Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: October KGS Tournament

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 2:31:24โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
William M. Shubert wrote:
>In the last tournament, there
>were two games that needed an admin to arbitrate (in both cases the
>problem was somebody trying to cheat instead of a rules dispute).

ALA the rules are unclear, one cannot always distinguish a rules dispute
from cheating. E.g. in the following cases:
- territory in sekis
- filling dame
- filling teire
- removing dead stones unless "all" dame are filled
E.g. it would be a matter of unclear rules and not of cheating if one
player wants and his opponent does not want to remove dead stones when
there are still unfilled nearby dame.
IOW, are "Japanese rules" on KGS really Japanese rules or KGS's Japanese
rules derivate? If the latter, what exactly are they? Is the following a
good model?

Japanese 2003 Rules with the following modifications:
- After the alternating-sequence, there is the hypothetical-confirmation
that hypothetically continues the alternating-sequence with the purpose
of filling as many confirmation-dame and teire as possible while
achieving perfect-play for both players and adding any prisoners to the
prisoner-difference. [confirmation-dame, teire, perfect-play are to be
defined later.]
- After the hypothetical-analysis, all dead-strings are removed and
their stones are added to the prisoner-difference.
- In the score definition, replace final-position by "position after the
hypothetical-confirmation, hypothetical-analysis, and removal of
dead-strings" and black-territory / white-territory by black-eyepoints /
white-eyepoints. [I.e. there is territory in sekis.]

A different theory about KGS's Japanese rules would be that the
hypothetical-confirmation does not fill any teire...

--
robert jasiek

William M. Shubert

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 2:59:19โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to

I have stated here before, the KGS Japanese rules do not implement the
full "official" Japanese rules; rather, you play by Japanese rules up
until a double pass, then if there is a disagreement on which stones are
dead, you must find somebody to arbitrate. I was pretty sure I was
answering you when I wrote that.

You have pointed out many times that there are possible board positions
that make very subtle problems for Japanese rules, but that was definitely
not the case in any of the games from the last tournament. It was very
clear in both cases from the first tournament that one player in the game
had lost, knew he had lost, and was simply trying to make trouble. Anybody
who finds the idea of having KGS admins arbitrate games with such
conflicts would be well advised not to join the tournament.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 6:01:02โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:59:19 GMT, "William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org>
wrote:

>I have stated here before, the KGS Japanese rules do not implement the
>full "official" Japanese rules; rather, you play by Japanese rules up
>until a double pass, then if there is a disagreement on which stones are
>dead, you must find somebody to arbitrate.

I see, but what will the arbitration be?

>You have pointed out many times that there are possible board positions
>that make very subtle problems for Japanese rules,

My questions are not about arcane positions but about regular and the
most frequent positions.

O . . .
# # # #
. . . .
O O O O
# . . #

May the dead stones be removed? (Japanese rules: no. KGS Japanese rules:
unclear.)

. # # . . .
# # # # # .
O O O O O #
. . . . O .

Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)

. . . . # #
# # # # # .
O O O O O #
. . . . O O

Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)

>Anybody
>who finds the idea of having KGS admins arbitrate games with such
>conflicts would be well advised not to join the tournament.

Why does KGS not publish rules guidelines? Something like:
- Japanese-style rules.
- There is territory in sekis.
- Dame may but need not be filled.
- Teire need not be filled. Unfilled teire provide territory.
- All dead stones are removed, even if they are in sekis or anti-sekis
and even if they include kos.
- Direct kos have to be connected or dissolved.

It is better to encourage players to participate than to have
unpredictable arbitration in frequent game end problems.

--
robert jasiek

Simon Goss

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 8:49:11โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
Hello Robert,

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:59:19 GMT, "William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org>
>wrote:

<...>


>>You have pointed out many times that there are possible board positions
>>that make very subtle problems for Japanese rules,
>
>My questions are not about arcane positions but about regular and the
>most frequent positions.

They may be common positions, but they are arcane as rules-testing
positions.

>O . . .
># # # #
>. . . .
>O O O O
># . . #
>
>May the dead stones be removed? (Japanese rules: no. KGS Japanese rules:
>unclear.)

Japanese rules: arcane. But, they have a mechanism for filling in the
dame after passing if both players agree, and for resuming play
otherwise. So actually, under official Japanese rules, the dead stones
will end up being removed, as you know very well.

If KGS does not have the Japanese mechanism for filling dame after
passing, the solution is simple: fill them before passing and don't
trouble the arbitrator.

>. # # . . .
># # # # # .
>O O O O O #
>. . . . O .
>
>Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)

Japanese rules: arcane. But it's the same question as above and the
solution is the same.

>. . . . # #
># # # # # .
>O O O O O #
>. . . . O O
>
>Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)

Japanese rules: arcane. But it's just silly to pass in this position
anyway.

>It is better to encourage players to participate than to have
>unpredictable arbitration in frequent game end problems.

I believe I know only one person who would be put off by these issues.
These are not game-end problems. They are rules-debate problems.

--
Simon

UK Go Challenge for schools
http://www.ukgochallenge.com

Ted S.

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 9:13:44โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
Somebody claiming to be jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) wrote in
news:415d2402...@news.snafu.de:

> It is better to encourage players to participate than to have
> unpredictable arbitration in frequent game end problems.

But Bill just got through telling you these "problems" AREN'T frequent.

And for what it's worth, I can't recall any of the three positions you
posted ever showing up in any of my games.

--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Barney: Hey, Homer, you're late for English.
Homer: Who needs English? I'm never going to England.
<http://www.snpp.com/episodes/7F12.html>

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 10:08:57โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:13:44 -0000, "Ted S." <fe...@bestweb.spam> wrote:
>And for what it's worth, I can't recall any of the three positions you
>posted ever showing up in any of my games.

Consider the example positions to be representative examples.

--
robert jasiek

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 10:08:58โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 13:49:11 +0100, Simon Goss <si...@gosoft.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>>O . . .
>># # # #
>>. . . .
>>O O O O
>># . . #
>>
>>May the dead stones be removed? (Japanese rules: no. KGS Japanese rules:
>>unclear.)
>
>Japanese rules: arcane.

Every KGS game under KGS Japanese Rules has dead stones and nearby dame.

>But, they have a mechanism for filling in the
>dame after passing if both players agree, and for resuming play
>otherwise.

KGS Japanese Rules are different since more often than not most dame are
not filled. The KGS tournament is even more different since Undo is
prohibited and so resuming play is prohibited, too.

>So actually, under official Japanese rules, the dead stones
>will end up being removed, as you know very well.

KGS Japanese Rules are different: While under official Japanese rules
(whichever) dame are likely to be filled, under KGS Japanese rules most
dame are likely to remain unfilled. We have different rules application
and so there is good reason to write down the different rules.

>If KGS does not have the Japanese mechanism for filling dame after
>passing, the solution is simple: fill them before passing and don't
>trouble the arbitrator.

Am I supposed to win a game or to avoid troubling the arbitrator? Until
the arbitrator will have made his decision, we cannot predict it. (We
might guess probabilities of what it might be, but we cannot be sure in
advance.)

If the rule is "in case of doubt, let the arbitrator arbitrate", then it
is weak strategy to assume that that rule would read "in case of doubt,
assume that the arbitrator will arbitrate in favour of your opponent".

***

Besides, why should one player be filling all the dame (to reduce the
likelihood that the arbitrator must be called) while his opponent may
pass all the time? That is unfair, if for no other reason then that
filling dame consumes more time than passing and that difference can
become crucial in a game with finite time limits (like in the KGS
tournament). If one player may choose not to fill dame, then his
opponent has to have the same right, regardless of whether that makes
calling the arbitrator more likely. Rules must be equally fair for both
players. If one player chooses to increase likelihood of the arbitrator
having to become active, then his opponent must have the same right to
increase likelihood.

>>. # # . . .
>># # # # # .
>>O O O O O #
>>. . . . O .
>>
>>Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)
>
>Japanese rules: arcane.

KGS Japanese rules: Occurs in about 1 out of 3 or 20 games. (I have not
counted the frequency more precisely.)

>But it's the same question as above and the
>solution is the same.

Why should I fill my own teire as long as my opponent fails to occupy
nearby dame and the KGS server awards me 1 point per unfilled teire?
Apparently, KGS Japanese rules is to award 1 point per unfilled teire.

BTW, it is common strategy on various servers under Japanese-like rules
to not occupy teire until the opponent fills (some) nearby dame. I do
not play weaker strategy than others just to please you:)

>>. . . . # #
>># # # # # .
>>O O O O O #
>>. . . . O O
>>
>>Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)
>
>Japanese rules: arcane.

Endgame kos are not arcane but occur in maybe 2 of 3 games.

>But it's just silly to pass in this position anyway.

It is not silly for Black to pass since he gets 1 extra point for the
unfilled ko liberty. In this particular position, it is silly of White
to pass. In other positions, Black has more ko threats and can force
White to pass.

