I didn’t mock anyone. Ignoring people spreading “alternative facts” is the correct thing to do. Denying a fact is not an “opinion”. Your threatening tone will not make those “alternative facts” reality either.
Historically it happened twice in Samsung Cup, one in 2004 and one in 2010
http://www.eweiqi.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=179&id=12761
That’s a lot to translate, but the gist is that, in 2004, it also happened in the third round of the preliminary where the Chinese player returned one stone to the opponent’s bowl and when they were asked to replay the game to make sure (the parity check didn’t match the last dame played), but got refused by the Korean player. The ruling was also a rematch, but the Korean player resigned and didn’t play the rematch.
2 Likes
That kind of incident could easily be avoided by taking a picture of the final board position. If both players also agree on who played last and how many times each player passed, then the score can be computed automatically by a machine.
4 Likes
That’s pretty cool 
1 Like
I still made some editing though, and added in the bottom, and some in the asking questions to clarify the meaning (those with ()). About 95% of them deliver the meanings, and only a few of them kinda missing some subtlety and didn’t get translated, related to the connotation and some emphasis.
I commend your effort and good luck. And that is a statement about history from all my research on Go historical events. All we have to reconstruct history are through clippings, books people wrote, and media (pictures if those events were recent enough, graffiti, and paintings from ancient times). And we often had incomplete records from history, so if certain events happened, better leave as many copies of the records as possible (many widely known events got forgotten, like the post I made about the almost forgotten komi system, which can only be reconstructed from very old newspapers, but only in one source that survived intact and luckily didn’t got bombed and burned during WW2).
Considering the number of records we saw from various sources that had different “facts” and “opinions” than yours, I recommended you find someone who knows Chinese and wrote as many reports and blogs in Chinese and Japanese (they are more or less neutral at the time), and really starts to make meme pictures and spread them as far and wide as possible, so they can be on par with the Byun Sangil meme out there right now. I can be certain they will survive a lot longer in history when we look back in the future (we still have graffiti from hundreds of if not thousands of years ago).
2 Likes
Can any mods move the Prisoner Gate/LG Cup Finals/Korean Rules discussion to a separate thread? The discussion is getting long and deep probably it’s better to have its own thread. It kind of buries the original purpose of this thread too. I can create the new thread first if needed.
5 Likes
This comment is incredibly fascinating for me. I’ve seen similar takes from Chinese or China-affiliated users all over the internet. I wonder if this is just my impression of a “loud minority” in China or if this kind of thinking is deeply ingrained in Chinese culture?
What you’re essentially saying is that the truth or a fact is not the thing that actually happened physically in the universe. But instead according to your philosophy the “fact” is the statement that is reiterated by the most people and “spread as far as possible”. You’re saying that I should start to make online posts and meme pictures in an effort to make my “opinion” into a “fact”.
This way of looking at the world is very different from what I’m used to and from my culture (and also from Korean culture). For me the truth and the facts are those things that actually occured from a physical standpoint and to me it does not matter how many blog posts there are that deny the truth.
The fact is that people who win by a psychorigid application of the rules undisputedly win the tournament, but lose respect from the community.
6 Likes
This reminded me of one of my favourite quotes from a manga: “There is only 1 fact, but there are as many truths as the number of people.”
So in this case, the “fact” is that KBA awarded two wins and the champion to Byun. But one “truth” is that the Chinese majority and probably some Koreans don’t acknowledge the win, while another “truth” is those who believe that Byun really won the championship fair and square.
2 Likes
Also this link was shared to me by @Counting_Zenist .
At the start it is mentioned that the committee meeting by the KBA to discuss the rules and regulations have been moved to after the Lunar New Year, but I guess the most important part is below:
The Chinese Go Association has publicly opposed the result of the third match of the finals, releasing a statement that they cannot accept it. This has pushed the Korea Baduk Association to move towards revising the rules again. However, some point out that discussing revisions only two months after revising the rules makes it seem like the organizers are admitting to their own mismanagement of the tournament.
A Go official said, “We need to consider that the controversy grew because Ke Jie violated the same rule three times. If the rule is revised again, it’s like the Korea Baduk Association is admitting fault, and there are concerns about this within the association and the Rules Committee.”
So it’s getting fully political now.
