EGC Drama

mw42 · #1

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

In my opinion, considering that Ondrej was ahead and the ko, with regard to the result, was meaningless, this is poor sportsmanship by Alexander. Any opinions? Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the go tournament scene -- are these types of disputes common?

Here is the match for those interested: http://gokifu.com/s/m61-gokifu-20110726 ... 7d%29.html

pwaldron · #2

mw42 wrote:

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

Whatever the rules about illegal moves are, they should be enforced.

The Ing rules at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/KSS.html, however, imply that the referee's decision was correct; accidental illegal moves are retracted and the game continues. The case of an accidental ko recapture is even given as an example of the situation. Not sure if the simplified Ing rules follow the same, but I would assume they do.

masek · #3

mw42 wrote:

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

In my opinion, considering that Ondrej was ahead and the ko, with regard to the result, was meaningless, this is poor sportsmanship by Alexander. Any opinions? Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the go tournament scene -- are these types of disputes common?

Here is the match for those interested: http://gokifu.com/s/m61-gokifu-20110726 ... 7d%29.html

It's very special case. Currently there are no tournament info on official page. We can not assume who was right/wrong. All will be decided by judges of the EGC tournament.
I think the game was totally very nervous from mental stability hard to play.

Solomon · #4

Quote:

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

masek · #5

Araban wrote:

Quote:

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

It should be clear for us:) let's see how judges understand this

jts · #6

How many incidents of questionable sportsmanship has Dinerchtein been involved in?

Dusk Eagle · #7

I can understand why Alexander might act the way he did in the heat of the moment. The referee initially declared that he won, only to reverse the ruling. This may have caused quite a bit of confusion. Alexander then, knowing that he could not win on the board, resigned, and perhaps because of the confusion stated that he would appeal the ruling. From what's been said here, we cannot know how politely or rudely this all was done, and we also cannot know what cultural or language difficulties may be getting in the way here. I don't want to judge Dinerchtein before I know all the facts in this case.

Hopefully the rules will be applied properly and this incident will be forgotten.

quantumf · #8

Araban wrote:

Quote:

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

Personally, I think this is a ridiculous application of the rule. "players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation" - weird dame technicalities, fine, but are you suggesting that the players here are not familiar with ko fights? I'm very much in the Dinerchtein camp on this one.

masek · #9

jts wrote:

How many incidents of questionable sportsmanship has Dinerchtein been involved in?

It was last year some case with clock,
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1666&p=31785

user23845 · **#10**

Everyone gives quote from Ing's SST Rules of Go (2006). Is it really the ruleset of the tournament?
On page Rules of play EGC 2011 I can see "Simplified Ing Rules and Japanese fill-in counting". On senseis page about Simplified Ing Rules there is link to this ruleset http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/siming.html. I didn't find there any information about how illegal moves are handled.
Do I miss something?

Vesa · **#11**

The EGF General Tournament Rules apply regardless of the rules set used.

See: http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm

and paragraph 4.3. Illegal Move

"If a player makes an illegal move, and if this is noticed within three moves, then the game should be unwound to the move just before the illegal move, and continued. The referee may allow an adjustment of the time."

I cannot imagine any other conclusion than that the appeal is useless.

Cheers,
Vesa

HermanHiddema · **#12**

Quote:

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

(emphasis added)

Could it be that Ing is referring here to the 1980 Meijin tournament, where Cho Chikun asked the game recorder whether it was his turn to take the ko, and the game recorder incorrectly told him that it was?

Regardless, I do not think Alexandre's appeal has much merit, and I would be surprised if it was ruled in his favor. Then again, I felt the same about the time dispute last year. :roll:

p2501 · **#13**

Its possible that Alexander was unaware of how illegal moves are handled according to EGF Tournamentrules. As he stated on gosensations.com in asia an illegal move equals a forfeit. This plus the fact that a previous ruling of the judge was later overruled may be why he said he wants to appeal.

It's not unlikely that he appealed, since the 3rd round results are not up yet.

edit:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Could it be that Ing is referring here to the 1980 Meijin tournament, where Cho Chikun asked the game recorder whether it was his turn to take the ko, and the game recorder incorrectly told him that it was?

