Have you seen the board?

To me it is meta-gaming. Despicable stuff.

No, I haven't seem the game at all - is there any chance of an .sgf post?

[sgf-full]http://files.gokgs.com/games/2011/7/26/EGC2011B4.sgf[/sgf-full]

(a link was already in the first post)

---

_________________
求而不得
舍而不能

The round 3 results were updated.
http://www.egc2011.eu/index.php/en/results-pairing
According to the table Silt Ondrej was awarded the win.

It does not seem actually true. According to what I read on SL at least in China the illegal move would have been considered a pass and Ondrej would have won anyway (the same would be true in AGA rules as I understand it). And the japanese rules of 1997 are reported by Jasiek as "Moves that violate these rules cannot be made. The game is not lost by forfeit through such moves.". I interpret it as saying that the illegal move attempt is either refused or accepted but the game continues.

So the EGF rules are far from exceptional, apart maybe for allowing three moves to spot the illegal move, which is irrelevant in this case.


No, the EGC is under the Simplified Ing Rules. There is no such provision in the Simplified Ing Rules EGF text, so the quote is irrelevant. Please don't post false information: it may mislead someone. It is rather unambiguous that the correct thing was to continue the game.

The biggest problem is that the judge wrongly announced the loss of black instead of double-checking first. That would be my strongest complaint. It is not nice to either player, especially white that is given a false hope. A judge should think twice before playing these jokes on the already stressed players.

Actually what breakfast just said makes a lot of sense-- you shouldn't be able to gain time by making an illegal move. I doubt Ondrej was doing that purposely, of course, as playing a legal move would have been much easier. If a move is redone, is the clock supposed to be rewound in EGF rules?

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

I think it's clear that the verdict should have been to carry on, and I think it's clear that the argument of the move being a deliberate time-suji is not particularly warranted, as the game's victor is already apparent. It's one thing if the game was really tight and resting on a half point, but If Ondrej was given 10 seconds per move and Alex was given 30 minutes per move, Black would still win this game.

I do still sympathise with Alex for being given false hope, and I do take his point that, if the clock was that tight, that taking back the move may have resulted in a loss by time. I also sympathise for Ondrej being caught in yet another pedantic rules dispute where he seems to be on the morally justified side.

The correct result stands in my opinion.

Yeah, I agree with that (what topazg just said): I think it's Ondrej's game; but, in my opinion, Alexandre has a legitimate case and isn't just making stuff up in hopes of a win on a technicality, nor would his appeal be based on sheer pedantry. It kinda sounded like that at first, I'm glad he shared his side here. Even though it's none of our business.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

First of all, I am not sure it does make it clear. The ko take in the example was when the player asked the monitor if it was his turn and was misled. Clearly he did not intend to make an illegal move in that instance.

Still, one has to admit, there are not that many illegal moves out there, and taking a ko without threat is certainly one of the two major ones. In fact, in ING rules, with suicide being legal, perhaps the only other one would be two moves in a row. So if taking a ko without threat was not comtemplated as an unintentional retractable move, then more explanation might be nice.

So, maybe it does make it clear, if it was unintentional.

People seem to say the game was clearly Mr. Silt's and so any claim of timesuji is suspect. Well, first of all, the ability to timesuji does, in my view, make the rule, which has no penalty, suspect. I believe the AGA rules provide for a 3 pt penalty. The game seems to me to be within ten points, and close enough for Mr. Silt to be down to his last byo yomi - indeed, down to his last second according to Mr. Dinershteyn. We cannot know what was in Mr. Silt's mind at that moment - did he know he was ahead?, did he want some time for a careful count? We cannot know.

I certainly can understand Dinershteyn's resignation. I would find it impossible to continue the game at that point. In a tense match like this, even a weak player like me experiences a massive decompression of tension when the game ends, getting the game face back on is not easy. Second, no doubt, whether intentionally or not, Mr. Silt would have had time to completly comprehend the position making his chances of making a mistake under time pressure extremely remote.

I think this was a very tense situation. I am sure Mr. Silt said it was an accident - and none of us here can truly cast any doubt on his word. Similarly, I think commenting harshly on Mr. Dinershteyn, who did nothing wrong in this game, is extremely harsh.

that is some poor reasoning from you
a game is not finished until the last move
you are saying that it is Alex fault that his opponent makes an illegal move while he was about to lose? nice logic!(not)

In most CHN/JPN/KOR major tournament rules, an illegal move=a automatic forfeit
the rule used in EGC is rather strange

I'm definitely on Alex's side..i think you all should be
If you are clearly winning on the board before the game is finished, you better make sure that you actually FINISH the game, if you make a blunder it is nobody's fault but yours

Nope, it is the other way around. Automatic forfeit due to illegal move is strange.

