European Go Championship: Preliminary Votes
Robert Jasiek
request, these preliminary votes have been made:
1) The European Go Championship should be played at the European Go
Congress.
YES 21 - NO 0
2) The European Go Championship should NOT be affected by games with
"Non-European" players.
YES 16 NO 0
3) The number of rounds to be played on the European Go Championship
might be LESS than 10.
YES 4 NO 7
**************************************************************************
Thanks to these important and cute questions and partially even very
clear votes, design of a new tournament system for the European Go
Championship has become significantly easier. It must meet these
criteria:
- The EGC is played at the congress.
- Top Europeans still competing for the EGC title play against
Europeans only (in the EGC tournament).
- Winning the tile requires playing at least 10 games.
An EGF commission shall work out details of a tournament system to be
proposed to the AGM.
**************************************************************************
Besides a decision on a definition of "European" has been postponed.
Martin Stiassny and Jana Hricova essentially want it to mean
"nationality of an EGF country". IMO, such (without alternatively
allowing nationality of a European country) would be terrible because,
first of all, that would mean that a "European" for the sake of EGC
eligibility is not the same as being a European. E.g., currently
players from Greece, Belorussia, Iceland, Greenland would be
prohibited from becoming the European Champion. What a discrimination!
It is not the players' fault if they might be stronger than their
national degree of organization of Go association (if any) and their
acceptance by the EGF. Discrimination must be avoided independently
from politics! Such is even required by human rights etc.
Definition of "European" has some more interesting details to be
clarified.
richard
This seems parochial, retrograde, racist and a setback for go in Europe.
I wonder if it has the support of "strong players" (apart from those decrying "asian conquistadors")
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>This seems parochial, retrograde, racist and a setback for go in Europe.
>I wonder if it has the support of "strong players" (apart from those decrying "asian conquistadors")
All of what you cited or only the definition as EGF member countries
part?
richard
All the consequences that follow on from vote 2:
"The European Go Championship should NOT be affected by games with "Non-European" players".
It seems innocuous at first sight but the consequences are very bad indeed.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> the consequences are very bad indeed.
The consequences are very good:
1) It enables top European players to have more of what they scarcely
have: Serious real world games against each other.
2) It recreates the European Championship as what it once was: the
tournament to find the currently strongest European with a very great
certainty.
3) It motivates more Europeans to become stronger because they have a
realistic aim they might actually achieve.
4) Every year a European titleholder gives more European players a
chance to identify themselves with their stars - another motivation to
become stronger.
5) European media become more interested in reporting about winners
living here.
richard
The consequences are good for a vanishingly small number of players !
Much as I like to watch your games Robert, I also like to watch the strong Asian women !
Those, in my opinion, are the stars - and they are also more likely to catch the eye of the liberal media.
It is impossible not to notice the attention they get at tournaments.
Kirk McElhearn
> Besides a decision on a definition of "European" has been postponed.
> Martin Stiassny and Jana Hricova essentially want it to mean
> "nationality of an EGF country". IMO, such (without alternatively
> allowing nationality of a European country) would be terrible because,
> first of all, that would mean that a "European" for the sake of EGC
> eligibility is not the same as being a European. E.g., currently
> players from Greece, Belorussia, Iceland, Greenland would be
> prohibited from becoming the European Champion. What a discrimination!
> It is not the players' fault if they might be stronger than their
> national degree of organization of Go association (if any) and their
> acceptance by the EGF. Discrimination must be avoided independently
> from politics! Such is even required by human rights etc.
>
> Definition of "European" has some more interesting details to be
> clarified.
The only fair definition would be citizen or resident of an EGF
country. But if that leaves countries out, then that's really the
problem that there are no go federations in certain countries; I think
that's a different issue.
Kirk
--
Kirkville: http://www.mcelhearn.com
Writings about more than just Macs
http://www.readinghenryjames.com
Reading Henry James
Robert Jasiek
wrote:
>The only fair definition would be citizen or resident of an EGF
>country. But if that leaves countries out,
It does leave out countries and might in future miss other countries.
Such a definition is unfair because
- some European countries are left out,
- Go-political power substitutes equal treatment of each individual
European player as a human being,
- stateless players living in Europe are treated as second class human
beings.
Since the tournament is called _European_ championship while the _EGF_
extends its scope beyond Europe, a minimal requirement for a fair
definition is to include in particular these two conditions:
1) citizen of a European country,
2) citizen of a country of that a Go organization is an EGF member.
Furthermore, equality requires an exception for stateless players
having lived long enough in type 1 or 2 countries.
It remains to be discussed what exactly is Europe and thus a country
that is entirely or partially situated in Europe. IMO, Iceland and
Greenland belong to Europe for that purpose more than to any other
continent or replacement area like Oceania.
Kirk McElhearn
> Since the tournament is called _European_ championship while the _EGF_
> extends its scope beyond Europe, a minimal requirement for a fair
> definition is to include in particular these two conditions:
> 1) citizen of a European country,
> 2) citizen of a country of that a Go organization is an EGF member.
