Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:

p2501 wrote:in my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one is behind by about 30 points, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rarely used rules is very dark gray.

The more points the darker?

No of course not. I was referring to the specific situation. Duh. Again it is not about formulating a rule or guideline!

I can not make myself anymore clear than in the post you quoted from. There is really not much to, why you drag all that unnecessary stuff into the matter eludes me.

RobertJasiek wrote:... I expected to lose the game until my opponent's third successive pass.

At which point, it would have been sportsmanlike to have said "Are you sure you want to pass again? You do realise that you will then lose the game?"

All of which is moot if you don't consider sportsmanship to be important, but under the apparent reality that the rules commission as a whole do feel that it is important, it may be something you at least want to consider in the future.

topazg wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:1) not resigning when being aware of being 30 points behind

I think this is bad sportsmanship.

It is sportsmanlike because a) resignation is a right and not a duty and b) I do not consider millions of players (including many professionals) unsportsmanlike just because they have had a number of games with high score losses.

RobertJasiek wrote:2) my opponent's preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

RobertJasiek wrote:3) my preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

For the players until the appeals committee's decision, I agree. Now, that we have this precedental decision (not modified by the next instance) for EGF tournaments, there appears to be a sort of duty to agree on still not executed removals in between second and third successive passes. So, when playing under Ing 1991 Rules, I seek such an agreement (often to the great surprise of my opponents...).

RobertJasiek wrote:4) my opponent's third successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

RobertJasiek wrote:5) my fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

As before. In particular, the third successsive pass would now be considered an attempt to deny the player a possibility to comply with his apparent duty of seeking agreement.

it is bad sportsmanship not to have raised it to make sure you are both playing in the spirit of a fair game.

Also you (and p2501, who "likes" your post) show a very one-sided understanding of sportsmanship. When holding up this your opinion, then you should also have the opinion that my opponent should have asked me for my motivation for removing his removable stones by approaching liberties - especially instead of greatly slowing down the game during that stage.

rules technicality. If you felt like that method of winning was sportsmanlike, there's no problem in this.

It was sportsmanlike.

RobertJasiek wrote:9) bending the rules contrary to my interpretation for the sake of getting a game result that agrees to positional judgement (by allowing my opponent to remove stones after the fourth successive pass)

Definitely sportsmanlike, as it was a judgement being made in accordance to their interpretation of the spirit of the game.

Intentionally bending the rules is unsportsmanlike because the players have a duty to apply the rules. Rather than bending rules, players should call referees to verify whether the assumed interpretation holds. (We called the referee.)

RobertJasiek wrote:11) careless, presumably wrong application of the rules by many other players

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

A bit unsportsmanlike (justifying a referee's warning), because players should respect their opponents by being prepared for a tournament with (also) knowing rules and because players have a duty to apply the rules, which presumes their knowledge; careless knowledge is insufficient.

1) When realising your opponent was unaware his conduct would result in a loss by the precise interpretation of the rules, do you feel that explaining them to him would have been sportsmanlike (and not explaining them would have been unsportsmanlike)?

When he made the third successive pass, it was a stronger possibility that he was unaware, but I could not know yet. At that moment, I only knew that my fourth pass in succession would ensure me a win according to my interpretation of the rules.

Pointing out the rules to him during the game without his question for such would be unsportsmanlike for reasons epxplained earlier in this thread.

Asking him to take back his move and probable blunder would have violated his right to make moves and mistakes, violated the rules, treated him like a stupid child who cannot even bear having made a blunder, and so would be unsportsmanlike.

2) When the game had completed, your opponent lost on a strict rules interpretation. Do you think it would have been sportsmanlike to have realised that the outcome based on the spirit of the rules were contrary to the outcome based on the strict interpretation of the rules, and thus allowed your opponent to remove your positionally dead stones and therefore win the game (and that not allowing this would have been unsportsmanlike)?

The spirit of the rules, according to my interpretation and comparing it also with the spirit of other Ing rules booklets (see especially the Ing 1996 rules booklet) and versions, agrees to the strict interpretation of the rules, according to my interpretation. Therefore, you question needs to be reworded.

p2501 wrote:I was referring to the specific situation.

But you are able to envision the same case, with 29, 20, or 10 points instead of 30, aren't you?

topazg wrote:At which point, it would have been sportsmanlike to have said "Are you sure you want to pass again? You do realise that you will then lose the game?"

See my other message.

All of which is moot if you don't consider sportsmanship to be important, but under the apparent reality that the rules commission as a whole do feel that it is important, it may be something you at least want to consider in the future.

