It's been interesting to see a range of opinions. It's been more or less what I expected. In particular, I would expect many people to be ambivalent about such questions (as I am).

My own view can be explained, in simplified form, by reference to the Age of Chivalry and the Age of Reason. Or gentleman and sportsman. In reality, both impulses co-exist, not just in time but within each of us - but in differing proportions, again over time and according to the individual. In some cases, one impulse is much stronger then the other. That can lead to problems. Personally I believe the extreme rationalists are much more dangerous - they start off at a wrong point and then follow the treadmill of logic to some doom-laden scenario. I don't want to follow that argument any further here. I just mention it as a way of explaining why I consider myself more drawn to the Age of Chivalry side of things.

Which side is prominent in each of us can be assessed (at least at parlour-game level) by a simple experiment to see how we react at moments of unexpected stress.

Try, for example, to put yourself in the position of Ke Jie when Sin Chin-seo made (was it?) a first-line move in the opening because a trailing mouse wire had accidentally activated his keyboard. From what I saw and read, Sin did not ask for a take-back (kudos for that, in my view). But more interesting to me was Ke's reaction. He was agitated and instinctively knew there was something wrong and unfair about this, but just didn't know what to do in these strange circumstances. My heart warmed to him. I would have been even happier if he had gentlemanly called for a take-back, but I can understand why he didn't, and he had already done enough to win my approval by showing his instinct was in the right place.

What would have been your instinct - gentleman or sportsman? I imagine this question comes up almost daily for many people here, especially if they play online. What do you do when your opponent asks to take his move back and it's obvious it's not a clicko? If you say yes, what do you do if he asks a second time?

My own reaction in the past has normally been to say, "OK, but just this once." But at the same time it may flash across my mind that he is not being gentlemanly and so doesn't deserve mercy. I am influenced by things like the opponent's prior behaviour, or what I had for lunch. In other words, I can be inconsistent, but essentially I am giving the answer I personally am most comfortable with, which in turn feeds off my own personal experiences.

That, I imagine, would apply just as much to Sin Chin-seo. If (pure speculation) he felt hard done by in the mouse incident against a top Chinese player, could that feed into prompting a particular response when playing another top Chinese player? If it did, I would empathise. Or did he feel it was Korea's reputation on the line, not just his own. The LG Cup is, after all, a Korean event.

I don't think there is any sort of clear right or wrong answer about these things, and I certainly don't know it if there is one. I was prompted in my thoughts, as it happens, by the book Kamakura, which I recently finished revising. In Game 1, Kitani collapsed with a nosebleed while under time pressure. Go Seigen appeared to show no concern and did not offer to postpone play. He was heavily criticised for his "heartless" behaviour, even by people he might consider his friends. In fact he just kept thinking in his own time, so that Kitani didn't lose on time, so he was not being entirely unresponsive. It was more that he didn't show concern. Was he just being manly? There was a war on and gushy emotions were certainly not normal in those days, even when war was not raging. Or was he perhaps influenced by Shusai's bad behaviour towards him by abusing the privilege of White taking time-outs (we know Go detested Shusai). No doubt there were a hundred other possible influences, possibly all wide of the mark?

But if you had been Go when this incident happened, what do you think you would have done in the heat of the moment? Gentleman or sportsman? I think I would have stopped the game at once, but wouldn't have considered myself a gentleman. I would have just regarded myself as a "normal" person. But that's with my own range of experiences, not Go's.

I think it's all tied up, in our brains, with regrettably a now topical question: if war was declared, would you join up or emigrate? The Vietnam question for a certain generation of Americans. I like to think I'd join up. On the other hand, when I was a student in Czechoslovakia, I was taught horse-riding by an ex-cavalry officer who was famous for having belonged to a squadron that had charged German tanks in WWII on horseback. I thought that was sheer lunacy. It was an extreme case where even the Age of Chivalry was just too dangerous!

I thought it used to be quite common when in Japanese 30/60 second byoyomi to play a forcing move or two so that you had enough time to count up the score accurately.

Is this not another example of using the clock as part of the game?

Jon

John,how about precedent? This will show I have read some of your books, but wouldn't also the precedent of the ruling when both players reached an accommodation (outside the rules) that seemed fair and reasonable but were both declared to have lost? Wouldn't that precedent have been on their minds?

Mike, That never crossed my mind, but I can see where you are coming from. However, I think it unlikely because (a) Kitani didn’t ask for a postponement, (b) it was a Yomiuri match, not a NK one, and (c) a postponement was made in the middle of a later game when Go caught a cold.

Aesthetically, I prefer the sportsmanship mindset. "Two competitors met on the field of the goban and one exited victorious" is just a more pleasing narrative to my ear then "sure, so-and-so technically won, but they won in the incorrect manner! This other player is not at the top of the go world, but I think they're the best player around because they lose with class"

Which is not to say the small generosities can't be celebrated. But I prefer to view them as exceptional circumstances where the basic humanity involved shines through the facade of the game, rather than an obligation for players to meet.

