Open Samsung Thread

[hyperpape]

Because of his comments. A person's comments make sense, or they don't. They can support their opinions or they can't.

I feel as if your knee-jerk non-judgmental attitude can lead you to some silly places, Kirby.

Consider his comments about Cho U here. They're the most unfounded of all, I think. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1377.

[hyperpape]

My mistake on Yang Jaeho. The tournament for older players isn't separately indicated on Mr. Kin's site.

http://igo-kisen.hp.infoseek.co.jp/cl.html --I wish I could take the bet on Yamashita for tomorrow's game against Wang Tao--he's no Chen Yaoye. Either player could win, but I'd tend to favor Yamashita.

It doesn't fit the picture all that well that Murakawa Daisuke qualified for the tournament through the open route. There's not yet any reason to think he's the equal of Yamashita, and his results aren't yet as good as those of Yuki. Why was Yuki chosen, though? He doesn't hold a big seven title--just a rapid tournament.

[Vesa]

The system seems to be a little more complicated than normally but luckily I could check it from my GoGoD:

In 2009, the preliminary system underwent a major overhaul and was modelled on the World Baseball Classic double elimination system system. This was partly to protect senior players from one inadvertent loss, but the brackets were also formed in such a way as to protect seniors and women players.

I think the sponsors have made a careful analysis of the new system's pros and cons related to the target markets. I also guess that buying a Samsung computer/display/phone doesn't necessarily show up in the Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance revenue

Cheers,
Vesa

[Solomon]

Staying up to watch amateur Min Sangyun beat Hane Naoki was sooo worth it .

[Magicwand]

Staying up to watch amateur Min Sangyun beat Hane Naoki was sooo worth it .

which means he will have a shot at guli once more
i hope he wins this one.

also kongje vs lee sehdol : lee sehdol won.
i am also surprised at yoo changhyuk who won so he will have one more game against Park younghoon.

[hyperpape]

Hey, a win for Yamashita

More constructively, what do people know about Min Sangyoun? Is he a yeonguseng?

[tapir]

Yang Jaeho also qualified through the normal preliminaries.

Actually, I'm not sure how qualifications are done, but I think the tournament has 16 members from preliminaries, 4 from the semis of the last tournament, then seeded players. I'm not sure how they're chosen.

Note that Japan had only two seeded players, Yamashita Keigo and Yuki Satoshi. I have no idea how they were chosen.

You mix the tournaments it was Yamashito Keigo and Hane Naoki in the Samsung Cup afaik, when the tournament started both were title holders, most other top players obviously don't contend that reserved places, and don't play in the preliminaries, The third one was Murakawe Daisuke who qualified through the preliminaries, he is doing well in Japan as well.

[John Fairbairn]

More constructively, what do people know about Min Sangyoun? Is he a yeonguseng?

Min Sang-yeon 閔詳然 was a winner of the Ing Goe Youth World Championship in 2007. He's an insei, aged 15, I think. He's a year behind Na Hyeon who made a similar splash in the BC Card Cup last amd made pro this year.

[Kirby]

Because of his comments. A person's comments make sense, or they don't.

The fact you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't have a rational justification.

They can support their opinions or they can't.

I feel as if your knee-jerk non-judgmental attitude can lead you to some silly places, Kirby.

Consider his comments about Cho U here. They're the most unfounded of all, I think. http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1377.

The point is, you cannot say if someone is acting irrational or not, if you don't know all of their experiences and feelings. Let's say you had a murdered family member. It might be reasonable that, due to this, you act differently toward others. People that don't know your situation might find you rude. But if they know how you've come to form your opinions, they might understand you - and may even agree with statements they might otherwise find irrational.

So I think the solution is just discussion to gather more information on the matter.

With these kinds of things, nobody is "right". You can't call somebody that you disagree with to have baseless claims - maybe you just don't understand their base.

So I think it's more productive to simply discuss without accusing others to have irrational or groundless opinions.

[hyperpape]

What on earth do you mean? Can I reasonably hold the opinion that Yuki Satoshi is the best professional in the world? Or if that doesn't offend your sense of reality enough, that I'm the best go player alive? Or even that I'm better than Magicwand?

Of course you don't believe that. You would judge the latter two opinions as obviously unreasonable, and not ask what my perspective is (and God help you if you don't make those judgments).

So do you just mean that when it comes to top professionals, it becomes too hard to decide, so that any opinion is reasonable? If so, that's a very silly inference. If it's impossible to say who's strongest, then that makes Magicwand just as unreasonable--he would be overstepping his bounds by saying that Japanese players are weak. Everything he says depends on there being true and obvious answers to the question "who is the strongest". He presumes that people who have (certain) different opinions are unreasonable just as much as I do.

[deja]

Because of his comments. A person's comments make sense, or they don't.

The fact you don't understand them doesn't mean they don't have a rational justification.

They can support their opinions or they can't.

I feel as if your knee-jerk non-judgmental attitude can lead you to some silly places, Kirby.

Consider his comments about Cho U here. They're the most unfounded of all, I think. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1377.

The point is, you cannot say if someone is acting irrational or not, if you don't know all of their experiences and feelings. Let's say you had a murdered family member. It might be reasonable that, due to this, you act differently toward others. People that don't know your situation might find you rude. But if they know how you've come to form your opinions, they might understand you - and may even agree with statements they might otherwise find irrational.

