EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

jann · **#621**

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.

HKA · **#622**

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.

Kirby · **#623**

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 :-)

Kirby · **#624**

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.

HermanHiddema · **#625**

@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

HKA · **#626**

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.

k0n0 · **#627**

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

Bill Spight · **#628**

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.

Javaness2 · **#629**

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.

k0n0 · **#630**

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\

Bill Spight · **#631**

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.

Kirby · **#632**

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.

hyperpape · **#633**

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.

Kirby · **#634**

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 ;-)

Bill Spight · **#635**

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.

Joaz Banbeck · **#636**

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

dfan · **#637**

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.

EdLee · **#638**

Quote:

cease to cherish opinions.

including this one

Bonobo · **#639**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

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

33 pages for me, with my settings :roll:

… so … do facts depend on our respective perspective and settings?
________________

/me runs away quickly :twisted:

jann · **#640**

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.

EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

Who is online