Sportsmanship is important, but not in the senses suggested by others in this thread or related threads. In particular, I do not consider pairgo gentlemen-like resignations to be part of a regular sportsmanship sense in go. Rather, the aim of the game is and remains to win it according to the rules, and striving wholeheatedly to win is very sportsmanlike. To let this be as clear as possible, rules of play must be unambiguous.

Politicians should not just set sportsmanship as a good aim but should realise this aim by setting rules that are so clear to allow sportsmanship easily.

topazg wrote:1) When realising your opponent was unaware his conduct would result in a loss by the precise interpretation of the rules, do you feel that explaining them to him would have been sportsmanlike (and not explaining them would have been unsportsmanlike)?

This is might work in a perfect world, but it can go wrong in so many different ways. What if your interpretation of the rules was a wrong and your opponent heeding them led to you winning? Would it possibly be insulting to some people to have their lack of knowledge pointed out to them? How can you tell? I can see the good intentions in your thoughts (and others), who clearly are very nice people, but I see them as good intentions with many pitfalls.

topazg wrote:2) When the game had completed, your opponent lost on a strict rules interpretation. Do you think it would have been sportsmanlike to have realised that the outcome based on the spirit of the rules were contrary to the outcome based on the strict interpretation of the rules, and thus allowed your opponent to remove your positionally dead stones and therefore win the game (and that not allowing this would have been unsportsmanlike)?

This is a red herring of sorts. Every game is won or lost based on a strict interpretation of the rules. Go is not like figure skating. The rules determine which stones are dead at the end. Jasiek is arguing that the stones were dead assuming ideal play on the opponent's part. I am not sure if I agree with that since I don't know the rules, but I do think that he should be free to make that argument without being accused of poor sportsmanship.

ManyPeople wrote:It is bad sportsmanship not to resign when 30 points behind.

Again, I remind people that there are many pros, especially older ones, who play out 15-20 point losses. There are many more that resign when they think that they will lose by half a point, but that is not the point. Also, what if people want to learn from other parts of a lost game? Some people have even expressed to me the opinion that it is rude to resign when most of the game has been played out and that resigning is some cowardly way of escaping the embarrassment of the score difference. I think that opinion is balderdash, but more than a handful of people I've met in the past have that opinion. Again, once we start judging actions that take place within the rules, we head down a slippery slope with countless special cases. Tournament players have already have more than enough to think about on the board.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Kirby wrote:I'm going to have to consider this meta-discussion

Great, we agree. (Discussing your meta-discussion continues it as meta-discussion indeed.)

That, along with a display of hypocrisy

"It requires two to create a dispute."

One to throw the punch and one to get hurt?

lemmata wrote:

topazg wrote:1) When realising your opponent was unaware his conduct would result in a loss by the precise interpretation of the rules, do you feel that explaining them to him would have been sportsmanlike (and not explaining them would have been unsportsmanlike)?

This is might work in a perfect world, but it can go wrong in so many different ways. What if your interpretation of the rules was a wrong and your opponent heeding them led to you winning? Would it possibly be insulting to some people to have their lack of knowledge pointed out to them? How can you tell? I can see the good intentions in your thoughts (and others), who clearly are very nice people, but I see them as good intentions with many pitfalls.

Even so, raising it would at least give the opportunity to clear it up. Being in a situation where it's clear the game would be decided on who had the most accurate interpretation of the rules strikes me as a poor enough end that it would be worth some possible embarrassment / insult to make sure the game was settled on the board (which I personally consider preferable to being settled on technical application of rarely applied rules).

The fact that after two passes, Robert proceeded to play stones in his own territory to capture all of his opponent's stones after two passes, and knowing the detail of the 4 passes rule, strikes me as the action of trying to win on the basis his opponent wasn't clearly enough aware of the letter of the rules.

At the end of a game, even an area scoring one, I have never spent a number of extra moves capturing every enemy stone in my territory before passing, and I suspect most other people don't sit there doing this either. I struggle to see a single reason for doing it after each player has passed other than to play on rule technicalities.

lemmata wrote:

topazg wrote:2) When the game had completed, your opponent lost on a strict rules interpretation. Do you think it would have been sportsmanlike to have realised that the outcome based on the spirit of the rules were contrary to the outcome based on the strict interpretation of the rules, and thus allowed your opponent to remove your positionally dead stones and therefore win the game (and that not allowing this would have been unsportsmanlike)?

This is a red herring of sorts. Every game is won or lost based on a strict interpretation of the rules. Go is not like figure skating. The rules determine which stones are dead at the end. Jasiek is arguing that the stones were dead assuming ideal play on the opponent's part. I am not sure if I agree with that since I don't know the rules, but I do think that he should be free to make that argument without being accused of poor sportsmanship.

I don't know how anyone who has seen the board can consider this argument a red herring ... The video of the debate is on the 'net with a clear view of the board (and it's been nicely recreated at http://senseis.xmp.net/?DisputeMeroJasiek too) - which groups do you think might have been debatable?

The whole point was all the black stones are alive, including H2 on that board image, and thus the surrounding area is worth 0 points to White (as well as the lack of prisoners). How could two players at 5d/6d level be in any question as to the status of the groups and score?

EDIT: TO CLARIFY

1) Both players "finished" yose.
2) Both players passed.
3) Robert then resumed play, capturing all White stone in his territory.
4) Both players passed.
5) Robert claimed the win on the basis that, with a strict adherence to Ing rules, Csaba failing to capture Robert's stones in phase 3 meant that all his stones (including those involved in dead groups in White territory) were unconditionally alive, therefore leaving White without enough points to win.

Please explain to me your interpretation of 3) in an attempt to provide the benefit of doubt to Robert in good faith. It obviously wasn't practising yose technique, so what reason could he _possibly_ have had other than rules technicalities (which it was very clear that he understood extremely well)?

Look, it is very simple to define sportsmanship:

1. Start with a complete, simple and accurate definition of all of human morality.

RobertJasiek wrote:

p2501 wrote:I was referring to the specific situation.

But you are able to envision the same case, with 29, 20, or 10 points instead of 30, aren't you?

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know, and spare us from this micky mouse theater?

Again, I remind people that there are many pros, especially older ones, who play out 15-20 point losses.

Just to embellish this with some figures, about 7% of the 75,000 games in the GoGoD database end in counts of >= 15. Since about 3/4 of those involve amateurs, and only half of the rest involved (the losers) are the ones dragging the game out, I personally do not regard this as "many pros", but that's a matter of preference.

I saw no evidence to support the idea that it was older players who predominated. More infuential seems to be whether the game is quickplay or not. However, a recent quickplay game between two oldies in Japan (Kobayashi and Kudo) did end in a 19.5 point finish, so you can choose which side of the ledger to put that on. But as an example of the other extreme, Cho Chikun played out a 20.5 point loss in a game of 5 hours each when he was 19 (his opponent was 23).

Further, there are cases of not-old pros counting up in slow events with margins of 30+ points (in Korea), so all in all the game in this thread does not have to be regarded as too unusual in not being resigned.

Look, it is very simple to define sportsmanship:

Most of us claim to know it when see it (or note its absence), which is rather unsatisfactory in many ways, though it does strike me as remarkable that people in very different cultures seem to share the notion. But as is well known to those of us who have grown calluses typing explanations to Robert, he defines sportsman-like in his own way. In a nutshell, to a native speaker
sportsman-like seems to mean behaving like a gentleman. To Robert it means behaving like a sportsman. Starting from there you can see why he has ended up where he has. Trying to change the different perceptions is a case of equine necrophilia.

For most of us (I think), sportsmanship would be to inform our opponent of the rules.

For Robert, sportsmanship is using the rules as another method of winning.

I think that about sums up the dispute.

gasana wrote:One to throw the punch and one to get hurt?

This is a scarce kind (usually, when somebody throws around the board and stones in anger and then leaves the room). The more frequent kind is both players have different opinions on rules, position, time etc. Another frequent kind is that simply both cannot clarify something, such as the correct times when the clock is malfunctioning.

topazg wrote:Being in a situation where it's clear the game would be decided on who had the most accurate interpretation of the rules

The most correct interpretation, not necessarily the most detailed.

The fact that after two passes, Robert proceeded to play stones in his own territory to capture all of his opponent's stones after two passes, and knowing the detail of the 4 passes rule, strikes me as the action of trying to win on the basis his opponent wasn't clearly enough aware of the letter of the rules.

First of all, this procedure, if applied by both players, has the smallest chance of creating any dispute at all. It is also the procedure that resembles ordinary go playing the most, in fact, it is just its continuation.

I struggle to see a single reason for doing it after each player has passed other than to play on rule technicalities.

In the meantime, I agree. If (due to rules and tournament conditions) I prefer removals by alternation, now I prefer to do it even before the first succession of passes.

Reasons? Among them, it is the natural procedure for a go game. Using rulesets consisting of technicalities, it is a procedure fitting such a ruleset. Also see above.

How could two players at 5d/6d level be in any question as to the status of the groups and score?

How could, after a decade of explanation, anybody still not understand that Ing rules life and death concept is also related to the state of being breathless, i.e., it is clearly not the same as our strategic perception.

The rules would be much clearer if they either spoke of breathless stones only or if they used different terms for breathless stones and strategically dead stones with breaths.

stones (including those involved in dead groups in White territory) were unconditionally alive,

See above.

It obviously wasn't practising yose technique,

Sorry, but it is not my fault that, IIRC, the video does not show the better part of the yose.