Whatever the positional context might be, although there is a majority
behaviour on go servers about endgame kos, there is no generally
accepted behaviour and some players try to take advantage of the missing
rule specification.

Even if I try to follow the majority behaviour, I cannot force my
opponent to do likewise if he has more ko threats and unless I call the
arbitrator.

>I believe I know only one person who would be put off by these issues.

Players that forget to force opposing filling of teire, etc. maybe would
not be put off but continue to make those strategic mistakes anyway.

>These are not game-end problems. They are rules-debate problems.

However you call them, they can be solved by KGS specifying, if not
rules, at least essential rules guidelines.

--
robert jasiek

Chris Lawrence

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 10:33:16โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Robert Jasiek wrote:

> >>. # # . . .
> >># # # # # .
> >>O O O O O #
> >>. . . . O .
> >>
> >>Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)
> >
> >Japanese rules: arcane.
>
> KGS Japanese rules: Occurs in about 1 out of 3 or 20 games. (I have not
> counted the frequency more precisely.)

If the game ends here, on KGS the point above the single # stone will
not be counted. The same is true for all false eyes.

Instead of speculating, why don't you simply use 'Create SGF File', set
it up with the Edit tool and score it with the Score tool. You will see
the result for yourself.

--
Chris

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 11:21:04โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:33:16 +0100, Chris Lawrence
<new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> >>. # # . . .
>> >># # # # # .
>> >>O O O O O #
>> >>. . . . O .

>If the game ends here, on KGS the point above the single # stone will

>not be counted. The same is true for all false eyes.
>
>Instead of speculating, why don't you simply use 'Create SGF File', set
>it up with the Edit tool and score it with the Score tool. You will see
>the result for yourself.

You speculate, too, since you suggest that the CGoban editor would
necessarily score a position like the CGoban KGS Japanese rules
implementation would score the same position.

I get your point, though, that KGS Japanese Rules might be much more
complicated than flood-filling, as I hoped. This would make it even much
more urgent for the KGS Japanese Rules to be publicly available. Also,
since sophisticated scoring implementations can contain mistakes, one
must watch carefully whether each application to some game scores
correctly.

--
robert jasiek

Chris Lawrence

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 11:51:53โ€ฏAM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Robert Jasiek wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:33:16 +0100, Chris Lawrence
> <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>. # # . . .
> >> >># # # # # .
> >> >>O O O O O #
> >> >>. . . . O .
>
> >If the game ends here, on KGS the point above the single # stone will
> >not be counted. The same is true for all false eyes.
> >
> >Instead of speculating, why don't you simply use 'Create SGF File', set
> >it up with the Edit tool and score it with the Score tool. You will see
> >the result for yourself.
>
> You speculate, too, since you suggest that the CGoban editor would
> necessarily score a position like the CGoban KGS Japanese rules
> implementation would score the same position.

Not at all. When you select "Create SGF File" you then select the
player names, board size, ruleset, handicap and komi. The available
rulesets are the same ones available when you play online.

> I get your point, though, that KGS Japanese Rules might be much more
> complicated than flood-filling, as I hoped. This would make it even much
> more urgent for the KGS Japanese Rules to be publicly available.

Thousands of games, many pro, are played on KGS every day, seemingly
without any problems. I think you're being needlessly concerned.

> Also, since sophisticated scoring implementations can contain
> mistakes, one must watch carefully whether each application to some
> game scores correctly.

Bill seems to have it working nicely, so you should play in the
tournament and enjoy yourself without worry.

--
Chris

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 12:01:47โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:51:53 +0100, Chris Lawrence
<new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>The available
>rulesets are the same ones available when you play online.

We will have to wait for the programmer's comment whether their
implementations are exactly the same.

>Thousands of games, many pro, are played on KGS every day, seemingly
>without any problems. I think you're being needlessly concerned.

That is the comment I get to hear for every go server with Japanese
rules. And everywhere I see the same strategic mistakes like unfilled
teire and such.

>Bill seems to have it working nicely, so you should play in the
>tournament and enjoy yourself without worry.

If I play Go, then I want to win due to my strategic decisions and not
due to a programmer's skills.

--
robert jasiek

Chris Lawrence

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 2:14:14โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Robert Jasiek wrote:

> >Thousands of games, many pro, are played on KGS every day, seemingly
> >without any problems. I think you're being needlessly concerned.
>
> That is the comment I get to hear for every go server with Japanese
> rules. And everywhere I see the same strategic mistakes like unfilled
> teire and such.

And everywhere I look I see that it simply doesn't matter. So they're
not mistakes at all, and you're making a big problem out of nothing.

> >Bill seems to have it working nicely, so you should play in the
> >tournament and enjoy yourself without worry.
>
> If I play Go, then I want to win due to my strategic decisions and not
> due to a programmer's skills.

I think that's an insult to wms. I get the impression that if you play
in the tournament you WILL call for an arbitrator, for some obscure
rules-related reason only know to you.

--
Chris

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 3:06:15โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:14:14 +0100, Chris Lawrence
<new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>And everywhere I look I see that it simply doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter to whom? It matters if one takes one's ratings
development seriously, if one competes for prizes seriously, if winning
a game is more than a purpose for itself. Maybe you do not take ratings
as seriously as I do and do not compete for prizes as seriously as I do.
Then you can afford not to take escapers / arbitrators, which abuse /
treat rules gaps, as seriously as I do.

That games under Japanese rules work somehow in unimportant games does
not imply that they would work well in important games.

>So they're
>not mistakes at all, and you're making a big problem out of nothing.

It is not nothing but rating points, honour, and prizes.

>> If I play Go, then I want to win due to my strategic decisions and not
>> due to a programmer's skills.
>I think that's an insult to wms.

IIUYC, then under KGS Japanese Rules the scoring algorithm assesses
whether some intersection is teire. If this is right, then scoring
depends on the programmers' skills. Why do you call it an insult that I
don't like the scoring in my games to depend on a programmer's skills?

>I get the impression that if you play
>in the tournament you WILL call for an arbitrator, for some obscure
>rules-related reason only know to you.

It does not need obscure reasons, but it is the fundamental and regular
principle for every disagreement during scoring under KGS Japanese
rules. I do not know KGS Japanese Rules well yet, so I cannot predict
yet how often an arbitrator should be called. If our observations so far
are right, then the philosophy of the programmers seems to be that the
program takes care of the score if the players manage to mark every
obviously dead string as dead. Given the 99.9% customary rule (*) that
under KGS Japanese Rules all players should mark obviously dead strings
as dead, I would do so not due to rules (which do not specify such) but
due to that generally accepted custom. Then one should expect that the
program handles all standard forms of dame, teire, seki, basic endgame
kos hopefully correctly. So in a typical game with just standard forms
of these aspects I would verify during the agreement phase whether the
program does indicate the score correctly. Here "correctly" means that
teire are not territory, basic endgame kos are not territory, dame are
not territory, former dame next to marked dead stones are territory,
etc. Although nowhere the KGS Japanese Rules seem to specify that that
would be correct, they seem to want to have it that way. Surely, if the
program fails to operate correctly or if the opponent starts a dispute
anyway, then an arbitrator is necessary nevertheless.

(*) Note: Customary rules become effective only where there are no
(sufficiently precise) written rules that override them.

--
robert jasiek

Bill Spight

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 3:17:53โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
Cher Robert,

> My questions are not about arcane positions but about regular and the
> most frequent positions.
>

I am not a KGS tournament director, but I bet I can give the right (KGS)
answers.

> O . . .
> # # # #
> . . . .
> O O O O
> # . . #
>
> May the dead stones be removed? (Japanese rules: no. KGS Japanese rules:
> unclear.)

It does not matter whether the dame are filled or not before the dead
stones are removed without capture. They are, sooner or later, and the
position is not a seki.

>
> . # # . . .
> # # # # # .
> O O O O O #
> . . . . O .
>
> Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)
>

Black has placed two more stones than White. Is there a White captive?
If so, Black wins by one point. If not, it is jigo. (Not seki).

> . . . . # #
> # # # # # .
> O O O O O #
> . . . . O O
>
> Who wins? (KGS Japanese rules: unclear.)

Very strange position. It looks like a ko, but Black has played only one
stone more than White. Why did both players pass?

Assuming no captives, it is jigo.


Best regards,

Bill

Ted S.

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 3:21:07โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
Somebody claiming to be Chris Lawrence <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in news:Pine.BSF.4.60.04...@newred.gradwell.net:

> Thousands of games, many pro, are played on KGS every day, seemingly
> without any problems.

But you're missing one key factor, Chris: None of those games are being
played by Robert. :-)

Chris Lawrence

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 3:49:42โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Robert Jasiek wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:14:14 +0100, Chris Lawrence
> <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >And everywhere I look I see that it simply doesn't matter.
>
> Doesn't matter to whom?

It doesn't matter to the players and pros on KGS who you said are making
the same strategic mistakes. I don't think they are making mistakes,
because, if they were, they would stop doing it wouldn't they? And if
KGS was wrongly scoring their games, I think we'd have heard a lot about
it by now.

