EGC Drama

[mw42]

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

In my opinion, considering that Ondrej was ahead and the ko, with regard to the result, was meaningless, this is poor sportsmanship by Alexander. Any opinions? Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the go tournament scene -- are these types of disputes common?

Here is the match for those interested: http://gokifu.com/s/m61-gokifu-20110726 ... 7d%29.html

[pwaldron]

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

Whatever the rules about illegal moves are, they should be enforced.

The Ing rules at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/KSS.html, however, imply that the referee's decision was correct; accidental illegal moves are retracted and the game continues. The case of an accidental ko recapture is even given as an example of the situation. Not sure if the simplified Ing rules follow the same, but I would assume they do.

[masek]

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

In my opinion, considering that Ondrej was ahead and the ko, with regard to the result, was meaningless, this is poor sportsmanship by Alexander. Any opinions? Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the go tournament scene -- are these types of disputes common?

Here is the match for those interested: http://gokifu.com/s/m61-gokifu-20110726 ... 7d%29.html

It's very special case. Currently there are no tournament info on official page. We can not assume who was right/wrong. All will be decided by judges of the EGC tournament.
I think the game was totally very nervous from mental stability hard to play.

[Solomon]

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

[masek]

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

It should be clear for us:) let's see how judges understand this

[jts]

How many incidents of questionable sportsmanship has Dinerchtein been involved in?

[Dusk Eagle]

I can understand why Alexander might act the way he did in the heat of the moment. The referee initially declared that he won, only to reverse the ruling. This may have caused quite a bit of confusion. Alexander then, knowing that he could not win on the board, resigned, and perhaps because of the confusion stated that he would appeal the ruling. From what's been said here, we cannot know how politely or rudely this all was done, and we also cannot know what cultural or language difficulties may be getting in the way here. I don't want to judge Dinerchtein before I know all the facts in this case.

Hopefully the rules will be applied properly and this incident will be forgotten.

[quantumf]

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

Personally, I think this is a ridiculous application of the rule. "players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation" - weird dame technicalities, fine, but are you suggesting that the players here are not familiar with ko fights? I'm very much in the Dinerchtein camp on this one.

[masek]

How many incidents of questionable sportsmanship has Dinerchtein been involved in?

It was last year some case with clock,
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1666&p=31785

[user23845]

Everyone gives quote from Ing's SST Rules of Go (2006). Is it really the ruleset of the tournament?
On page Rules of play EGC 2011 I can see "Simplified Ing Rules and Japanese fill-in counting". On senseis page about Simplified Ing Rules there is link to this ruleset http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/siming.html. I didn't find there any information about how illegal moves are handled.
Do I miss something?

[Vesa]

The EGF General Tournament Rules apply regardless of the rules set used.

See: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm

and paragraph 4.3. Illegal Move

"If a player makes an illegal move, and if this is noticed within three moves, then the game should be unwound to the move just before the illegal move, and continued. The referee may allow an adjustment of the time."

I cannot imagine any other conclusion than that the appeal is useless.

Cheers,
Vesa

[HermanHiddema]

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

(emphasis added)

Could it be that Ing is referring here to the 1980 Meijin tournament, where Cho Chikun asked the game recorder whether it was his turn to take the ko, and the game recorder incorrectly told him that it was?

Regardless, I do not think Alexandre's appeal has much merit, and I would be surprised if it was ruled in his favor. Then again, I felt the same about the time dispute last year.

[p2501]

Its possible that Alexander was unaware of how illegal moves are handled according to EGF Tournamentrules. As he stated on gosensations.com in asia an illegal move equals a forfeit. This plus the fact that a previous ruling of the judge was later overruled may be why he said he wants to appeal.

It's not unlikely that he appealed, since the 3rd round results are not up yet.

edit:

Could it be that Ing is referring here to the 1980 Meijin tournament, where Cho Chikun asked the game recorder whether it was his turn to take the ko, and the game recorder incorrectly told him that it was?

I guess.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?OtakeHideoChoCh ... galCapture

[lovely]

This guy really can't take a loss can he? I just learned about what happened last year and I've lost a lot of respect for him now. Just play the game man. Don't rely on technicalities to win.

[Psychee]

But neither of them was initiated by him? It wasn't him who ran overtime, neither was him who played an illegal move? I'd say he's rather hapless.