Well, I don't think that's fair, as I posted in GD. I'm not a citizen
of France, but am a legal resident, and have lived here for 25 years. I
don't think you should exclude legal residents, unless the logic is to
keep out all the Chinese students...
Robert Jasiek
wrote:
>don't think you should exclude legal residents, unless the logic is to
>keep out all the Chinese students...
Actually I don't mind and have proposed to the EGF also a condition
for players having lived long enough in one of the countries. (Others
have made similar proposals. Years vary. Some deny such ideas strictly
though.) However, such a condition is generosity, not a requirement of
fairness. Those players might as well participate in the championships
of their citizenship or apply for the citizenship of their host
country. It is like election rights or military duties; mostly (with
exceptions) they are bound to citizenship rather than current
residence.
Joel Olson
news:m40og5djcres4j6he...@4ax.com...
I've heard that German citizenship is not so easy to get, even for third
generation immigrants. And there was something on the news the other
night about Immigration Contracts - not enough to get a good idea of
what they include, but the just the name is scary.
Robert Jasiek
wrote:
>I've heard that German citizenship is not so easy to get
Is it easy to get citizenship of any country?
Terrybenson
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:54:13 -0600, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard that German citizenship is not so easy to get
>
> Is it easy to get citizenship of any country?
Let me suggest (as an outsider) that this difficult discussion/
decision would be more focused if one decides first what is the
purpose of the EGC (and whose interests are most important) and then
the method.
I am first and foremost a promoter of go. If Asian go "stars" winning
would be better for making the game expand (in Europe or anywhere),
then push them. If having "home grown" stars gives more publicity
value, then push that. Of course one doesn't have to do just this or
just that and it's the combination of events and rewards that draw
people to the game and encourage players to become strong.
In the US, some of our events are open, some limited to residents/
citizens, some limited to citizens. The World Youth preliminary events
- because the sponsor requires citizenship - have some restrictions.
In the adult events, does the overwhelming power of the Asian trained
players discourage "American" players? It doesn't look like it. The
Congress draws a big group of US top dan players. And already the
youth players who are US citizens and often US born are taking the top
honors. That most of them are of Asian extraction is no more
surprising than the number of "American" football (soccer) players who
have connections to Europe, South America, Africa, etc. (Dempsey,
Bocanegra, Oneywu,)
The EGC is a title and event with a long history and promotional
value. Europe (however defined) and the EGF (however organized) will
have to decide *what* to maximize and then *how* best to do it. Higher
issues (human rights, EC laws, "fairness", exclusion/inclusion) will
be much easier to discuss once the terms of debate are defined.
Some people may reject as a matter of philosophy any event which
excludes some players. But we have youth events, women's events,
national championships. There's nothing "absolutely" wrong about a
championship for European citizens or a championship for European
residents or a championship for players from EGF countries. Whether
the *title* fits will be one of those fun political disputes. But the
use of the title is up to the EGF.
You Europeans are doing very well in promoting go largely because you
have national associations with strong psychological incentives to
promote go within national boundaries and money from governments to
help. Nationalism and localism are powerful motivators. (viz the
Olympics) But it does make organizing pan-national events more
difficult and the varied attitudes toward citizenship and foreigners
within the EC countries is tricky.
Have fun!
Terry Benson
2 cents from the far side of the big water
What is the purpose of the EGC event? (Not a question I am even
obliquely going to answer.)
Robert Jasiek
<terry...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>What is the purpose of the EGC event?
Judging from its history, its main purpose is annual determination of
the currently strongest European go player.
richard
I'm not sure of the historical context, but it has many facets now.
For example:-
To meet people and drink beer in convivial surroundings. (Prague)
To visit the Calanques and go swiming in the sea. (Marseille)
To hire a bicycle and explore the locale. (Groningen)
To play rengo
To play go under Ing rules - yes I like them
To watch the strongest players playing.
I met Germans, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, English and Chinese people either at the campsite or tournament at Groningen.
The issue of who is the strongest European go player is of hardly any significance except to a small minority.
Let's try to keep it successful by maintaining its open character.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>To meet people and drink beer in convivial surroundings. (Prague)
>To visit the Calanques and go swiming in the sea. (Marseille)
>To hire a bicycle and explore the locale. (Groningen)
>To play rengo
>To watch the strongest players playing.
>
>I met Germans, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, English and Chinese people either at the campsite or tournament at Groningen.
These are aspects of the congress - not of the high dan competition
for the European Champion title. All your experience will remain the
same regardless of whether the European Championship is a separate
tournament (but held during the congress).
>The issue of who is the strongest European go player is of hardly any significance except to a small minority.
Many players care for who is the champion and still a good number of
players study his games.
>Let's try to keep it successful by maintaining its open character.
Currently the European Championship is closed: Only Europeans may
become the champion. Only strong enough players are allowed in the top
/ supergroup; this implicitly closes against weaker players.