> It matters if one takes one's ratings development seriously, if one
> competes for prizes seriously, if winning a game is more than a
> purpose for itself. Maybe you do not take ratings as seriously as I do
> and do not compete for prizes as seriously as I do. Then you can
> afford not to take escapers / arbitrators, which abuse / treat rules
> gaps, as seriously as I do.

There are plenty of players who play for prizes, honour and everything
else just as seriously as you who do not seem to have any problem with
these rules 'problems' you keep inventing. I take Go non-seriously and
seriously as it pleases me. Go is far more interesting to me as a form
of expression and self-discovery and self-betterment and meeting people.

> That games under Japanese rules work somehow in unimportant games does
> not imply that they would work well in important games.

By your definition of 'important' of course. I was going to say that
I've seen many important games on KGS, but who am I to measure the
importance of a game? They're all important in some way, to someone.

> IIUYC, then under KGS Japanese Rules the scoring algorithm assesses
> whether some intersection is teire. If this is right, then scoring
> depends on the programmers' skills. Why do you call it an insult that I
> don't like the scoring in my games to depend on a programmer's skills?

Because you wrote that you want to win due to your strategic decisions
and not due to a programmer's skills. The implication is that KGS is
not the place to go if you want to play a proper strategic battle on the
Go board. You seem to be inventing problems for the scoring to deal
with, claming that it won't deal with them, and then extrapolating that
to all 'serious' games. When in fact it seems to be just you who has a
problem.

> kos hopefully correctly. So in a typical game with just standard forms
> of these aspects I would verify during the agreement phase whether the
> program does indicate the score correctly. Here "correctly" means that
> teire are not territory, basic endgame kos are not territory, dame are
> not territory, former dame next to marked dead stones are territory,
> etc. Although nowhere the KGS Japanese Rules seem to specify that that

Well why don't you play lots of games on KGS and flag up any games which
are 'incorrectly' scored.

--
Chris

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 1, 2004, 4:40:53โ€ฏPM10/1/04
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 20:49:42 +0100, Chris Lawrence
<new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>There are plenty of players who play for prizes, honour and everything
>else just as seriously as you who do not seem to have any problem with
>these rules 'problems'

It is well known that their rules knowledge is much weaker on average.
E.g., too many high dan amateurs do not fill dame under area-scoring
rules. If we assume "as serious as", then we can consider only those
among them that notice their mistakes. (Not all do notice; e.g. some
were surprised when told afterwards.) A small part cannot accept their
mistakes but undos to repeat the dame filling part of the alternation.
Greater parts notice after the game has a winner because they see the
announced winner or see the announced score (and compare it with their
endgame calculation). Now don't claim that they, as they notice their
mistakes, do not consider their mistakes to be problems.

If too many high dans already fail to avoid trivial mistakes like
noticing which ruleset they have agreed to, then very likely too many
high dans make more "difficult" mistakes like failing to notice when KGS
Japanese scoring assesses the score wrongly. If they do not notice that
or notice it too late, then from your perception no "problem" occurs. If
they do not notice that, then that is a problem objectively. If they
notice it too late, then that is different a problem objectively.

And all that you get to see from many of those high dans is a false
impression of no problems.

>you keep inventing.

detecting

>> IIUYC, then under KGS Japanese Rules the scoring algorithm assesses
>> whether some intersection is teire. If this is right, then scoring
>> depends on the programmers' skills. Why do you call it an insult that I
>> don't like the scoring in my games to depend on a programmer's skills?
>
>Because you wrote that you want to win due to your strategic decisions
>and not due to a programmer's skills. The implication is that KGS is
>not the place to go if you want to play a proper strategic battle on the
>Go board.

Rather the implication is that KGS Japanese Rules introduce something
new to a go game: Besides one's own skill, the opponent, the rules, the
referee now also the server programmers' skill and one's own skill to
watch its effects becomes relevant.

Indeed I do think that programmer skill should play no go-strategic role
whatsoever in a human's go game.

>You seem to be inventing problems for the scoring

The problem is invented by the server, its administrators, and the
programmers.

>When in fact it seems to be just you who has a problem.

I have heard many with the opinion that go is a contest of the players'
own skills and not of third persons' skills. For that same reason, one
does not use go software and go literature while playing and kibitzes do
not advice one of the players.

>Well why don't you play lots of games on KGS and flag up any games which
>are 'incorrectly' scored.

You know, I do use mainly reasonable rules on KGS. So I do not have that
much chance to get incorrectly scored games.

--
robert jasiek

T Mark Hall

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 5:21:03โ€ฏAM10/2/04
to
In message <415d7e43...@news.snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek
<jas...@snafu.de> writes

Robert,

I have met you at many European events and, until recently, you have
appeared to me to be as rational as any other Go player. However, you
seem to be picking a molehill and blowing it up into Himalayan
proportions. Dame filling and the end of the game has absolutely nothing
to do with "strategic decisions".

I am afraid that no-one who enters this tournament will want to play you
because they would be sure that you would try to create some dispute
over points of the rules that only you are concerned about. If I was
going to play and was drawn against you, I would probably default rather
than waste my time. I have been at two European Congresses where you
have done similar things, much to the annoyance of your opponent, the
organisers and other players. Can you tell me how many genuine rules
disputes there have been and how many created by obstreperous pedants in
a) European tournaments, b) online tournaments and c) professional
tournaments. If the answer is about less than 0.0005% of games played, I
think the entire discussion is a waste of time.

If the organisers of any tournament had any discretion, they should
create a special Robert Jasiek prize for whenever you enter and give you
a bye each round.

Best wishes.
--
T Mark Hall
http://www.gogod.demon.co.uk

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 2, 2004, 7:47:33โ€ฏAM10/2/04
to
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:21:03 +0100, T Mark Hall <tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Dame filling and the end of the game has absolutely nothing
>to do with "strategic decisions".

Such a statement is too general. Even you know that dame can be filled
during the alternation. It is a strategic decision (to give just an easy
example of some) in which order to occupy available dame. (Sometimes
that strategic decision is even game-deciding when there are, e.g.,
one-sided dame as well as two-sided dame.

You also know that rulesets differ and that some rulesets allow filling
of dame after the alternation or during a resumed alternation.

When you make such a statement, then you must be much more specific
about circumstances. There can be some circumstances under which dame
filling is free of the players' strategic decisions. E.g., if an
arbitrator does the filling.

>I am afraid that no-one who enters this tournament will want to play you
>because they would be sure that you would try to create some dispute
>over points of the rules that only you are concerned about.

You see farther in the future than I can. Currently, I still do not know
KGS-Japanese Rules well enough to predict how I might apply them in
practice should I enter the tournament.

>If I was
>going to play and was drawn against you, I would probably default rather
>than waste my time.

At the start of the game? I am cautious with using the word
unsportsmanlike but there it would be appropriate because you are
supposed to compete seriously and not to not compete at all.

>I have been at two European Congresses where you
>have done similar things, much to the annoyance of your opponent, the
>organisers and other players.

Can you please be more specific than making such wild claims? I might
guess which incidents you mean but I might easily guess wrongly. I might
also guess what you would criticise about them and easily guess wrongly.
Other readers might guess wrongly even more easily. Without becoming
specific, you are merely spreading bad rumours.

>Can you tell me how many genuine rules
>disputes there have been and how many created by obstreperous pedants

Would that answer why some rulesets are kept as unclear as possible?
Most disputes about rules arise because the rules are unclear. Do you
want to keep them unclear by changing the topic?

***

Not that I would fear discussing your questions.

What do you mean with "genuine" rules disputes? Why do you consider
disputes to be created by only - what you call - pedants; why do you not
consider disputes as being created by both players? Are you prejudiced?

>in
>a) European tournaments, b) online tournaments and c) professional
>tournaments.

I can try to answer these when I know what you mean above.

>If the answer is about less than 0.0005% of games played,

It is much greater than that.

>I think the entire discussion is a waste of time.

Would you rather want players enter the KGS tournament without having at
least some idea of what to expect from KGS-Japanese Rules? Would you
want to allow to enter only those players with extensive experience of
playing under those rules? Would you rather leave beginners of Go alone
than providing them with clear explanations of the rules they are
supposed to use? Do you want to continue letting Go be a game that is
obscure for the general public and the media because they are not given
any chance to understand even the basics of the rules?

--
robert jasiek

Planar

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 9:43:59โ€ฏAM10/5/04
to
In article <Pine.WNT.4.60.04...@holodeck3.holosys.wlan>,
Chris Lawrence <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Well why don't you play lots of games on KGS and flag up any games which
> are 'incorrectly' scored.

I've seen about a dozen instances on KGS. Two of them are noted
in my user info. IIRC, it even changed the result of the game
in one case.

All this happened in the games of strong players (6d and above).

IMO, making the software compute the teire is a misguided tour de
force. Since it gets it right most of the time, people are led
to assume that it will get it right all the time, and they leave
the dame unfilled because they trust the software. If that piece
of code wasn't in the server, people would quickly learn to end
the game properly instead of learning bad habits.

