Life In 19x19

SCHEDULE UPDATE
There will be no game this Sunday (May 26). The 5th round will take place on June 2nd, 20:00 CEST / 14:00 US EDT. For later rounds schedule, please refer to the tournament website at https://transatlanticgo.org/

Hopefully this means there is a serious effort at making new rules and they don't want to rush into the next game as scheduled without them.

HKA at https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=244980#p244980 wrote:Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.
...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.

By a PM I asked HKA to explain his source of this information.

jann wrote: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.

I believe in this situation people's thinking is based on intuition and feelings, which depend on their genetic settings. Don't expect much of impartial way of thinking here.
edit: of course, their thinking may be based on even simpler pattern: "I want that Mateusz/Eric wins."

The substance of one-sided thinking is the fact that people
- tend to persistently question any input that don't match their view
- tend to easily accept any information that backs their view, even if the information is not verified: notice this happened with the HKA's statement too.

Uberdude wrote:

SCHEDULE UPDATE
There will be no game this Sunday (May 26). The 5th round will take place on June 2nd, 20:00 CEST / 14:00 US EDT. For later rounds schedule, please refer to the tournament website at https://transatlanticgo.org/

Hopefully this means there is a serious effort at making new rules and they don't want to rush into the next game as scheduled without them.

Yes, I was hoping that there would be a delay. It takes time to craft new conditions of contest that are acceptable all around.

Kirby wrote: 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.

Whether one actually change's one's mind is one thing. What I find important is to go into a debate with the willingness by principle to be convinced otherwise. If I don't do that, I see no point in debate, because I expect a similar attitude by the others. Many debates are governed by people who have no such willingness whatsoever and use the debate merely as a magnifier for their opinions (disguised as facts).

I reacted on a post which stated that "calling losing by connection failure a loss by time, is a lie". The whole discussion here however shows that this is arguable and a matter of opinion not of truth. It's one of the key arguments in the debate, next to the alleged lack of sportsmanship and derived arguments such as the professionalism of the organization.

If you engage in a discussion where the central argument is - in your opinion - a matter of fact, upon which you have no intention to change your mind, then it is rather pointless. This is why I mentioned the flat earth discussion: I have never entered a debate on that topic, because I consider the spheroidal shape of the earth a fact, not open for debate.

That doesn't mean I have no strong opinion on non-factual matters. In this debate for example, I still think it's unfair Mateusz has lost and I still think the AGA squad has been very unsportsmanlike, but through Bill's arguments I have gained more appreciation for the referee's decision.

Knotwilg wrote: Whether one actually change's one's mind is one thing. What I find important is to go into a debate with the willingness by principle to be convinced otherwise.

I think that's an admirable attitude. Similarly, I think a scientific approach to knowledge is to generally be skeptical of what you believe that you know, and try regularly to prove oneself wrong.

As a human, though, this can be challenging, especially for a topic one cares about. I've read that these types of debates can prompt similar parts of the brain as are prompted in physical encounters (e.g. when somebody is getting into a fist fight). It's quite easy for me to get into an argument about go, since I identify as a go player. On the other hand, on a topic that's less personal to me, I'm more likely to take new information in as a way of learning. For example, I'm not a physicist, so if there were a debate about physics, I'd probably be easier to look at new information clearly and without as much bias.

That doesn't mean I have no strong opinion on non-factual matters. In this debate for example, I still think it's unfair Mateusz has lost and I still think the AGA squad has been very unsportsmanlike, but through Bill's arguments I have gained more appreciation for the referee's decision.

Good for you. It's pure speculation on my part, but is it possible that your respect for Bill and/or prior relationship with him has influenced the filter through which you read the arguments?

Kirby wrote: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.

On unclear subjects like that where there is no definitive answer, people will never encounter significant evidence or facts that may change their views - so of course left with their own intuition. Everybody knows spanked kids that grew up well, also ones that haven't, and the same for non spanked ones, so it's a matter of percentages - which are very sensitive to selection, society and maybe even change by time.

But this has some resemblence to this topic. As mentioned earlier the reason why this dragged so long is that in the lack of explicit rules, it's common sense and more general rules that apply - and those differ a bit by individual. (This is why the claim about KGS having been explicitly designated as official timekeeper seems wrong - if nothing else this long thread proves that, none of the arguments offered by either side would make sense otherwise.)

