My game with topazg is my first try at a Malkovich. It is a lot of fun but feels slightly weird. In trying to explain each (or at least most) plays, I feel more constrained to play with a strong logical connection to the previous move(s) than I normally do. I am wondering whether the fact of writing about each play creates a tendency toward confirmation bias. In other words does the act of writing about the previous play lead us to try to fit our thinking about the current play into the mold created in the past?

It reminds me of one of the great lines in English literature when (in Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice") Miss Elizabeth Bennett asks, "Would Mr. Darcy then consider the rashness of your original intention atoned for by your obstinacy in adhering to it?"

I have this fear that normally I am of that school that believes that, "If you can't be good, be obstinate!" And that the Malkovich format only makes it worse. How do others see the effect of publicly disclosing their deepest plans?

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Yes, I can definitely see that happening. I am a BIT more driven by whims, so I admittedly do still throw out plans and say as much, in my comments. However, it does make it easy to be reminded of your earlier plans, so you feel like you ARE having to throw something out, rather than just thinking better of it.

_________________
Someday I want to be strong enough to earn KGS[-].

I don't re-read my old posts in a malkovitch until the game is over. Usually I no longer agree with at least half of what I said...

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

I feel this way sometimes - after all, I am very obstinate.

However, I am also sometimes hit by a lack of confidence. I know that others will see my weaknesses by playing a public game - that's part of the reason I force myself to play them. If my weakness is exposed, maybe I can see a glimpse of it, too.

But it also affects my decision making process.

A lot of times when I'm playing go, especially when I play fast games these days (I've been playing with no main time, and 30 seconds byo-yomi), I have a feeling of a way to play, but I'm not really sure what the result will be.

In real-time games, sometimes I guess what a result will be. But this leads me to doubt myself sometimes in Malkovich games. Sometimes I change my plans on a whim, because I am afraid that I was wrong. People will see my weakness, but maybe if I change my play - then maybe they can see that I have learned something...

But sometimes I haven't learned anything at all, and have just doubted my previous plan. I have doubt. Maybe that doubt is correct for a given situation, and maybe it's not. But it's a bit scary to publicly announce what I think all of the time.

I think this has resulted in me providing less comments at times. I'll try to leave more comments on my games. After all, that's why I'm playing publicly. I want people to point out my flaws. Still, it's hard for me to do, sometimes.

It's scary that people will realize my mediocrity - but even if they don't realize it, it's still there.

_________________
be immersed

Sometimes it has exactly that effect on me, sometimes it doesn't.

I quite enjoy the revelation of saying "Oh no, I've gone and got it all wrong, I'm dead now" - I think seeing dan players go "Man, I've messed up again" is kinda reassuring for kyu players and other dan players alike.

I think that any go player with a healthy ego has confirmation bias. "My last move must have been good, because I played it."
Malkovich just makes this bias more obvious.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Sometimes when I see explanations based on heuristics I roll my eyes. Often I feel that the player explaining their move had already decided what they want to play instantly and without thinking, but that they now feel compelled to make an excuse for it.

The problem is that you can create nice-sounding excuses for any move. That doesn't make the move stronger. More importantly, it does not necessarily mean that weaker players can collect those excuses and use them to find better moves, because it's often very dependent on the particular situation.

O Meien's book "Zone Press Park" is almost incomprehensible, but one thing I like about it is that he often says things like, "I don't know whether this is as a good move or a bad move, only that this is how I would play." He frequently admits being clueless.

I think a better example of confirmation bias in go is reading out a move you think works to see how good it is for you instead of trying to find a way it fails.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

The good news is, I'm not good enough to have confirmation bias.

The bad news is, it means I have little confidence in most of my moves.