The currently open aspect is that pairings are against Europeans and
non-Europeans.
>If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Sure but it is broken because
1) the currently strongest player is not determined with great
confidence (rather some player of those including the strongest is
determined),
2) the used tiebreaker (although among the tiebreakers belonging to
the better half) is by far not good enough,
3) the top European do not compare themselves among themselves enough
(too few such games),
4) the top European do not get as many games among themselves as they
want,
5) different top Europeans play differently many games in the
tournament against non-Europeans meaning that the title determination
depends a lot on the luck against how many non-Europeans a player has
been paired,
6) a very thick field of top non-Europeans lets the "top" Europeans
get too few wins out of 10 and play even fewer games on average among
each other.
Robert Jasiek
1) Do you like it that they are used for the congress main tournament
only in some years?
2) Do you like it that in most years they are used only on boards 17+
and that therefore the same tournament has different rules of play on
different boards?
3) How can you like rules that you do not even understand? (Explain
them to me if you pretend to understand them!)
4) Do you like Ing Rules in general or only a specific version among
those of 1975, 1986, 1991, 1997, other years not translated into
English? Or do you like only Ing Rules of type I (1975) or only type
II (afterwards)? Or only those using or not using fractional shared
points?
5) What do you think about Ing Rules in comparison to Area Scoring
rulesets in general and possibly why do you like specifically Ing
Rules instead of other Area Scoring rulesets like Simplified Ing
Rules, New Zealand Rules, AGA Rules, Chinese Rules?
6) What do you like about the highly ambiguous game ending rules? Can
you explain them to me?
7) What do you like about the ultimately flawed and otherwise
extremely ambiguous Ing ko rules? Can you explain them to me?
8) Why do you like the necessity for constant numbers of 180 black and
white stones?
9) Why do you like it that it can happen that a player wants to make a
board-play but has already placed all his 180 stones on the board?
10) Do you like Ing-bowls and stones?
11) Does your preference of Ing Rules extend to its tournament rules
aspects and, if so, why?
marc gonzalez-carnicer
it too. Regarding the ING ko rules, I do not even understand their
purpose. Rulesets must be as simple and logical as possible.
On 26 Nov, 08:11, Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:17:39 +0000, richard
>
Robert Jasiek
<carn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Richard probably means he likes the ING rules way of counting. I like
>it too.
Rather that would be "[area] scoring" - not "counting", right? Or do
you indeed mean the filling of 360 intersections of the board with
stones?
Robert Jasiek
Of course, they do _not at all_ fulfil their own purposes but
regardless the purposes are:
- simple rules
- simpler than superko
- simpler than Japanese rules
- easily applicable by children
- elegance
- conformity to "go theory"
- no "recycling"
- no "invariance"
- greatest variation
richard
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:17:39 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>To visit the Calanques and go swiming in the sea. (Marseille)
>>To hire a bicycle and explore the locale. (Groningen)
>>To play rengo
>
> [...]
>
>>To watch the strongest players playing.
>>
>>I met Germans, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, English and Chinese people either at the campsite or tournament at Groningen.
>
>
> These are aspects of the congress - not of the high dan competition
> for the European Champion title. All your experience will remain the
> same regardless of whether the European Championship is a separate
> tournament (but held during the congress).
>
>
>>The issue of who is the strongest European go player is of hardly any significance except to a small minority.
>
>
> Many players care for who is the champion and still a good number of
> players study his games.
>
>
>>Let's try to keep it successful by maintaining its open character.
>
>
> Currently the European Championship is closed: Only Europeans may
> become the champion. Only strong enough players are allowed in the top
> / supergroup; this implicitly closes against weaker players.
>
> The currently open aspect is that pairings are against Europeans and
> non-Europeans.
>
For example I would not in future be able to stand next to kim se young http://www.rhodamine.eu/~richard/diary/kim_se_young.png
and watch her beat Dinerstein (Prague)
>
>>If it's not broken, don't fix it.
>
>
> Sure but it is broken because
> 1) the currently strongest player is not determined with great
> confidence (rather some player of those including the strongest is
> determined),
For instance the strongest players will not meet the stronger Asians
> 2) the used tiebreaker (although among the tiebreakers belonging to
> the better half) is by far not good enough,
> 3) the top European do not compare themselves among themselves enough
> (too few such games),
> 4) the top European do not get as many games among themselves as they
> want,
> 5) different top Europeans play differently many games in the
> tournament against non-Europeans meaning that the title determination
> depends a lot on the luck against how many non-Europeans a player has
> been paired,
Tanaru & Dinerstein
> 6) a very thick field of top non-Europeans lets the "top" Europeans
> get too few wins out of 10 and play even fewer games on average among
> each other.
The actions that are being proposed - or should I say "railroaded" will change the character of the EGC (and other tournaments)
adversely I believe. I don't think that I am alone in this belief.
richard
> Richard probably means he likes the ING rules way of counting. I like
> it too. Regarding the ING ko rules, I do not even understand their
> purpose. Rulesets must be as simple and logical as possible.
