EGC 2012 ?WMSG 2

[willemien]

in ranka online it is said that the [sl=IMSA]IMSA[/sl]is planning to hold the 2nd [sl=WMSG]World mind sport games 2[/sl] in Manchester UK.

At the same time the European Go Congress 2012 is planned in Cologne Germany.

Is it not better to organise both in Manchester. the EGC just before the WMSG? (as warming up rounds?)

[Javaness]

Neither Chess nor Go in the UK knows anything about this IMSA plan, so I think it is possible that is a made up illusion.

[willemien]

Neither Chess nor Go in the UK knows anything about this IMSA plan, so I think it is possible that is a made up illusion.

Evben worse the information is on the [sl=IGF]IGF[/sl] website but on the IMSA website Ii cannot find anything (the last recent news on the IMSA website is from beginning 2009)

[Javaness]

Yes, quite. I looked at their website to see if their might be some truth to these rumours. Well - there was nothing. Of course, it's probably better just to contact one of them to find out the truth.

[TMark]

This was announced at the IGF AGM in Hangzhou in May. As far as I could remember it was meant to be held between the Olympics and para-Olympics. I do not know who will be carrying out the organisation of it on the ground.

Best wishes.

[RobertJasiek]

Supposing that the WMSG are to be held in Europe, I suggest that all contribute to that: The national games associations, the EGF, other Europeans wishing to help. E.g., unless the date coincides with the EGC, I could help with Go rules, Go (tournament) rules documents, and Go referee education. There just needs to be some sort of organization that gets things running and asks people to help with organization. Before nothing can be done.

[Javaness]

I emailed the IMSA to ask about the games, but I have received no reply after more than a week.

[willemien]

Supposing that the WMSG are to be held in Europe, I suggest that all contribute to that: The national games associations, the EGF, other Europeans wishing to help. E.g., unless the date coincides with the EGC, I could help with Go rules, Go (tournament) rules documents, and Go referee education. There just needs to be some sort of organization that gets things running and asks people to help with organization. Before nothing can be done.

What rules were used during the first WMSG? (at your website I missed the importand Appendix A)

my preference would be:
- area scoring
- no pass stones
- situational superko
- maybe two button go

[Harleqin]

What rules were used during the first WMSG? (at your website I missed the importand Appendix A)

As far as I recall, the WMSG rules were in principle equivalent to Ikeda AIII, i.e.:

- area scoring (with Ing counting)
- last move compensation ("button")
- Superko (but with all kinds of "political" "ifs and whens")

[willemien]

What rules were used during the first WMSG? (at your website I missed the importand Appendix A)

As far as I recall, the WMSG rules were in principle equivalent to Ikeda AIII, i.e.:

- area scoring (with Ing counting)
- last move compensation ("button")
- Superko (but with all kinds of "political" "ifs and whens")

I found appendix A on Roberts website it is on the tournaments rules page http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/turrules.html

As I read it is not a - last move compensation ("button") but a first pass compensation.

Unfortunedly there is no example where the first pass in not the last move, but it can be possible.

Also I am not so sure about the "uneven dame " rule (but I need to think about this)

The naming of the winning territory can be cruel (as in figure 1, Black has the winning territory but still loses by 1/2 point, not very winning) maybe the score should be B- 0.5 instead of W + 0.5

the rules seem to use positional superko but it could use some more words.

Cyclic Ko

A cyclic ko happens when three or more ko’s appear simultaneously or
when other repetitive situations involving multiple stones, such as “eternal life”,
occur. The principle for handling them is always the same: before placing a
stone that would cause a repetition of the board position, the player must play
away from the repetitive cycle.

the end o the game is not very clear (unclear text in bold

Section 5 Ending the Game
Two consecutive passes signal that both players believe that there are no
more points to contest for in the game. The game of placing the stones in
alternation comes to an end and the competition is over. Then:

1. The two players remove dead stones by mutual agreement. The game
ends when all the dead stones have been agreeably removed.