5 Likes
Oh yes, we humanimals are so horribly stupid … I am old enough to remember the “Football War” or “Soccer War”:
3 Likes
I think maybe the point you’re missing is that most time when someone says “X didn’t win Y”, it’s more like X didn’t deserve to win or shouldn’t have won, as opposed to they literally didn’t win.
I think this is more the spirit of this comment, but I’m open to being corrected.
I’m not sure some of the other comments look so well in that light. It’s not as if people can’t protest decisions or disputes in sporting events, we don’t all have to agree with them even if they are “fact”. It’s not the “fact” that people are disputing, not the reality, but the reason and the reason for the outcome.
I’m not even against the rule necessarily, it isn’t too hard to put stones in a lid. I’m not sure we want the same ke jie that throws around stones like in
to be commonplace, so I think some subjective rules are reasonable.
4 Likes
3 Likes
I never in my life met a person that said “X didn’t win Y” when they actually meant “X didn’t deserve to win” or “X shouldn’t have won”. I really highly doubt that this is what “people mean most time”. We have to live in very different places and know very different people then.
“What you say isn’t right because the person you talked to didn’t mean what they said but what I want them to have meant while you meant what you said.”
Thanks for this outstanding demonstration of mental gymnastics. Haven’t heart this one before.
When you look at historical records and archaeological evidence and study them, you are looking at at least a 2nd hand record from a historical event and remains of 1st hand experience without the context (the person who experienced it 1st hand was long gone). Unless you are the one present during the game, or attending the ceremony, you know the information and records in 2nd hand or even 3rd if they are from a source quoting another news. (Like you read my historical story of Go Seigen). The reason you trust the event happened as it did, and as they claimed to be is current event had so many 2nd hand sources, or 3rd hand sources, each with their own flavor of telling the event. And you find the common elements based on them to form your own opinion of how the event unfolded and what they mean to you. The modern recording provides more direct 2nd hand records, but a lot of time we see shorts or summery media as 3rd hand sources (like memes). After the people involved in the event passed, the next is the 2nd hand raw records, like long recordings, and 2nd-hand reports, where the people wrote books and shorter pieces that are opinionated survived a lot longer, and got retold in the 4th and so on.
If you truly believe you know the absolute truth as many before in history, those who didn’t leave records would easily lost in time (where someone in the future might be able to dig in the old digital archive to find those old 2nd hand reports). And if your mission is to spread the truth, and does nothing. Those that currently working on making more variations of the 2nd and 3rd and 4th hand simply will overflow. And when people start to write a digest of historical events 20 years or 30 years from now, and then another generation later where everyone involved has passed. There is no turning the clock back.
1 Like
It’s a not so well known technicality that some rules sets essentially results in Go becoming a game of manual dexterity and skill. As one captures more and more stones, one has to be more and more careful in how one builds up a stable pile, so as not to overflow the lid and incur penalty points.
It creates an interesting situation for dealing with cases of “sending two-returning one”, where the normally disadvantaged player in this unbalanced capture cycle could possibly gain advantage by toppling their opponent’s faster growing pile of captures first.
16 Likes
But someone how you’re prepared to accept the mental gymnastics that they must mean X didn’t actually happen, it’s false, it’s fake news, it’s a conspiracy like flat earth?
I mean I don’t really know why this tangent is relevant? To be fair to @Regenwasser, @Counting_Zenist you watched the same video we all watched? Ke jie violated some rules lost the second game. Then he violated some rules and we have some videos and screenshots etc, and whether he resigned, forfeited or was forfeited, withdrew etc, he still lost the game by official standards right?
Sure there’s some subtleties on what those mean for rating, but we’re not disputing that Byun Sang-il won 2-1, whatever definition of “won” you want to use.
So Byun Sangil won, unless there’s some appeals or whatever that would lead to a rematch or something?
2 Likes
9 Likes
There are no mental gymnastics involved in my statements. I take what people say at face value. They said X, so I respond to X. There is no way for me to know or guess that they maybe meant Y or Z, when in fact they said X. I’m not sure where you are going with this? If we cannot agree that X means X and Y means Y then all words lose their meaning and communication becomes a nightmare.
You even quoted me in your post before. I’ll gladly quote myself again:
I stand by this.
2 Likes
Are we still talking about whether Byun Sangil won? I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with that, and I’d find it somewhat concerning that you believe this is still in doubt.
2 Likes