Anyone.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The last count revealed on average 1 dispute per year. This, from my observation of frequencies of disputes in other players' games (about 1 per 50 tournament games), is not above the average, maybe it is even below the average.

Almost all of my disputes were related to trivia, such as the tournament organisers having set a wrong byoyomi, my Ing clock's second pressing of the button (as recommended by tournament organisers for Ing clocks) interpreted by the referee as a second move in succession and thus illegal, my opponent leaving stones without liberties on the board, my opponent removing stones on my time, my opponent being 23 minutes late and complaining that his clock was running for already 3.5 minutes etc.

Only a few disputes were really interesting, and they occurred because the rules were written too badly or had important gaps.

With proper rules, good tournament organisation and opponents refraining from creating trivia, my dispute rate in tournaments would drop to 1 per 5 or 10 years, although I play a good number of tournament games (incl. such in side tournaments) per year.

It is not solely subjective, because referees should be consistent and predictable in their decisions. A sportsmanship decision on one game and some on another game must be comparable rather than contrary to each other.



This is a simplification because the Ing 1991 Rules are still ambiguous to some extent.



My concern still vivid over 10 years later is the fear to be involved again in a dispute with unpredictable referee decisions.

I won't pick this up, because I think we have a different defition of the word sportsmanship



They are, but it was clear that even the referee agreed with your interpretation, hence his instruction to Csaba. It's also unlikely that Csaba was aware of that rules clause from his reactions (as opposed to interpreting differently) - At the very least, you followed the most studied interpretation of the tournament rules perfectly well.



As are other people's. The difference is whether to avoid this dispute by rule usage clarification or some form of appropriate behaviour clarification. I personally think both would help, but at least we can realistically hope to do something about the former

It's not so simple. There's a context. At the time a form of Japanese rules was in general use (and still is). Mr Ing wanted to replace them with his own rules. He was willing to pay lots of money to do so. Many western players were willing to take the money and pay lip service to his rules, reprehensible though this may be. Almost every western player still cleaved to the previous Japanese-style rules, and if Mero and Jasiek had played a friendly game one evening at the same event, it is highly unlikely that they (or anybody else) would have used Ing rules. In short, in the main Ing event it would seem that everyone except Jasiek realised there was a fiction going on. That is part of why they believe he was trying to win on a technicality.

Even if a problem with Ing rules had been pointed out in advance, most people would not have said, "let's fix it". They would have just seen that as further support for their dislike for Ing rules. All this leads to the mindset accurately described by topazg:



It is worth pointing out that Ing rules are accepted by pros for the Ing Cup and certain events within China and Taiwan, and the pros manage to play these games without the charades of the Mero-Jasiek game. For even they are paying lip service. In all events not sponsored by the Ing Foundation, or not under another foreign sponsor's rules, they revert to their own normal domestic rules. Given that, it is easy to understand why amateurs likewise feel that lip service to Ing is good enough, rather than chasing the end of a rainbow by setting up a rules commission to rewrite rules and to cover every eventuality. As Einstein supposedly said, "So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". The laws behind rules are even less certain.

Accepted is an exaggeration. Nie Weiping refused to play in the Ing Cup saying that it would not be go any longer.

Are there any reports on how the pros proceed to end their games under Ing 1986 / 1991 / 1996 rules?

Have the pros received information support from the Ing foundation? Western letters to it were not answered regardless of international reply coupons.

Like your many "historical facts", this one is completely made up.

It certainly sounds like it:

http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collect ... &start=180

That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.

I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

edit: According to the data on senseis, he took only part in the first one:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?1stIngCup

Yes, it is quite well known that he didn't like the Ing rules, but he clearly did play in at least one of the Ing cups (coming second in the 1st one I believe). My understanding was that his refusal later was based primarily on nationalism-issues, but it all seems to have faded into historical controversy now, so other than asking him directly, I suspect we'll never know. Certainly I have never seen a quite from Nie saying "Ing rules would make the game not Go any more".

IMO here, Robert deliberately quoted a small part of JF's text and then disagreed with a sentiment that JF didn't make.



Robert's comment only makes sense under the implication that JF had stated that the Ing rules were universally accepted by professionals, which was a claim never made. JF's point that enough pros were happy about them to take part in the events seems eminently true from a) the fact the tournaments happened, and b) the fact some very strong players were present in each. No ruleset is without its detractors, but unless we are to say that all rulesets are considered "not accepted" by any one individual publicly making criticism of them (which means all rulesets, as even Robert's virtually watertight rules update documents have received criticism), I can't see how "accepted" is an exaggeration.

I can't believe I'm being drawn into this, it's not like it really matters whether Robert's right on the acceptability of the Ing rules

As far as I can read (correct me if I'm wrong John), the primary point he was making was that even top professionals managed to play games under Ing rules without this dispute (or similar) ever having arisen in tournament games, and if they can do it, so can he - unlike the example with the timer mentioned earlier, this particular dispute has to be deliberately manufactured.

Straight quote from the first post:



So Nie Weiping refused to play the 3rd Ing Cup because he didn't like the tournament qualification rules, which allowed only 5 Chinese players out of 24 participants.

This refusal has nothing to do with the Ing rules.

From what I've read so far, you are right.

That's a very charitable interpretation of Robert's statement. What Robert did was twisting Nie's objection to the tournament seeding system to say Nie objects to the Ing Rules, as Herman Hiddema pointed out.

Robert's quote "not go any more" is just fabrication.

