Life In 19x19

From yesterday's Korean league

http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/49845

Interesting, but can you please copy the position and triple ko sequence here? I do not have access to that webpage.

You can see after the triple ko is formed, Black tried to kill White in the lower right, which would make a huge territory, and probably Black could have sacrificed the triple ko and still win. After that failed Black can't give up the triple ko anymore and it's a tie.

They're not going to replay the game, just leaving it as a tie. The Korean league is a team format, 5 vs 5. With this result the teams actually tied for this match, 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 tie!

Korean article about the match, the first picture the official standing in the background has officially declared it a tie / no result. Second picture you can see a close up of the final board position.
http://www.cyberoro.com/news/news_view. ... =1&cmt_n=0

A triple ko is not a tie, it is a no result. It is as if the game was never played.

gowan wrote:A triple ko is not a tie, it is a no result. It is as if the game was never played.

As you say, if the game is not going to be replayed to resolve the tournament then it is not a NO RESULT, it is a tie. It is still a triple ko, of course, but it is not an example of the idea that a triple ko result is a NR. What the result is, is dependent on the tournament rules.

Personally, I am in favor of the NR decision, which would usually require the game to be replayed.

A triple ko is not a tie, it is a no result. It is as if the game was never played.

Both the Japanese and the Korean word for the result here means literally "no win or loss"; so there is a result here, it is just not a win or a loss*. What it is specifically is a half point each, as specified in the tournament regulations. You may have reservations about calling that a tie if you reserve that for jigo, but by analogy with chess "draw" seems most apposite.

*In football some people do talk about "getting a result" when they mean to win and to avoid a draw, but chess still seems the best reference point.

The problem with a rule saying that a game must be replayed is that it is just impossible to follow in practice.

Tournaments organizers already have a hard time starting the rounds in time. Now imagine all the players waiting for the last round of the tournament to begin, with a delay of 20 minutes, some wondering if they'll be able to get their train because of the delay, and suddenly, an announcement is made that the next round is delayed 3 more hours to allow one game to be replayed

Pio2001 wrote:The problem with a rule saying that a game must be replayed is that it is just impossible to follow in practice.

Tournaments organizers already have a hard time starting the rounds in time. Now imagine all the players waiting for the last round of the tournament to begin, with a delay of 20 minutes, some wondering if they'll be able to get their train because of the delay, and suddenly, an announcement is made that the next round is delayed 3 more hours to allow one game to be replayed

Such a rule is never implemented under such conditions. But for pro tournaments, with a delay between rounds, it is practical.

DrStraw wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:The problem with a rule saying that a game must be replayed is that it is just impossible to follow in practice.

Tournaments organizers already have a hard time starting the rounds in time. Now imagine all the players waiting for the last round of the tournament to begin, with a delay of 20 minutes, some wondering if they'll be able to get their train because of the delay, and suddenly, an announcement is made that the next round is delayed 3 more hours to allow one game to be replayed

Such a rule is never implemented under such conditions. But for pro tournaments, with a delay between rounds, it is practical.

I think the real crux of the question is whether and in what cases our small-scale amateur tournaments should be run with the same expectations as professional ones.

Pio2001 wrote:The problem with a rule saying that a game must be replayed is that it is just impossible to follow in practice.

Tournaments organizers already have a hard time starting the rounds in time. Now imagine all the players waiting for the last round of the tournament to begin, with a delay of 20 minutes, some wondering if they'll be able to get their train because of the delay, and suddenly, an announcement is made that the next round is delayed 3 more hours to allow one game to be replayed

Simple solution: Do not reset the clock.

Just clear the board and restart the game. This means the players may be in byoyomi immediately, if the triple ko occurs late in the game. This will probably add a little time to the round, as the players may play more byoyomi periods, but not 3 hours.

Effectively, with this rule, the players have to get a result within the time limits given for the game, even if it restarts.

Of course all these declarations of "tie" or no result are arbitrary. Again in analogy with chess, a triple (or quadruple, etc.) ko seems more like perpetual check, which actually is a draw by repetition in chess. I sometimes think that perpetual check in chess should be declared a win for the side giving the check. After all the other king is in constant threat and cannot be removed from it.

As for go, if we are going to give 1/2 point to each side in a triple ko type situation why bother with komi, or at least make komi 6 points or 7 points and allow games that actually finish with equal points on both sides to be counted 1/2 point for each side in the tournament? Personally, in go, I reserve "draw" or "tie" for games that finish with equal score for each color.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Pio2001 wrote:The problem with a rule saying that a game must be replayed is that it is just impossible to follow in practice.

Tournaments organizers already have a hard time starting the rounds in time. Now imagine all the players waiting for the last round of the tournament to begin, with a delay of 20 minutes, some wondering if they'll be able to get their train because of the delay, and suddenly, an announcement is made that the next round is delayed 3 more hours to allow one game to be replayed

Simple solution: Do not reset the clock.

Just clear the board and restart the game. This means the players may be in byoyomi immediately, if the triple ko occurs late in the game. This will probably add a little time to the round, as the players may play more byoyomi periods, but not 3 hours.

Effectively, with this rule, the players have to get a result within the time limits given for the game, even if it restarts.

How would that mesh with time limit requirements for rated games? Particularly if one player is in byo-yomi with one or two periods left and the other starts the game with 10 or 15 minutes (or more) on the clock? If there was an unresolved triple ko, it's because neither player thought they could win after losing it. They should be considered equally responsible for that result, and the resolution shouldn't give bias to one player or another.

As an aside, I have no problem with treating triple-ko and other void games as a bye for each player for that round, and just moving on.

skydyr wrote: How would that mesh with time limit requirements for rated games? Particularly if one player is in byo-yomi with one or two periods left and the other starts the game with 10 or 15 minutes (or more) on the clock? If there was an unresolved triple ko, it's because neither player thought they could win after losing it. They should be considered equally responsible for that result, and the resolution shouldn't give bias to one player or another.

As an aside, I have no problem with treating triple-ko and other void games as a bye for each player for that round, and just moving on.

It doesn't. My proposed solution is meant only for situations where a tie or other solution (such as a bye for both) is unacceptable, and there is no time to replay with new full thinking time. For example: if the players are still in the running for a indivisible prize (e.g qualifying for the WAGC) and a winner is required (e.g. it's knock-out) and this is not the last round.

HermanHiddema wrote:

skydyr wrote: How would that mesh with time limit requirements for rated games? Particularly if one player is in byo-yomi with one or two periods left and the other starts the game with 10 or 15 minutes (or more) on the clock? If there was an unresolved triple ko, it's because neither player thought they could win after losing it. They should be considered equally responsible for that result, and the resolution shouldn't give bias to one player or another.

As an aside, I have no problem with treating triple-ko and other void games as a bye for each player for that round, and just moving on.

It doesn't. My proposed solution is meant only for situations where a tie or other solution (such as a bye for both) is unacceptable, and there is no time to replay with new full thinking time. For example: if the players are still in the running for a indivisible prize (e.g qualifying for the WAGC) and a winner is required (e.g. it's knock-out) and this is not the last round.

Ah, so you're saying to ignore the result for rating purposes, but get a result of some sort for the purpose of prize allocation, etc.?

Perhaps adding up the remaining time, and splitting it equally between the two players for the follow-up game would work as well.