1001 GoGoD Games for your Coffee Break #62 (1 Apr 2013)

[Bill Spight]

Sorry to be dense, but could you please clarify exactly which rule was in dispute here? Maybe my view is too modern, but I would think that as long as a player still has legal moves available, and his or her time has not run out, then he or she is free to continue playing. I don't see how one player can unilaterally declare the game to be over. Or is it that, under traditional rules, if the higher ranked player said the game was over, then play must stop? Or is it that when play continued, Ito should have had an opportunity for a board move, rather than losing a move through passing? Thanks for any clarification.

At that time there were no written rules, although I think that there were some Nihon Kiin Bylaws that covered some rules questions. The game ended by agreement. As it did when I learned to play. Ending play by consecutive passes is new. Ito could not unilaterally declare the game over. And indeed, she did not. Takeda continued to play. By indicating that she thought that the game was over, Ito did not relinquish her right to play. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYearKo%2FRulesCrisis for the earlier case where Segoe suggested that the game was over, and when Takahashi did not agree, Segoe played a stone. Ito could have, as well. There was even a dame she could have filled. She stuck by her guns.

[tundra]

.

[Bill Spight]

Thanks, Bill. But I am still puzzled... Ito and Takeda did not reach agreement after move 250, so play continued. What is so unusual about this, that the game should be submitted "...to the Nihon Ki-in Rules Committee, where Shinohara Masami certainly did give it his attention"? (Quoting John Fairbairn, in the first post.)

First, it is unusual. Even as an amateur, I do not remember a time when an offer to end the game was refused. (Except once in a teaching game when, as Black, I had something that I wanted to try out.)

I can think of a couple of reasons why it might have been referred to the rules committee. The question of what to do when the players do not agree to end the game had not been decided by the ruling in the Segoe-Takahashi dispute. The ruling was obviously political in nature. Also, there was an open question of what to do with unresolved kos. Go Seigen was involved in two unresolved ko situations later in the century. In this game Takeda proved that Ito needed to make a protective play. But was that all? This game was obviously grist for the mill, like the rules beasts of today.

[tundra]

.

[Bill Spight]

Okay, but in case I'm overlooking something, are there any unresolved kos in this game, when black has played move 249? White filled in a ko at move 248, and of course a ko fight develops after move 250. But when Ito proposed the end of game at move 250, I don't think there were any unresolved kos on the board. Am I missing something?

Well, she did not think so, but there was. Had the game ended at move 250 under today's rules, both players might have lost. (I do not know of any instance where that has happened, but the rules contemplate it.) Remember, with no written rules, anything funny about the end of the game needed to be considered.

[Bill Spight]

Corrected an error in the SGF file in #15.

[mithra]

Maybe offtopic, but is B B3 really a ko threat?
After W tenuki, B B4, W C5, B A2, W A3, B has nothing.
What do I miss?

[Bill Spight]

Maybe offtopic, but is B B3 really a ko threat?
After W tenuki, B B4, W C5, B A2, W A3, B has nothing.
What do I miss?

Good catch! It threatens only one point. D-01 becomes a Black sente instead of gote.

In the real game White would have done better to ignore it and fill the ko, for White +9. More evidence that White misread the position.

Edit: In the variation, if White ignores it and fills the ko, the result is White +7 instead of White +9. It makes a 2 point difference because Black has not made the second approach move yet. (The approach moves are inside White territory.) I am adding these variations to #15. Many thanks, mithra!

[mithra]

You're welcome, Bill
Surprising that ignoring B3 is correct in the first line but not in the second