I also like the view that games and sports at the top level are about striving to improve ourselves, and that the opponent is an adversary trying his hardest to demonstrate the flaws in your approach, whatever they are. Again, just aesthetics. There's a view that a game of go is fundamentally collaborative, that we're working together to find a beautiful path through these rules. I just find the former more interesting.

Maybe there are many things, places and people you think is not "wrong" to describe as being infested with death in one way or other. You only have to make up your own mind if you think it is OK to go around in life telling people they are infested with death or not.

There is no arguing that there was sometimes more and sometimes less activity in the past. There are plenty of people here these days and you already know my view on constantly lamenting it is otherwise.

Tournaments have rules for a reason, and good rules should clearly indicate who won. Someone who wins accordingly wins in the "correct manner". If there is a problem with the method of winning, then the sponsor and/or organizers should consider making adjustments to the rules before the next tournament. A player who wins according to the rules is a player who won in the correct manner for that tournament. Maybe some go fans aren't happy about the particular ruleset and/or nuances that a tournament has; tournament sponsors and organizers can take that into consideration if they want their tournament to be popular among fans.

The Ke Jie vs. Shin Jinseo misclick is a good example. There is nothing dishonorable about Ke Jie not offering a take-back. The move was played, and it's up to the tournament organizers to consider what should happen for this scenario beforehand.

Some people are of a different opinion and are talking about being a "gentleman". Maybe this makes sense to amateurs - we play games for fun, and want to have a good feeling of mutual sportsmanship while we are playing. But professionals are in a different situation. Playing go is their job, and they're playing not only for themselves, but for those who support them, their families, and for the patriotic among them, for their countries. To sidestep the rules and give the opponent a better chance to win because of "sportsmanship" would be selfish. On the surface, it may seem like good sportsmanship. But in reality, they are disrespecting those who support them. In effect, they are doing their jobs poorly.

Yes, it's unfortunate when there seems to be a win that happens in an "incorrect manner". But this is a task for the tournament organizers to solve - not for professionals who are paid to compete and win for those who need and support them.

Amateurs have a different go life than professionals in this regard.

_________________
be immersed

In Japanese go, when games might take more than one day to finish, the stronger player (white) had the privilege of determining when adjournment would happen. Apparently it occasionally (often?) happened that the player choosing the adjournment point would to give himself an advantage in analysing the position during the adjournment. I think Shusai, in particular, was accused of this. Wouldn't this be an example of using a time maneuver to benefit a player? FWIW I think Shusai was criticized for his behavior.

Professional courtesies can exist within games. In the early era of professional baseball there were no called strikes: the pitcher threw the ball and you had three swings to make contact. Eventually people started taking 30 or 40 pitches, waiting until the pitcher was tired and happened to lob the perfect ball to hit. Stealing bases with a big lead is still sometimes looked askance at. It is considered sporting to not run up the score in American Football if you already have a mostly insurmountable lead. Flopping - feigning injury to draw a penalty - is highly besmirched in sports until it becomes so commonplace it seems quixotic to abstain.

It's like a prisoner's dilemma - if everyone offers take-backs to misclicks, it's just part of the game (even if the rule is unwritten). But eventually somebody starts declining (as is technically their prerogative), or asking for take-backs to any move they regret, and the culture shifts.

In professional go, it's not just about that individual. As such, being lighthearted about the result is not a courtesy - it is disrespectful to those who are supporting you.

Besides - once you start being casual about who clicks where, who can have take-backs in byo-yomi, and the like... There's no solid line of who should actually be winning. That's what the rules are for. Amateur go can be more casual. Maybe western sports can be, too. But somehow, I don't think it's a coincidence that the example given is from the "early era". Being casual like that doesn't work for serious competition.

_________________
be immersed

The rules for professionals are governed by a preamble that tells them games have to be played in the right spirit.

When Go Seigen played mimic go against Kitani, those rules had not yet bean written. Still, Kitani got very upset, even though the moves played by Go were technically legitimate.

It is possible to go on and on, giving examples and counter-examples. Ultimately, all games, even pro games, are expected to be played within the prevailing culture. Since cultures evolve, there must be a point at which some players go against the grain. What makes them do that? Outside pressures from the wider culture. The commonest example is probably an increase in money prizes.

But we cannot always be sanguine evolution under such pressures. They lead also to things like drugs and cheating with AI (one good reason for trying to "maintain standards".

This is a good point - culture has a large impact on what is the honorable, courteous, or "right thing" to do. As a side note, the word, "evolve", in cultural evolution, seems to suggest a growing and/or positive change. Both in go and in society, while there are clear changes in culture, those changes are not purely good...

Maybe it means I am getting older. Or maybe my memory is faulty about what I used to think to be good.

It'd be cool to have a time machine.

_________________
be immersed

As a bit of a tangent, American football is a game that is driven by a clock. After 60 minutes of play, whoever is ahead wins. If a team is winning by a small margin and has the ball at the end of the game, it can "kneel down" with the ball and run out the clock.

For many years I had never heard anyone complain of this aspect of the game as unsportsmanlike. Until a few years back, that is, when Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones got mad and said teams with the ball should have to act in a spirit consistent with being on offense, and that referees should punish teams that kneel to run out the clock. Aside from that outburst, I never heard anything else about this again. The majority of fans see the clock as part of the strategy.