You'll also notice that some of the strongest players force
their opponents to fill the teire before they pass. These
players are using the correct strategy.

--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail

"Surprise. Then just use AGA rules and that's it." - Robert Jasiek

Tommie

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 12:11:04โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
Dear Robert,

>> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 10:21:03 +0100, T Mark Hall
tm...@gogod.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> >I have been at two European Congresses where you
> >have done similar things, much to the annoyance of your opponent, the
> >organisers and other players.

jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) replied:


> Can you please be more specific than making such wild claims? I might
> guess which incidents you mean but I might easily guess wrongly. I might
> also guess what you would criticise about them and easily guess wrongly.
> Other readers might guess wrongly even more easily. Without becoming
> specific, you are merely spreading bad rumours.

Robert, I refreshed your memory some time ago in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tommie+Derz+%22Robert+Jasiek%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3F61AC4B.D53063A2%40snafu.de&rnum=1

Robert, you have done a decade or more research on rules, which - to
some extend - I find VERY, VERY useful ! I want to praise you here.

W.r.t. our question 1994 in Maastricht
As one of the 1st 20 moves, I put down a stone as an extension from
a crosscut, did not lift my finger, say smiling something as "Ah, I
still like it better here", shift the stone 5mm to the diagonal
intersection (the nearest other extension), lift my finger, press the
clock (with the same hand of course), you jumped up searching for the
referee!

Robert, it is worth also to take pleasure into consideration.
What was the added value to pleasure to call for the referee in our
situation.
Everyone, including you, agreed that the incident happened factually
as described by me above. A glass can be ยฝ full and ยฝ empty.
It is what you chose it to be! In my opinion you had chosen to feel
obstructed, perhaps in order to investigate on the rules.

- the outcome after 10 years of your research is however only a merely
subjective definition by negative features (you should not obstruct
the opponent):
- which means the referee has to judge on such very, very subjective
(unverifiable ?) feelings and thoughts of players:

1) e.g. my INTENTIONS (where did I THINK to play) => if I touch the
board with the stone first NEAR the intended ending position and take
a REASONABLE time before its moved to actual ending position (only
then I press my clock);

2) your FEELINGS: where you really, and in how much "obstructed"

the parameters "near" and "reasonable" are not fixed either, but you
tried.
Hence, the "written rules" seem not to have improved a bit in this
respect by your research. What they could have improved - the smooth
running
of a tournament - seems inherent to hundreds of other participants.

I find it good to have clear rules on ko and game endings (esp. in
blitz Go).
I do not yet consider them really necessary in my playing strength -
if I ever encounter a last decisive 1-point ko, not necessary to be
filled because of excess of ko-threats, or some n-tuple ko I rather
would be thrilled by the game first and then in the outcome.
After all: "1 point, 1 liberty/eye, 1 ko-threat, 1 second" are the
most exciting outcomes of a Go game.

It is felt by me that some of your investigations could better be
confined to off-board situations.

You are a strong player, so it is a challenge to play with you,
respect!
What T. Mark might want to express (there were at least 2 other
incidents in Maastricht alone!) - and I would share his opinion -
it might be much more pleasant to play with others.

I do not know how many other players around us were obstructed and for
how long by the whole issue caused by me/you/us.
To some part they were also exhilarated by us, I guess that made up
for it. There is a first time for everything. Perhaps a last one too?

Greetings,
Tommie

NB: If we ever encountered in a tournament again, unlike Mark I would
not default but simply wish you a good game with a slight nod of the
head and a smiling face and I would mean it. Of course I would
sincerely hope that our, my game would not be interrupted ...

William M. Shubert

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 2:23:50โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:43:59 +0200, Planar wrote:

> In article <Pine.WNT.4.60.04...@holodeck3.holosys.wlan>,
> Chris Lawrence <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Well why don't you play lots of games on KGS and flag up any games
>> which are 'incorrectly' scored.
>
> I've seen about a dozen instances on KGS. Two of them are noted in my
> user info. IIRC, it even changed the result of the game in one case.
>
> All this happened in the games of strong players (6d and above).
>
> IMO, making the software compute the teire is a misguided tour de force.
> Since it gets it right most of the time, people are led to assume that
> it will get it right all the time, and they leave the dame unfilled
> because they trust the software. If that piece of code wasn't in the
> server, people would quickly learn to end the game properly instead of
> learning bad habits.
>
> You'll also notice that some of the strongest players force their
> opponents to fill the teire before they pass. These players are using
> the correct strategy.

Thank you, Planar! You have a good question here. I wasn't going to answer
this thread any more, but your comment is too interesting to ignore. Since
the server can't always fill false eyes correctly, why do I do it at all?

The Japanese scoring system on KGS was made to fill two goals:

1 - Must score correctly in all cases where all dame are filled, and all
dead stones are correctly marked by the players.

2 - Must have no pathological cases that consume large amounts of CPU
power. Basically, I need to be able to estimate the longest time it can
possibly take to score a position, and that time must be well under 1
second.

I would prefer not to fill false eyes at all, because as you point out it
leads people to be a bit lazy, and then sometimes they skip filling dame
in a way that causes problems with the score. The problem is, there are
cases in seki where players cannot be forced to fill false eyes, so I
needed to be able to detect these false eyes if I wanted to properly spot
sekis.

Perhaps it would be best if I made the server perform another pass after
sekis were found - any false eyes that weren't part of seki would then be
marked as real eyes and given as territory. This would make it less
surprising to people when a false eye was counted as points (since they
always are!) Then players would get used to filling dame and forcing
opponents to fill false eyes manually. Would this be an improvement? I'll
have to think about it. It is nice sometimes when you don't have to force
your opponent to fill a false eye, but on the other hand, it is upsetting
when people have a bamboo joint so that a false eye is left unfilled by
the server. If the players notice, they can just press "undo", but
sometimes they don't.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 4:24:34โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
On 5 Oct 2004 09:11:04 -0700, td...@yahoo.com (Tommie) wrote:
>W.r.t. our question 1994 in Maastricht
>As one of the 1st 20 moves, I put down a stone as an extension from
>a crosscut, did not lift my finger, say smiling something as "Ah, I
>still like it better here", shift the stone 5mm to the diagonal
>intersection (the nearest other extension), lift my finger, press the
>clock (with the same hand of course), you jumped up searching for the
>referee!

Too bad that I do not recall the incident as it happened in Maastrict
but only recall that you reminded me of it here before. So I do not
recall exactly what of your stone placement made me "jump up".

>Robert, it is worth also to take pleasure into consideration.
>What was the added value to pleasure to call for the referee in our
>situation.

Pleasure is subjective. A referee decision should not be about
subjective _advantages_. My objective advantage may have been that your
reading ahead is not assisted by a stone already on the board and that
my view on the board is not obstructed by an extra second or few seconds
of your hand hiding it. So if you like, my subjective gain may have been
the pleasure of (possibly) gaining compensation for an objective
disadvantage.

>perhaps in order to investigate on the rules.

I do not start a dispute to investigate on rules, however, once a
dispute has become active, I also learn from it about rules, and, if the
dispute of fundamental importance, use the chance to get a fundamental
clarification.

>- the outcome after 10 years of your research is however only a merely
>subjective definition by negative features (you should not obstruct
>the opponent):

So far I have mainly researched in rules of play but hardly in
tournament rules. Therefore there is no systematic description of
features (yet). (OC, you can criticise that:) You are not the first.
Others have also wished to see improvements of tournament rules and
their background and understanding.)

>- which means the referee has to judge on such very, very subjective
>(unverifiable ?) feelings and thoughts of players:
>
>1) e.g. my INTENTIONS

Yes, intentions can play a role.

>(where did I THINK to play)

However, in case of touching the board with a stone, referees have a
pretty uniform evaluation that concentrates on the point of touching the
stone and does not consider intentions. Why? In this case, a referee
cannot distinguish truth from untruth of an intention where to play. In
other dispute cases, intentions can be evaluated more easily and
therefore there they play a greater role.

>2) your FEELINGS: where you really, and in how much "obstructed"

The referee would evaluate objective aspects, see above, rather than my
claimed personal feelings.

>Hence, the "written rules" seem not to have improved a bit in this
>respect by your research.

EGF tournament rules shall be improved. The Rules Commission has not
found sufficient time for that but it might hopefully change during the
following years.

>What they could have improved - the smooth
>running
>of a tournament - seems inherent to hundreds of other participants.

Sure. In principle. In practice, however, too many tournament organizers
fail to realize advice even if given carefully. Things are improving,
but slowly.

>It is felt by me that some of your investigations could better be
>confined to off-board situations.

Both rules of play and tournament rules are important. Since work on
either is mostly voluntary or honorary, research is focussed on that
what reasearchers choose.

>there were at least 2 other incidents in Maastricht alone!