>
I believe that Ing uses Superko which seems logical and
I understand that suicide of more than one stone is permitted.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The experience will be diminished if the actions of a few cause the Asian players (and Pros) to stop coming.
They won't.
>For example I would not in future be able to stand next to kim se young http://www.rhodamine.eu/~richard/diary/kim_se_young.png
>and watch her beat Dinerstein (Prague)
Instead you will see him beating Catalin.
>For instance the strongest players will not meet the stronger Asians
On the board?
They will meet, but not in the European Championship. E.g., in the
last suggested system, all but the top 4 Europeans drop out and then
enter the Open.
>They could do so if they really wanted
There are few chances when everybody can travel at the same time. The
congress is one of them. Therefore they want it there.
> I don't hear people crying that they've been unable to watch a game between
> Tanaru & Dinerstein
I have.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>it is the method of scoring I like.
Fine.
>I believe that Ing uses Superko
The Simplified Ing Rules use superko - [original] Ing rules do not.
richard
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:17:39 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>To play go under Ing rules - yes I like them
>
>
> 1) Do you like it that they are used for the congress main tournament
> only in some years?
I would prefer that they be used in the main tournament every time.
> 2) Do you like it that in most years they are used only on boards 17+
> and that therefore the same tournament has different rules of play on
> different boards?
I would prefer boards [1-16] to use Ing rules also. I don't understand the logic of using Japanese ? rules on the top boards.
> 3) How can you like rules that you do not even understand? (Explain
> them to me if you pretend to understand them!)
It is the same with all rules ! - well, I think I understand French rules (AGA without defined sanctions for illegal play).
> 4) Do you like Ing Rules in general or only a specific version among
> those of 1975, 1986, 1991, 1997, other years not translated into
> English? Or do you like only Ing Rules of type I (1975) or only type
> II (afterwards)? Or only those using or not using fractional shared
> points?
I only know of "Ing's SST laws of Wei-Ch'I" 1991 which I purchased in Marseille and have before me.
> 5) What do you think about Ing Rules in comparison to Area Scoring
> rulesets in general and possibly why do you like specifically Ing
> Rules instead of other Area Scoring rulesets like Simplified Ing
> Rules, New Zealand Rules, AGA Rules, Chinese Rules?
The counting procedure at the end gives an unambiguous result with confidence that there has been no mistake.
Other counting methods seem prone to mistakes and/or cheating.
In common with New Zealand rules, Suicide is permitted I believe.
> 6) What do you like about the highly ambiguous game ending rules? Can
> you explain them to me?
No - I would have to read the pamphlet closely.
> 7) What do you like about the ultimately flawed and otherwise
> extremely ambiguous Ing ko rules? Can you explain them to me?
Ditto
> 8) Why do you like the necessity for constant numbers of 180 black and
> white stones?
I neither like nor dislike it - it is a requirement that is dictated by the method of counting.
The Ing sets are an elegant solution except it can happen that a box contains a stone of the wrong colour.
> 9) Why do you like it that it can happen that a player wants to make a
> board-play but has already placed all his 180 stones on the board?
This has not happened to me. I have never run out of stones during an Ing tournament, but it has happened many times during
"normal" tournaments. For perfection I suppose that one would need to have an infinite number of stones available.
If the situation occurred then both players would call for an additional bowl. In most situations I suspect that the result
would be evident without counting - as for example a board containing 359 white stones and no black stones.
> 10) Do you like Ing-bowls and stones?
The bowls can become damaged making it hard to remove or replace the stones.
The stones are too fat, too heavy for my liking and can become discoloured over time.
I am concerned that they may contain the metal Lead. Being of non uniform composition seems unaesthetic to me.
Replacement stones seem difficult to obtain.
I don't like ING clocks. I lost a game on time in Groningen because I was unfamiliar with their operation during byoyomi.
Additionally the clock was set to "speak" in Chinese. I seldom enter the byoyomi phase.
> 11) Does your preference of Ing Rules extend to its tournament rules
> aspects and, if so, why?
I don't like the lateness rule, but then I don't like the current European rules on lateness either.
I don't believe that either deals with the issue of lateness of both players fairly.
richard
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:26:42 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>The experience will be diminished if the actions of a few cause the Asian players (and Pros) to stop coming.
>
>
> They won't.
Since we do not know what the format will be, we cannot say that it will not be deleterious.
>
>
>>For example I would not in future be able to stand next to kim se young http://www.rhodamine.eu/~richard/diary/kim_se_young.png
>>and watch her beat Dinerstein (Prague)
>
>
> Instead you will see him beating Catalin.
I would prefer to see her again.
There will be more media interest if we can attract young Asian women to meet our top players and more interest and progress in
European Go if they stay.
For a period of 6 weeks there were two Korean girl 6 dans at the St Albans club. It greatly increased attendance and visitors
from other clubs.
