When I was a teenager I had pretty bad acne. (I know, it's a shocking admission from someone who later on took up go as a hobby.) I complained to the dermatologist that the medicine he was giving me didn't seem to be helping much. I'll always remember his response: "how do you know it's not working? What if I were to tell you that without it you'd be 5 times worse?" I was tempted to stop taking the medicine just to prove he was wrong, but I chickened out. I still don't know if he was blowing smoke, but I didn't want to test it.

All I can say is that every Go Congress I go to, the in-person translators seem to be working like dogs, constantly translating lectures and helping foreign professionals, organizational officials, and regular attendees get around. And I've seen them defuse a few arguments with patience and aplomb, too. That's a lot to ask from volunteers, and they don't always get thanked much. So I'd like to thank them here, for what it's worth.

These language conflicts and miscommunications might be 5 times worse without them. Maybe ten. How can we know? Well, I hope we don't test them...

But yes, printed materials would make their lives easier as well as everyone else's.

If I were writing tournament rules, I would either require both players to keep a game record, or (preferably for amateurs, IMO) I would require play to continue after a claim of a repetition of a position, and for another repetition to confirm. Yes, it gives the opponent a chance to deviate and maybe do better, but that is true if no claim is made.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

----

Edit: Double button go, I should mention, is used with territory scoring. I was quoting a post that I accidentally clobbered, in which that is made clear. The double button concept allows players to play life and death out without problems using territory scoring instead of area scoring. Thanks, Herman!

----

Actually, the double button implements nicely. There are two buttons, one in which Black only gives a pass stone and one in which White only gives a pass stone. In terms of the count, they cancel out. We simply require the first player to pass to take the button where he gives a pass stone. Here is how it works.

Each player gives a pass stone when passing, except if the same player makes the first and last pass. In that case she does not give a pass stone when making the last pass.

For example, suppose that the territory score difference is 7 pts. in favor of Black, and White gets the last dame. Then Black passes, handing over a pass stone and then White passes, handing over a pass stone. Each player has taken a button, although that is not obvious. The result remains the same. Similarly, suppose that the territory score difference is 6 pts. with Black getting the last dame. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone and then Black passes, handing over a pass stone. The result remains the same.

Now suppose that we have a situation where White takes a 1 pt. ko but Black has no ko threat and no dame to play, and she passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White fills the ko and Black passes again, handing over a pass stone. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone. White gains an extra point, unlike current Japanese rules, but as both Honinbo Shusai and Go Seigen thought was right.

Hmmm. It's not so easy to get the same player to make the first and last pass, is it? How about an attempted pass fight? Black passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White plays a threat that Black must answer. After Black answers, White passes, handing over a pass stone. Then Black passes, but since he passed first, does not hand over a pass stone. White gains nothing from the attempted pass fight.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Just to clarify: are people saying that in games without a 2-1 seki, one final play inside your own territory will never cause you to lose under Japanese rules? or that taking the last dame will never cause you to win under Chinese rules?

No. Territory scoring rules have nearest scores differing by 1 point, even if the seki parity is the same. A 0.5 win becomes a 0.5 loss by playing your final play inside your own territory.

Sort of, except currently Japanese rules have 6.5 komi, and the argument was about 5.5 or 7.5 komi.

I was influential in getting this article published in the AGA E-Journal today:
http://www.usgo.org/news/2013/09/only-a-passing-matter/

Good to raise awareness! I like this statement (if it can be verified as I'm not sure what "reported" would mean...?)

"The Congress game between Matthew (Zi Yang) Hu 1p (w) vs Yuhan Zhang 7d (b) (U.S. Go Congress Recap/Preview: Wednesday, August 7 8/6 EJ; click here for the game) is the first reported example since AGA rules were introduced in 1991."

It means that no one else has yet documented (or otherwise mentioned it to Terry ) any other official example where the two different counting methods could appear to reverse the winner.

In the phrase "the only reported" or "the first reported", "reported" usually means known rather than alleged.