Life In 19x19

Bartleby wrote:Who is to say who is right?

Anyone.

p2501 wrote:I can absolutely visualize you having been involved in more than average.

The last count revealed on average 1 dispute per year. This, from my observation of frequencies of disputes in other players' games (about 1 per 50 tournament games), is not above the average, maybe it is even below the average.

Almost all of my disputes were related to trivia, such as the tournament organisers having set a wrong byoyomi, my Ing clock's second pressing of the button (as recommended by tournament organisers for Ing clocks) interpreted by the referee as a second move in succession and thus illegal, my opponent leaving stones without liberties on the board, my opponent removing stones on my time, my opponent being 23 minutes late and complaining that his clock was running for already 3.5 minutes etc.

Only a few disputes were really interesting, and they occurred because the rules were written too badly or had important gaps.

With proper rules, good tournament organisation and opponents refraining from creating trivia, my dispute rate in tournaments would drop to 1 per 5 or 10 years, although I play a good number of tournament games (incl. such in side tournaments) per year.

topazg wrote:* Sportsmanship is subjective

It is not solely subjective, because referees should be consistent and predictable in their decisions. A sportsmanship decision on one game and some on another game must be comparable rather than contrary to each other.

as he followed the tournament rules perfectly well.

This is a simplification because the Ing 1991 Rules are still ambiguous to some extent.

people still feel strongly enough to debate about a judgement in a single game played over 10 years ago

My concern still vivid over 10 years later is the fear to be involved again in a dispute with unpredictable referee decisions.

RobertJasiek wrote:

topazg wrote:* Sportsmanship is subjective

It is not solely subjective, because referees should be consistent and predictable in their decisions. A sportsmanship decision on one game and some on another game must be comparable rather than contrary to each other.

I won't pick this up, because I think we have a different defition of the word sportsmanship

RobertJasiek wrote:

as he followed the tournament rules perfectly well.

This is a simplification because the Ing 1991 Rules are still ambiguous to some extent.

They are, but it was clear that even the referee agreed with your interpretation, hence his instruction to Csaba. It's also unlikely that Csaba was aware of that rules clause from his reactions (as opposed to interpreting differently) - At the very least, you followed the most studied interpretation of the tournament rules perfectly well.

RobertJasiek wrote:

people still feel strongly enough to debate about a judgement in a single game played over 10 years ago

My concern still vivid over 10 years later is the fear to be involved again in a dispute with unpredictable referee decisions.

As are other people's. The difference is whether to avoid this dispute by rule usage clarification or some form of appropriate behaviour clarification. I personally think both would help, but at least we can realistically hope to do something about the former

The thing I am irritated about in this thread is that people seem to think that the rules should have been usurped in this case. If so, why have rules anyway if they can be usurped in the name of some nebulous concept? Rules should be enforced as they are during the event, that is the whole reason they exist.
Winning on such an uncomfortable technicality or ambiguity as happened in the game is not a sign to usurp the rules. It is a sign to acknowledge the problem and draft new, better, clearer rules that have no room for such unfortunate circumstances. It is in the best interest of everyone. Of the sportsmanship people's, of folks like me and Robert, of the judges, of newcomers. But that is a task entirely separate from actual rules enforcement in the tournament. In the tournament, Robert was correct, Csaba did not know the rules which he should've and should've lost the game as such. Simple as that.

It's not so simple. There's a context. At the time a form of Japanese rules was in general use (and still is). Mr Ing wanted to replace them with his own rules. He was willing to pay lots of money to do so. Many western players were willing to take the money and pay lip service to his rules, reprehensible though this may be. Almost every western player still cleaved to the previous Japanese-style rules, and if Mero and Jasiek had played a friendly game one evening at the same event, it is highly unlikely that they (or anybody else) would have used Ing rules. In short, in the main Ing event it would seem that everyone except Jasiek realised there was a fiction going on. That is part of why they believe he was trying to win on a technicality.