To stop the myth that I would frequently have disputes, let me list all
my disputes during European congresses. Note that I play in many
side-tournaments, I do not include incidents that were resolved within a
few seconds, I include only those that I recall now and in which I was
one of the players.

1993:

None.

1994/1:

Tournament? Opponent: Thomas Derz. Case: Opponent moves stone. Decision?

1994/2:

Rapid. Opponent: a Romanian. Case: After having done likewise several
times, my opponent pressed clock and then removed stones without
liberties while I complained to him and played. Decision: 1st instance
referee Frank Janssen: I called the referee too lately, game continues.

1994/3:

13x13 preliminaries. Opponent? Case: Unfilled dame after the end of the
alternation. Decision: 1st instance referee Frank Janssen: Not the
Japanese 1989 Rules are used but the World Amateur Go Championship
Rules, which require all dame to be filled; game continues. Remarks:
Before I had not known any contents of the WAGC Rules. They were not
published at the congress and I falsely assumed that J1989 were being
used. The decision was correct because due to a tournament ruleset for
Fujitsu GP tournaments and no other, possibly more specific reference
the WAGC Rules were in use. The dispute could have been avoided had the
rules been published during the congress.

1995:

None.

1996/1:

13x13 quarter finals. Opponent: Taco Peters. Case: I played some plays
that my opponent must answer (I do not recall the exact nature of the
plays), then I passed, then my opponent's clock ran out just before he
could pass. Decision: 1st instance referee: Passing does not lose the
game on time. Opponent wins. Remarks: At some time (maybe in 1996 or
1997) this was discussed among members of the EGF Rules [and Ratings]
Commission and the uniform opinion was that a pass is ended by pressing
one's clock. Now this is also a tournament rule for German Lightning
Championships. This rule is preferred because it is objective. - The
referee informed me that I could appeal to his decision, what I did not.
I thought: I might or might not win the case in the next instance but
that would halt the tournament considerably. I decided this quickly. Had
I known the later decision of some members of the rules commission and
that that kind of dispute occurs every year at least once during some
side tournaments of a European congress, then I would have appealed to
the referee decision. - During the congress some members of the rules
commission made an independent decision with about the following
contents: "Pushing the opponent over the clock [during late game stages]
is unsportsmanlike." This creates more problems than it solves. And so
every year we see the same dispute recurring, particularly in finals or
other tournaments with limited thinking times of some side event. (Often
the same players occur in the finals and so the same players tend to be
involved in those disputes more often than other players.) - If both
players continue after related circumstances, then there is a clear
intention of both players to override that rule. So calling a referee
later is fruitless. This may question that rule, but if both players are
pushing each other over the clock, this cannot be helped; also in EGF
tournaments referees are rather consistent to acknowledge a player's
behaviour that _clearly_ shows his intention.

1997:

None.

1998/1:

Lightning. Opponent? Case: Japanese rules. How are the handicap stones
placed from stone 10 on? Opponent: freely. I: fixed pattern, which is
known. Decision: 1st instance referee: The stones are placed freely and
there are no 2nd and 3rd instances. Remarks: Japanese rules with partly
free handicap, really, what a nonsense. - Independently, later the EGF
Rules and Ratings Commission decided to declare in writing that side
tournaments of a European congress are subject to all instances of
arbitration. If this and priority of tournament rulesets had been clear
already in 1997, much trouble could have been avoided then.

1999:

None:

2000/1:

Main tournament. Opponent: Emil Nijhuis. Case: Somehow or otherwise each
player disturbed the opponent. Decision: 1st instance referee Tobias
Berben: Mediation, game continues.

2001/1:

Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time
by passing instead of finishing the yose. In between from time to time I
pressed the second button of the Ing clock to see my opponent's time.
When it was at about 1 or 2 seconds remaining time (while I had about 16
seconds), my opponent said that I had pushed my main time button twice
in a row. Decision: 1st instance referee Tony Atkins: I lose because I
might not push my main time button twice in a row. Remarks: I thought
that I pushed my main time button once and pushed the button showing me
my opponent's time once. From a kibitz it appears that I did press my
main time button twice in a row. - In earlier tournaments when a player
lost due to not pressing the Ing clock button properly, the advice by
referees would be: Press the main time button twice to be sure that it
is pressed. - In that context, the referee decision for my case was
absurd. The decision should have been about whether passing or playing
suboptimal plays is legal when the yose is still active. - Now in German
Lightning Championships the tournament rule (for Japanese rules of play)
is: If there are only dame left and a player passes, then the opponent
has to pass, too. Otherwise if both pass, then each player gets exactly
1 minute. - In typical lightning games it is not so rare that 20% or
more of a game's plays are made mainly to consume more opposing thinking
time. Having a clear last moment for time consumption strategy would be
nice also for EGF tournaments.

2002/1:

Main tournament game 1. Opponent? Case: Omitted; related to bad congress
organization. Decision by 1st instance referee [I am not sure if the 2nd
instance was called, too]: I should have called the referee earlier.
Remark: As you see, this kind of judgement is pretty common in EGF
tournament disputes. As a player one learns: either call the referee
immediately or never.

2002/2:

Main tournament game 1. Opponent? Case: My opponent tried to construct a
non-existing time argument while losing on the board. Decision by 1st
instance referee, then confirmed by 2nd instance Appeals Committee:
Obvious.

2002/3:

Main tournament game 2: Opponent: Csaba Mero. Case: Summary: Ing 1991
Rules. May the referees ignore moves of the players? After four
successive passes, may stones from the board still be removed? What is
"dead"? What is "dame"? Decision: 1st instance referee Victor Bogdanov:
little reasoning, my opponent is right. 2nd instance Appeals Committee
(Roman Pszonka, Zoran Mutabzija, Alexander Dinerstein): Studied the
rules booklet and decided: The game continues. When I asked them what
that was supposed to be meaning, a clear answer was not given, except
that I should follow order and we should continue the game. 3rd instance
(remaining ca. 7 members of EGF Rules and Ratings Commission): The 2nd
instance decision is correct. No reasons were given. Remarks: Clear
rules would have avoided the dispute. Good reasoning by the 1st instance
referee might have avoided calling of further instances. Likewise for
the 2nd instance. The 3rd instance should have provided reasons since
its decisions become precedents for future EGF tournaments. Players can
only abide by decisions if they are put in a position to understand them
at all. - A side-effect of the dispute has been that in principle
Simplified Ing Rules are used now instead of Ing 1991 Rules.

2002/4:

13x13. Opponent: Andrey Tschebourakhov. Case: Nigiri. Opponent: The
winner chooses the colour. I: The winner has Black. Decision by 1st
instance referee: The winner of nigiri has Black. Remark: The referee
used my opinion apparently because he knew that I was a member of the
EGF Rules and Ratings Commission. This was not an impartial treatment by
the referee.

2003:

None.

2004/1:

Main tournament. Opponent? Case: My opponent took back his move.
Immediately I asked my opponent to put the stone back on the board where
it had been. This failed. I fetched a referee (Roman Pszonka). When we
arrived at the board, the stone had been put on its intersection again.
I pointed out an adjacent stone still in atari (another string had
already been removed), which my slightly puzzled opponent removed.
Decision: not necessary. Remark: The referee was surprised how quickly
the matter was solved. Although it was quick, the noteworthy aspect here
is the effect of the present authority (referee).


***


Summary:

I have been involved in 12 disputes in 12 years of participating
European congresses. On average, this is 1 dispute per congress (or per
ca. 100 games, which - from observations - is about my estimate for all
players' average).

Most disputes would not have occurred with clear rules of play, clear
tournament rules, good tournament organization. I would have won more of
the disputes if I had called the referee earlier in some of them or if
the referees were better informed in a few of them.

There are some standard disputes for that tournament rules should be
designed more carefully: 1) how to put a stone, 2) which time management
is legal in games with finite thinking time, 3) which fixed handicap
pattern / which handicap style.

>Of course I would
>sincerely hope that our, my game would not be interrupted ...

A little you sound like being without failure but, IMO and judging from
another game between us, you should respect your opponent more. I do not
want to discuss details here, but I also dislike contexts that put me in
a one-sided "this is the bad guy" position. There is not the one bad guy
but every player can sometimes fail.

--
robert jasiek

Planar

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 4:58:56โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
In article <pan.2004.10.05....@igoweb.org>,

"William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org> wrote:

> I would prefer not to fill false eyes at all, because as you point out it
> leads people to be a bit lazy, and then sometimes they skip filling dame
> in a way that causes problems with the score. The problem is, there are
> cases in seki where players cannot be forced to fill false eyes, so I
> needed to be able to detect these false eyes if I wanted to properly spot
> sekis.

Interesting! So it is the strange Japanese seki rule that forces
you to compute the teire. What happens if there is such a seki
with a bamboo joint in the wrong place? Or is it impossible?


> Then players would get used to filling dame and forcing
> opponents to fill false eyes manually. Would this be an improvement?

IMO, yes. But it may be too late to change it now. People have
got used to the current system and if you change it now, we'll
hear much whining (and you'll get lots of bogus bug reports).