Catalin vs Dinerstein is just for the "greybeards" !
>
>
>>For instance the strongest players will not meet the stronger Asians
>
>
> On the board?
>
> They will meet, but not in the European Championship. E.g., in the
> last suggested system, all but the top 4 Europeans drop out and then
> enter the Open.
>
>
>>They could do so if they really wanted
>
>
> There are few chances when everybody can travel at the same time. The
> congress is one of them. Therefore they want it there.
They want to exclude the Asians from taking the money, that is all.
Ben Finney
> If the situation [running out of stones] occurred then both players
> would call for an additional bowl. In most situations I suspect that
> the result would be evident without counting - as for example a board
> containing 359 white stones and no black stones.
Only if the two empty points are not adjacent :-)
--
\ “Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as |
`\ society is free to use the results.” —Richard Stallman |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Matti Siivola
>> aspects and, if so, why?
>
> I don't like the lateness rule, but then I don't like the current
> European rules on lateness either.
> I don't believe that either deals with the issue of lateness of both
> players fairly.
Matti Siivola
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> 3) How can you like rules that you do not even understand?
Of course, it is NOT the same. Indeed one can understand French or AGA
Rules. Ing Rules you could not understand. E.g., calling its ko rules
"superko" is a sign of failed understanding. E.g., my research of ca.
2.000 hours into Ing Rules has only revealed that more research will
be necessary for an understanding. And it has been 2.000 hours only
because I have not included the much greater research time for the
Japanese 1989 Rules, of which the results are a requirement for a
complete understanding of Ing Ko Rules.
So it is not just not the same - rather hardly anything else of
rulesets could be more different!
>I only know of "Ing's SST laws of Wei-Ch'I" 1991 which I purchased
Bad luck.
>in Marseille
At above market prices:)
>The counting procedure at the end gives an unambiguous result
>with confidence that there has been no mistake.
After some enhancements of the rules, it might. This presumes though
that no mistakes are being made during the counting.
Which confidence though? The counting destroys the final position, so
afterwards one cannot check visually if the counting has been done
correctly.
>Other counting methods seem prone to mistakes and/or cheating.
The Ing Fill-in Counting and every other counting method is. Therefore
it is important to have double-verification means. They are inherent
in New Zealand Counting methods. All other methods require replaying
the entire game from its beginning.
>> 6) What do you like about the highly ambiguous game ending rules? Can
>> you explain them to me?
>
>No - I would have to read the pamphlet closely.
Insufficient. The booklet alone does not reveal the answer. You need
commentaries, too. Still there is more than one possible
interpretation.
>> 7) What do you like about the ultimately flawed and otherwise
>> extremely ambiguous Ing ko rules? Can you explain them to me?
>
>Ditto
You will have to read my various commentaries. Afterwards you would
need to make quite some research I could not do yet. E.g.,
generalizing from basic ko types to ko types of any size. E.g., define
the Ing ko-positions by means of my ko type definitions. E.g., define
ko depending on strategy (because the naive interpretation of Ing
Rules, namely that recycling would be enough, does not work since then
all stones on the board are ko stones).
>The Ing sets are an elegant solution
More or less elegant is the underlying theory while the actual boxes
are ugly.
>> 9) Why do you like it that it can happen that a player wants to make a
>> board-play but has already placed all his 180 stones on the board?
>
>This has not happened to me.
Rules must work not only in your games but always!
Too few stones becomes an issue on smaller boards more often than on
the 19x19.
>For perfection I suppose that one would need to have an infinite number
>of stones available.
2*361 suffice.
>If the situation occurred then both players would call for an additional
>bowl.
And then a gap in the otherwise elegant theory occurs because the Ing
Fill-in Counting cannot be applied any longer.
>The bowls can become damaged making it hard to remove or replace the stones.
>The stones are too fat, too heavy for my liking and can become discoloured over time.
>I am concerned that they may contain the metal Lead. Being of non uniform composition seems unaesthetic to me.
>Replacement stones seem difficult to obtain.
Also it can happen that an Ing box contains more than 180 stones. Yes,
this happens!
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>There will be more media interest if we can attract young Asian women
If media are attracted only by women of foreign appearance, then we
are doing something wrongly. We must explain go to the media so that
they find the game itself interesting regardless of the players.
>Catalin vs Dinerstein is just for the "greybeards" !
As "boring" as Kasparov - Fischer, eh?
richard
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:19:43 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>There will be more media interest if we can attract young Asian women
>
>
> If media are attracted only by women of foreign appearance, then we
> are doing something wrongly. We must explain go to the media so that
> they find the game itself interesting regardless of the players.
>
The first thing is to get them interested.
My understanding is the 2009 French Championship was televised and was the subject of a news item on French TV.
The winner was Yanqi Zhang http://ffg.jeudego.org/resultats/afficheTournoi.php?idt=12345
I suggest that under the policies you have in mind she would possibly be ineligible.