Indeed, in the Super Bowl a few years ago, the Atlanta Falcons jumped out to a big lead (28 to 3, I believe) on the New England Patriots. If Atlanta had only ran the ball more, it would have essentially run off enough clock to make it impossible for New England to come back. But New England did come back and win. It is referred to as one of the greatest cases of clock mismanagement ever. That is, it is expected that strategy/tactics will be informed by the clock.

And I think that is really it. If there is a clock in a variant of a game and there are rules and results based on the clock, then it is in the "spirit" of the clock-based game to use clock-time strategies to win the game.

I agree with most here that, while a perfectly legal tactic, it won't bring Sin into the realm of the legends - but is this really a distinguishing feature, or a one-off like Go Seigen's mimic Go? Go Seigen is a go saint and the incidental experiment, flirting with the ethics, didn't take away anything of his status. Lee Sedol is another legend, but he fell out with his professional organization on multiple occasions ...

It really depends on your personal preferences. In tennis I much prefer Federer's shot making over Nadal's power and Djokovic' tenacity. Federer also plays in a graceful fashion, while I hate Nadal's tics, grunting and delaying tactics. Likewise I dislike Djokovic' bouncing the ball 15 times before serving, or his bizarre preference for pseudo-science. BUT, I also like Djokovic' applause for a good shot by the opponent, something Federer hardly ever does.

I know the tennis personalities a little better than today's Go personalities, hence the deviation (amd John F. mentioned John McE. already). Eventually, the pros will live by their records, legendary events and the impact they made on the rest of the Go world. Since Lee Sedol, only Ke Jie has made such an impression on me, while Iyama Yuta has dominated the Japanese scene in almost unprecedented fashion and Shibano Toramaru has written books on new insights that stand out, despite his young age. Perhaps this "cynicism" is precisely what will give Sin that little extra to join that list.

At least we're talking about him.

In American football, basketball, soccer... the end of a game is determined by a clock.
In tennis, badminton... the end is determined by a result (in points). There is no clock (other than to control rest, serve time...)
In go, shogi, chess... the end is determined by a situation on the board. The clock is not an intrinsic part of the game. But it makes it possible to have a reasonable competition. Shusai vs Mitani over days and weeks is not something we want to have again

I more or less agree with culture being an important part here. What a player is considered good or bad depends upon when and where the action happens. But I also think that if you want to be not only a winner but a legend, you can't do certain things.

I'm not sure that is strictly speaking true. A FORMAL clock might not be an intrinsic part of those games but there still needs to be a requirement "to make a move in a reasonable amount of time". Otherwise the end would not be determined by the position on the board alone. It would be possible to NOT end in a decision if the player likely to lose simply refused to make a move.

Artificial/arbitrary distinction.

_________________
be immersed

Or by a clock, whichever comes first!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Quite a few people seem to take the view that clocks are an integral part of the game. I think it would be better to regard them as a bolt-on; or even as go-faster decal stripes on a car.

The true rules of the game are the walls and roof of a house created by a builder. A (temporary) owner can come along and decorate the house as he sees fit. He can then sell up and another owner will probably then re-decorate the house to his own taste, leaving the walls and roof intact.

If we look at go in that light, we can see that handicaps were probably the first decoration, and produced various methods. Komi followed. It too has varied, and is still not entirely stable today. It began as an integer, but when players were suspected of contriving jigos to get extra game fees, the half-point was introduced.

Time controls were introduced when players were suspected of try to win games through staying power (notably Kogishi Soji, who once took a game to 73 hours). But again various time controls were tried. There is a world of difference between 3 hours each with the last 5 minutes as 1-minute byoomi and the NHK system of 30 seconds a move except that 1 minute is allowed on 10 occasions. Then there is Ing: you don't lose on time; instead you buy extra time by giving up points. All these methods were used for different reasons. Originally, in Kogishi's day it was not just a question of stamina but the fact that the sponsoring newspaper had deadlines and wanted moves to be played in time to be published. The NHK system derived from the need for games to fill a certain time slot on radio, then tv. Ing, a businessman, wanted to push his creed that time is money.

Then there was the introduction of sealing moves. White had been considered to be abusing the privilege of adjourning games at his own convenience.

Today we have the range of protocols designed to prevent cheating (impersonation, consultation, AI, etc). No doubt soon we will also have urine samples.

All these features were introduced NOT because of any flaw in the basic rules (walls and roof) but because of bad behaviour by players, and they all vary according not just to that bad behaviour but according to external requirements of e.g. sponsors.

They are therefore pure decoration. They are NOT integral to the house. They simply co-exist and can be changed. They have a different nature and should be treated as such.

And even with these extra controls bad behaviour has remained rife. The coffee gambit - offering your opponent a coffee when he is in time trouble. Blowing cigarette smoke in his face. Or Sakata picking his toe nails as his opponent thought. Senior players glaring at junior timekeepers to make sure they counted byoyomi VERY, VERY slowly. Of course, you are perfectly free to regard all these things as just "part of the game." But I don't. They are just decoration, and my taste does not extend to painting ceilings chocolate brown, as a secretary of mine once did.