2. In case of disputes on the life and death of any of the stones or the
rights to the vacant points, either player may propose to resume the play and
continue in the original order, until there are two consecutive passes again and
the game comes to its end. In this case, all stones remaining on the board are
alive.

3. Play may only be resumed to confirm the life or death of stones and the
rights to the vacant points enclosed by the living stones. If one or both players
find other contestable points on the board after two passes, those points shall
be left as they stand and are evenly divided between the two players.

see even area rules are open to complexities

[Harleqin]

As I read it is not a last move compensation ("button") but a first pass compensation.

It is the same. With "last move", I refer to the last move before the first pass (Ikeda calls this the "last competitive move"), so it does not matter whether you give the button to the player who passes first or to the opponent of the player who played the last move. I like to think of it as a possible compensation for White if Black gets one more board play than White (it is somehow related to komi, which is a "first move compensation" for White because Black gets to play first). As far as I recall, the interaction with the Ing counting was not very intuitive.

The rules seem to use positional superko, but it could use some more words.

I would not say "more words" but "better words". The problems in wording seem to come mostly from political discussions.

The end of the game is not very clear (unclear text in bold).

Section 5 Ending the Game
Two consecutive passes signal that both players believe that there are no
more points to contest for in the game. The game of placing the stones in
alternation comes to an end and the competition is over. Then:

1. The two players remove dead stones by mutual agreement. The game
ends when all the dead stones have been agreeably removed.

2. In case of disputes on the life and death of any of the stones or the
rights to the vacant points, either player may propose to resume the play and
continue in the original order, until there are two consecutive passes again and
the game comes to its end. In this case, all stones remaining on the board are
alive.

3. Play may only be resumed to confirm the life or death of stones and the
rights to the vacant points enclosed by the living stones. If one or both players
find other contestable points on the board after two passes, those points shall
be left as they stand and are evenly divided between the two players.

See, even area rules are open to complexities.

You can always introduce needless complexities by bad wording.

"Original order" can only have one sensible interpretation, even if this wording is lacking explicitness. The second snippet is just a common treatment of "mistakenly unfinished" games. I think that it is entirely superfluous, but you will find analogous provisions in both japanese and korean rule sets (I am not sure about chinese).

The important thing, however, is that this is the first truly international rule set that representatives of all major Go nations could agree on! It will take a while, but I am optimistic that the minor details can gradually be cleared up and streamlined through careful and unassuming discussion.

[willemien]

willemien wrote:
As I read it is not a last move compensation ("button") but a first pass compensation.

Harleqin:

It is the same.
With "last move", I refer to the last move before the first pass (Ikeda calls this the "last competitive move"), so it does not matter whether you give the button to the player who passes first or to the opponent of the player who played the last move. I like to think of it as a possible compensation for White if Black gets one more board play than White (it is somehow related to komi, which is a "first move compensation" for White because Black gets to play first). As far as I recall, the interaction with the Ing counting was not very intuitive.

The main difference is that the first pass can happen before the last move. (for example teire moves or an opponent that wants to play out all dame and threats) and so one player can do both of them.

So if white makes the first pass and has the last move what then?

But i do like the Ikeda rules (especially area III)

Unfortunedly Robert has only written about the Territory 1 rules, i don't know in how far his comments also apply to Area III)

[Harleqin]

With "last move", I refer to the last move before the first pass (Ikeda calls this the "last competitive move").

The main difference is that the first pass can happen before the last move. (for example teire moves or an opponent that wants to play out all dame and threats) and so one player can do both of them.

No. Please look up the meaning of "refer" in your favourite dictionary. I really just wanted to clarify that with "last move" I do mean the "last competitive move", which is defined as the last move before the first pass.

I am just talking about the button rule, really.

[willemien]

Indeed you refered to the lastt competetive move.

But onfortunedly the rules did not.
( and in general commentaries may only explain the rules not alter them)

[Harleqin]

Indeed you referred to the last competetive move, but unfortunately the rules did not.
(and in general commentaries may only explain the rules not alter them)

The rules say: "If White passed first, White shall receive an additional compensation of 1 point."

I do not see what else this could mean but a simple button rule.