Through the Years: Long Correspondence

I follow this thread smiling too. There is no point in modifying the setup of this tournament. Everyone at first signed in and agreed to the rules. That’s just a few games among others, that’s nothing so crucial afterall. An experimentation on the patience. And it’s funny how some lose their nerves, try to put pressure.

All is going pretty fine i feel.

1 Like

Because what is logic for me and you it is not logic for the main character of the book. As I have said, when reading the rule of the tontine, I instantly imagined the rest of the plot. But the participant, in her naivety, considered that is logic that the participants will die of natural causes.

And as in the book, me and many other, naively considered that this is a Go tournament, not a stargazing tournament. And also, according to my logic, a game where the dan opponent is leading the kyu opponent with more than 50 points is over. But according to some other logic I see around, the game is still open. And that is why we need to define logic when we discuss things like this.

And here is just an innocent discussion. No harm is done here, everybody is free to leave if does not agree. But I see so often in real life cases where concepts needs to be precisely defined because many do not really grasp those concepts, and regrettably things happens.

How does this paragraph make sense? what does it even mean for logic itself to be a proposition?

It’s not about logic, it’s about the fact that some people just expect that explicit rules will be followed and nothing else, while other people expect that players will follow implicit rules.

Interestingly, you believe that this tournament had implicit rules (that players should try to finish games quickly if they are able to), while in the book you think that one of the characters was too naive to assume that people would follow implicit rules (to live normally and not try to kill each other).


Exactly; I don’t see the relevance of discussing the nature of logic here. As I said above, the premises are different, but that has nothing to do with defining logic, and saying it does doesn’t establish that it does:

For me it does. Because I have read this…

And I do not see the coherence (according to the implicit rule that this is a Go tournament.)
Jilt explained very well the idea of implicit and explicit rules.

And not only to the implicit, but also explicit.

I will copy here them for convenience,

”The purpose of the tournament is playing long correspondence games that would allow us to bond with each other over the span of many years

Time settings allow lengthy games, hopefully giving enough time to not accidentally time out”

And now that I looked for the description of the tournament I saw the first groups and noticed that my logic is shared by the top players too. Just take a look. From the first group only one player endured that coherent logic. 90 percent of first group chose to resign. Excellent bonding :slight_smile: or chose to forget entirely about it, not even bothered to resign. And in the next ten groups, half of the participants resigned of quit playing. And I assume that these groups are more representative to the idea of joining to play Go, not to play ”mind games”.

So, you see that is why I needed a better definition of the concept of logic.

One more fun fact. Lower on the page in kyu section there is a group with 7 participants resigned. I wonder what did do one of the other three to piss them off en masse. :slight_smile:

Note the context:

  1. BHydden stated that “holding up a multi-year tournament” was hilarious to him
  2. What did I say was logically coherent? Holding up a multi-year tournament. It is a tournament. it’s being prevented from progressing, therefore it is being held up, and this holds irregardless [sic] of any moral questions about how one ought to approach the tournament

It makes no sense to talk about the definition of logic, because I didn’t even claim anything was logical, I made the more specific claim that it was logically coherent

I thought this was a thread about a Go tournament, but it seems I have wandered into a philosophy discussion by accident. I shall make sure I don’t make this mistake again!

1 Like

And you just defined your logic.
You made a statement with no quote.
And the statement could refer to previous comment, or any comment from before.
And I did not got the message.
What is coherent? The fact that is hilarious? meaning that holding up is not true?
Or that is clear that is held up?

Yes, I could have asked directly about this confusion, but because there are so many confusions around, I was not so inspired to make a more general statement that we need to define terms.

Adding to this the fact that my English is far from perfect I failed to convey my message.

You used not enough words, I used too many, with the same result. confusion :slight_smile:

Welcome to the OGF, have a look around!
Something about any topic extant can be found.
We’ve got endlesss diversions, some better, some worse;
If none of it’s of interest to you, you’d be the first.

Welcome to the OGF, come and post a meme;
Would you like to see the cockpit GUI experts hate?
There’s no need to panic; this isn’t a test, it’s true,
Just jump on in with pedantry to congrue!

Welcome to the OGF, what would you prefer?
Would you like a variant or hit piece on the JP rules?
Be happy! Have sorrow! Go ranting apace!
We’ve got more ways to talk then states are of Go!


I replied to the previous post, which Discourse does not show. It’s incumbent on the reader to determine from context if a post which neither quotes another post nor is shown as a reply to one, is to be understood as a generic reply to the topic, or a direct reply to the post immediately preceding. In my statement, “it” has no clear antecedent unless my post was a direct reply to the immediately preceding post, so I deny that I used not enough words in my post

Then you are in denial.

For a proficient English speaker maybe you used plenty of words.
But for my level of English there were not enough words.
And I explained once. I assumed that is about the previous message. But I found no sense, and assumed that is about the general idea floating around, which divided us in two camps.

And I made a mistake too. I said define logic instead of the logic. I meant the rationale of you statement, not the logic itself as a concept.

Anyway, we need to stop here, discord just pointed to me that we should continue on private. But I have nothing else to say.

And this is again quite funny. As I mentioned, I joined the tournament to play Go, even I retired from playing Go. But the idea of a huge tournament with a lot of players appealed to me.

I had no intention to come and chat, or bond or whatever else. I am too old for this stuff. But since the next round could start without me noticing, I kept an eye on the forum, got dragged in this nonsense of discussion, and since it seems that this is philosofing I guess that I am doing what Alexander, the organizer, wished us to do. Bond :slight_smile:


Ah, that makes more sense


By the way about…

just watched this

And after the consent punchline the above quote popped into my mind.

This made me realize that implicit rules are more often ignored that I imagined.

1 Like

I apologise for the late reply. I was willing to answer but I forgot.
I don’t have source code: I use an app called Tableau which doesn’t need “coding”. I could share my Tableau files, but you’d need the app for using them.

My data collection is stored on my pc. I never thought before about sharing it.

Actually all the details are also available on the ogs server. From the tournament page you can get the games list and then each game has its own page full of details.

I’m collecting just few informations about each game and I update them quite frequently, so I am able to see changes through time, for example about players ranks or flags. But I didn’t download the full details for each game.
Player @rileylark did a dump more recently, with many games details. Even though it’s not complete, it’s a nice file to play with.

So, if you’re interested in some data, we have a few choices:

  • I can give you my database
  • I can give you rileylark’s file or
  • you can get the data directly from the server

I’ll make a chart for your games ASAP. I put a reminder this time :sweat_smile:


No worries, thank you very much! :smiley: Probably fetching the data from the server is the simplest way then. I was first worried if this would incur too much load, but they document the API themselves here:

So I guess as long as proper delays are between each request it should be fine to dump it :slight_smile:

Looking forward to the graphs, very excited!


@soerface , we only have eight of your games.
Here is the chart: