Life In 19x19

I think the examples are kind of futile, because whether or not they are relevant or not depends on your prior expectations.

You expect a tennis net to be there if you go to play tennis. Why is this? I would speculate that it's because tennis nets are typically there. People are used to it, so that's what they expect.

Go players are probably used to having boards and clocks provided to them, because that's what they're used to.

Monadology wrote:But Go can even be played without a floor if you have a magnetic board and are in space.

The lesson I learned from this metaphor is that I really want to see tennis (or racquetball) in outer space.

Kirby wrote:Go players are probably used to having boards and clocks provided to them, because that's what they're used to.

I'm not sure why else they'd be used to it.

This isn't a helpful point to make when discussing changes in policy. It may very well be that the policy is that way because people are used to it, but in virtue of suggesting policy changes one is rejecting "people are used to it" as a sufficient justification for that policy.

I really don't think that courts and nets are provided for tennis players is solely the result of the fact that "that's how it's been done, so people expect it." For instance, it's probably the case because the set-up involved would take too long every match, same with the clean-up. It's probably also to ensure that nets and courts meet certain requirements of quality.

Now these reasons might not apply to Go or Chess or whatever. That's a seperate subject, though. Unaffected by what anyone is used to.

Monadology wrote:...
This isn't a helpful point to make when discussing changes in policy. It may very well be that the policy is that way because people are used to it, but in virtue of suggesting policy changes one is rejecting "people are used to it" as a sufficient justification for that policy. ...

I am merely pointing out why the examples may not be applicable. The examples don't always match, because it depends on what a person is expecting when looking at the example, I think.

zinger wrote:
As a result of this "training", I would absolutely never show up to a Go tournament without set and clock (Excalibur for me). To me it sounds like going to a tennis tournament without a raquet, expecting the TD to give me one. Apparently I am the strange one.

As a result, you should go to Go tournament with your own Excalibur every time. And whatever the set/clock they have has nothing to do with you, thus it won't be a reason for your not showing up.

Zinger: What if you insist use one type of clock, while your opponent does not agree with it? Liisa specially dislikes ING clock, so it (s)he meets RJ, that's perfect. But say, if (s)he meets someone who is accustomed to the ING clock. Then dispute?

kokomi wrote:Zinger: What if you insist use one type of clock, while your opponent does not agree with it? Liisa specially dislikes ING clock, so it (s)he meets RJ, that's perfect. But say, if (s)he meets someone who is accustomed to the ING clock. Then dispute?

I do not insist on one type of clock. I prefer pretty much anything other than an Ing clock, and I always offer use of my Excalibur. However, if my opponent has some other preference then I accept it. It's not a big enough deal to dispute.

Liisa wrote:Clear violation is that EGF rules require tournament to be well organized. This is not subjective statement, but good organization means that there is proper EGF approved rules used and there is proper referee who has adequate understanding of rules used.

Problem is that Ing clocks deprive from any head referee ability to make correct decisions according to current rules set. That means in practice that referee cannot acquire adequate understanding of rules applied to all relevant situations, if Ing clocks are used. If referee's ability to make justified decisions is deprived, it means that Ing clock violates EGF rules, because with Ing clock there cannot be well organized tournaments.

Indication for this is that there are three conflicting opinions presented. This kind of situation cannot be possible with well organized tournaments.

Rules should be ok, but used clocks were faulty. However rules do contain small miswording, because there is no such thing as Canadian byouyomi, but only Canadian overtime and Japanese byouyomi. But this is just detail. There can be however practical implications, because when EGF rules refer to a silent clock they are referring to analog clock with Canadian overtime used. When using Japanese byouyomi there should not be allowed usage of silent clocks. Situation is even worse, if sound can be easily disabled by (malicious or ignorant) players.

I think it is taking the Michael to suggest that playing a game with Ing Clocks would invalidate the submission of results to the EGD under Class A. You are on troll level 11 to suggest that well organised isn't subjective. Are you suggesting that all Go players are robots and think alike? Shall we throw out every EGC in history because the first round was late? Get real.

There are few people who like Ing Timers. They are certainly not my favourite clock type and I approve of the decision to remove them. It is difficult in many situations, for a referee to ascertain exactly what happened with all clocks types unless he has been watching the game.

