

The Go community likes to think of itself as somehow more enlightened than other people but as 30+ pages of petty bickering show, this is clearly not the case.

[Fenring]

Would be easier to move on, if some people stop to repeat lies.
Loss by disconnection is not a classic loss by time.
When i see lies like this, i don't feel we are learning from past.

[Knotwilg]

Would be easier to move on, if some people stop to repeat lies.
Loss by disconnection is not a classic loss by time.
When i see lies like this, i don't feel we are learning from past.

It would help if you don't call a difference of opinion a lie. We're on the same side of the sympathy but I wouldn't call those who differ "liars". When engaging in a discussion, you must think your opponents in the debate are sane people. If you don't, stay out of it (like I won't engage in a flat earth discussion). If you do, then acknowledge their point of view and try to convince them otherwise (or be convinced of their POV(*)). If that doesn't work, time to move on.

(*) This is another key element often missing in (online) debate. The willingness by principle, to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint. Many people engage in a discussion to either prove the others wrong, or move on. The 3rd option should be there, or else by symmetry no discussion would ever resolve in an agreement.

[Fenring]

Would be easier to move on, if some people stop to repeat lies.
Loss by disconnection is not a classic loss by time.
When i see lies like this, i don't feel we are learning from past.

It would help if you don't call a difference of opinion a lie. We're on the same side of the sympathy but I wouldn't call those who differ "liars". When engaging in a discussion, you must think your opponents in the debate are sane people. If you don't, stay out of it (like I won't engage in a flat earth discussion). If you do, then acknowledge their point of view and try to convince them otherwise (or be convinced of their POV(*)). If that doesn't work, time to move on.

(*) This is another key element often missing in (online) debate. The willingness by principle, to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint. Many people engage in a discussion to either prove the others wrong, or move on. The 3rd option should be there, or else by symmetry no discussion would ever resolve in an agreement.

I totally agree, but when a argument,already proven as wrong 3times, is reused, for me it is like a lie.
The alternative is to think he is not lying but too stupid to understand.
I have higher expectations for go players.

[Kirby]

In general, it is difficult to change your opinion about something you care strongly about, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. One form of this is known as the “Backfire Effect” - I posted about this earlier.

The basic idea is, when presented with new research or evidence that is contrary to a belief you agree strong with, you are more likely to reinforce your original belief (“eh, that point has these flaws; their research is insufficient”) than to change your original opinion. I am certainly guilty of this.

Perhaps it’s paradoxical, but with more facts and information in the advent of the Internet, in some ways, folks are not more connected but rather more divided.

That is, if you believe in the backfire effect. If you previously had a strong opinion to the contrary, I’m sure this reasoning seems flawed

[1] https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10 ... re-effect/

[Bill Spight]

Ok. IMO, the issue is more polarizing than clear cut - almost like politics or religion.

Yes, unfortunately, though I would rather call it a "fairness vs formalism" thing.

Meh - I think the ruling was fair. You don't. Let's repeat our opinions for another 30 posts or so

It is fair for players to play under conditions of contest that they have accepted, unless the conditions are set up ahead of time to favor one side or the other. In this case, the KGS clock kept the official time, and that was known to all, and so losing on time by the KGS clock was fair.

Many years ago I read a short book about teaching by a man who had been a master at an English boys' boarding school. About fairness, he made the interesting comment that headmasters are never right about fairness, masters are sometimes right about fairness, and boys are always right about fairness.

By analogy we may say that players are always right about fairness. To me that would mean that there is a higher standard of fairness than abiding by impartial conditions of contest. That is, no player should lose a game because of conditions beyond their control. OC, that is an ideal. For instance, a player may have to forfeit because of a traffic accident.

In this case, the organizers, in their naiveté, made KGS the official timekeeper, and the players, in their naiveté, accepted those conditions. Doing so meant that, sooner or later, someone was going to lose a game because of netlag, which would violate that higher standard of fairness.

As we say where I come from, that's a helluva way to run a railroad. But the organizers are drafting new conditions of contest, which I hope will be such that netlag is never an issue.

[jann]

In general, it is difficult to change your opinion about something you care strongly about, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. One form of this is known as the “Backfire Effect” - I posted about this earlier.

The basic idea is, when presented with new research or evidence that is contrary to a belief you agree strong with, you are more likely to reinforce your original belief (“eh, that point has these flaws; their research is insufficient”) than to change your original opinion.

A very reasonable behaviour. Normally, strong beliefs are formed on the grounds of strong and wide evidence, so when something new comes to light that contradicts that it is simply more likely that there is something wrong with the new info than with the original theory.

The problem is not that people are too slow to change opinions - the problem is (some) people are too quick to form opinions to begin with!

In this case, the organizers, in their naiveté, made KGS the official timekeeper, and the players, in their naiveté, accepted

If this would be true the case would have been very clear from the beginning, without the need for a week before a decision, without changing the decision several times, and without a rematch option ever offered to be refused. And of course, without any meaning of notifying the referee about the earler 1-2s lag.

[Kirby]

In general, it is difficult to change your opinion about something you care strongly about, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. One form of this is known as the “Backfire Effect” - I posted about this earlier.

The basic idea is, when presented with new research or evidence that is contrary to a belief you agree strong with, you are more likely to reinforce your original belief (“eh, that point has these flaws; their research is insufficient”) than to change your original opinion.

A very reasonable behaviour. Normally, strong beliefs are formed on the grounds of strong and wide evidence, so when something new comes to light that contradicts that it is simply more likely that there is something wrong with the new info than with the original theory.

Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion here to say, “If your belief is strong, the other guy is probably wrong”?

[Bill Spight]

In this case, the organizers, in their naiveté, made KGS the official timekeeper, and the players, in their naiveté, accepted

If this would be true the case would have been very clear from the beginning, without the need for a week before a decision, without changing the decision several times, and without a rematch option ever offered to be refused. And of course, without any meaning of notifying the referee about the earler 1-2s lag.

The muddled decision process was, IMHO, a result of their naiveté.

[jann]

Normally, strong beliefs are formed on the grounds of strong and wide evidence, so when something new comes to light that contradicts that it is simply more likely that there is something wrong with the new info than with the original theory.

Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion here to say, “If your belief is strong, the other guy is probably wrong”?

Or rather "if your belief is strong, you need similarly or not stronger evidence to change it".

Your example sounded like about strong existing theory vs. single new counter evidence or data point - which unsurprisingly meet doubts in science or in general.

[Kirby]

Normally, strong beliefs are formed on the grounds of strong and wide evidence, so when something new comes to light that contradicts that it is simply more likely that there is something wrong with the new info than with the original theory.

Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion here to say, “If your belief is strong, the other guy is probably wrong”?

Or rather "if your belief is strong, you need similarly or not stronger evidence to change it".

Your example sounded like about strong existing theory vs. single new counter evidence or data point - which unsurprisingly meet doubts in science or in general.

You can read the linked article if you'd like - it'll provide some examples. One of the examples in the article is the idea of spanking kids for punishment. There is research on all sides of the spectrum, ranging from saying that spanking is very bad and should never be done as a means of punishment to saying that spanking is a good way to discipline kids. Typically individuals already have an opinion on the matter, and even when presented with significant evidence of a differing viewpoint, folks rarely change their minds.

I do not advocate changing opinions wildly upon hearing the smallest evidence of a differing viewpoint. But at the same time, even large amounts of evidence typically just reinforce one's own original opinions - at least according to the backfire effect.

Anyway, I'm really just trying to say that it's difficult to change one's mind about something - even when one thinks they're being objective, they're often not. Probably part of being human.