Even if a problem with Ing rules had been pointed out in advance, most people would not have said, "let's fix it". They would have just seen that as further support for their dislike for Ing rules. All this leads to the mindset accurately described by topazg:

However, despite a judgement in favour of Robert being correct (that is, on the basis that the referee is responsibly simply for enforcing the rules of the tournament to the letter), I feel that it would have been a bad decision. The reason for this is entirely subjective, but it's based on the fact that most tournament attendees are going to play games of Go, have fun, and socialise. The possibility that they may be heading towards a loss by some aspect of the rules of which they are unaware (this particular game ending scenario is, IIRC, unique to Ing, although J1989 and others have their own problems as well) may be strong enough to put people off from attending. I know that as a result of this I wouldn't want to play Robert in a tournament game, and I know plenty of other people who still feel the same way.

It is worth pointing out that Ing rules are accepted by pros for the Ing Cup and certain events within China and Taiwan, and the pros manage to play these games without the charades of the Mero-Jasiek game. For even they are paying lip service. In all events not sponsored by the Ing Foundation, or not under another foreign sponsor's rules, they revert to their own normal domestic rules. Given that, it is easy to understand why amateurs likewise feel that lip service to Ing is good enough, rather than chasing the end of a rainbow by setting up a rules commission to rewrite rules and to cover every eventuality. As Einstein supposedly said, "So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". The laws behind rules are even less certain.

John Fairbairn wrote:accepted by pros for the Ing Cup and certain events within China and Taiwan, and the pros manage to play these games without the charades

Accepted is an exaggeration. Nie Weiping refused to play in the Ing Cup saying that it would not be go any longer.

Are there any reports on how the pros proceed to end their games under Ing 1986 / 1991 / 1996 rules?

Have the pros received information support from the Ing foundation? Western letters to it were not answered regardless of international reply coupons.

RobertJasiek wrote:Nie Weiping refused to play in the Ing Cup saying that it would not be go any longer.

Like your many "historical facts", this one is completely made up.

Hsiang wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:Nie Weiping refused to play in the Ing Cup saying that it would not be go any longer.

Like your many "historical facts", this one is completely made up.

It certainly sounds like it:

http://www.go4go.net/v2/modules/collect ... &start=180

That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.

I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

edit: According to the data on senseis, he took only part in the first one:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?1stIngCup

p2501 wrote:That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.

I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

Yes, it is quite well known that he didn't like the Ing rules, but he clearly did play in at least one of the Ing cups (coming second in the 1st one I believe). My understanding was that his refusal later was based primarily on nationalism-issues, but it all seems to have faded into historical controversy now, so other than asking him directly, I suspect we'll never know. Certainly I have never seen a quite from Nie saying "Ing rules would make the game not Go any more".

IMO here, Robert deliberately quoted a small part of JF's text and then disagreed with a sentiment that JF didn't make.

JF wrote:It is worth pointing out that Ing rules are accepted by pros for the Ing Cup and certain events within China and Taiwan, and the pros manage to play these games without the charades of the Mero-Jasiek game. For even they are paying lip service. In all events not sponsored by the Ing Foundation, or not under another foreign sponsor's rules, they revert to their own normal domestic rules.

Robert's comment only makes sense under the implication that JF had stated that the Ing rules were universally accepted by professionals, which was a claim never made. JF's point that enough pros were happy about them to take part in the events seems eminently true from a) the fact the tournaments happened, and b) the fact some very strong players were present in each. No ruleset is without its detractors, but unless we are to say that all rulesets are considered "not accepted" by any one individual publicly making criticism of them (which means all rulesets, as even Robert's virtually watertight rules update documents have received criticism), I can't see how "accepted" is an exaggeration.

I can't believe I'm being drawn into this, it's not like it really matters whether Robert's right on the acceptability of the Ing rules

As far as I can read (correct me if I'm wrong John), the primary point he was making was that even top professionals managed to play games under Ing rules without this dispute (or similar) ever having arisen in tournament games, and if they can do it, so can he - unlike the example with the timer mentioned earlier, this particular dispute has to be deliberately manufactured.

p2501 wrote:That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.

