Shake, rattle and rule

[John Fairbairn]

The rules for professionals are governed by a preamble that tells them games have to be played in the right spirit.

When Go Seigen played mimic go against Kitani, those rules had not yet bean written. Still, Kitani got very upset, even though the moves played by Go were technically legitimate.

It is possible to go on and on, giving examples and counter-examples. Ultimately, all games, even pro games, are expected to be played within the prevailing culture. Since cultures evolve, there must be a point at which some players go against the grain. What makes them do that? Outside pressures from the wider culture. The commonest example is probably an increase in money prizes.

But we cannot always be sanguine evolution under such pressures. They lead also to things like drugs and cheating with AI (one good reason for trying to "maintain standards".

[Kirby]

Ultimately, all games, even pro games, are expected to be played within the prevailing culture. Since cultures evolve, there must be a point at which some players go against the grain.

This is a good point - culture has a large impact on what is the honorable, courteous, or "right thing" to do. As a side note, the word, "evolve", in cultural evolution, seems to suggest a growing and/or positive change. Both in go and in society, while there are clear changes in culture, those changes are not purely good...

Maybe it means I am getting older. Or maybe my memory is faulty about what I used to think to be good.

It'd be cool to have a time machine.

[mhlepore]

As a bit of a tangent, American football is a game that is driven by a clock. After 60 minutes of play, whoever is ahead wins. If a team is winning by a small margin and has the ball at the end of the game, it can "kneel down" with the ball and run out the clock.

For many years I had never heard anyone complain of this aspect of the game as unsportsmanlike. Until a few years back, that is, when Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones got mad and said teams with the ball should have to act in a spirit consistent with being on offense, and that referees should punish teams that kneel to run out the clock. Aside from that outburst, I never heard anything else about this again. The majority of fans see the clock as part of the strategy.

Indeed, in the Super Bowl a few years ago, the Atlanta Falcons jumped out to a big lead (28 to 3, I believe) on the New England Patriots. If Atlanta had only ran the ball more, it would have essentially run off enough clock to make it impossible for New England to come back. But New England did come back and win. It is referred to as one of the greatest cases of clock mismanagement ever. That is, it is expected that strategy/tactics will be informed by the clock.

[CDavis7M]

And I think that is really it. If there is a clock in a variant of a game and there are rules and results based on the clock, then it is in the "spirit" of the clock-based game to use clock-time strategies to win the game.

[Knotwilg]

I agree with most here that, while a perfectly legal tactic, it won't bring Sin into the realm of the legends - but is this really a distinguishing feature, or a one-off like Go Seigen's mimic Go? Go Seigen is a go saint and the incidental experiment, flirting with the ethics, didn't take away anything of his status. Lee Sedol is another legend, but he fell out with his professional organization on multiple occasions ...

It really depends on your personal preferences. In tennis I much prefer Federer's shot making over Nadal's power and Djokovic' tenacity. Federer also plays in a graceful fashion, while I hate Nadal's tics, grunting and delaying tactics. Likewise I dislike Djokovic' bouncing the ball 15 times before serving, or his bizarre preference for pseudo-science. BUT, I also like Djokovic' applause for a good shot by the opponent, something Federer hardly ever does.

I know the tennis personalities a little better than today's Go personalities, hence the deviation (amd John F. mentioned John McE. already). Eventually, the pros will live by their records, legendary events and the impact they made on the rest of the Go world. Since Lee Sedol, only Ke Jie has made such an impression on me, while Iyama Yuta has dominated the Japanese scene in almost unprecedented fashion and Shibano Toramaru has written books on new insights that stand out, despite his young age. Perhaps this "cynicism" is precisely what will give Sin that little extra to join that list.

At least we're talking about him.

[pajaro]

As a bit of a tangent, American football is a game that is driven by a clock. After 60 minutes of play, whoever is ahead wins. If a team is winning by a small margin and has the ball at the end of the game, it can "kneel down" with the ball and run out the clock.

In American football, basketball, soccer... the end of a game is determined by a clock.
In tennis, badminton... the end is determined by a result (in points). There is no clock (other than to control rest, serve time...)
In go, shogi, chess... the end is determined by a situation on the board. The clock is not an intrinsic part of the game. But it makes it possible to have a reasonable competition. Shusai vs Mitani over days and weeks is not something we want to have again

I more or less agree with culture being an important part here. What a player is considered good or bad depends upon when and where the action happens. But I also think that if you want to be not only a winner but a legend, you can't do certain things.

