Life In 19x19

pwaldron wrote:From the rules of Pair Go: "Please refrain from trying to win on time when you have a lost game."
Seems pretty clear.

what defines lost game? 1 point? 2 points? 10 points?
i guess ref decide the definiton of lost game on case by case.
you call that clear? I DONT.

sudden death will not work on go game like this.

The point of sporting behaviour is not that it is within the rules. That is just behaviour. It's when you inconvienience yourself to do what you (or whoever is calling the behaviour sporting) consider to be the right thing. It is naturally a fuzzy and unclear thing, and as such has no chance of being settled in an internet forum.

Like a certain judge on pornography - I'll know it when I see it.

"sportlich" in its initial meaning: fitting well for sports activity, physically skilled for physical sports activity, mentally skilled for mind sports activity, having a body or shape of the visual impression of being physically skilled for physical sports activity

"Sportlichkeit" in its meaning of being a noun of "sportlich" in its initial meaning: [see there, but expressing the characteristic as a noun]

"Sportlichkeit" in its major meaning: sportsmanship, pursuit of sportsmanlike behaviour

"sportlich" in its derived meaning: being of the characteristic of behaving sportsmanlike

Stable wrote:The point of sporting behaviour is not that it is within the rules. That is just behaviour.

With respect to rules of play, I think its relation ought to be defined or else it ought not to be applied as a tournament rules concept at all. Players must be allowed to apply rules of play without any pressure of unpredictable referee decisions.

RobertJasiek wrote:It is possible that you have not seen such players - I have seen many (including many amateur high dan) different players filling dame while being 100 points behind for the last 200 moves or, before the 2007 tournament rules changes, trying to win on time by filling territory moves and hoping for a 50% chance of a favourable referee decision.

I think you misunderstood, on purpose or not.
The issue is not if people doing it or not. The issue is if they consider it to be good sportsmanship and if they are proud of what they do. I have also seen many people, for example, making pointless moves to win on time on the servers. But those I talked to afterward all agreed that this was not good sportsmanship - they simply did not care or considered the few extra rating points to be worth more. In other words - they chose the 'lesser evil' - be seen as unsportsmanlike and win the game than the other way around. It was their choice but it does not mean they themselves think this was 'proper' behavior.

You again display limited thinking: 'If they do it, they must think it is the right thing to do.'
People are MUCH MORE complicated than that, and you seem to completely miss or ignore that complexity - because it seem to suit your current argument.

There are tons of examples from outside Go as well. Take law and morality. Same thing. Once is written down, the other depends on the person. Still, just because people murder others on occasion, does not mean that the murderers are proud of what they do. There are many kinds of behaviors which, although perfectly legal, are not moral and might get you ostracized by society. Regardless of the fact that the offenders are proud of their 'offense' or not.

Your arguments seems to be running along the lines: 'if its legal, it must be moral'. Or: 'if its within the rules, it must be good sportsmanship.' Same thing. And very wrong.

RobertJasiek wrote:This tells us one thing very clearly: There is no general agreement on the relation between rules of play and sportsmanship.

Maybe it tells us that such relationship does not need to be clearly defined?
I would go further than that - such clear relationship is impossible to define clearly and certainly to agree on. Why? Combine two facts - your striving to implement universal rules (which is a good thing) with the fact that each society might have different ideas of good sportsmanship.

RobertJasiek wrote:Rather that relation must be defined.

No, it must not.
Each of us has a good idea of sportsmanship, even though these ideas vary slightly from person to person. And a lot from society to society. You seem to have a very hard time grasping concepts which are not clearly defined, written down, and supported by a bunch of definitions, theorems, and examples. Not everything in life works like that, we are not all computers with clearly defined ideas. This is how we, as humans, operate, and it is good so. Certain things need to be defined as well as we can (rules of Go or the letter of law, for example) while certain things don't have to be (sportsmanship or morality for example.)

This way people have some freedom of action which is not bound by strict rules. It would be a very sad word if such freedom did not exist. And the consequences are not very severe - behave unsportsmanlike and maybe win a game at the cost of people disliking and disrespecting you, or choose to lost the game but stay respectable and maybe even admired. I think it is VERY GOOD that such choice exists. It is equally good that the same action might be evaluated differently by different people. This situation enables us to forge our relationships to others - since there is a freedom to their actions which tells us about their values and ideas, so we can decide who we respect and admire. There would absolutely nothing to go on if each facet of our behavior was guided by some well-defined and universal codex written by the chosen few.

PS:
Bottom Line:
I do not really think it is necessary to define good sportsmanship in a way that is generally accepted and agreed by all. We all share the idea that certain acts are good while others are bad, this comes from the upbringing and education. But there is also some room for individual judgement and opinion, and it is good so. This way the ideas can evolve over time and adjust to the changes in the world. Our kids might have a different ideas than we do, and I am happy that they will get the chance to evolve.

And most of us agree on such moral issues in most cases.
You seem to be one of the very few who does not seem to understand, no matter how hard others are trying to explain it to you. Over and over again, year after year. This tells me a lot about you, and allows me to decide if I wish to respect you or not. I am grateful for such chance, which I might not have had if the world was designed and defined according to your ideas.