I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

Straight quote from the first post:

Mr. Nie Weiping is a man of principles. He doesn't like the rules of
Ing Cup and the unfair and discriminative treatment to the China Go
Association players by the Ing Cup organizers, so he refused to play in
the 3rd Ing Cup, which to start in April, despite its most lucrative
prize money. As we all remember, China Go Associaiton boycotted the 2nd
Ing Cup. This time, they made up. But just before the tournament the Ing
organizers set up some strange rules: All 16 of the participants from
the 2nd Ing Cup are automatically seeded players - this significantly
decreases the level of quality of this tournament as the 2nd Ing Cup was
5 (?) years ago and many of those players such as Jiang Jujo are no
longer very good. Plus there are 8 wild-card berths which have to go
thru a "qualifying tournament". 5 of the 8 are given to China. As a
result only 5 out of the 24 participants are from China, while Korea and
Japan can send more. Nie refused to go and gave up a precious opportunity
to achieve his dream of finally winning a world championship. China Go
Association, as expressed by its president Chen Zude, generally agree
with Nie's opinions, but nonetheless appreciates the efforts of Mr. Ing
in promoting the game to the world. So the 5 invitations went to: Ma,
Cao, Liu, Yu, and Zhang, 5 9-dans. Watch out for Zhang Wendong, he is
the darkhorse. Right now he is #2 best in China, very hard to beat.

So Nie Weiping refused to play the 3rd Ing Cup because he didn't like the tournament qualification rules, which allowed only 5 Chinese players out of 24 participants.

This refusal has nothing to do with the Ing rules.

topazg wrote:

p2501 wrote:I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

Yes, it is quite well known that he didn't like the Ing rules, but he clearly did play in at least one of the Ing cups (coming second in the 1st one I believe). My understanding was that his refusal later was based primarily on nationalism-issues, but it all seems to have faded into historical controversy now, so other than asking him directly, I suspect we'll never know. Certainly I have never seen a quite from Nie saying "Ing rules would make the game not Go any more".

From what I've read so far, you are right.

p2501 wrote:That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.
I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

That's a very charitable interpretation of Robert's statement. What Robert did was twisting Nie's objection to the tournament seeding system to say Nie objects to the Ing Rules, as Herman Hiddema pointed out.

Robert's quote "not go any more" is just fabrication.

topazg wrote:JF's point that enough pros were happy about them to take part in the events seems eminently true from a) the fact the tournaments happened, and b) the fact some very strong players were present in each.

With this kind of argument, you would have to conclude that Ing rules were widely accepted in EGF tournaments (because also (a) and (b) were true there every year, although "strong" means strong amateurs rather than strong pros), although

1) a query by Frank Janssen with only the choices "Japanese Rules" and "Ing Rules" available revealed roughly 90% : 10% (I hope that my attempt to vote for Tromp-Taylor Rules was not counted for Ing Rules...)

2) year after year, with a very few exceptions, everybody (other than AGM delegates, except Christoph Gerlach and Matti Siivola) at European tournaments with a stated opinion expressed his great disliking of Ing Rules, Ing stones, Ing boxes and Ing clocks.

Hsiang wrote:Like your many "historical facts",

Which else?

this one is completely made up.

I rely on two or three related statements on rec.games.go a couple of years ago. It is, of course, in principle possible that those statements by others were wrong.

Hsiang wrote:

p2501 wrote:That he played in one does't prove Robert wrong necessarily.
I don't know how much credibitlity it has, but googleing turned up this:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en& ... H3NfQKymXg

That's a very charitable interpretation of Robert's statement. What Robert did was twisting Nie's objection to the tournament seeding system to say Nie objects to the Ing Rules, as Herman Hiddema pointed out.

Robert's quote "not go any more" is just fabrication.

If it was fabrication, then not by me. See above.