It is you that is doing something wrong ! Heaven help that you be put in charge of marketing Go to the peoples of Europe !
Maybe we could start by explaining disturbing kos to the media ;-)
>
>>Catalin vs Dinerstein is just for the "greybeards" !
>
>
> As "boring" as Kasparov - Fischer, eh?
No - Karpov
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Maybe we could start by explaining disturbing kos to the media ;-)
LOL.
richard
Ing Tournament rules state "When a player is late for a game, twice the amount of time by which he is late is deducted from his
basic time limit.
This seems harsh. As it stands, I suppose it would apply to both players.
Under current European rules,
If black is late, his clock is started by the referee,
If white is late, his clock is started by black.
If both players are late, then if white arrives first there is no penalty to him, but black is penalised.
If both players are late, then if black arrives first white's penalty is the time between black's and his arrival.
"Of course" what should happen is that while no player has arrived, both clocks should run at half speed.
I don't expect that this is an option on clocks currently in use so, instead - when the first player arrives,
both clocks should be set to the main time less half the elapsed time.
This modification would be useful for the morning round of the Paris tournament after the party the night before.
No player should have to wait more than an hour in the absence of his opponent.
Currently the rules state "If a player is late 60 minutes or more, he loses his game."
I would adjust this rule also to take account of the possible lateness of both players.
I guess that what I propose is fairer than the current process but administratively inconvenient.
I hope that I have given a fair representation of current European rules on lateness. I believe it was different before.
richard
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:45:50 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>>3) How can you like rules that you do not even understand?
>>
>>It is the same with all rules ! - well, I think I understand French rules (AGA without defined sanctions for illegal play).
>
>
> Of course, it is NOT the same. Indeed one can understand French or AGA
> Rules. Ing Rules you could not understand. E.g., calling its ko rules
> "superko" is a sign of failed understanding. E.g., my research of ca.
> 2.000 hours into Ing Rules has only revealed that more research will
> be necessary for an understanding. And it has been 2.000 hours only
> because I have not included the much greater research time for the
> Japanese 1989 Rules, of which the results are a requirement for a
> complete understanding of Ing Ko Rules.
>
> So it is not just not the same - rather hardly anything else of
> rulesets could be more different!
>
Why aren't you agitating for the worldwide adoption of French rules if the others are so flawed ?
>
>>I only know of "Ing's SST laws of Wei-Ch'I" 1991 which I purchased
>>in Marseille
>
>
> At above market prices:)
>
10 Francs - a little on the dear side I thought at the time.
>
>>For perfection I suppose that one would need to have an infinite number
>>of stones available.
>
>
> 2*361 suffice.
>
What ? I'm sure that the players could collaborate to play a game that needed more than 2*361
Perhaps you intended 2**361
>
>>The bowls can become damaged making it hard to remove or replace the stones.
>>The stones are too fat, too heavy for my liking and can become discoloured over time.
>>I am concerned that they may contain the metal Lead. Being of non uniform composition seems unaesthetic to me.
>>Replacement stones seem difficult to obtain.
>
>
> Also it can happen that an Ing box contains more than 180 stones. Yes,
> this happens!
Perhaps a quantum mechanical effect
Robert Jasiek
lateness because it is only one player to move at a time and they are
written with this spirit.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Why aren't you agitating for the worldwide adoption of French rules if the others are so flawed ?
I have been agitating for simple and clear rulesets (apart from tiny
possible text improvements for yet greater clarity) like Simple Rules,
New Zealand Rules, AGA Rules, French Rules, Simplified (or at least
Revised) WMSG Rules etc. Any of them would be much better than
currently used Japaense 1989 Rules, WAGC Rules, Verbal (European,
German, other) Japanese Rules, various Japanese go server rulesets
etc., Ing 1991 Rules, Ing 1997 Rules, Korean 1992 Rules, Chinese 1988+
Rules or still significantly better than the WMSG 2008 Rules with
their supplementary ko rule and "contestable points".
>10 Francs - a little on the dear side I thought at the time.
Erwin Gerstdorfer and others used to offer them for less.
>> 2*361 suffice.
>>
>What ? I'm sure that the players could collaborate to play a game that needed more than 2*361
Under Area Scoring, removed stones can be reused! So the extremes that
could happen are either 361 black stones on the board (committing
suicide) or 361 white stones. More won't fit onto the board. So 2*361
suffice.
>> Also it can happen that an Ing box contains more than 180 stones. Yes,
>> this happens!
>Perhaps a quantum mechanical effect
Just bad box design with lots of holes and instability. The boxes are
not like exactly 180 caves carved out of granite.
Matti Siivola
> Matti Siivola wrote:
>>>> 11) Does your preference of Ing Rules extend to its tournament rules
>>>> aspects and, if so, why?
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't like the lateness rule, but then I don't like the current
>>> European rules on lateness either.