Knotwilg wrote:This is why I mentioned the flat earth discussion: I have never entered a debate on that topic, because I consider the spheroidal shape of the earth a fact, not open for debate.

But you should still be able to offer a few key arguments what made you believe that this theory is factually true - it's only the long and unfruitful repetition of opinions that is meaningless IMO.

One thing that triggers people into online debates is when they didn't see the "correct" answer or the "decisive" (for them) argument mentioned among the offered opinions. It is usually easier to recognise the correct answer and its explanation than coming up with it, so once it is there it is ok - the rest is up to the reader.

Apologies. This thing has been so crazy. I was sure I had seen a post, perhaps FB, stating Surma had objected to the rematch. I certainly CANNOT find it now. Sorry to have siderailed the discussion a bit.

jann wrote: On unclear subjects like that where there is no definitive answer, people will never encounter significant evidence or facts that may change their views - so of course left with their own intuition. Everybody knows spanked kids that grew up well, also ones that haven't, and the same for non spanked ones, so it's a matter of percentages - which are very sensitive to selection, society and maybe even change by time.

But this has some resemblence to this topic. As mentioned earlier the reason why this dragged so long is that in the lack of explicit rules, it's common sense and more general rules that apply - and those differ a bit by individual.

I very much agree with your sentiment, as you describe it here

HKA wrote: Apologies. This thing has been so crazy. I was sure I had seen a post, perhaps FB, stating Surma had objected to the rematch. I certainly CANNOT find it now. Sorry to have siderailed the discussion a bit.

Surma's statement indicates that he "objected" to a rematch, at least in the form of an appeal (not clear whether it was formal or informal). But this is perhaps similar to saying that the earlier appeal to the resume-from-time option was an "objection" to that decision as well. In both cases, this may be different than outright refusing to play under the said cirumstances - an appeal doesn't necessarily mean that you will have it no other way if your appeal is not granted.


But it's very difficult for us to really understand the nuance as to how much anyone objected or didn't object, since we only really have a single official statement, which doesn't outline much detail in that regard.

@Kirby and @HKA: you're getting some language mixed up here. The earlier statement bij HKA used "refused", his latest used "objected", while certainly Surma "appealed" the decision for a rematch, IIUC. Different words different meanings, so please be careful in how you respond to them

HermanHiddema wrote:@Kirby and @HKA: you're getting some language mixed up here. The earlier statement bij HKA used "refused", his latest used "objected", while certainly Surma "appealed" the decision for a rematch, IIUC. Different words different meanings, so please be careful in how you respond to them

Thanks Herman. This may be precisely where I went wrong. I certainly thought Surma had appealed the rematch decision. I should not have suggested that he refused to play it if the referee had made that his final ruling. Native English speakers are the worst.

HKA wrote:Apologies. This thing has been so crazy. I was sure I had seen a post, perhaps FB, stating Surma had objected to the rematch. I certainly CANNOT find it now. Sorry to have siderailed the discussion a bit.

Do you mean this one?
viewtopic.php?p=244012#p244012

jann wrote:This is why the claim about KGS having been explicitly designated as official timekeeper seems wrong - if nothing else this long thread proves that, none of the arguments offered by either side would make sense otherwise.

Gee, I missed that. Who said that?

It sounds like someone misinterpreted me, is why I ask.

Bill Spight wrote:

jann wrote:This is why the claim about KGS having been explicitly designated as official timekeeper seems wrong - if nothing else this long thread proves that, none of the arguments offered by either side would make sense otherwise.

Gee, I missed that. Who said that?

It sounds like someone misinterpreted me, is why I ask.

Yes. That's the proper perspective nailed right there. The difference between explicit and implicit is monumental here in the difference that makes when we arrive at the same point anyway whichever one we choose.

Bill Spight wrote:

jann wrote:This is why the claim about KGS having been explicitly designated as official timekeeper seems wrong - if nothing else this long thread proves that, none of the arguments offered by either side would make sense otherwise.

Gee, I missed that. Who said that?

It sounds like someone misinterpreted me, is why I ask.

I don't know whether anyone misinterpreted you, but it looks I misunderstood you.

"In this case, the organizers, in their naiveté, made KGS the official timekeeper, and the players, in their naiveté, accepted those conditions."
viewtopic.php?p=245019#p245019\