Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

[entropi]

Everytime I heard the neighbour boards clock saying "last ... seconds ..." I could not resist looking at my clock how much time I had left.

Then trying to remember the variation I was trying to read, sometimes doing it all from scratch. This can also be as disturbing as having to constantly check in byoyomi.

And byoyomi is byoyomi, i.e. additional time. It may naturally require constant checking because you are anyway not supposed to play as comfortably as in your main time.

I don't know if it is written somewhere in the rules that the clock has to warn the players but if not, then it is just a bad habit to rely on it. If you have used up all your time, it is still your responsibility.

What about kanadian byoyomi, would you expect the clock to count your stones or would you check them yourself?

[Harleqin]

And byoyomi is byoyomi, i.e. additional time. It may naturally require constant checking because you are anyway not supposed to play as comfortably as in your main time.

I have been fighting this misconception for years now. A player either has time left or not. Hassling a player for using a specific portion of his time is nonsense.

It has been established that sudden death, i.e., a fixed amount of time for an unfixed number of moves, does not work out. That is why some portion of a player's time is only allotted to him in connection with moves made. The use of this time is by no means "extra" but has to be seen as a portion taken from the overall thinking time. Intentionally making the use of this time "uncomfortable" is contrary to the spirit of sportsmanship.

[entropi]

The use of this time is by no means "extra" but has to be seen as a portion taken from the overall thinking time. Intentionally making the use of this time "uncomfortable" is contrary to the spirit of sportsmanship.

The idea is not making it uncomfortable. If you have a limited amount of time, it will inevitably be uncomfortable towards the end of it, regardless of whether it is byoyomi or sudden death main time.

If it is possible to reduce this ratio uncomfort, without disturbing other players, it is all fine with me. If not, then it is a trade-off between the comforts of different players.

In case it is found that the clocks are really required to warn the players because it is too difficult to check their own time, then the rules should be amended accordingly.

[topazg]

I also find talking clocks pointlessly disruptive. I'm sure my opponent and the tables next to me would be unhappy if I sat there calling out the seconds left as his clock went low, and I don't see the difference.

I can see going over to digital clocks, because it can be very hard to tell if you have 40 seconds left or 1 minute 50 seconds left if you aren't used to seeing how long it takes for the pin thing to drop, whereas on a digital display it is easy at a glance. However, I would instantly vote against talking clocks in a tournament I'm involved in, and would think twice about attending one with talking clocks at all (it probably wouldn't affect my decision, but it would certainly be a substantial negative factor that would affect which way I decide).

I think people are entirely responsible for managing their time, and that includes checking how much time is left on the clock when appropriate. I do see the argument for people with poor sight, and I would not have the slightest problem having a talking clock for their benefit, that also says 30 minutes left, 25 minutes left at whatever intervals works, but the majority of Go players are not in this position. There is a Go player who is a fairly regular attender at UK tournaments who has difficulties in placing the stones on the board, and so calls out the move and has someone assist him by placing the stones. I likewise have no problem with this, but for the most part minimising each table's impact on the next seems reasonable to me.

[Cassandra]

I've seen games where people with difficulty seeing have been helped by their opponents when using tick-tock-only analogue clocks, but whether such sportsmanship can fairly be expected when big prizes are around is hard to say.

Can it be sportsmanlike to have an additional handicap for one of the players, especially in a game that uses handicap stones to match the players strength ?

Go is a competion of minds,
not of hands (someone who is motor skill impaired should get some additional time to make the use of "hands" between both players even),
not of eyes (someone who cannot locate if the flag has fallen or not should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support),
not of ears (someone who has difficulties in realising what a "talking" clock says should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support).

As I mentioned before, when "big prizes" are there to lay a smoke screen around the players mind (and put their sportsmanship into the dark), it is mendatory to have both players agree that one of the surrounding cirumstances of their match has changed, e. g. Byoyomi has started.

[Kirby]

...
Maybe the most fundamental point is that a bad workman always blames his tools?

I like this quote. I think it fits the situation well.

Go is a competion of minds,
not of hands (someone who is motor skill impaired should get some additional time to make the use of "hands" between both players even),
not of eyes (someone who cannot locate if the flag has fallen or not should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support),
not of ears (someone who has difficulties in realising what a "talking" clock says should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support).

If you want a competition that doesn't require attention to the clock, play without clocks - or with very long time settings.

Tournament go often involves timekeeping skills.

[Peter Hansmeier]

What else is there to consider in a further appeal?

1. The clock was working and set correctly (according to the original post).
2. Both players knew the time limits and were aware of the penalty of exceeding the time limit.
3. A player ran out of time and therefore lost.

Nothing else seems relevant to the inquiry, except perhaps the fundamental law spanning all of Sport throughout time of not wanting referees to interfere with the proper result of games. Dinerchtein would probably acknowledge that he got lucky if he had a poor position on the board, but he has no moral obligation to offer his opponent an additional byo-yomi period or a new game.

Is there something I am missing?

In the meantime, we should comfort the loser (losing on time is a horrible thing has happened to us all) and get to work on that earbuds idea (and maybe some sort of vibration notification system for the deaf).

[Javaness]

What else is there to consider in a further appeal?

1. The clock was working and set correctly (according to the original post).
2. Both players knew the time limits and were aware of the penalty of exceeding the time limit.
3. A player ran out of time and therefore lost.

Nothing else seems relevant to the inquiry, except perhaps the fundamental law spanning all of Sport throughout time of not wanting referees to interfere with the proper result of games

There are things to consider...
1. Previous rulings
2. The idea of byoyomi is that it is reading seconds, there is supposed to be an audible countdown
3. Did the clock malfunction (the type 2 timer volume slider can move during the game more easily?)

I think it is impossible to give an answer both sides would be happpy with.

[Cassandra]

If you want a competition that doesn't require attention to the clock, play without clocks - or with very long time settings.

Tournament go often involves timekeeping skills.

That's not the question.

If digital clocks should be designed to a "normal" use that would make it "usually" unnecessary to pay constant attention to the time (because there is something like a "beep" as warning signal) but makes it possible to have a constant look on the board, this "normal" use would be inadequate for someone who is audible disabled.

To be fair, you will have to give this diabled player more thinking time. Or a clock at which both players can realize the time be visible means only.

[Kirby]

You can make accommodations for disabled individuals, but if their time runs out, they should still lose the game. I'm not sure I've understood your point clearly. Can you elaborate?

[TMark]

And byoyomi is byoyomi, i.e. additional time. It may naturally require constant checking because you are anyway not supposed to play as comfortably as in your main time.

It has been established that sudden death, i.e., a fixed amount of time for an unfixed number of moves, does not work out.

Most amateur tournaments in the Far East use sudden death and they seem to have no problems. I have actually played in a team tournament in China, again with no problems, because everybody plays under the same conditions. I remember that Takagawa Shukaku said that he allocated one third of his time to the fuseki, one third to the middle game and one third to the end game. Are Western players so disorganised that they can't arrange themselves?

Best wishes.

[Cassandra]

You can make accommodations for disabled individuals, but if their time runs out, they should still lose the game. I'm not sure I've understood your point clearly. Can you elaborate?

You are right, Kirby.

Usually you will have to give compensation according to the level of disability before the game starts. At least to tell what the compensation will be.

This is equivalent to give someone more time in an examination who cannot write as fast as "normal" people. Overtime has nothing to do with his mental abilities. When time (including "additional" time) is over, the paper must be handed out.

May be possible that there is something like "You may write ten minutes on even after the bell has rung.", if it is not possible to start earlier than the others. But even in this case it is necessary to have a clear signal for the start of the "additional" time.

If someone cannot hear the sound of the clock (what may be one core feature of digital clocks), it is fair to tell him that Byoyomi has begun and that he has to pay more attention to the display than before. It would be unfair to let him go through Byoyomi without signal and probably have him (unnoticed) lost by time after the first (or even several successive) period(s) of Byoyomi.

May be that this oversight can happen even to an experienced player, due to the stress in an important match.

But in one of his posts, breakfast mentioned that there had been already played about 30 moves in Byoyomi. If this is true, this case has to be evaluated in a different manner. Lets assume 30 moves in Byoyomi (of 1 minute) be at least 15 minutes in total. During this time span a player must realize that his thinking time does not decrease any more (what means that he is in Byoyomi). So if move 31 is not in time, the player has lost.

There has nothing been told about the display beeing faulty or the clock having another malfunction. So if there had been sound or not is irrelevant.

It would be relevant if there had been sound in the beginning of Byoyomi, but suddenly vanished, but this would mean a malfunction of the clock.

[John Fairbairn]

Confucius recommended: First check the names.

Nobody has yet remarked that Dinerchtein twice referred to van Zeijst, who is hardly a nonentity in European go, as van Zeist. Getting your opponent's name wrong seems worthy of losing a game

Obviously I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek, but what it brought to mind was a book published by a group of European players (last year?) who were all bidding to be pros. I was utterly dismayed by the abysmal quality of the proofreading (the writing and the layout weren't much better). I don't see how you can hope to be a successful pro if that's how you treat your prospective customers.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but I see it as all part of the "strong players" mix.

[Kirby]

...

If someone cannot hear the sound of the clock (what may be one core feature of digital clocks), it is fair to tell him that Byoyomi has begun and that he has to pay more attention to the display than before. It would be unfair to let him go through Byoyomi without signal and probably have him (unnoticed) lost by time after the first (or even several successive) period(s) of Byoyomi.

...

I think that I understand your point. I pretty much agree with you, I think. I think it is good sportsmanship, and also fair, to let a player know that they have entered byo-yomi.

Whether it is a requirement is debatable, I guess. I suppose that, if losses due to missing byo-yomi periods is enforced, it should be made clear at the onset of the tournament (eg. "The clock may not make a sound, but you are still responsible.").

I am in favor of enforcing time strictly, and giving a clarification of such at the start of the tournament. First, it seems consistent with some other rulings that have already occurred. Second, it prevents any sort of strategy to abuse accommodations made to users that run out of time.

I have run out of time in a tournament, by the way. There may have been sound enabled on the clock, but I was concentrating too hard to hear it.

I guess a good resolution might be to clearly define what constitutes a "malfunction" of the clock, and what is on the other hand, the responsibility of the player.

If these things are more clearly defined, there can't be much argument after the fact.

[Harleqin]

It has been established that sudden death, i.e., a fixed amount of time for an unfixed number of moves, does not work out.

Most amateur tournaments in the Far East use sudden death and they seem to have no problems. I have actually played in a team tournament in China, again with no problems, because everybody plays under the same conditions.

I suspect that the problems are just not perceived. Does anyone have statistics about time losses and/or time usage in these games?

I remember that Takagawa Shukaku said that he allocated one third of his time to the fuseki, one third to the middle game and one third to the end game.

That is certainly a good way to allocate one's time, but I think (I may be mistaken) that the japanese professionals always have played with their only minute-precise time accounting, i.e., the time used per move is rounded down to the next minute (the origins of byoyomi lie herein).

I propose the following experiment: During a game with tournament time settings, let yourself be interrupted at a random time. Without looking at the board or clock, answer the following questions:

• How many moves have been played so far?
• How many moves will be played from now until the end of the game?
• How much time has elapsed?
• At which phase is the game now (early/middle/late opening/middle/end game)?

Then record the board and the clock at this time and complete the game. How accurate were your answers?

Are Western players so disorganised that they can't arrange themselves?

Your post could have been so useful without the name calling.