>>> I don't believe that either deals with the issue of lateness of both
>>> players fairly.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Matti Siivola
>
> Ing Tournament rules state "When a player is late for a game, twice the
> amount of time by which he is late is deducted from his basic time limit.
>
> This seems harsh. As it stands, I suppose it would apply to both players.
are a plyer who is late or an organiser who tries to run the event on
schedule.
>
>
> Under current European rules,
> If black is late, his clock is started by the referee,
> If white is late, his clock is started by black.
>
> If both players are late, then if white arrives first there is no
> penalty to him, but black is penalised.
> If both players are late, then if black arrives first white's penalty is
> the time between black's and his arrival.
>
> "Of course" what should happen is that while no player has arrived, both
> clocks should run at half speed.
> I don't expect that this is an option on clocks currently in use so,
> instead - when the first player arrives,
> both clocks should be set to the main time less half the elapsed time.
>
> This modification would be useful for the morning round of the Paris
> tournament after the party the night before.
accordingly. He may divide the time used in half or preferably take off
the amount of time being late from both players.
>
>
> No player should have to wait more than an hour in the absence of his
> opponent.
> Currently the rules state "If a player is late 60 minutes or more, he
> loses his game."
> I would adjust this rule also to take account of the possible lateness
> of both players.
It does. If player hasn't played his first move within 60 minutes from
the starting time of the round (unless the round has been delayed), the
referee can declare him lost and does not have to care the reading of
the clock next to the table.
>
>
> I guess that what I propose is fairer than the current process but
> administratively inconvenient.
>
> I hope that I have given a fair representation of current European rules
> on lateness. I believe it was different before.
Matti Siivola
alex
<cut>
> For example I would not in future be able to stand next to kim se younghttp://www.rhodamine.eu/~richard/diary/kim_se_young.png
> and watch her beat Dinerstein (Prague)
Hello there... I know that page :-)
For a complete - but for the rest rather unrelated - story, see [1],
[2]
-alex-
<cut>
[1] http://toshokan.byethost2.com/wiki/index.php/Geschiedenis#2005
[2] http://www.gofed.be/en/federation/belgo (look for number 79)
Planar
richard <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> No player should have to wait more than an hour in the absence of his opponent.
> Currently the rules state "If a player is late 60 minutes or more, he loses his game."
> I would adjust this rule also to take account of the possible lateness of both players.
Both lose! -- finally a good use for the strange features of Japanese rules :-)
--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail
"Surprise. Then just use AGA rules and that's it." - Robert Jasiek
richard
>>and watch her beat Dinerstein (Prague)
>
>
> Hello there... I know that page :-)
> For a complete - but for the rest rather unrelated - story, see [1],
> [2]
>
> -alex-
>
> <cut>
>
> [1] http://toshokan.byethost2.com/wiki/index.php/Geschiedenis#2005
> [2] http://www.gofed.be/en/federation/belgo (look for number 79)
Thank you !
I liked very much issue 79 with your report on pages 6,7 the bio on page 4, the report on Prague, the description of the Kirina
go school in Seoul and much more.
Richard
richard
Thank you for this clarification.
However, I wonder if it is written down anywhere other than here or,
if indeed, it is normal practice.
>>
>>
>> No player should have to wait more than an hour in the absence of his
>> opponent.
>> Currently the rules state "If a player is late 60 minutes or more, he
>> loses his game."
>> I would adjust this rule also to take account of the possible lateness
>> of both players.
>
>
> It does. If player hasn't played his first move within 60 minutes from
> the starting time of the round (unless the round has been delayed), the
> referee can declare him lost and does not have to care the reading of
> the clock next to the table.
>
The situation I envisage is were the first player arrives 45 minutes late and claims a victory after 15 minutes.
One might argue that the player should wait 60 minutes before such a claim - or that he should wait until an hour has elapsed on
his (adjusted) opponents clock.
Also, what better way of encouraging the first player to attend on time.
I think however that this is a lost cause perhaps because the referees don't like complicated rules.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>However, I wonder if it is written down anywhere other than here or,
>if indeed, it is normal practice.
Compare with the actual rules:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html
Nick Wedd
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> writes
As a referee, I don't like unenforceable rules.
If Black has not made his first move, Black's clock will be running.
While it is Black's move, I do not consider that White should have any
obligations to be present at the board, and I certainly do not think
that the referee should have a duty to judge whether White has fulfilled
any such obligations.
Suppose White was present when the draw was announced, and was told by
another player "Black missed his train, he'll be at least ten minutes
late". So White went to the coffee bar which has a view of the train
station, and waited there. 40 minutes later, Black's train arrived,
White saw Black on his way to the playing venue, and Black reached the
board shortly before White. I consider that White has done all that can
be expected, and as referee, I do not want to have to assign him a time
penalty.
I like simple comprehensible enforceable rules: while it is a player's
move, his clock is running, while it is not a player's move, his clock
is not running.
Nick
>>> I guess that what I propose is fairer than the current process but
>>>administratively inconvenient.