I am about 70% in favour of the official decision, as I do consider it to be a player's duty to check the clock is working properly. Mainly I am swayed by the agreed fact that both players had managed to get in some moves during overtime. However, if the clock could have been shown (with more than 50% likelihood) to have malfunctioned, or I found a player had sneaked the volume down to 0 during byoyomi I would certainly act in accordance with Mr Salo. (During the EGC I heard some evidence of malfunctions, and I have certainly witnessed an Ing timer malfunction myself.)

In general, I think the EGC should always maintain a referee (or more) in the top player's room, and this referee should be actively monitoring the games.

For reference:
(Section written in red has been added without the approval of the EGF members.)
Tournament classes

EGF recognizes three tournament categories:
class A - well organised tournament recognised by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 75 minutes, basic time minimum 60 minutes
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00x
In addition tournaments with handicaps in the top bar are not included in class A.
class B - well organized tournament recognized by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 50 minutes, basic time minimum 40 minutes
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 0.75x
class C - casual or club tournament recognized by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 30 minutes, basic time minimum 25 minutes
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 0.50x

Javaness wrote:

Liisa wrote:...
For reference:
(Section written in red has been added without the approval of the EGF members.)
Tournament classes

EGF recognizes three tournament categories:
class A - well organised tournament recognised by EGF member
time limit requirements: adjusted time minimum 75 minutes, basic time minimum 60 minutes
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00
weight for inclusion to EGF ratings: 1.00x
In addition tournaments with handicaps in the top bar are not included in class A.
...

Oh dear, when did this happen? Somebody please explain.

Cheers,
Vesa

Vesa wrote:

Javaness wrote:Oh dear, when did this happen? Somebody please explain.

Cheers,
Vesa

Well how much did you have to drink that night?

That time Luc was not the member of Rules commission, so I asked to invite someone from the commission instead.
They had big list of members, including Victor Bogdanov from Russia. Now the EGF page is updated:
http://eurogofed.org/egf/commissions.htm
I was suprised to see the 3rd person (Luc), who had no relation to the commission at all, so I protested.
Please understand my motivation. Personally I have nothing against Luc - I don't even know him well.

Hicham wrote:One thing that struck as being quite silly is Dinerstein complaint that a French referee cannot judgge impartially about a Dutchman as their countries are "too close together" . First of all their is a whole country inbetween(well, if you think of my country as a real country ), secondly it is not like French and Dutch are always on the same side in every debate.

It almost feels like he insinuates that Western Europeans would stand with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans with Eastern Europeans and so on. If this is is then it shows that Russians still see the world in a very geographical way.

If you check any EGF AGM meeting you can see that we always have 2 groups: West Europe and East Europe.
These groups always vote against each other proposals.
And there is a big list of countries who vote against ANY proposals from the Russian Go Federation.
Just because they hate russians.
For example, they voted for Romanian Go Congress, just because the second choice was Russia. Even without any prepared presentation from Catalin Taranu!

Hicham wrote:It almost feels like he insinuates that Western Europeans would stand with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans with Eastern Europeans and so on. If this is is then it shows that Russians still see the world in a very geographical way.

Dispute: In 1997, too many rules commission members were involved in a dispute and therefore the third instance arbitration consisted of mostly non-rules-commission members. From that only available earlier precedent, I think that in such a case the extra arbitration body members do not need to be called rules commission members. Matti thinks contrarily and therefore Luc is called temporary rules commission member. - We chose Luc because he is an EGF certified referee.

Russian congress voted down: My guess would be these reasons: extremely bad visa politics by Russian gouvernment, doubtful to terrible accommodation in last Russian congress, rumours (or facts?) about excessive prices for accommodation then. I cannot know whether level of democracy and human rights in Russia play a role for the delegates. (That visa for Russians in other countries is also difficult is a pity, too, of course.)

breakfast wrote: so I asked to invite someone from the commission instead.

I cannot recall that you would have said that.

They had big list of members, including Victor Bogdanov from Russia.

As has been said a dozen of times before, that list was wrong.

breakfast wrote:If you check any EGF AGM meeting you can see that we always have 2 groups: West Europe and East Europe...
And there is a big list of countries who vote against
ANY proposals from the Russian Go Federation.
Just because they hate russians.

I cannot imagine such a bad thing to be true.

But I know something else:
When a federation goes to an EGF meeting and has
"collected" votes from other federations to
have better chances in votings on crucial decisions
then other delegations tend to react sensibly.

In "Deutsche Go-Zeitung" (4/2010, p.6) I read that the
federations of Belarussia, Croatia, Switzerland and two
more were represented by persons from Russia.
When a federation tries such a policy she can not
complain that people are annoyed and react in some way.

Ingo.