3 ms·
No. It’s not my first language too, but your version sounds odd. Usually you put an action first and only then the details
by sermah 1mo ago
No. It’s not my first language too, but your version sounds odd. Usually you put an action first and only then the details
- nottorp 1mo agoTrouble is, from the existing title it's not clear who had the handicap. So the poster is right to try and fix it.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- qnpnpmqppnp 1mo agoIt's not clear from the revised title either though. In fact I found it even more confusing. The issue is the ambiguity of the wording "with a two-stone handicap", not where it's located in the sentence.
- edh649 1mo agoI would probably phrase it as 'Go grandmaster Shin defeats two-stone-handicapped AI KataGo'
- criddell 1mo agoAre there ads on the page? If so, let’s A/B test that along with “Grandmaster Shin Savagely Beats Handicapped Opponent”.
- nottorp 1mo agoI only saw the "revised title" and yes, it's still confusing :)
- shagie 1mo agoWith a two-stone handicap, Go grandmaster Shin defeats AI KataGo. Or Go grandmaster Shin, playing with a two-stone handicap, defeats AI KataGo.
- simiones 1mo agoThe problem is that "with a handicap" is in itself ambiguous. People sometimes use it positively, sometimes negatively. That is, you say that Shin had a two-stone handicap, that can in itself be understood as either "Shin was given an advantage of two stones over the AI" (the reality) or "Shin was playing with a disadvantage, giving the AI two extra stones" (the more common reading of "to have a handicap").