Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

xed_over wrote:And I'm surprised they used Ing rules, and not AGA rules (though it wouldn't have changed the dispute).

Most people didn't like the Ing scoring method. We were told by one of the officials that it was OK to count using the Japanese scoring method, if both opponents agreed in advance.

That does explain better the "spirit of the Cotsen", I suppose, but it just reinforces my surprise all the more at not using AGA rules -- which can be scored using Japanese or Chinese scoring methods without changing the score.

kokomi wrote:I think you need to give a stone when passing under AGA rules? So it won't affect the results? I'm not sure, I'm very bad at understanding different rules...

by playing a pass stone instead of the dame, he still would have lost the point(s) needed to win.

the pass stone, then, is in effect a reminder of losing a point if there might still be points on the board.

oren wrote: The purpose of the rules should be ...

to help people play the same game.

if the rules aren't followed, then the players could be playing a different game (as was obviously the case here)

oren wrote:
Most people are accustomed to playing with "Japanese" rules.

This is not that true. Most chinese people doesn't know 'Japanese' rules well. Even chinese pro sometimes forgets that one needs to keep captured stones under Japanese rules.

I agree with xed_over and kirby. A rule is a rule.

xed_over wrote:...
...
Maybe we need more definition around the "spirit of the Cotsen".
...

I'll try to define by example:

In my last game, I won by one-half point. Because it was so close, we counted twice. We shook hands afterwards and both agreed that it had been a great game. We immediately cleared the board and started post game analysis.
After that, he circled HIS number on the game report slip, and handed it to me to sign. I - as gracefully as I could - told him that I had won. I repeated the counting that we had done, 10 points here, 40 there 10 here, 10 there, etc. He thought about it for a few seconds, and agreed. And without change in demeanor, he circled my number, and signed his name.
Having won or lost the game was of little consequence to him. What mattered was that we played a good game that both of us enjoyed. Playing the game was most important. Analyzing how we could have played better was next. Winning or losing was last.

BTW, there was no way that he could have been trying to cheat. It had been a fighting game with both players in byo-yomi, and we had observers standing around from mid-game through counting. He genuinely had not realized who had won.

oren wrote:

xed_over wrote:I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

I disagree with your disagreeing.

Most people are accustomed to playing with "Japanese" rules. Due to these rules, you can pretty much play a complete game with anyone else and not have major issues. The purpose of the rules should be to let people play Go against one another and not cause changes of the scoring due to someone not understanding them. Tournaments as you know have a variety of people show up and very few will know all the issues with Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA rules, so I agree with the decision. I like AGA rules, but I would not agree that someone who accidentally passes early should be penalized for it on their first time using it.

I would agree with you completely, oren, if they both agreed to using Japanese scoring prior to the start of the game. As I understand it, no such agreement was made, so by default, Ing scoring is used.

However, again, I felt like this was a casual tournament, so I would doubt that the loser of the game is losing sleep over it (although, I don't really know for sure).

kokomi wrote:Other than this one, you have EGC clock one, you have the Kim-Lu captured stone one. This were what happened in the last 3 months.

No. It was maybe what you recall from the last 3 months. E.g., during the EGC alone there were many clock disputes.

What was that Kim-Lu issue?

This game is ' the rule is very simple game' when i was first introduced to it.

Either it was true or it was false, depending on whether you were introduced to simple rules or it was only pretence for difficult rules.

I wonder if chess get the same situation that people do not agree with the result for this or that reason now.

The (Western) Chess world is said to have unified its rules - the Go world has not done it yet. Your rhetorical question distracts from the issue of having to know which rule system one is playing under in every tournament game.

You doubt the 'many' I said,

I do not doubt it but it could mean anything from 2 per game to 2 per year world-wide. I.e., without context it was a meaningless statement.

then what frequency do you think is ok for this kind of problem to come over and over again?

I prefer the rules to be unified; then the frequency would converge to 0.

ALA the rules are not unified and different tournament games are played under different rules, the "problem" may occur as often as players are stupid enough to disregard checking which rules they are playing under before the tournament (game). Go is not a game "If the score is close, then try to win by weak referee's decision." but Go is a game "The scoring system is known, then the game produces a score according to it.".

Kirby wrote:We were told by one of the officials that it was OK to count using the Japanese scoring method, if both opponents agreed in advance.

Such a statement alone is risky. Firstly one might confuse counting and scoring. Secondly for AGA Rules such a statement would be understood as using either counting procedure; in an American tournament under Ing rules, the statement's implication unclear: Does it refer to AGA Rules style counting variatin of Area Scoring or does it mean to change to Japanese style rules entirely or does it mean to change to the Japanese style rules' scoring but otherwise play under Ing rules...? However, in the dispute game the players do not appear to have agreed on changing to Japanese counting / scoring / whatever, so for their game Ing style was still valid.