With this kind of argument, you would have to conclude that Ing rules were widely accepted in EGF tournaments (because also (a) and (b) were true there every year, although "strong" means strong amateurs rather than strong pros), although

1) a query by Frank Janssen with only the choices "Japanese Rules" and "Ing Rules" available revealed roughly 90% : 10% (I hope that my attempt to vote for Tromp-Taylor Rules was not counted for Ing Rules...)

2) year after year, with a very few exceptions, everybody (other than AGM delegates, except Christoph Gerlach and Matti Siivola) at European tournaments with a stated opinion expressed his great disliking of Ing Rules, Ing stones, Ing boxes and Ing clocks.

Which else?



I rely on two or three related statements on rec.games.go a couple of years ago. It is, of course, in principle possible that those statements by others were wrong.



If it was fabrication, then not by me. See above.

Indeed, do you fault doctors for operating within the law? The more prevailing moral standards for cutting out people's organs (such as informed consent) is incorporated into the law. None of this prevents the doctors from going above and beyond the law, but we do not fault the doctors for actions within the letter of standard procedure and law. Beyond the law, the doctors also have their own standards for operation starting from the Hippocratic Oath. When you become a doctor, there are certain rules and procedures you agree to follow and it is understood by the consumers of medical services (or should be understood) that the services they receive will be guided by those rules and procedures. That is there is a mutually agreed upon explicit contract, which is entered into implicitly and explicitly.

Indeed, the prevailing standards have been incorporated into traffic laws. When I drive I get mad at people who don't follow the traffic laws, but I don't get mad at people who drive the speed limit. A lot of people do put pressure on these drivers to drive faster, and they sometimes feel intimidated by this, and that just isn't right. You shouldn't have to fear being branded a jacka** for driving within the bounds of traffic laws. Being on the road is a dangerous thing to begin with... It makes perfect sense to me that universal moral standards should be incorporated into the laws. Of course, if you're talking about moral standards common to 70/80%, that is a different story---tyranny of the majority.

Wow. This is really stretching it. This sort of argument is argument for argument's sake. It is sophistry. First of all, unless you are "dating" a hooker or a crazy person, there is no explicit contract that you enter into by going on a date. The rules are fuzzy and you only have your own moral standards as a guide. Furthermore, to speak of rape and harassment and think that this is an appropriate comparison for Jasiek trying to win by rule dispute? That seems to be using inflammatory language as a rhetorical device. In fact, the scale of the things that were at stake in Jasiek's rule dispute and the examples that you gave here are vastly different.

After reading this, I think that I may have been too harsh in my evaluation of your comments earlier. You have either 1) misunderstood my argument or 2) misconstrued it to win an argument on the Internet. Since I am an optimist, I will place 95% probability on it being case #1 (the 5% is because I am also agnostic). My argument was for a specific X (=tournament go) not all possible X. Furthermore, my arguments depended on the particulars of the specific X that I was speaking about. You cannot disprove the specific by disproving the universal argument. The reverse is true (you can disprove the universal by disproving a specific case). 3 is an odd number and it is prime. Not all odd numbers are prime.

It's only unfair, as opposed to barbaric, because the wrong leg was not amputated. It's only unfair because they didn't become a paraplegic after a go-related accident. It's only unfair because the only consequence was the win/loss.

Again, as I mentioned, I was talking about a specific X.

topazg, after reading your post, I agree 100% with 100% of your post (except for the part about interpretation of the rules, since I don't know enough about rules to say one way or another). I wish that more people would take your sort of calm view. Why can't the argument be that "It was correct for the committee to decide against Robert" instead of "Robert was unsportsmanlike little man who cares so much about winning and losing that he tried to win by immoral trickery." Your position (the former) is eminently reasonable and does not bring personal feelings into it. The latter is quite personal and may even go beyond the bounds of politeness that those who espouse this position seem to care so much about.

EDIT: While I agree with you that the actual decision was a fine one, I think that going the other way would have been just as fine---as long as they clarified/improved the rules afterwards, which they did. So I still agree with that part of your post, but I think that there are more possibilities there.

I had to convince the EGF Rules Commission to write the Simplified Ing Rules, then (not always successful) to convince it that it would be used and used also as interpretation aid for the Ing 1991 Rules' game ending rules etc., in 2007 convince the AGM to adopt the new tournament rules, which set the Simplified Ing Rules as an option.

The Ing 1991 Rules have not been clarified/improved by the EGF beyond my referee teaching in EGF referee workshops and a very few explanations mostly by me at tournaments. Everything ko-related I had explained as well as possible years before the dispute on my webpage.

A bit of further clarification came during the International Go Rules Forum, when, during meetings and in informal talks in their breaks I asked Mr. Yang. He explained a bit but not convincingly about removals and he very shortly confirmed that my Ing ko rules understanding (incl. the New Ko Rules' prohibition rule's idea) was basically in agreement with the intention according to his understanding.

A sort of official written commentary on the Ing 1991 Rules other than the terrible Ing rules booklets and the earlier hopelessly misinterpreting Kim-Simon-Straus paper for the AGA does not exist, AFAIK.

Thus, "which they did" is a great exaggeration.

I re-edited this because the forum allows only three levels of quotes.



Seems that my typo messed up the question.

You wrote:
One does not usually ask for reason for something one does not think as true. Your question implies that concept of sportsmanship is incomprehensible to me. Do you mean this and if so, why?

The formulation was a bit harsh. Since you seemed to agree with Robert I put you in the same shelf so to speak.

I said what I said since you both seem to believe sportsmanship stands in some kind of competition with rules and that you have to give one priority and abandon the other. I do not share that vision, as I have already explained more than enough in this thread.