I don't know Robert but from reading this thread (and watching the video of the disputed game), he does not strike me as someone who lacks sportsmanship. To go back to the situation that was being discussed earlier, it's my impression that though Robert would insist that an opponent who had accidentally pressed their clock had passed, if the rules were different he would never cheat by pretending to accidentally press his clock to get more time.

Most of us here would differentiate between mistakes that happen within the game and those that happen outside it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with believing that if a situation is covered by the rules, it should be handled the way in which they describe. Is taking advantage of an opponent's mistake with the clock really that different from capturing after a self atari? If you ask me, good sportsmanship also requires that you accept that some people have different ideas about how the game should be played, and dismissing someones views as not worth discussing, is (apart from the outright cheating) the most unsportsmanlike thing I have seen on this thread.

Note that I am not claiming that there is anything inherently wrong with preferring a strict application of the rules in all cases. I have in fact said quite clearly that that is an equally valid position to hold, even though it is not my personal preference.

What I object to is saying: Sportsmanship means that you always prefer a strict application of the rules over sportsmanship. The very definition is self-contradicting.

I had the referee do that to me as well

It seems that your opponent has committed a minor offence here. Normally, it should be possible to compensate your time, warn him, or deduct 2 or 3 points for such actions. (Should you feel strongly enough to demand that.) If they keep on doing that, well, they deserve to be given a pass.

_________________
North Lecale

Herman, the EGF tournament rules have been prepared by the EGF rules commission. I as chairman, Robert as member and some other members did the job. In my position I'd expect to encounter severe critique, if I would put my perception of sportsmanship above the rules. I would be asked:"Why did you prepare rules which you don't think, are correct?". I think the same would apply to Robert.

I told in earlier post that, If I would act in a certain way that would be sportsmanlike. Do you imply, that choosing another way would be unsportsmanlike? I think I know the rules, but if my opponent disagrees on something I think it is better to have the referee to explain him, rather than getting into a lengthy discussion with the opponent.

Note, that I my interest is, that a player who breaches the rules gets appropriate consequences and not who wins the game. I had a case where I would have been satisfied with a decision that both I and my opponent lost. However, that possibility did not occur to the committee deciding the case.

What you say is true. But doesn't it make the mero-jasiek-dispute even worse? A member of the EGF rules commission wanted to win a game in the European Go Championship (an EGF tournament), he clearly lost on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently. And that is assuming Robert was right with his claim, yet the referee, the appeals committee and the EGF Rules Committee ruled in Csabas favor.

If you as the chairman of the EGF rules commission see nothing wrong with that... sorry that goes beyond imagination.

The Ing foundation gave the EGF big money, because the EGF agreed to use Ing rules. Some strong players did not like the rules, but liked the money and had the attitude that let's pretend to play by with Ing rules, but not Robert. He wanted to paly by the rules. There was an ambiguity in the rules and in my opinion Robert's actions were an honest attempt to get the thing decided.

I think, especially as a member of the rules committee, you should realize that the rules cannot cover all eventualities, and that there always will be cases where the rules should be ignored in favour of the morally superior course of action. If you do not think this is true, then I do not think you should be writing rules.

In fact, I would expect that, as a member of the rules committee, you would consider every potential dispute as an opportunity to consider whether the rules are working as intended in this situation. Rules are written with a purpose, and a member of the rules committee should try to be the first to recognize when the rules did not achieve their intended purpose, and should be the most willing to then admit that their rules are not perfect, and to ignore them.

After all, especially if you wrote the rules you should avoid getting a benefit from them that is widely considered unreasonable by players.



No, not acting sportsmanlike is not the same as acting unsportsmanlike. Most behaviour by players is neither.

To reduce thread derailing, my reply to p2501 is here:

viewtopic.php?p=112425#p112425

As long as I have been a member, the commission has been aware that
- flawed rules of play do not cover all cases,
- correct rules of play cover all cases,
- tournament rules cannot cover all cases explicitly.



If the rules are good, then such cases need not occur. Resorting to other means of decision, such as sportsmanship or reference to player intention or reference to earlier court decisions, is then necessary only where the explicit rules do not rule something. If the rules are bad (e.g., if they contradict each other), then other means might be better than applying the afffected rules.

If, amoung other means of decision, one resorts to sportsmanship or moral considerations, then either a particular action is obviously morally superior or different choices of potentially morally acceptable decisions can exist. I.e., I do not share your view that there would necessarily be only one always obvious morally good solution. Moral questions can be non-obvious, e.g., what is a just war or does it exist?



The rules commission makes such considerations, but not for every potential dispute. We are free time volunteers, not paid law researchers.



Usually several purposes.



Ok. That is one reason why I have spent years of my life on researching in rules:)



The rules commission is not the forefront of rules violation, but shall enforce rules application. Therefore, our approach tends to be different: We suggest (and sometimes adopt minor) rules changes for the sake of improving the situation.

Sadly, I think that there is simply no common ground here.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Which is it? Can tournament rules cover all cases, or can they not?

Tournament rules can cover all cases, but they cannot cover all cases EXPLICITLY. E.g., tournament rules can include a rule "If other rules do not apply, then earlier court decisions apply. If also they do not apply, then... [more intermediate steps are possible] ...the judge(s) decide arbitrarily.".

<3

As far as I can see, there are two possible good rules for pressing the clock:
Rule ZA: "Pressing the clock without placing a stone on the board is considered a pass."
Rule ZB: "Pressing the clock without placing a stone on the board is considered a pass. If this was done by mistake by Player A, Player B may choose to allow the pass to be retracted using the following procedure: [Description of a clear procedure for undoing a pass, such as calling a judge who then adjusts the clock back by five seconds or something]."

In both cases, the rule is first and foremost clear and precise and secondly resilient to abuse because any attempt at abuse is summarily punished according to clear criteria. The second rule allows for courtesy, but in the correct way: It makes clear that a mistake was made, and it is wholly the opponent's decision to let that slide or not. It has no room for initiation of a laborious, disruptive dispute process and promotes playing precisely.



I would say this is wrong. Spotting something amiss is indeed cause for alarm - but the rules to which the players have agreed on entering the tournament should be upheld (except perhaps in the case where all players unanimously agree to change a rule, but that is a whole different can of worms). After the event, there should naturally be a discussion on how issues could be fixed.

Robert is at the tournament not as a legislator (game designer/tournament organizer), but as a competitor. A legislator's and a competitor's tasks in a competition are very, very different. Winning within the rules (which by my reading are relatively clear) is the player's task, nothing else. If someone enters the tournament without being familiar with the relevant rules according to which the tournament is played and makes a mistake as a result, it is only proper that he suffer the consequences.

Zombie, there are more good rules for passing, e.g., "A pass consists of saying 'pass' and then pressing the clock.".

Very true, though that gives rise to a bit of ambiguity and thus rules disputes. But yes, simple and clear, should just be accompanied by a note on what merely pressing the clock is taken to be.