William M. Shubert

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 5:32:58โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:58:56 +0200, Planar wrote:

> In article <pan.2004.10.05....@igoweb.org>,
> "William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer not to fill false eyes at all, because as you point out it
>> leads people to be a bit lazy, and then sometimes they skip filling dame
>> in a way that causes problems with the score. The problem is, there are
>> cases in seki where players cannot be forced to fill false eyes, so I
>> needed to be able to detect these false eyes if I wanted to properly spot
>> sekis.
>
> Interesting! So it is the strange Japanese seki rule that forces
> you to compute the teire. What happens if there is such a seki
> with a bamboo joint in the wrong place? Or is it impossible?

See http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSGoCafe#9 - I am interested in the answer. I
suspect that it is impossible, but I cannot prove it.

mullens

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 7:48:29โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:


>
> To stop the myth that I would frequently have disputes, let me list all
> my disputes during European congresses. Note that I play in many
> side-tournaments, I do not include incidents that were resolved within a
> few seconds, I include only those that I recall now and in which I was
> one of the players.
>

<snip>


>
> 1998/1:
>
> Lightning. Opponent? Case: Japanese rules. How are the handicap stones
> placed from stone 10 on? Opponent: freely. I: fixed pattern, which is
> known. Decision: 1st instance referee: The stones are placed freely and
> there are no 2nd and 3rd instances. Remarks: Japanese rules with partly
> free handicap, really, what a nonsense. - Independently, later the EGF
> Rules and Ratings Commission decided to declare in writing that side
> tournaments of a European congress are subject to all instances of
> arbitration. If this and priority of tournament rulesets had been clear
> already in 1997, much trouble could have been avoided then.


Remark: when playing someone who is 10 or more stones weaker, it is churlish
to argue about the placement of handicap stones.


<snip>


Remark: Ungentlemanly play

>
> 2002/4:
>
> 13x13. Opponent: Andrey Tschebourakhov. Case: Nigiri. Opponent: The
> winner chooses the colour. I: The winner has Black. Decision by 1st
> instance referee: The winner of nigiri has Black. Remark: The referee
> used my opinion apparently because he knew that I was a member of the
> EGF Rules and Ratings Commission. This was not an impartial treatment by
> the referee.


Remark: The use of the word "winner" is revealing. There is no advantage
to the "winner" if they can't choose the colour. Therefore the "winner"
should be able to dictate the colour.


Now the following situation for you to adjudicate:

2004/5

19x19 35 minutes sudden death. Opponent: ? Case: I set the clock to 35
minutes past the hour - ie 25 minutes each. Play starts, nobody notices.
Opponent gets into time trouble, makes mistakes and resigns. Later I
realise what has happened. Should I feel guilty at winning this way ?
Is the organisation bad for not setting the clocks beforehand. What if
the opponent had noticed someway into the game - should the clocks be
retarded 10 minutes each - or only the opponents clock. Imagine that you
are using your tournament rules.


Barry Phease

unread,
Oct 5, 2004, 8:04:00โ€ฏPM10/5/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:24:34 +0000, Robert Jasiek wrote:


> To stop the myth that I would frequently have disputes, let me list all
> my disputes during European congresses.

And an intersting list it is too.

> Tournament? Opponent: Thomas Derz. Case: Opponent moves stone. Decision?

It is not practical to require a player to place their stone on a point
and not move it. It is obviously unsportsmanlike to hold one's finger on
the stone for any length of time, but the rule has always been that the
move becomes irrevocable ones the finger is removed. Of course placing a
stone and picking it up may be disallowed accorind to tournament rules.

> Rapid. Opponent: a Romanian. Case: After having done likewise several
> times, my opponent pressed clock and then removed stones without
> liberties while I complained to him and played. Decision: 1st instance
> referee Frank Janssen: I called the referee too lately, game continues.

In general you have to call the referee before you play again. If you
play then you are accepting the opponent's behaviour.

> 13x13 preliminaries. Opponent? Case: Unfilled dame after the end of the
> alternation. Decision: 1st instance referee Frank Janssen: Not the
> Japanese 1989 Rules are used but the World Amateur Go Championship
> Rules, which require all dame to be filled;

agree with decision.


> 13x13 quarter finals. Opponent: Taco Peters. Case: I played some plays
> that my opponent must answer (I do not recall the exact nature of the
> plays), then I passed, then my opponent's clock ran out just before he
> could pass. Decision: 1st instance referee: Passing does not lose the
> game on time.

Lightning games are as much about the clock as they are about the game.
Unless the tournament rules explicitly state that passing does not require
a clock press then you should assume that it does. The ruling is strange.


> Lightning. Opponent? Case: Japanese rules. How are the handicap stones
> placed from stone 10 on? Opponent: freely. I: fixed pattern, which is
> known.

How are these fixed placements known? AKAIK there is no standard
placement for handicaps over 9. Unless the tournament rules specified the
placement then there is no rule.

> Main tournament. Opponent: Emil Nijhuis. Case: Somehow or otherwise each
> player disturbed the opponent. Decision: 1st instance referee Tobias
> Berben: Mediation, game continues.

Well done Tobias.

> Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
> time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
> nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time
> by passing instead of finishing the yose. In between from time to time I
> pressed the second button of the Ing clock to see my opponent's time.
> When it was at about 1 or 2 seconds remaining time (while I had about 16
> seconds), my opponent said that I had pushed my main time button twice
> in a row. Decision: 1st instance referee Tony Atkins: I lose because I
> might not push my main time button twice in a row.

An odd ruling. Are there any clocks where it hurts to press the clock
twice in a row? Of course you might have been disturbing your opponent
from pressing the clock.

> Main tournament game 1. Opponent? Case: Omitted; related to bad congress
> organization. Decision by 1st instance referee [I am not sure if the 2nd
> instance was called, too]: I should have called the referee earlier.
> Remark: As you see, this kind of judgement is pretty common in EGF
> tournament disputes. As a player one learns: either call the referee
> immediately or never.

Absolutely! The referee cannot do anything if you have accepted your
opponent's move. The same applies to the draw, or any other aspect of
organisation. You must register a protest before starting playing.

> Main tournament game 1. Opponent? Case: My opponent tried to construct a
> non-existing time argument while losing on the board. Decision by 1st
> instance referee, then confirmed by 2nd instance Appeals Committee:
> Obvious.

?

> Main tournament game 2: Opponent: Csaba Mero. Case: Summary: Ing 1991
> Rules. May the referees ignore moves of the players? After four
> successive passes, may stones from the board still be removed? What is
> "dead"? What is "dame"? Decision: 1st instance referee Victor Bogdanov:
> little reasoning, my opponent is right. 2nd instance Appeals Committee
> (Roman Pszonka, Zoran Mutabzija, Alexander Dinerstein): Studied the
> rules booklet and decided: The game continues. When I asked them what
> that was supposed to be meaning, a clear answer was not given, except
> that I should follow order and we should continue the game. 3rd instance
> (remaining ca. 7 members of EGF Rules and Ratings Commission): The 2nd
> instance decision is correct. No reasons were given.

You might be right in what the rules say, but (given that few people knew
the rules) it would be preverse to apply them. The organisers should have
provided the text of the rules to all participants, and warned them of the
peculiarities before expecting to enforce such provisions.

> 13x13. Opponent: Andrey Tschebourakhov. Case: Nigiri. Opponent: The
> winner chooses the colour. I: The winner has Black.

I have always understood the nigiri to mean that the winner takes black.
the tournametn rules should state how the colour is to be chosen.

>
> Main tournament. Opponent? Case: My opponent took back his move.
> Immediately I asked my opponent to put the stone back on the board where
> it had been. This failed. I fetched a referee (Roman Pszonka). When we
> arrived at the board, the stone had been put on its intersection again.
> I pointed out an adjacent stone still in atari (another string had
> already been removed), which my slightly puzzled opponent removed.
> Decision: not necessary. Remark: The referee was surprised how quickly
> the matter was solved. Although it was quick, the noteworthy aspect here
> is the effect of the present authority (referee).

It does show that referees are necessary. You might have been able to
reach an agreement and continue otherwise, but maybe not.

--
Barry Phease

mailto:bar...@es.co.nz
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 2:18:30โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:48:29 GMT, mullens
<mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Remark: when playing someone who is 10 or more stones weaker, it is churlish to argue about the placement of handicap stones.

Subject to the set tournament rules, each player has equal rights.
Neither the weaker nor the stronger player has less rights.

The tournament rule was: Japanese rules, full handicap games. Changing
the handicap from fixed to free is an advantage for the weaker player.
I.e. this gives the weaker player more rights than the stronger player.
A tournament game has to be equally fair for both players and not fairer
for one and less fair for the other player.

>> 2001/1:
>>
>> Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
>> time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
>> nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time

>> by passing instead of finishing the yose. [...]

