EGC Disputes

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 4:19:10 AM8/4/03
to
Referees that could not speak English caused some problems. The
Appeals Committee is supposed to be readily available but during
side events it wasn't. So some appeals had to be decided at 1:51 am
or by an incomplete body of the Appeals Committee. E.g., twice I,
as a substitute (!) member, had to make decisions alone, offering
apologies to the players. Had a present member of the Appeals
Committee always tried to form a complete body, then some side
tournaments would have ended as late as the aforementioned time.
(Finding people with courage to make judgements had already been
difficult at the start of the tournament.)

I was involved in three cases of arbitration by the Appeals
Committee. One case was about the players failing to count. We
managed to reconstruct the game roughly during arbitration and
the declared result was "Black wins by 1 or 3 points." Under
Simplified Ing rules it could not be clarified any longer which
player won the last ko and which was the opponent to get the
last dame. We decided to count the game since after some hours
of investigation it turned out that both players had the intention
to count the game regularly.

The other two cases were the obligatory pass while no time in no
byoyomi game.

Let me first go back to the 1996 13x13 quarterfinals dispute
Jasiek-Peters. Then I played moves that had the major strategic
purpose to consume opposing time and my opponent's flag fell a
second before his first pass succeeding mine. The referee
decided in favour of my opponent and I did not appeal so that
the 13x13 KO finals would not be delayed by possibly hours. As
could be seen in the meantime, it would have been better to
fight the case through all instances since so far there is no
clear precedental, highest court decision about this type of
time trouble and so it occurs at least once every year during
side tournaments of the EGC and each time the decision depends
arbitrarily on the referee(s) to make the judgement in a
particular game.

Later during the 1996 congress and independently of the actual
case the EGF Rules and Ratings Commission declared that
playing unncessary moves in no byoyomi games be unsportsmanlike.
This is little else but a threat to the players. It cannot be
understood in general what is unncessary or not. E.g., in a
-0.5 komi game White has to pass at move 2 of the game to be
sure (?) not to be expelled from tournaments. However, if
White does pass, then surely he might be expelled for
disrespecting the opponent. The declaration by the EGF Rules
and Ratings Commission is essentially useless and dangerous.
It is not the task of a rules commission to threaten the
players to be prohibited from future entries if they do enter
a tournament.

It is clear from the tournament rules that the players must
be sportsmanlike. Until last year due to my inquiry in 1997
there was a consensus when sportsmanlike is to be applied.
Since the final decision about the Csaba-Jasiek case even
this consensus is lost and the threat to players being
expelled for unclear reasons has become greater.

My basic view is opposing. I do not want to pose threats to
players by making judgements in disputes that punish (a
player more sincerely than losing the game) for not applying
rules that cannot be understood clearly or for applying
rules that cannot be understood clearly. Being unsportsmanlike
can be a sincere issue with far-reaching consequences in
serious cases. Therefore in case of unclear rules I use the
unclear concept of sportsmanlike with a low priority.
Thereby I do not risk to punish the players for the failure
of the EGF or the tournament or event organizers to announce
clear rules in time.

So essentially what happened in this year's two cases?
1) Player A passes.
2) Players B continues [unnecessary?] play.
3) Player A continues play.
4) Player A's flag falls.
5) Player A calls a referee complaining about (2).

My decision: Both players have shown the intention to
continue playing under time. Therefore during (5) it is too
late for player A to claim (2) and player A loses on time.
If player A wants to win a dispute, then he must call the
referee immediately when (2) occurs. The intention shown in
(3) contradicts this.

If A had called the referee immediately, then it would have
been a case of judging whether plays actually were
unncessary and whether that might have been illegal. Given
the intention of the precedental declaration by the EGF
Rules and Ratings Commission, there would have been no
doubt, even though it would have been impossible to explain
the reason formally since hypothetical play under Nihon Kiin
1989 rules never can be explained fully in practice. In one
of the games an explanation would have been particularly
impossible since with dame still on the board occupation of
dame is everything else than unncessary under Nihon Kiin 1989
rules. Really, a highest court ruling about an actual case or
even better a clear ruling about time trouble moves in no
byoyomi games would be nice.

After the second case of the time trouble type, all following
side events used the tournament rule that no complaints about
playing [unncessary] moves are accepted. This is clear enough
and as good as considering all legal moves to be sportsmanlike.
Until the EGF sets a general rule, it is a good idea for each
tournament director to declare some such rule before the
start of each tournament...

--
robert jasiek

mullens

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 5:46:56 AM8/4/03
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> After the second case of the time trouble type, all following
> side events used the tournament rule that no complaints about
> playing [unncessary] moves are accepted. This is clear enough
> and as good as considering all legal moves to be sportsmanlike.
> Until the EGF sets a general rule, it is a good idea for each
> tournament director to declare some such rule before the
> start of each tournament...
>
That seems a good idea.

Maybe we need a clock that can detect moves whose sole purpose
appears to be is timewasting. I suggest that if the clock is pressed
within one second of the opponent's move, it should not advance
and of course if it is pressed after that time, it should advance
by the full amount. That way, the player making the timewasting
moves would incur a time penalty, but the passing player would not.

One could even grant extra time in such a case, by making the clock
step back by one second.

I guess though that this would be inadequate for rules that require
passing stones to be given to the opponent, when it might not be
possible to do this and press the clock within a second.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Aug 4, 2003, 7:37:32 AM8/4/03
to

mullens wrote:
> Maybe we need a clock that can detect moves whose sole purpose
> appears to be is timewasting.