>>>
>>> I hope that I have given a fair representation of current European
>>>rules on lateness. I believe it was different before.
>>
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
richard
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 05:35:21 +0000, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Why aren't you agitating for the worldwide adoption of French rules if the others are so flawed ?
>
>
> I have been agitating for simple and clear rulesets (apart from tiny
> possible text improvements for yet greater clarity) like Simple Rules,
> New Zealand Rules, AGA Rules, French Rules, Simplified (or at least
> Revised) WMSG Rules etc. Any of them would be much better than
> currently used Japaense 1989 Rules, WAGC Rules, Verbal (European,
> German, other) Japanese Rules, various Japanese go server rulesets
> etc., Ing 1991 Rules, Ing 1997 Rules, Korean 1992 Rules, Chinese 1988+
> Rules or still significantly better than the WMSG 2008 Rules with
> their supplementary ko rule and "contestable points".
>
>
>
>
>> For perfection I suppose that one would need to have an infinite number
>> of stones available.
>
>
>
> 2*361 suffice.
>>
>>What ? I'm sure that the players could collaborate to play a game that needed more than 2*361
>
>
> Under Area Scoring, removed stones can be reused! So the extremes that
> could happen are either 361 black stones on the board (committing
> suicide) or 361 white stones. More won't fit onto the board. So 2*361
> suffice.
>
The EGF rules appear to state that
"Prisoners and overtime stones must remain clearly visible to the opponent at all times, even if Area Scoring is used. "
This was the basis of my assertion.
Exchanging prisoners may not alter the score - but such prisoners will surely no longer be visible as prisoners.
richard
> In message <VtYRm.63136$064....@newsfe17.ams2>, richard
> <mullens-...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> Matti Siivola wrote:
>>
>>> richard wrote:
The current rule as interpreted literally is unenforceable without White notifying the referee of his presence.
It states "If a player is late 60 minutes or more, he loses his game".
If Black arrives after 55 minutes and White returns 10 minutes later then Black could claim a win for white's "lateness". The
best way of determining a default is, in my opinion, by observing the clock.
Robert Jasiek
<mullens-...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>The EGF rules appear to state that
>"Prisoners and overtime stones must remain clearly visible to the opponent at all times, even if Area Scoring is used. "
>This was the basis of my assertion.
>Exchanging prisoners may not alter the score - but such prisoners will surely no longer be visible as prisoners.
Ah, ok, in the context of these additional tournament rules you are
right.
Matti Siivola
By making a move on the board or pressing the clock a player can show
that he has been present in time. If he is white and black's clock has
been started by the referee, and black is not present the player can
report him as present to the referee, or make sure he is at the board
when exactly 60 minutes have elapsed. If the opponent is present, the
player can start playing. If the opponent is not present, the player can
claim a win, by his opponent being late.
If people think the simple rule is not sufficient, then we might try to
write a more complicated text.
Matti Siivola
Nick Wedd
<Matti....@helsinki.fi> writes
As a referee, I do not want to be distracted by a series of people (most
of whose faces I do not recognise) telling me (perhaps mistakenly) that
they are white, and (perhaps falsely) that they have been to their
assigned board and Black is not present at it.
I much prefer the simple system which has always de facto been applied
at every tournament I have refereed or played in: White has no duties
at all while it is not his move.
>If people think the simple rule is not sufficient, then we might try to
>write a more complicated text.
I do not understand what you mean by "the simple rule". And the problem
is not that the text is too simple, the problem is that the rule is too
difficult to apply.
If you are determined to change from the de facto rule to one that
imposes a duty on White while it is not his move, here is my proposal
for something that might be manageable:
Before every game starts, the referee places a white stone on the
centre point of each board.
If both players are present at the start of the game, they remove
this stone, then the game proceeds normally.
If only White is present at the start of the game, he removes this
stone.
If only Black is present at the start of the game, he removes this
stone, then starts the game as normally.
If Black arrives late, and the stone has been removed, Black plays
his move and presses the clock.
If Black arrives late, and the stone is still present, Black removes
the stone, advances White's clock to show the same time as his own,
plays his move, and presses the clock. Or, Black pauses the clock and
informs the referee.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Matti Siivola
> As a referee, I do not want to be distracted by a series of people (most
> of whose faces I do not recognise) telling me (perhaps mistakenly) that
> they are white, and (perhaps falsely) that they have been to their
> assigned board and Black is not present at it.
to claim the win by the opponent being late, if his clocks does not show
it. Less lazy referees may choose to not let players off the hook.
>
> I much prefer the simple system which has always de facto been applied
> at every tournament I have refereed or played in: White has no duties
> at all while it is not his move.
That rule is not correct. By chance it may seem to apply. If both
players are late at least one hour, they both lose. To avoid this loss
white has a duty to show that he is present.
Matti Siivola
Robert Jasiek
<Matti....@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>To avoid this loss white has a duty to show that he is present.
By filling the result form or marking the result in the walllist.