>Remark: Ungentlemanly play

By both players? Then how do you determine the last moment during a game
when one may play time consuming moves? Or do you want to interrupt
every game at every move and have it discussed by a referee whether it
is played for the purpose of opponent time consumption? Do you call
about 30-70% of all lightning players "ungentlemanlike"? (About that
many also use time consumption plays in their games.)

>> Nigiri


>Remark: The use of the word "winner" is revealing. There is no advantage
>to the "winner" if they can't choose the colour. Therefore the "winner"
>should be able to dictate the colour.

Usage of terms may differ. The term "winning nigiri" is used by those
using "winner may choose colour" and by those using "winner has to take
Black". There is nothing revealing in the term unless you overinterpret
the words of the term.

***

>19x19 35 minutes sudden death. Opponent: ? Case: I set the clock to 35
>minutes past the hour - ie 25 minutes each. Play starts, nobody notices.
>Opponent gets into time trouble, makes mistakes and resigns. Later I
>realise what has happened. Should I feel guilty at winning this way ?

In EGF tournaments, arbitration for such or similar cases would be: If
the players notice very early during the game, then have them reset the
clocks. If the players notice later, then the game continues with the
current clock continuing running.

>Is the organisation bad for not setting the clocks beforehand.

It depends on the nature of the tournament, how it was organized, how
all the players were gathering, etc.

--
robert jasiek

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 2:18:31โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:04:00 +1300, Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz>
wrote:

>the rule has always been that the
>move becomes irrevocable ones the finger is removed.

In New Zealand? I see.

>In general you have to call the referee before you play again. If you
>play then you are accepting the opponent's behaviour.

So you are aware of that custom in NZ, too? Interesting.

>> Lightning. Opponent? Case: Japanese rules. How are the handicap stones
>> placed from stone 10 on? Opponent: freely. I: fixed pattern, which is
>> known.
>
>How are these fixed placements known? AKAIK there is no standard
>placement for handicaps over 9.

The fixed handicap style over 9 is known from Japanese literature or
possibly Japanese professionals. I have seen it first in a book by
Takagawa.

>Unless the tournament rules specified the
>placement then there is no rule.

That you do not know the rule does not mean that it would not exist.
Anyway, the rules should have been announced clearly before the start of
the tournament.

>Of course you might have been disturbing your opponent
>from pressing the clock.

It is my right to press the button for seeing my opponent's time. (No
mentioning of disturbing was made during my dispute.) I have seen games
(using Ing clocks) where a player had a bad habit of disturbing the
opponent by abusing his right. However, in a situation where each player
has just a few seconds left, it is essential to know the precise
opposing time. Needless to say, Ing clocks are particularly unsuitable
especially for games with finite thinking times.

>given that few people knew
>the rules) it would be preverse to apply them.

Applied consequently, this would mean that during EGF tournaments none
of the ca. a dozen rulesets (rules of play or tournament rules) could be
applied. No, not applying the rules would not make sense. - It is a duty
of the players to know the rules, a duty of the tournament organization
to publish the rules and, if obviously necessary, to explain them, and a
duty of the rules writers to design understandable rules.

So the referees might have made a decision like: "The rules cannot be
understood [in that respect] because [...] and therefore the ruling is
[fair to both players.]" Unfortunately, the referees did not think of
such a ruling.

>I have always understood the nigiri to mean that the winner takes black.

Is this the common NZ custom then?

>the tournametn rules should state how the colour is to be chosen.

Yes.

--
robert jasiek

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 3:05:32โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:32:58 GMT, "William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org>
wrote:
>>Japanese seki rule
>See http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSGoCafe#9 - I am interested in the answer. I
>suspect that it is impossible, but I cannot prove it.

Proving how all sekis look like in general is a research issue that will
be unsolved for years, if not centuries. Why don't you simply make KGS
scoring independent of shapes? A go server program should not be an AI
computer go program. (If you ask "why": A server is meant to provide
easy usage for the players. Predicting AI as a player is not anything
easy.)

--
robert jasiek

mullens

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 7:18:21โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:48:29 GMT, mullens
> <mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Remark: when playing someone who is 10 or more stones weaker, it is churlish to argue about the placement of handicap stones.
>>
>
> Subject to the set tournament rules, each player has equal rights.
> Neither the weaker nor the stronger player has less rights.
>
> The tournament rule was: Japanese rules, full handicap games. Changing
> the handicap from fixed to free is an advantage for the weaker player.
> I.e. this gives the weaker player more rights than the stronger player.
> A tournament game has to be equally fair for both players and not fairer
> for one and less fair for the other player.
>

You haven't commented upon my remark ! If you are playing someone 10 or
more stones weaker it should not matter - you should be able to win with
a handicap even if you let them take moves back. The right to free placement
is also the right to place the handicap stones in sub-optimal positions.


>
>>>2001/1:
>>>
>>>Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
>>>time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
>>>nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time
>>>by passing instead of finishing the yose. [...]
>>>
>
>>Remark: Ungentlemanly play
>>
>
> By both players? Then how do you determine the last moment during a game
> when one may play time consuming moves? Or do you want to interrupt
> every game at every move and have it discussed by a referee whether it
> is played for the purpose of opponent time consumption? Do you call
> about 30-70% of all lightning players "ungentlemanlike"? (About that
> many also use time consumption plays in their games.)
>

Ungentlemanly play by you, perhaps unladylike play by her. No wonder there
are so few female go players !
Surely it is suboptimal to lose on time when one can pass instead.


>
>>>Nigiri
>>>
>>Remark: The use of the word "winner" is revealing. There is no advantage
>>to the "winner" if they can't choose the colour. Therefore the "winner"
>>should be able to dictate the colour.
>>
>
> Usage of terms may differ. The term "winning nigiri" is used by those
> using "winner may choose colour" and by those using "winner has to take
> Black". There is nothing revealing in the term unless you overinterpret
> the words of the term.


It was a logical argument based on the premise that a winner actually wins
something. It seems that you prefer codified statements to rationality.
The idea that the winner may choose white is attractive to me - just as is
free placement of handicap stones.
The more permissive the ruleset, the better it is (in my opinion) - as long
as it doesn't lead to unruly behaviour !


>
> ***
>
>
>>19x19 35 minutes sudden death. Opponent: ? Case: I set the clock to 35
>>minutes past the hour - ie 25 minutes each. Play starts, nobody notices.
>>Opponent gets into time trouble, makes mistakes and resigns. Later I
>>realise what has happened. Should I feel guilty at winning this way ?
>>
>
> In EGF tournaments, arbitration for such or similar cases would be: If
> the players notice very early during the game, then have them reset the
> clocks. If the players notice later, then the game continues with the
> current clock continuing running.
>

Thank you for your expert opinion.


Simon Goss

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 8:19:09โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
Planar <damien....@inria.fr.invalid> writes

>IMO, making the software compute the teire is a misguided tour de
>force.

Hear, hear! Teire isn't just simple things like recognising false eyes
and connecting when the opponent pushes into bamboo joints. Teire also
requires understanding of life and death problems, e.g. the well-known

| O O O O O

| . . . . O

| # # # # O
| . . . # O
| . . . # O
+-----------

Quite a tour de force indeed to provide a scoring program that will
guarantee to get all such things right.

--
Simon

UK Go Challenge for schools
http://www.ukgochallenge.com

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 9:16:53โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:18:21 GMT, mullens

<mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>Remark: when playing someone who is 10 or more stones weaker, it is churlish to argue about the placement of handicap stones.
>You haven't commented upon my remark !

Have I not? If the handicap stones may be placed freely, then that is
the right of the opponent. I did not question such a right during the
tournament because there was not a circumstance of free handicap stones
being allowed until the referee changed the announced rules. The rules
announced Japanese rules, i.e. fixed handicap. I argued that since the
handicap was announced as fixed and therefore had to be fixed, it might
not be changed to a freely placed handicap by my opponent.

>If you are playing someone 10 or
>more stones weaker it should not matter - you should be able to win with
>a handicap even if you let them take moves back.

It is a matter of opinion and not of my opponent's rights whether
somebody like you believes that White should win.

>The right to free placement
>is also the right to place the handicap stones in sub-optimal positions.

IF (!) the right is given to place the handicap freely. When the
tournament started, the right was not given because the announced
Japanese rules imply a fixed handicap.

>>>>Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
>>>>time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
>>>>nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time
>>>>by passing instead of finishing the yose. [...]
>

>Ungentlemanly play by you, perhaps unladylike play by her.

Why only PERHAPS by here? Passing while not playing a yose play is as
much suboptimal play as playing suboptimal yose plays instead of perfect
play yose plays.

>Surely it is suboptimal to lose on time when one can pass instead.

Surely it is suboptimal to let one's passing opponent not lose on time
by playing perfect yose plays instead of suboptimal yose plays (which
increase the number of passes that the opponent has to make).

>It was a logical argument based on the premise that a winner actually wins
>something. It seems that you prefer codified statements to rationality.

The term "winning nigiri" was not introduced by me and was not
introduced particularly rationally, as you are pointing out.

>The idea that the winner may choose white is attractive to me

You may have this opinion.