Fast moves also occur during the middle game.
Pure time wasting moves are a standard strategy for the middle game,
too.

The move rule assumes that each move is of equal importance,
regardless of the move number. So it would be unfair to punish
some move numbers more than others.

I would allow all legal moves and allow for 1 or 2 minutes more
total thinking time per player. Somebody not being able to fill
his territory with defensive ponnukis within 1 or 2 minutes does
not deserve to win a lightning game.

--
robert jasiek

Arend Bayer

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 6:56:17 AM8/5/03
to
mullens wrote:

> Maybe we need a clock that can detect moves whose sole purpose
> appears to be is timewasting. I suggest that if the clock is pressed
> within one second of the opponent's move, it should not advance
> and of course if it is pressed after that time, it should advance
> by the full amount. That way, the player making the timewasting
> moves would incur a time penalty, but the passing player would not.
>
> One could even grant extra time in such a case, by making the clock
> step back by one second.

I will repeat my advertisement once more: Fischer time. Just add
one second for each move, and such problems go away immediately.

(It seems better to me to treat all moves consistently, than trying to
single out a few by certain characteristics. Unless of course you mean that
the clock is analyzing the game and will punish each move by 5 seconds that
is played after all territory is settled and all dame occupied...)

--
Arend Bayer, Germany
The above is, of course, NOT my e-mail address. Please write to the e-mail
address "arend", in the domain "gmx.ch" if you want to contact me -- sorry
for the inconvenience.

mullens

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:24:41 AM8/5/03
to
Arend Bayer wrote:
>
> mullens wrote:
>
> > Maybe we need a clock that can detect moves whose sole purpose
> > appears to be is timewasting. I suggest that if the clock is pressed
> > within one second of the opponent's move, it should not advance
> > and of course if it is pressed after that time, it should advance
> > by the full amount. That way, the player making the timewasting
> > moves would incur a time penalty, but the passing player would not.
> >
> > One could even grant extra time in such a case, by making the clock
> > step back by one second.
>
> I will repeat my advertisement once more: Fischer time. Just add
> one second for each move, and such problems go away immediately.

I don't know what the ruling is for when the flag falls while the player is
removing stones. Is there a convention to stop the clock when the number of
stones captured exceeds a threshold ? My suggestion to step back the clock
is intended to make stopping the clock unneccessary when it becomes necessary
to remove stones. The proposal to disregard move times of less than one
second is to allow a player to pass repeatedly without loss of time.

A Fischer time of 1 second is a greater change to timing than the change(s)
I propose. As Robert observed, It would only catch timewasting moves at the
end of the game when the opponent is likely to pass.

>
> (It seems better to me to treat all moves consistently, than trying to
> single out a few by certain characteristics. Unless of course you mean that
> the clock is analyzing the game and will punish each move by 5 seconds that
> is played after all territory is settled and all dame occupied...)
>

Too difficult to implement !

mullens

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 7:45:25 AM8/5/03
to
Arend Bayer wrote:
>
> mullens wrote:
>
> > Maybe we need a clock that can detect moves whose sole purpose
> > appears to be timewasting. I suggest that if the clock is pressed

> > within one second of the opponent's move, it should not advance
> > and of course if it is pressed after that time, it should advance
> > by the full amount. That way, the player making the timewasting
> > moves would incur a time penalty, but the passing player would not.
> >
> > One could even grant extra time in such a case, by making the clock
> > step back by one second.
>
> I will repeat my advertisement once more: Fischer time. Just add
> one second for each move, and such problems go away immediately.

I don't know what the ruling is for when the flag falls while the player is


removing stones. Is there a convention to stop the clock when the number of
stones captured exceeds a threshold ? My suggestion to step back the clock
is intended to make stopping the clock unneccessary when it becomes necessary
to remove stones. The proposal to disregard move times of less than one

second is to allow a player to pass repeatedly without loss of time. So
my full proposal is to add one second of time to a player who presses the
clock within a second and disregard that fraction of a second.

A Fischer time of 1 second is a greater change to timing than the change(s)

I propose. As Robert observed, they would only catch timewasting moves at the


end of the game when the opponent is likely to pass.
>

> (It seems better to me to treat all moves consistently, than trying to
> single out a few by certain characteristics. Unless of course you mean that
> the clock is analyzing the game and will punish each move by 5 seconds that
> is played after all territory is settled and all dame occupied...)

Not possible to implement without move capture.

Of course, the suggestion I make would be of no use when playing chess.

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 8:55:48 AM8/5/03
to

mullens wrote:
> I don't know what the ruling is for when the flag falls while the player is
> removing stones.

Where?

In EGF tournaments pressing the clock is part of the move.

> Is there a convention to stop the clock when the number of
> stones captured exceeds a threshold ?

In EGF tournaments the clock may be stopped for removing 3 or
more stones.

--
robert jasiek

mullens

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 8:11:54 AM8/5/03
to
Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
> mullens wrote:
> > I don't know what the ruling is for when the flag falls while the player is
> > removing stones.
>
> Where?
>
> In EGF tournaments pressing the clock is part of the move.

Presumably one cannot retract after releasing the stone.

>
> > Is there a convention to stop the clock when the number of
> > stones captured exceeds a threshold ?
>
> In EGF tournaments the clock may be stopped for removing 3 or
> more stones.
>

Thanks

Robert Jasiek

unread,
Aug 5, 2003, 11:28:31 AM8/5/03
to

mullens wrote:
> Presumably one cannot retract after releasing the stone.

Once touching the intersection.

--
robert jasiek

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages