EGC Drama

[softbank]

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.

well, maybe he is rather lucky, as in both cases the game was already clearly decided on the board and in both cases he was losing

that is some poor reasoning from you
a game is not finished until the last move
you are saying that it is Alex fault that his opponent makes an illegal move while he was about to lose? nice logic!(not)

In most CHN/JPN/KOR major tournament rules, an illegal move=a automatic forfeit
the rule used in EGC is rather strange

I'm definitely on Alex's side..i think you all should be
If you are clearly winning on the board before the game is finished, you better make sure that you actually FINISH the game, if you make a blunder it is nobody's fault but yours

[HermanHiddema]

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.

well, maybe he is rather lucky, as in both cases the game was already clearly decided on the board and in both cases he was losing

In most CHN/JPN/KOR major tournament rules, an illegal move=a automatic forfeit
the rule used in EGC is rather strange

Nope, it is the other way around. Automatic forfeit due to illegal move is strange.

One of the goals of a tournament rule set should be to make sure that as many games as possible are finished on the board. The more often a forfeit is necessary, the more broken your rules are.

So the only cases where forfeit is unavoidable are cases of deliberate cheating or cases where a player does not show up at all.

Accidental illegal moves should be taken back, and the game should be resumed.

Also, running out of byoyomi time should be a force pass, not a forfeit, that is just strange.

[softbank]

ok so you are telling me that, if Im about to run out of time and I need more time, I can just play an illegal move because it will be taken back according to the rules?

illegal moves are ILLEGAL because there must be some punishment
imagine if there is no red card in a soccer game, what will it become?
In the rules used by EGC apparently the punishment is TOO weak to the point that there is no punishment

stop giving me that "Go is a graceful art, we want the game finished rather than a player punished"
Remember, Go is a competitive sport, and the allowance of illegal moves does not comply with sportsmanship in the first place

[hyperpape]

Yes. If you find yourself fighting a ko in byo-yomi and need more time, you may get away with illegally taking the ko to get more time. Once. After that, the referee will probably use their discretion to disqualify you.

Yes, what you're hearing is the sound of European Go descending into anarchy.

Edit: capitalization.

[pwaldron]

If you are clearly winning on the board before the game is finished, you better make sure that you actually FINISH the game, if you make a blunder it is nobody's fault but yours

Agreed, but Silt didn't make a legal move that was a blunder, he made an illegal move. Illegal moves are covered by the rules of the game.

In most CHN/JPN/KOR major tournament rules, an illegal move=a automatic forfeit
the rule used in EGC is rather strange

The rules in place for the EGC (i.e. the Simplified Ing Rules and the tournament regulations) are the only ones that matter. Arguments about whether the rules are strange or consistent with the practices of other countries can be made another day, but for right now such arguments are irrelevant.

I can't find a clause in the Simplified Ing Rules that deal with illegal moves. There is translation of the Ing rules (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/KSS.html) that indicates illegal moves can be undone without penalty, but there is another (http://www.usgo.org/resources/Ing%20Rules%202006.pdf) indicating a forfeit. Perhaps the EGC tournament regulations say something definitive?

[softbank]

Yes. If you find yourself fighting a ko in byo-yomi and need more time, you may get away with illegally taking the ko to get more time. Once. After that, the referee will probably use their discretion to disqualify you.

Yes, what you're hearing is the sound of European go descending into anarchy.

OK, thanks for clarifying that

so the EGC is like hosting the World Cup without the existence of red card.
I wouldn't be surprised if players even start killing each other, real funny

I will say it one more time,
If you consider Go as pure art, don't host a serious championship, just play with your friends/family/dog/whatever
If you host a championship, you better have some proper rules, and it is CLEAR that the current rules suck.
reason: why do you think illegal moves are called illegal? Because you are NOT allowed to play them
If you play them, you lose the game, simple as that
Why can't some people understand? driving me crazy..I better quit this thread..

[hyperpape]

so the EGC is like hosting the World Cup without the existence of red card.
I wouldn't be surprised if players even start killing each other, real funny

Shhh! We're not supposed to discuss Silt pointing a gun at Dinerchtein until after the investigation is done.

I will say it one more time,
If you consider Go as pure art, don't host a serious championship

Who on Earth are you even talking to?

[Joaz Banbeck]

I favor having rules, and having penalties for breaking those rules, such that a player cannot profit by deliberately breaking them.

Often breaking the rules can have an up side for the player who does it. If the penalty does not have enough down side, then breaking the rules becomes profitable, and anarchy results. On the other hand, if the penalty has a lot more down side, then we will find players sometimes being penalized disproportionately for honest mistakes. So it is possible to err in either way when writing the rules.

A good rule should be just strong enough to prevent a player from profiting by breaking it. ( Measuring 'profit' includes not only the direct benefits on the board, but also the difficult to measure side effects such as disrupting your opponent's concentration. )

In the case of filling a ko, loss of the move seems sufficient.

[HermanHiddema]

ok so you are telling me that, if Im about to run out of time and I need more time, I can just play an illegal move because it will be taken back according to the rules?

Nope, sorry. Deliberate cheating results in a forfeit.

illegal moves are ILLEGAL because there must be some punishment

That is backwards. You can argue that there must be some punishment because a move is illegal, but the other way around is just nonsense.

imagine if there is no red card in a soccer game, what will it become?

Imagine if soccer didn't punish accidental fouls, like an accidental hand ball? Oh wait, they don't.

In the rules used by EGC apparently the punishment is TOO weak to the point that there is no punishment

The current rules of the EGC sometimes punish innocent mistakes. They are, if anything, not lenient enough.

stop giving me that "Go is a graceful art, we want the game finished rather than a player punished"

Players should be punished for cheating, not for innocent mistakes. That has nothing yo do with "graceful art", or any such nonsense, it is a concept that is applicable to anything, not just go.

Remember, Go is a competitive sport, and the allowance of illegal moves does not comply with sportsmanship in the first place

You've got that backwards. Sportsmanship is what happens when you go beyond the rules. In this case, sportsmanship would have been if Dinerchtein had said: "Uhm, Ondrej, it's not your turn to take the ko, could you take that back and play elsewhere?"

[Joaz Banbeck]

The really classy way for Dinerchtein to handle it would have been to take the ko again himself. This gives Salt the opportunity to play as if nothing had ever happened.

[Horibe]

I favor having rules, and having penalties for breaking those rules, such that a player cannot profit by deliberately breaking them.

Often breaking the rules can have an up side for the player who does it. If the penalty does not have enough down side, then breaking the rules becomes profitable, and anarchy results. On the other hand, if the penalty has a lot more down side, then we will find players sometimes being penalized disproportionately for honest mistakes. So it is possible to err in either way when writing the rules.

A good rule should be just strong enough to prevent a player from profiting by breaking it. ( Measuring 'profit' includes not only the direct benefits on the board, but also the difficult to measure side effects such as disrupting your opponent's concentration. )

In the case of filling a ko, loss of the move seems sufficient.

While I agree with Joaz on there being some penalty, his suggestion is a slippery sufficiency.

As applied to double digit kyu games, and people new to tournaments, the rule applied in this case makes sense.

As applied to two very strong veterans like this, I am not so sure.

Joaz's suggestion would keep Mr. Silt the winner in this instance.

The AGA rule of a 3 pt penalty would make the game pretty close - 2 or 3 pts I think, but Mr. Silt would still be ahead.

The problem with the loss of move penalty is that it would often be game ending, the equivalent of forfeit for many kos in the middle of the game - the ko is lost with NO compensation. Clearly in many instances, this would lead to lost games for what Joaz calls "honest mistakes".

The stronger the player, the less comfortable I am with no penalty, the weaker the players, the more I agree.

The AGA rule is somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is something - not game ending in a middle game major ko, a stinging slap in a tight endgame ko and almost undetectable by a double digit kyu player.

I certainly prefer this to Joaz's suggestion - where the impact of the rule varies widely with the game position.

EDIT Ok, so I appear to be talking nonsense. I just checked the AGA rule, in fact it is Joaz's suggestion +. An Illegal move is removed and treated as a pass (both moves if you play twice in a row) which results in an additional one point penalty for a pass stone.

[Psychee]

It does not seem actually true. According to what I read on SL at least in China the illegal move would have been considered a pass ...

I don't understand under this rule what happens in this case.

Player A takes ko directly without finding a threat, and it is considered a pass. Then what can player B do? Can he take ko back, which is illegal but will be considered another pass? and B again and A again?...If he can not, he will need to find a ko threat somewhere else? But then later player A can do this again, so player B is in an endless finding ko threat position?

[softbank]

ok so you are telling me that, if Im about to run out of time and I need more time, I can just play an illegal move because it will be taken back according to the rules?

Nope, sorry. Deliberate cheating results in a forfeit.

illegal moves are ILLEGAL because there must be some punishment

That is backwards. You can argue that there must be some punishment because a move is illegal, but the other way around is just nonsense.

imagine if there is no red card in a soccer game, what will it become?

Imagine if soccer didn't punish accidental fouls, like an accidental hand ball? Oh wait, they don't.

In the rules used by EGC apparently the punishment is TOO weak to the point that there is no punishment

The current rules of the EGC sometimes punish innocent mistakes. They are, if anything, not lenient enough.

stop giving me that "Go is a graceful art, we want the game finished rather than a player punished"

Players should be punished for cheating, not for innocent mistakes. That has nothing yo do with "graceful art", or any such nonsense, it is a concept that is applicable to anything, not just go.

Remember, Go is a competitive sport, and the allowance of illegal moves does not comply with sportsmanship in the first place

You've got that backwards. Sportsmanship is what happens when you go beyond the rules. In this case, sportsmanship would have been if Dinerchtein had said: "Uhm, Ondrej, it's not your turn to take the ko, could you take that back and play elsewhere?"

OK you are right about everything, you can correct other people sentence by sentence, impressive!(not)

the biggest flaw in your long essay is that
how is Alex the only person who doesn't have sportsmanship?
tell me how do you know Ondrej is not deliberately cheating? According to your ridiculous theory

[Marcus]

It does not seem actually true. According to what I read on SL at least in China the illegal move would have been considered a pass ...

I don't understand under this rule what happens in this case.

Player A takes ko directly without finding a threat, and it is considered a pass. Then what can player B do? Can he take ko back, which is illegal but will be considered another pass? and B again and A again?...If he can not, he will need to find a ko threat somewhere else? But then later player A can do this again, so player B is in an endless finding ko threat position?

I believe that in this case, the illegal move is undone, so the ko is not actually taken, and White now has the opportunity to just fill the ko with impunity.

[shapenaji]

While I agree with Joaz on there being some penalty, his suggestion is a slippery sufficiency.

As applied to double digit kyu games, and people new to tournaments, the rule applied in this case makes sense.

As applied to two very strong veterans like this, I am not so sure.

Joaz's suggestion would keep Mr. Silt the winner in this instance.

The AGA rule of a 3 pt penalty would make the game pretty close - 2 or 3 pts I think, but Mr. Silt would still be ahead.

The problem with the loss of move penalty is that it would often be game ending, the equivalent of forfeit for many kos in the middle of the game - the ko is lost with NO compensation. Clearly in many instances, this would lead to lost games for what Joaz calls "honest mistakes".

The stronger the player, the less comfortable I am with no penalty, the weaker the players, the more I agree.

The AGA rule is somewhat arbitrary, but at least it is something - not game ending in a middle game major ko, a stinging slap in a tight endgame ko and almost undetectable by a double digit kyu player.

I certainly prefer this to Joaz's suggestion - where the impact of the rule varies widely with the game position.

EDIT Ok, so I appear to be talking nonsense. I just checked the AGA rule, in fact it is Joaz's suggestion +. An Illegal move is removed and treated as a pass (both moves if you play twice in a row) which results in an additional one point penalty for a pass stone.

An illegal move registering as a pass MIGHT be game-ending, but at least it's not CERTAINLY game-ending.

Right now I see a lot of folks (softbanks I'm looking at you), referring to the asian ruleset.

There are two problems:

1) No one has actually linked to the asian ruleset, so everyone seems to be arguing with anecdotal evidence of it.

2) It doesn't matter what the asian ruleset is, both players agreed to play in a tournament under the European ruleset. The only thing that matters is how THAT ruleset governs illegal moves.



As far as the argument regarding the time, Does any ruleset make judgements based on the time remaining?