>The more permissive the ruleset, the better it is (in my opinion) - as long
>as it doesn't lead to unruly behaviour !

Likewise.

--
robert jasiek

Bill Spight

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 10:49:29โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
Dear Robert,

> >the rule has always been that the
> >move becomes irrevocable ones the finger is removed.
>
> In New Zealand? I see.
>

Not just in New Zealand. That rule is widespread.


> >In general you have to call the referee before you play again. If you
> >play then you are accepting the opponent's behaviour.
>
> So you are aware of that custom in NZ, too? Interesting.
>

That practice is widespread, too. And not just in go. In general,
continuing play denotes acceptance of the opponent's previous action.

> >> Lightning. Opponent? Case: Japanese rules. How are the handicap stones
> >> placed from stone 10 on? Opponent: freely. I: fixed pattern, which is
> >> known.
> >
> >How are these fixed placements known? AKAIK there is no standard
> >placement for handicaps over 9.
>
> The fixed handicap style over 9 is known from Japanese literature or
> possibly Japanese professionals. I have seen it first in a book by
> Takagawa.
>

I have seen other systems, as well.

Best,

Bill

Bill Spight

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 11:03:30โ€ฏAM10/6/04
to
Dear Robert,

> The rules
> announced Japanese rules, i.e. fixed handicap.

Err. That's Japanese custom. Japanese rules are another question. Or
two. ;-)

Best,

Bill

ian

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 6:46:47โ€ฏPM10/6/04
to
Bill Spight <bsp...@pacXbell.net> wrote in message news:<4164099A...@pacXbell.net>...
the worst thing you can do is confuse customs with rules

mullens

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 7:33:16โ€ฏPM10/6/04
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:18:21 GMT, mullens
> <mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Rapid tournament. Opponent: Diana Koszegi. Case: Both players short on
>>>>>time, my opponent shorter. I tried to win on time by playing threats
>>>>>nearby potential late yose areas. My opponent tried not to lose on time
>>>>>by passing instead of finishing the yose. [...]
>>>>>
>>Ungentlemanly play by you, perhaps unladylike play by her.
>>
>
> Why only PERHAPS by here? Passing while not playing a yose play is as
> much suboptimal play as playing suboptimal yose plays instead of perfect
> play yose plays.
>
>
>>Surely it is suboptimal to lose on time when one can pass instead.
>>
>
> Surely it is suboptimal to let one's passing opponent not lose on time
> by playing perfect yose plays instead of suboptimal yose plays (which
> increase the number of passes that the opponent has to make).
>

The worst kind of situation must be to lose because of a rules infraction

on your part - that must really hurt.
The choice then is to become better at the game or better at the rules ?!


Planar

unread,
Oct 6, 2004, 7:48:20โ€ฏPM10/6/04
to
In article <416320C1...@ntlworld.com>,
mullens <mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Remark: The use of the word "winner" is revealing. There is no advantage
> to the "winner" if they can't choose the colour. Therefore the "winner"
> should be able to dictate the colour.

Robert says "winner takes black".
You say "winner chooses which player takes black".
Why not "winner chooses which player chooses which player takes black"?
In other words, why not allow the winner to let the loser choose
the colors?

And then, if the winner gives him the choice, why not allow the
loser to give it back? i.e. "winner chooses which player chooses
which player chooses which player takes black". And so on to
infinity, each rule being more permissive than all previous ones...

If the purpose of nigiri is to choose colors at random in a
fair way, there's no need to add a level of indirection and
Robert is right. If the purpose of nigiri is to give an
advantage to one of the players chosen at random in a fair
way, then you are right, but I don't really see the point of
giving this advantage, which consists of making a strategic
decision that isn't of the form "where should I play this stone?"

If more permissive is better, then you will never be happy,
because whichever rule you choose, there is always a more
permissive one.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 2:52:04โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
On 6 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0700, ian....@durge.org (ian) wrote:
>the worst thing you can do is confuse customs with rules

Also called "customary rules".

--
robert jasiek

Arndt Jonasson

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 3:53:03โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to

jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) writes:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:18:21 GMT, mullens
> <mullensd...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>Remark: when playing someone who is 10 or more stones weaker, it is churlish to argue about the placement of handicap stones.
> >You haven't commented upon my remark !
>
> Have I not? If the handicap stones may be placed freely, then that is
> the right of the opponent. I did not question such a right during the
> tournament because there was not a circumstance of free handicap stones
> being allowed until the referee changed the announced rules. The rules
> announced Japanese rules, i.e. fixed handicap. I argued that since the
> handicap was announced as fixed and therefore had to be fixed, it might
> not be changed to a freely placed handicap by my opponent.

One thing I wonder about in this instance is whether this decision (to
let black place the handicap stones freely from the tenth stone on)
was made clear to all players, after a decision was made for one
player. It could be that some black players knew the customary
placement and followed it, but would have placed them differently, if
they knew they were allowed to, whether for added enjoyment or added
chanses to win.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 5:53:41โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
On 07 Oct 2004 09:53:03 +0200, Arndt Jonasson <do-no...@invalid.net>
wrote:

>One thing I wonder about in this instance is whether this decision (to
>let black place the handicap stones freely from the tenth stone on)
>was made clear to all players, after a decision was made for one
>player.

IIRC, it was not made clear to all players after the decisions.

In such side a lightning tournament during an EGC, a group of players
consists typically of ranks like 4d, 2d, 1d, 1k, 4k, 10k. I.e. weak
players are underrepresented. Depending on how the groups are formed by
the organizers, every group might have players of all ranks ranges or
each group's maximal rank difference might be kept small. So probably
the number of handicap games with more than 9 stones was comparatively
small.

>It could be that some black players knew the customary
>placement and followed it, but would have placed them differently, if
>they knew they were allowed to, whether for added enjoyment or added
>chanses to win.

In side tournaments of an EGC with free handicap placement about 3/4
choose to play the handicap in the Japanese pattern because as many
players do not know how to take strategic advantage of free handicap. On
go servers the fraction is about 1/2. The strange thing is that those
choosing Japanese style voluntarily also often do not know how to use
the influence of 4-4 stones (or, if on 9x9 3-3 are declared mandatorily,
the territory advantage). Those relatively few black players that know
how to take advantage of a particular handicap pattern (or komi value)
also tend to be those becoming stronger quickly. (In China and Korea top
players became stronger on average when they replaced the setup opening
by free opening.)

--
robert jasiek

ian

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 7:00:38โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
jas...@snafu.de (Robert Jasiek) wrote in message news:<4164e33...@news.snafu.de>...

> On 6 Oct 2004 15:46:47 -0700, ian....@durge.org (ian) wrote:
> >the worst thing you can do is confuse customs with rules
>
> Also called "customary rules".


such as- the customer knows best?

Simon Goss

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 7:31:00โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
Robert Jasiek writes

>>19x19 35 minutes sudden death. Opponent: ? Case: I set the clock to 35
>>minutes past the hour - ie 25 minutes each. Play starts, nobody notices.
>>Opponent gets into time trouble, makes mistakes and resigns. Later I
>>realise what has happened. Should I feel guilty at winning this way ?
>
>In EGF tournaments, arbitration for such or similar cases would be: If
>the players notice very early during the game, then have them reset the
>clocks. If the players notice later, then the game continues with the
>current clock continuing running.

How does one define "very early" rigorously? <grvf>

Simon Goss

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 7:32:05โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
About the nigiri question, here's a passage from Iwamoto's book on the
1971 Honinbo Tournament: 'To decide sente in this game, Rin picked up a
handful of white stones. Ishida placed two black stones on the go board
and announced "even-sente". An odd number of stones were found in Rin's
hand, so the challenger [Ishida] played White.' This seems to suggest a
convention that the winner of nigiri takes Black rather than getting a
choice.

mullens

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 9:11:57โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
Planar wrote:


>
> If the purpose of nigiri is to choose colors at random in a
> fair way, there's no need to add a level of indirection and
> Robert is right. If the purpose of nigiri is to give an
> advantage to one of the players chosen at random in a fair
> way, then you are right, but I don't really see the point of
> giving this advantage, which consists of making a strategic
> decision that isn't of the form "where should I play this stone?"
>
>

I'm afraid to say, that this indeed does make a lot of sense.
However, however irrationally, I fondly imagine that the game
(one of skill afterall) begins with correctly determining the
number of hidden stones (or fooling one's opponent into giving
an incorrect parity) and continues then with selecting the colour.

Personally, in club play, I would never choose white if the
agreement is that the komi is zero.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Oct 7, 2004, 9:12:26โ€ฏAM10/7/04
to
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:31:00 +0100, Simon Goss <si...@gosoft.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>How does one define "very early" rigorously? <grvf>

"In case of doubt, not later than before the 4th move is fixed."

Why? There is an EGF tournament rule ("EGF Tournament Rules", ยง8.a) that
the game has to start afresh if the players have been using the wrong
colours (or handicap) and if they have not fixed the 4th move yet.

--
robert jasiek

0 new messages