But world also needs such odd-balls like you, so I forgive you.

Magicwand wrote:if the tournament defines the rule and you are playing by that rule you should be ok.

Then this whole discussion, and your initial objections, are just silly.
If we go strictly by the 'Rules', the players had the right to do whatever they did, and the referee had the right to do whatever he did. Everybody acted within the rules, everything is peachy, we're rolling in puppies, the issue is trivial, lets move on. End of discussion, yes?

Bantari wrote:..........
I think you misunderstood, on purpose or not.
..........
you seem to completely miss or ignore that complexity - because it seem to suit your current argument.
...........
And most of us agree on such moral issues in most cases.
You seem to be one of the very few who does not seem to understand, no matter how hard others are trying to explain it to you. Over and over again, year after year. This tells me a lot about you, and allows me to decide if I wish to respect you or not. I am grateful for such chance, which I might not have had if the world was designed and defined according to your ideas.
...........

sportsmanship we are talking about??? I think I prefer Sportlichkeit after all.

In soccer when one team is leading, it might trail in order to keep the lead, playing the ball in circles, back to the goalkeeper and so on. It is bad sportsmanship but good practice and perfectly legal. If it is to be disallowed you need good rules that are practical without too much arbitrariness.

cyclops wrote:sportsmanship we are talking about??? I think I prefer Sportlichkeit after all.

In soccer when one team is leading, it might trail in order to keep the lead, playing the ball in circles, back to the goalkeeper and so on. It is bad sportsmanship but good practice and perfectly legal. If it is to be disallowed you need good rules that are practical without too much arbitrariness.

The whole idea of sportsmanship implies a high degree of free will and a choice that needs to be made by the player.
If something is forced upon you by the rules, then you have no choice, and then to talk about 'sportsmanship' would be misplaced.

To illustrate what I mean - lets look at your example of soccer game. The team is allowed by the rules to play 'on time'. But the price for that is that the kibitzers can be upset and consider such behavior 'unsportsmanlike'. On the other hand, if the team chooses to behave differently, kibitzers can praise such behavior as 'sportsmanlike'. If the team was forced by the rules to behave one way or another, the idea of sportsmanship would be meaningless.

Same here.
I don't think anybody is arguing that a player in a sudden-death game, or whatever, cannot play 'on time'. The rules allow it. The issue is - what 'ethical' value do we assign to such behavior and such player. Do we call it 'good sportsmanship' and respect the player, or do we decide not to do so.

Its all about the choice one makes and how this choice seen by others.
Its not about the rules and definitions.
That's all.

I think this is the point I was trying to make so ineptly in my previous posts.

Bantari wrote:You again display limited thinking: 'If they do it, they must think it is the right thing to do.'

No. My thinking is: Very likely quite some of those doing it also consider it the right thing to do.

Your arguments seems to be running along the lines: 'if its legal, it must be moral'. Or: 'if its within the rules, it must be good sportsmanship.'

My argument is: Whenever rules of play let something be legal and tournament rules do not restrict it either, it is morally correct and good sportsmanship to apply the rules of play. This is the very purpose of rules of play: to define which and when moves are legal and what the score is.

such clear relationship is impossible to define clearly and certainly to agree on.

It is very easy to define: There is an identity between what the rules of play make legal and what is sportsmanlike according to the rules of play.

The problem is not to define it but to convince everybody including John, Herman, you and the world-wide go playing society that it is the best possible definition for the relation between rules of play and sportsmanship.

You seem to have a very hard time grasping concepts which are not clearly defined, written down, and supported by a bunch of definitions, theorems, and examples. Not everything in life works like that, we are not all computers with clearly defined ideas. This is how we, as humans, operate, and it is good so.

With respect to rules of play, it is very bad and unnecessary to be fuzzy. You create problems unnecessarily. People thinking like you create the possibility for disputes unnecessarily, regardless of whether they create them themselves or whether they let others with a different sense of sportsmanship run into those disputes. Do everybody a favour by abandoning all fuzziness related to rules of play, in particular by introducing sportsmanship where the rules of play should rule exclusively!

This way people have some freedom of action which is not bound by strict rules.

WRT rules of play, players ought not to have freedom but ought to be bound by the rules of play because Go is a competition under them.

It would be a very sad word if such freedom did not exist.

You have the freedom of move choice according to the rules of play, the freedom to resign when you want, the freedom of making social contacts with players between the games etc. but you do not have the freedom to violate the rules of play in a tournament without consequences.

behave unsportsmanlike and maybe win a game at the cost of people disliking and disrespecting you,

People constructing improper senses of unsportsmanlike might thus decide to disrespect other players. E.g., some people might develop a sense of disrespecting all players resigning later than what those people would like to see. E.g., some other people might develop a sense of disrespecting all players resigning too early because of lacking too little fighting spirit. The fault lies within those people lacking tolerance. A player cannot avoid falling in disrespect in the eyes of somebody until all people are tolerant enough to respect all moves legal according to the rules of play (and possibly the tournament rules).