If the referee wanted to construct a careless context, then his proper decision should have been "Default jigo because of unclear rules declaration by the organizers".

oren wrote:Most people are accustomed to playing with "Japanese" rules.

This statement is too general.

Due to these rules, you can pretty much play a complete game with anyone else and not have major issues.

Nonsense. It is even possible to have a major dispute before the game start about which Japanese rules are meant to be in use.

The purpose of the rules should be to let people play Go against one another and not cause changes of the scoring due to someone not understanding them.

See my reply related to unified rules.

Tournaments as you know have a variety of people show up and very few will know all the issues with Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA rules

If a tournament has such a variety of rules newbies, the tournament organizers can explain the used / allowed rules to the players at the tournament start. Or at least explain the key differences and, if the tournament is a rather careless one, they might add "if rules rarities would alter the winner, then the game will be default jigo". (But dame is not a rules rarity. They ought to explain the value of dame.)

Joaz Banbeck wrote:we had observers standing around from mid-game through counting.

Depending on the observers, cheating might still be possible. As a kibitz, I once noticed such but I had not counted the board before so I was not sure enough (about one of the players very quickly revealing an extra hidden prisoner) to call a referee.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Kirby wrote:We were told by one of the officials that it was OK to count using the Japanese scoring method, if both opponents agreed in advance.

Such a statement alone is risky. Firstly one might confuse counting and scoring. Secondly for AGA Rules such a statement would be understood as using either counting procedure; in an American tournament under Ing rules, the statement's implication unclear: Does it refer to AGA Rules style counting variatin of Area Scoring or does it mean to change to Japanese style rules entirely or does it mean to change to the Japanese style rules' scoring but otherwise play under Ing rules...? However, in the dispute game the players do not appear to have agreed on changing to Japanese counting / scoring / whatever, so for their game Ing style was still valid.

If the referee wanted to construct a careless context, then his proper decision should have been "Default jigo because of unclear rules declaration by the organizers".

I agree that it was ambiguous. In fact, even the time settings were ambiguous. On the paper that was handed out, the time settings were, I think, 40 minutes plus 5 periods of 45 seconds. But listed on a poster, it said that the period was 40 minutes plus 5 periods of 30 seconds (it might be the other way around). The person setting the clocks started setting clocks to 45 seconds byo-yomi, and the announcer said that byo-yomi was 30 seconds.

I actually played some games with 30 seconds byo-yomi, and some with 45.

So I think that some things, including the aspect of agreeing to Japanese rules before playing, were somewhat ambiguous - which is part of the reason that I felt that the tournament rules were very laid back.

However, despite this, I still feel that if the players did not agree to playing with Japanese scoring prior to playing, the default assumption is that Ing scoring should be used.

I'm glad the issue was resolved the way it was, but still, with many good arguments on both sides of the dispute, you have to admit the situation with the rules of Go in general is less than ideal.

RobertJasiek wrote:

kokomi wrote:Other than this one, you have EGC clock one, you have the Kim-Lu captured stone one. This were what happened in the last 3 months.

No. It was maybe what you recall from the last 3 months. E.g., during the EGC alone there were many clock disputes.

What was that Kim-Lu issue?

I do not doubt it but it could mean anything from 2 per game to 2 per year world-wide. I.e., without context it was a meaningless statement.

No? What do you mean I 'recall'? You mean there's more that I don't know? Maybe. lol.

For the Kim-Lu issue, please go to the Professional sub-forum for more information.


I think i have explained you 'many' and stated that that's nothing to do with numbers. If you insisted a number in your understanding, say 2 per game (?, do you mean 2 disputes per game? o.O...) or whatever, I can not stop you from doing so. But saying it 'meaningless' is apparently very subjective, please take it back to your own sentence.


Btw, which of my questions is 'rhetorical'? I thought they were simply questions.

Funny because I played in a tournament (only once, I'm just a beginner) and I was never told which rules were used for scoring. I used territory scoring without giving it much thought. I just checked the website of that tournament, and the one were I'm planning to go next month, and couldn't find out anywhere which rules are used for scoring. Time and komi were specified, but nothing else.

If someone then suddenly told me I lost because of not filling dame, I would be clearly annoyed. It's also the organizer's duty to communicate this kind of things if they want to apply rules strictly. 'Course I don't know how they communicate it at Cotsen.

RobertJasiek wrote:

kokomi wrote:You doubt the 'many' I said,

I do not doubt it but it could mean anything from 2 per game to 2 per year world-wide. I.e., without context it was a meaningless statement.

Jasiek: please define meaning, in an essay written outside of this thread. Pay careful attention to a variety of 20th century sources from each of philosophy, linguistics, and the foundations of math, including post 1951 material.

or is it ?