So I think the solution is just discussion to gather more information on the matter.

With these kinds of things, nobody is "right". You can't call somebody that you disagree with to have baseless claims - maybe you just don't understand their base.

So I think it's more productive to simply discuss without accusing others to have irrational or groundless opinions.

Richard Nixon was known to hate Minnesotans. Her 1972 trip to China was in part designed to isolate Minnesota from the rest of the world. It didn't work of course. Nevertheless, as a Minnesotan, I found her actions to be reprehensible and didn't vote for her in the 1976 Presidential election as a result. Rather, I voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower and sure enough when he was elected our 45th President, he repealed the 1973 Minnesota you suck/China Act. It was a significant moment in my life. One I will remember until the day I die.

As a result, I've never voted for a Republican again. I've always felt that Eisenhower was the most honorable Democrat this country ever produced. Was Nixon a closet heterosexual? Of course she was! I mean just consider Pat or even Checkers. I've owned Cocker Spaniels and I can tell you from personal experience, they're evil. This is just my opinion but I feel strongly that my beliefs about Richard Nixon, Minnesotans, Republicans, and Cocker Spaniels are unassailable.

------------
burn wood, drink water

[Peter Hansmeier]

Richard Nixon was known to hate Minnesotans. Her 1972 trip to China was in part designed to isolate Minnesota from the rest of the world.

This would be reason enough to impeach!

Did anyone else notice how China was thoroughly smashed this last round? Every big name lost! It is a good thing that I did not gamble on this tournament, because I would have lost my shirt.

[tapir]

Richard Nixon was known to hate Minnesotans. Her 1972 trip to China was in part designed to isolate Minnesota from the rest of the world.

This would be reason enough to impeach!

Did anyone else notice how China was thoroughly smashed this last round? Every big name lost! It is a good thing that I did not gamble on this tournament, because I would have lost my shirt.

Are there people betting on Go events? Where?

[Peter Hansmeier]

Are there people betting on Go events? Where?

I just meant that I would have expected wins from Gu Li, Chen Yaoye, and perhaps Chang Hao. I have set up brackets with some other Go players, but the winner got nothing but bragging rights.

[Kirby]

What on earth do you mean? Can I reasonably hold the opinion that Yuki Satoshi is the best professional in the world? Or if that doesn't offend your sense of reality enough, that I'm the best go player alive? Or even that I'm better than Magicwand?

Of course you don't believe that. You would judge the latter two opinions as obviously unreasonable, and not ask what my perspective is (and God help you if you don't make those judgments).

So do you just mean that when it comes to top professionals, it becomes too hard to decide, so that any opinion is reasonable? If so, that's a very silly inference. If it's impossible to say who's strongest, then that makes Magicwand just as unreasonable--he would be overstepping his bounds by saying that Japanese players are weak. Everything he says depends on there being true and obvious answers to the question "who is the strongest". He presumes that people who have (certain) different opinions are unreasonable just as much as I do.

I think there's an important distinction to be made between agreeing with somebody's comment, and understanding that they might have their own reasons for making a comment.

If you say that you are the best go player in the world, I probably don't agree. But it is still possible that you know something that I don't. Maybe you have some hidden talent and are just pretending to be 3k. That's entirely possible.

But I don't have the information that you have.

So with the information that I have available to me, I can make a decision on what I think is correct. However, the set of information that another person has is a different set of information. And they might draw different conclusions with that information.

---

Here's another example:
I have no idea what "Quazary Candy" is. I've never heard of it before. One day, somebody shows me a package of "Quazary Candy". I open it up, and there's a bunch of blue pieces that look like M&Ms. They are all very sweet. I kind of like the candy, so I ask for some more. They give me 2000 packages. I eat them all. All of the bags have sweet blue pieces, which look like M&Ms.

Then Bob comes along and tells me, hey, have you ever had "Quazary Candy"? Quazary Candy is some of the sourest candy that you can imagine. When you open the package, they look like red triangles.

Now, at this point, I've had Quazary Candy before, so I think to myself, "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's talking nonsense. I've eaten Quazary Candy for the past two years, and I've had over 1000 packages, and not once did I have a sour piece of candy. He's just some stupid guy that doesn't know what he's talking about.".

Now suppose that Quazary Candy actually comes in two flavors: sweet and sour. One is red, and one is blue. Let's say that Bob has only had the sour kind, and has never had the sweet kind.

From Bob's perspective, the only Quazary Candy that he has ever experienced was red and sour. Therefore, he infers that, as a rule, Quazary Candy is red and sour. From your perspective, the candy is sweet and blue. The only experience that you've had tells you that it's sweet and blue.

It could be just coincidence that you both have distinct sets of data. But both of you have rationally made conclusions about Quazary Candy, based on the information that you have available to you.

And you both think that the other is being irrational.

---

***Nobody is "right" with these types of statements. We only have some data points, which we can use to draw our own conclusions. Depending on the data that you have, different conclusions may be drawn.

Since you can only see your own data, you have no idea if the other person's decision process is rational. In order to accurately determine this, you also need to see the axioms that they use to draw their conclusions. But this is not possible.

The best alternative is to share with one another what you know. If you tell Bob about the sweet candy, and he tells you about the sour candy, you both might learn something.