One of the goals of a tournament rule set should be to make sure that as many games as possible are finished on the board. The more often a forfeit is necessary, the more broken your rules are.

So the only cases where forfeit is unavoidable are cases of deliberate cheating or cases where a player does not show up at all.

Accidental illegal moves should be taken back, and the game should be resumed.

Also, running out of byoyomi time should be a force pass, not a forfeit, that is just strange.

ok so you are telling me that, if Im about to run out of time and I need more time, I can just play an illegal move because it will be taken back according to the rules?

illegal moves are ILLEGAL because there must be some punishment
imagine if there is no red card in a soccer game, what will it become?
In the rules used by EGC apparently the punishment is TOO weak to the point that there is no punishment

stop giving me that "Go is a graceful art, we want the game finished rather than a player punished"
Remember, Go is a competitive sport, and the allowance of illegal moves does not comply with sportsmanship in the first place

Yes. If you find yourself fighting a ko in byo-yomi and need more time, you may get away with illegally taking the ko to get more time. Once. After that, the referee will probably use their discretion to disqualify you.

Yes, what you're hearing is the sound of European Go descending into anarchy.

Edit: capitalization.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Agreed, but Silt didn't make a legal move that was a blunder, he made an illegal move. Illegal moves are covered by the rules of the game.



The rules in place for the EGC (i.e. the Simplified Ing Rules and the tournament regulations) are the only ones that matter. Arguments about whether the rules are strange or consistent with the practices of other countries can be made another day, but for right now such arguments are irrelevant.

I can't find a clause in the Simplified Ing Rules that deal with illegal moves. There is translation of the Ing rules (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/KSS.html) that indicates illegal moves can be undone without penalty, but there is another (http://www.usgo.org/resources/Ing%20Rules%202006.pdf) indicating a forfeit. Perhaps the EGC tournament regulations say something definitive?

OK, thanks for clarifying that

so the EGC is like hosting the World Cup without the existence of red card.
I wouldn't be surprised if players even start killing each other, real funny

I will say it one more time,
If you consider Go as pure art, don't host a serious championship, just play with your friends/family/dog/whatever
If you host a championship, you better have some proper rules, and it is CLEAR that the current rules suck.
reason: why do you think illegal moves are called illegal? Because you are NOT allowed to play them
If you play them, you lose the game, simple as that
Why can't some people understand? driving me crazy..I better quit this thread..

Shhh! We're not supposed to discuss Silt pointing a gun at Dinerchtein until after the investigation is done. Who on Earth are you even talking to?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I favor having rules, and having penalties for breaking those rules, such that a player cannot profit by deliberately breaking them.

Often breaking the rules can have an up side for the player who does it. If the penalty does not have enough down side, then breaking the rules becomes profitable, and anarchy results. On the other hand, if the penalty has a lot more down side, then we will find players sometimes being penalized disproportionately for honest mistakes. So it is possible to err in either way when writing the rules.

A good rule should be just strong enough to prevent a player from profiting by breaking it. ( Measuring 'profit' includes not only the direct benefits on the board, but also the difficult to measure side effects such as disrupting your opponent's concentration. )

In the case of filling a ko, loss of the move seems sufficient.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Nope, sorry. Deliberate cheating results in a forfeit.



That is backwards. You can argue that there must be some punishment because a move is illegal, but the other way around is just nonsense.



Imagine if soccer didn't punish accidental fouls, like an accidental hand ball? Oh wait, they don't.



The current rules of the EGC sometimes punish innocent mistakes. They are, if anything, not lenient enough.



Players should be punished for cheating, not for innocent mistakes. That has nothing yo do with "graceful art", or any such nonsense, it is a concept that is applicable to anything, not just go.



You've got that backwards. Sportsmanship is what happens when you go beyond the rules. In this case, sportsmanship would have been if Dinerchtein had said: "Uhm, Ondrej, it's not your turn to take the ko, could you take that back and play elsewhere?"

The really classy way for Dinerchtein to handle it would have been to take the ko again himself. This gives Salt the opportunity to play as if nothing had ever happened.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207