I guess.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?OtakeHideoChoCh ... galCapture

lovely · **#14**

This guy really can't take a loss can he? I just learned about what happened last year and I've lost a lot of respect for him now. Just play the game man. Don't rely on technicalities to win.

Psychee · **#15**

But neither of them was initiated by him? It wasn't him who ran overtime, neither was him who played an illegal move? I'd say he's rather hapless. :-?

topazg · **#16**

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one, but mostly through sympathy as being in his position here would suck. The fact the first declaration was an incorrect application of the rules I see as irrelevant once the declaration has been made. If I was in an intense, important game, being told "Ok, game over, you've won" and then shortly later "Oh, actually, no you haven't, play back a couple of moves and carry on" I wouldn't be able to re-focus regardless of how the board looked. I think the original declaration, once made, should be binding, and if it is an incorrect application of the rules then it is up to Ondrej to launch a successful appeal against the decision.

Technically of course, playing back a move and continuing would have been the correct judgement, and if that had been made to begin with, then I would side against Alex regarding any appeal, but as it stands, I think the original referee's decision should stand.

p2501 · **#17**

topazg wrote:

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one, but mostly through sympathy as being in his position here would suck. The fact the first declaration was an incorrect application of the rules I see as irrelevant once the declaration has been made. If I was in an intense, important game, being told "Ok, game over, you've won" and then shortly later "Oh, actually, no you haven't, play back a couple of moves and carry on" I wouldn't be able to re-focus regardless of how the board looked.I think the original declaration, once made, should be binding, and if it is an incorrect application of the rules then it is up to Ondrej to launch a successful appeal against the decision.

I think it is unfortunate, but in case of an incorrect ruling it is logical for it to be overruled. Our sympathy in this situation may be with Alex, but the decision is correct and in my opinion Ondrej should get the win.

edit: As the result of this match affects the pairings (iirc), I hope it will get solved soon, so the main matches will continue.

Laman · **#18**

Psychee wrote:

But neither of them was initiated by him? It wasn't him who ran overtime, neither was him who played an illegal move? I'd say he's rather hapless. :-?

well, maybe he is rather lucky, as in both cases the game was already clearly decided on the board and in both cases he was losing

breakfast · **#19**

Hi, friends
Just to tell my point of view.
I know that by EGF rules illegal moves are allowed (strange rule, IMHO).
There are 2 things to consider
1. We are using Ing rules on EGC-2011. http://www.usgo.org/resources/Ing%20Rules%202006.pdf
page 29
Penalized mistakes: Making two consecutive moves is against the rule of black and
white making alternate moves; recapturing a ko stone without an intervening play
violates the ko rule. In either case, the game is forfeited.

2. Ondrej Silt was on last byoyomi period. He was counting territory (it seems) and made his move almost on last second of the boyomi.
It can be proved by KGS chat. Spectators were able to write lot of comments before Ondrej made his illegal move (during this 1 minute):
--- chat window after my last move ---
nocturne19 [2d]: j10 a ko threat for w
Opa [2d?]: yep
just9x9 [-]: but then b has g9 as threat
Korf [1k]: o12 is such a nice threat
need4speed [-]: 6d ama beating a korean pro¡
nocturne19 [2d]: yes
Windtalker [-]: yes indeed
nocturne19 [2d]: so j10 not really ako threat
DanielTom [-]: B was an insei for 3 years
idontca1 [2d]: b wins the ko
Windtalker [-]: not really
EGC2011B4 [?]: Ondrej just recaptured the ko without making a threat

By EGF rules "a player loses on time if the current move is not completed before the basic time expires" I am not sure that Ondrej had enough time to realize his mistake and undo his move. So, I feel it's possible to claim that Ondrej lost his game on time.
If it's allowed to make such illegal moves under big time pressure, such situation can be used as a time-tesuji. If the decision of the referee is correct, it means that Ondrej profited by making illegal move - he got 1 more minute to think about his next move

lorill · **#20**

I'm glad to see your point of view.

We can't take the kgs chat for proof or anything, as :
1. 1mn is long enough to type all this, and there's no timestamps.
2. We can't know if the scribe typed the message as soon as it happened.

EGC Drama

Who is online