There would absolutely nothing to go on if each facet of our behavior was guided by some well-defined and universal codex written by the chosen few.

What goes on without any freedom of how to apply the rules of play is a perfectly fair and equal competition of skill in playing the game.

I do not really think it is necessary to define good sportsmanship in a way that is generally accepted and agreed by all.

In fact, for good rules of play, it is superfluous because the rules of play in themselves are good enough to regulate legal moves and the game result.

You seem to be one of the very few who does not seem to understand, no matter how hard others are trying to explain it to you.

Rules of play create the freedom of legal move choice. The freedom of whether or when to resign provides an interface between regulated game and social behaviour. Social behaviour in between playing games allows for (reasonable) freedom of choosing one's personal social behaviour. You, however, want less freedom of move choice by imposing more morality (than abiding by the rules of play) and thereby putting moral pressure of players exercising a higher degree of application of freedom of move choice. Admit the players the freedom that you claim to hold up by not imposing on them your more restricted view of what might be morally acceptable!

RobertJasiek wrote:

Your arguments seems to be running along the lines: 'if its legal, it must be moral'. Or: 'if its within the rules, it must be good sportsmanship.'

My argument is: Whenever rules of play let something be legal and tournament rules do not restrict it either, it is morally correct and good sportsmanship to apply the rules of play. This is the very purpose of rules of play: to define which and when moves are legal and what the score is.

By extension, anything that is legal according to the law of the land you are in, is also morally correct.

Hanging gay people in Iran? Morally correct.

Beating your wife in Afghanistan? Morally correct.

Sorry, I don't buy that.

RobertJasiek wrote:My argument is: Whenever rules of play let something be legal and tournament rules do not restrict it either, it is morally correct and good sportsmanship to apply the rules of play. This is the very purpose of rules of play: to define which and when moves are legal and what the score is.

such clear relationship is impossible to define clearly and certainly to agree on.

It is very easy to define: There is an identity between what the rules of play make legal and what is sportsmanlike according to the rules of play.

The problem is not to define it but to convince everybody including John, Herman, you and the world-wide go playing society that it is the best possible definition for the relation between rules of play and sportsmanship.

I'm sure you are familiar with and like the concept of Auseinandersetzung It means "argument." No? Yes it does. No, it doesn't? Yes it does. etc.

I offered you a generally accepted definition of sportsmanship from a respected American dictionary. It differs from your definition. Just as your definition of Sportlichkeit differs from the generally accepted definition. Words have meanings independent of what you would like them to mean. You may think it is always best to do everything legal to win a game, and that is a valid opinion, but for you to continue to equate this behavior with sportsmanship is absurd, to say the very least. Call it correct, call it appropriate, call it proper, but stop calling it sportsmanship.

It is morally correct to always follow the rules to the letter? I will assume that you know where this argument leads. I think with all due respect that you are trolling.

HermanHiddema wrote:By extension, anything that is legal according to the law of the land you are in, is also morally correct.

What I suggest shall affect only the relation to the Go rules of play.

daal wrote:I offered you a generally accepted definition of sportsmanship from a respected American dictionary. It differs from your definition. Just as your definition of Sportlichkeit differs from the generally accepted definition. Words have meanings independent of what you would like them to mean. You may think it is always best to do everything legal to win a game, and that is a valid opinion, but for you to continue to equate this behavior with sportsmanship is absurd, to say the very least. Call it correct, call it appropriate, call it proper, but stop calling it sportsmanship.

It is morally correct to always follow the rules to the letter? I will assume that you know where this argument leads.

Also you need to be told again: What I suggest shall affect only the relation to the Go rules of play. We are aware that, regardless of which reasonable dictionary is consulted, sportsmanship has a broader meaning - but my concern is to minimize numbers of disputes and to avoid players from being punished for making legal moves that are unrestricted or affected too ambiguously by tournament rules. Both I want to see solved by a more carefully codified relation between rules of play and sportsmanlike behaviour. Carefully codified because different players or different culture circles can have different understandings. Only (at least reasonably) careful codification does solve the mentioned problems.

I think with all due respect that you are trolling.

Refrain from starting a useless meta-discussion out of a factual discussion!

In any game/sport sufficiently complex to be interesting to humans, it will usually be impossible to write rules that cover all eventualities. Humans are remarkably inventive in finding new ways to exploit given rules, that are technically legal, but might fail sportsmanship criteria.

Rules can adapt (e.g. the backpass rule in soccer), but to asssume a given set of rules will cover all bases in all cases for all time ignores human nature and ability.

hanekomu wrote:German is my native language, but I've never ever heard "Sportlichkeit" applied to mean "sportsmanship".

Usually being a native speaker of a language leads to knowledge of only a small fraction of all words and all their meanings of that language.

I have heard Sportlichkeit being used in the sportsmanship meaning. It is not frequent but can be heard regularly in suitable contexts (like talk to go players at tournaments). One reason for it not being frequent is availability of other alternative expressions with similar meanings like "sich sportlich verhalten", "sportliches Verhalten", "sportliche Fairness" etc. and language imports from English incl. "sportsmanlike behaviour", "gentlemanlike behaviour".