[Mike Novack]

In go, shogi, chess... the end is determined by a situation on the board. The clock is not an intrinsic part of the game. But it makes it possible to have a reasonable competition.

I'm not sure that is strictly speaking true. A FORMAL clock might not be an intrinsic part of those games but there still needs to be a requirement "to make a move in a reasonable amount of time". Otherwise the end would not be determined by the position on the board alone. It would be possible to NOT end in a decision if the player likely to lose simply refused to make a move.

[Kirby]

In American football, basketball, soccer... the end of a game is determined by a clock.

In go, shogi, chess... the end is determined by a situation on the board

Artificial/arbitrary distinction.

[ez4u]

...
In go, shogi, chess... the end is determined by a situation on the board

Or by a clock, whichever comes first!

[John Fairbairn]

Quite a few people seem to take the view that clocks are an integral part of the game. I think it would be better to regard them as a bolt-on; or even as go-faster decal stripes on a car.

The true rules of the game are the walls and roof of a house created by a builder. A (temporary) owner can come along and decorate the house as he sees fit. He can then sell up and another owner will probably then re-decorate the house to his own taste, leaving the walls and roof intact.

If we look at go in that light, we can see that handicaps were probably the first decoration, and produced various methods. Komi followed. It too has varied, and is still not entirely stable today. It began as an integer, but when players were suspected of contriving jigos to get extra game fees, the half-point was introduced.

Time controls were introduced when players were suspected of try to win games through staying power (notably Kogishi Soji, who once took a game to 73 hours). But again various time controls were tried. There is a world of difference between 3 hours each with the last 5 minutes as 1-minute byoomi and the NHK system of 30 seconds a move except that 1 minute is allowed on 10 occasions. Then there is Ing: you don't lose on time; instead you buy extra time by giving up points. All these methods were used for different reasons. Originally, in Kogishi's day it was not just a question of stamina but the fact that the sponsoring newspaper had deadlines and wanted moves to be played in time to be published. The NHK system derived from the need for games to fill a certain time slot on radio, then tv. Ing, a businessman, wanted to push his creed that time is money.

Then there was the introduction of sealing moves. White had been considered to be abusing the privilege of adjourning games at his own convenience.

Today we have the range of protocols designed to prevent cheating (impersonation, consultation, AI, etc). No doubt soon we will also have urine samples.

All these features were introduced NOT because of any flaw in the basic rules (walls and roof) but because of bad behaviour by players, and they all vary according not just to that bad behaviour but according to external requirements of e.g. sponsors.

They are therefore pure decoration. They are NOT integral to the house. They simply co-exist and can be changed. They have a different nature and should be treated as such.

And even with these extra controls bad behaviour has remained rife. The coffee gambit - offering your opponent a coffee when he is in time trouble. Blowing cigarette smoke in his face. Or Sakata picking his toe nails as his opponent thought. Senior players glaring at junior timekeepers to make sure they counted byoyomi VERY, VERY slowly. Of course, you are perfectly free to regard all these things as just "part of the game." But I don't. They are just decoration, and my taste does not extend to painting ceilings chocolate brown, as a secretary of mine once did.

[schrody]

Try, for example, to put yourself in the position of Ke Jie when Sin Chin-seo made (was it?) a first-line move in the opening because a trailing mouse wire had accidentally activated his keyboard. From what I saw and read, Sin did not ask for a take-back (kudos for that, in my view). [...]

What would have been your instinct - gentleman or sportsman? I imagine this question comes up almost daily for many people here, especially if they play online. What do you do when your opponent asks to take his move back and it's obvious it's not a clicko? If you say yes, what do you do if he asks a second time?

I almost never ask for undos but almost always grant them, this includes ranked online games and online tournaments. There were many cases where I wasn't sure whether the opponent's move was truly a missclick but have still clicked that OK button because I was able to convince myself that learning is more important than winning. I don't remember when was the last time someone asked for multiple undos so I can't really say how many undos is too many. I suppose it depends on the situation. Needless to say, I'd offer Shin an undo without a second thought and were that not allowed I would've "missclicked" as well to even out the playing field.

I was prompted in my thoughts, as it happens, by the book Kamakura, which I recently finished revising. In Game 1, Kitani collapsed with a nosebleed while under time pressure. Go Seigen appeared to show no concern and did not offer to postpone play. He was heavily criticised for his "heartless" behaviour, even by people he might consider his friends. [...]

But if you had been Go when this incident happened, what do you think you would have done in the heat of the moment? Gentleman or sportsman? I think I would have stopped the game at once, but wouldn't have considered myself a gentleman. I would have just regarded myself as a "normal" person. But that's with my own range of experiences, not Go's.

Of course I would've stopped the clock. Speaking in terms of current EGF tournaments, if we're allowed to stop the clock to go to the bathroom, I think stopping it when someone's clearly not feeling well is more than reasonable and at least within the spirit if not the letter of the rules.

I thought it used to be quite common when in Japanese 30/60 second byoyomi to play a forcing move or two so that you had enough time to count up the score accurately.

Is this not another example of using the clock as part of the game?

Jon

I'd say there's a difference between using and abusing the clock. I've used timesujis while in byoyomi to count whether it's time for me to resign. I'm also not bothered if people use them to determine the best move since timesujis come with a cost of at least one ko threat and potentially one or more points.

Ultimately, what we need to decide is the type of game we want go to be. Do we want it to be closer to snooker where many players call fouls on themselves when the referees miss them and applaud each other's good shoots or closer to soccer where taking a dive is the norm and hockey where brawls are commonplace. My personal preference, of course, is the former. However, if the latter wins, I suppose I'll have to up my insult game and learn how to dodge chairs and boards.

[Kirby]

Quite a few people seem to take the view that clocks are an integral part of the game. ...
Of course, you are perfectly free to regard all these things as just "part of the game." But I don't.

I don't believe it to be the case that there is a single game here, so it doesn't make much sense to discuss "the game".
Go with Ing Rules with basic time limit of 2 hours is a different game than go with AGA Rules having basic time limit of 30 minutes. Both are different than a game having no time limit whatsoever. Even holding the time settings constant, variations in rulesets can produce different game variations as well (e.g. bent 4 in the corner implications).

All can be played, and many overlapping strategies may exist.

Some may prefer a game having no time limits, and that's fine. Likewise, given the sports analogy from earlier, some may prefer to play basketball without time limits - maybe first team to 100 points wins. Also fine. Just a different game, with potentially different strategy.

[Knotwilg]

I'm also not bothered if people use them to determine the best move since timesujis come with a cost of at least one ko threat and potentially one or more points.

I'm regularly making this kind of trade off. I can see why someone would take offence at it but next in the spectrum are forcing moves and thank you moves.

It's also not uncommon for me to have a corner space which I think lives in ko but not 100% sure. If the opponent does a do-or-die there in byoyomi then it's up to me to live up to the bet I made, while the odds are in my favor. If I dread such a risk, I should add a stone, or devote some time to reading it out before entering byoyomi.

I think the original point was not so much whether these tactics are proper, since we can only speculate what the intentions of our opponent are, but whether it's a sign of honesty to reveal these intentions post fact or a form of bragging/cynicism.

[Elom0]

Quite a few people seem to take the view that clocks are an integral part of the game. I think it would be better to regard them as a bolt-on; or even as go-faster decal stripes on a car.

The true rules of the game are the walls and roof of a house created by a builder. A (temporary) owner can come along and decorate the house as he sees fit. He can then sell up and another owner will probably then re-decorate the house to his own taste, leaving the walls and roof intact.

If we look at go in that light, we can see that handicaps were probably the first decoration, and produced various methods. Komi followed. It too has varied, and is still not entirely stable today. It began as an integer, but when players were suspected of contriving jigos to get extra game fees, the half-point was introduced.

Time controls were introduced when players were suspected of try to win games through staying power (notably Kogishi Soji, who once took a game to 73 hours). But again various time controls were tried. There is a world of difference between 3 hours each with the last 5 minutes as 1-minute byoomi and the NHK system of 30 seconds a move except that 1 minute is allowed on 10 occasions. Then there is Ing: you don't lose on time; instead you buy extra time by giving up points. All these methods were used for different reasons. Originally, in Kogishi's day it was not just a question of stamina but the fact that the sponsoring newspaper had deadlines and wanted moves to be played in time to be published. The NHK system derived from the need for games to fill a certain time slot on radio, then tv. Ing, a businessman, wanted to push his creed that time is money.

Then there was the introduction of sealing moves. White had been considered to be abusing the privilege of adjourning games at his own convenience.

Today we have the range of protocols designed to prevent cheating (impersonation, consultation, AI, etc). No doubt soon we will also have urine samples.

All these features were introduced NOT because of any flaw in the basic rules (walls and roof) but because of bad behaviour by players, and they all vary according not just to that bad behaviour but according to external requirements of e.g. sponsors.

They are therefore pure decoration. They are NOT integral to the house. They simply co-exist and can be changed. They have a different nature and should be treated as such.

And even with these extra controls bad behaviour has remained rife. The coffee gambit - offering your opponent a coffee when he is in time trouble. Blowing cigarette smoke in his face. Or Sakata picking his toe nails as his opponent thought. Senior players glaring at junior timekeepers to make sure they counted byoyomi VERY, VERY slowly. Of course, you are perfectly free to regard all these things as just "part of the game." But I don't. They are just decoration, and my taste does not extend to painting ceilings chocolate brown, as a secretary of mine once did.

Well, I'm not sure for others, but my belief that time is part of the game is based on the 'laws' of special relativity discovered by Einstein and also another mathematician whose name I don't quite recall (interestingly, Einstein ended up racing with a mathematical duo searching for general relativity too). When you are motionless in space, you move at the speed of causality in time. When you are motionless in time--like photons and other weightless particles are--you move at the speed of causality in space. So the next time someone says you don't exercise enough, you can tell them that you move at the speed of light through space! (from your perspective, of course )

All games of go that have ever been played were played within time limits. Before human-created clocks were introduced, making the other person tired might be abusing the biological clock. All games have a clock limit of the number of years the player with the least years left to live has, so if you postpone the game indefinitely and wait for your opponent to move on to the next life, that's abuse of the biological clock. Is it not? There is no difference between infinity per move and an empty board that is not actually a game. We assume in all rulesets any time limit, so long as it's finite.

Everything else however I would definitely agree with. People might delude themselves into thinking more restrictions on people's behavior, more petty laws on anything thing that might be slightly unfair, is the best thing to do in this type of thing, but in my view, we have pros for a reason.

[John Fairbairn]

but in my view, we have pros for a reason.

Not only do I agree, but I think this is the defining point of the whole debate.

Most sporting activities (I include go and chess) have two broad aspects: contest and spectacle. For most non-pros who take an interest in the activity, one aspect or the other tends to dominate. It is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of right or wrong. Likewise, the proportions of interest in each aspect vary according to the individual.

But what is certain is that is that when it comes to sponsored sport, the spectacle element is necessary. Gambling go among pro gamblers can survive without spectacle - indeed, the participants would probably prefer to remain entirely hidden. But when sponsors, or club owners or the like, are involved, money-spending fans are necessary.

Spectacle fandom can also be broadly split into two elements. There are those who like to follow favourite players, and for them statistics can play an important part (how many titles has X won, etc). And there are those who don't know how many goals Messi has scored, or how many Ballons d'Or he has won, but they just like to watch him dribble his way through even the best defences. Of course, there will also be many who like to keep an interest in both elements, but my impression is that the dribble-oglers are in a big majority.

If we transfer this thinking to go, we can say that the reason we have pros is to produce game records, preferably of Messi-like quality. When spectacle fans play over games, they usually don't know what the time limits are, and quite possibly don't even care. Or what the prize money was. All they really care about is the quality of the game.

But the contest fan has different priorities. He actually wants to play the game himself, and become good at it. He may even dream of becoming a pro. He looks at pros playing with different eyes. He is not specially looking for quality; he is looking for angles he can use in his own play. So, in go terms, if he sees a pro successfully use a time suji or (or even drugs or AI), he is inclined to copy that. Never mind the quality, feel the width.

I personally find this a little bit of a problem in go (and chess) because it is an activity where it is so easy to join in as a contestant. If you are a baseball fan and want to play, you generally need to get some expensive equipment, find a lot of other players, and go somewhere far away to play. The result is that most fans in baseball, by far, are spectacle fans, not contest fans.

In go and chess it is quite different. Equipment costs are trivial, and essentially non-existent online. You need just one other person. And you can play in bed. I would estimate that the result is that contest fans of go far, far outweigh spectacle fans. Certainly in the west, but probably also in the Orient.

If that analysis is correct, I'd further expect that most go fans here would likewise tend towards the contest mentality (I am very firmly in the spectacle camp, however). Indeed, I think that is borne out by the type of discussions we get here. More often than not, it seems to me, we don't get true discussion, by which I mean trying to share ideas. We tend, instead, to get nit-picking and attempts at point scoring. The quality of the debate thus suffers. As it happens, on L19 we don't get much quantity to compensate. We do get a lot of "width," though: threads can deviate from the OP in the space of one reply! I will concede, however, that the present thread has been more than reasonable in all respects. So, we know it can be done...