Life In 19x19

k0n0 wrote:

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\

Well, as I said, somewhere or other, after a few moves it would have been obvious that KGS was the official timekeeper, whether that had been explicitly stated or not. It was a timed event, and KGS was keeping the time. (Edit: Also, how did Surma, or any other player, know he was in byoyomi? Because KGS told him so.) OC, that does not mean that the referee could not overrule the KGS time record.

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

Yes, I agree. AFAIK, there isn’t public information saying that he refused a rematch. This can’t be implied from the statement.

Kirby wrote: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.

I had a faint memory that the studies that suggested the backfire effect may not have replicated. A quick search shows some citations from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. I'd at least be careful in citing it unless you find up to date sources that address the new studies.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that the ideas behind the backfire effect, confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance are all a little bit related.

The similarity, as I see it, is that humans are not as objective as they sometimes think they are.

I am not sure what studies confirm or deny this, but I’m likely biased toward thinking that the backfire effect holds, even in the face of evidence that it does not

The backfire effect is the result of motivated reasoning, for which there is a great deal of evidence.

By contrast there is the modern, scientific attitude, which is to put your own ideas to the test. And the ancient, Buddhist attitude, cease to cherish opinions.

We have had almost sixty pages of debate. It is probably time to get the facts correct.

hyperpape wrote:

Kirby wrote: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.

I had a faint memory that the studies that suggested the backfire effect may not have replicated.

Great, now I am even more sure that the backfire effect is real.

cease to cherish opinions.

including this one

Joaz Banbeck wrote:We have had almost sixty pages of debate. It is probably time to get the facts correct.

33 pages for me, with my settings … so … do facts depend on our respective perspective and settings?
________________

/me runs away quickly

Bill Spight wrote:after a few moves it would have been obvious that KGS was the official timekeeper, whether that had been explicitly stated or not. It was a timed event, and KGS was keeping the time. (Edit: Also, how did Surma, or any other player, know he was in byoyomi? Because KGS told him so.)

KGS was keeping time, but does this make it THE "official" timekeeper? Isn't the whole problem that there was NO official timekeeper, thus no clear answers when things broke? Besides, "KGS" means three different entities here (server, client1 and client2), with different time data (with the players only seeing their own client's one). Things went wrong exactly when KGS failed to synchronize it's three parts with tolerable accuracy.

jann wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:after a few moves it would have been obvious that KGS was the official timekeeper, whether that had been explicitly stated or not. It was a timed event, and KGS was keeping the time. (Edit: Also, how did Surma, or any other player, know he was in byoyomi? Because KGS told him so.)

KGS was keeping time, but does this make it THE "official" timekeeper? Isn't the whole problem that there was NO official timekeeper, thus no clear answers when things broke?

OC, you may construe things that way, but that is really a severe critique of the tournament. A timed event without an official timekeeper? That's really bad. And that critique is not just about the failure of the tournament organizers, but also about the failure of the players, who agreed to play without an official timekeeper.

Besides, "KGS" means three different entities here (server, client1 and client2), with different time data (with the players only seeing their own client's one). Things went wrong exactly when KGS failed to synchronize it's three parts with tolerable accuracy.

You may know more about KGS software than I, but if Surma's client kept a record of his time usage, where is it? And, BTW, how do you synchronize three different timers? Take their average? My guess is that KGS simply resolves any difference in favor of the server's time. (Edit: Assuming the question even arises. ) If you know different, that would be interesting information.

Bill Spight wrote:It was a timed event, and KGS was keeping the time. (Edit: Also, how did Surma, or any other player, know he was in byoyomi? Because KGS told him so.)

I know only english basics - so I will only speculate what 'timekeeper' may stand for:
'Timekeeper' maybe an instrument (a clock) or a person (for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments).
'Official timekeeper' - for me it is a person who handles counting completely: for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments, he must stop counting if a player leaves the playing room during byoyomi time.
Please correct me if this is not true.

A tournament clock is never the 'official timekeeper'. For example if a clock gets broken, an organizer comes and brings a new clock; if tournament rules allow that player's time is stopped when he goes to toilet, then the clock is stopped by players.
If Surma had used the classic clock and the flag had fallen 15 minutes prematurely, you wouldn't had said "how did Surma, know he lost on time? Because the clock told him so."
A clock is a tool only.

IMO common sense says the kgs-clock may be also in a position of a tool only: It cannot take over the role of the 'official timekeeper', because it cannot handle counting completely: for example it cannot handle situations when kgs is broken (server down, packets lost, lag, program bug).

k0n0 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:It was a timed event, and KGS was keeping the time. (Edit: Also, how did Surma, or any other player, know he was in byoyomi? Because KGS told him so.)

I know only english basics - so I will only speculate what 'timekeeper' may stand for:
'Timekeeper' maybe an instrument (a clock) or a person (for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments).
'Official timekeeper' - for me it is a person who handles counting completely: for example a guy who announces remaining time in japanese pro tournaments, he must stop counting if a player leaves the playing room during byoyomi time.
Please correct me if this is not true.

KGS may be considered a person, even if not human. Another such use of person is when you play against a bot. The bot may be called a person, even if not human. Edit: A team may also be considered a person, even though made up of more than one human.

A tournament clock is never the 'official timekeeper'. For example if a clock gets broken, an organizer comes and brings a new clock; if tournament rules allow that player's time is stopped when he goes to toilet, then the clock is stopped by players.
If Surma had used the classic clock and the flag had fallen 15 minutes prematurely, you wouldn't had said "how did Surma, know he lost on time? Because the clock told him so."
A clock is a tool only.

Actually, that statement is good English. For example, in the song lyrics, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so," even though the Bible is not animate.

IMO common sense says the kgs-clock may be also in a position of a tool only: It cannot take over the role of the 'official timekeeper', because it cannot handle counting completely: for example it cannot handle situations when kgs is broken (server down, packets lost, lag, program bug).

The role of the official human timekeeper, if there is one, is not to overrule the clock. That role falls to the TD or referee. I does not matter whether the official timekeeper is human or not.

In your example of the clock's flag falling prematurely, you are assuming that the clock is broken. That is a matter for the TD to determine. First, ascertain what happened. The human timekeeper may be a witness, OC.

And there is an important difference in this case. No one is claiming that the KGS server's clock was broken. A better analogy, perhaps, would be that the human timekeeper had a petit mal seizure and failed to press the clock in time. And that he or she had been having seizures all along.

KGS essentially has two timekeeping systems.
The official tournament system, which does not allow any adjustments or interruptions. If you lag, or have a disconnection, the clock keeps ticking.
The normal system, which does allow adjustments.
By using the second one for this tournament, they were implicitly introducing the possibility to allow adjustments, or interruptions, to the clock's timing. No indication was given to the contrary.

Javaness2 wrote:KGS essentially has two timekeeping systems.
The official tournament system, which does not allow any adjustments or interruptions. If you lag, or have a disconnection, the clock keeps ticking.
The normal system, which does allow adjustments.
By using the second one for this tournament, they were implicitly introducing the possibility to allow adjustments, or interruptions, to the clock's timing. No indication was given to the contrary.

So you are saying that the tournament was run on KGS without using the tournament timekeeping system? Très amusant!

Edit: Are you saying that Surma could have asked his opponent to give him more time? Well, he didn't did he?