Eight players were disqualified for not trying in the London Olympics. Reaction has been split. Politicians and officials seem to be unanimous in condemning the players. Ordinary fans are split but most seem to take the players' sides (and not in the sense that punishment was disproportionate - they thought the players were justified in their actions.)

The one issue in go that seems to get the goat of many players, though piddling by comparison, is winning by time by playing unnecessary moves or trappy moves to make the opponent's clock run down. My impression of past debates is that most go players condemn this, but the clockmen have their adherents. In other words, a majority of go fans seem to condemn the practice, but only a minority of badminton fans condemn the deliberate losers.

The comparison of go and badminton here is perhaps unfair. The big difference is that for the badminton spectators were playing for an audience who have spent up to 3000 dollars per ticket. I'm sure that is why politicians and officials - those who look at the big picture - were so condemnatory. They don't seem to have condemned the practice when the limelight has been turned off (one Indonesian player has admitted deliberate losing has gone on before).

As it happens I was one of the capacity crowd yesterday at the Korea-Gabon football match at Wembley. As part of the Olympics it was a great experience (the thing that struck me most was that the myriad Korean fans were shouting Ko-re-a and not Han-guk), but as a football spectacle it was poor. But Korea only had to draw to go through to the next round, and could probably do that even if they lost. Gabon could only qualify mathematically even if they won. In short, I felt neither team was trying. But they were not condemned. Indeed the crowd applauded them much more than just politely.

On the other hand, if we look at chess (if I may be allowed yet another mention of my forays into that rival kingdom), grandmaster draws which deny chess fans and spectators a decent game to look at seem to be not just condemned, as they have been for a long time. They now seem to be actively discriminated against. Players who commit them may be denied invitations from tournament organisers, or draws may be discouraged by giving three points for a win, one for a draw.

So, mixed messages there. I'll add more to the melange by repeating my own view. I hate the word "strategy" when applied to twisting the rules. I notice that both the Chinese and Indonesian badminton players used this word. To me, strategy implies seeing the big picture. Clearly, in the case of badminton, they were not seeing the big picture, which is why the politicians and officials stepped in. Twisting the rules (or organisers' intentions) in my view is "deception". If you recall, Sun Zi separated this out from strategy in his Art of War and gave it its own chapter - entitled "Deception". Provided you make the distinction and call rule-twisting something other than "strategy" (which has a noble nuance, after all) - "deception" for preference, but I'd accept "tactics" at a pinch - I could live with it in go, though I'd still frown at it. But in the badminton case, because of the cost of spectators' tickets, I'm quite clear that strong action was called for by the officials.

Anyway, any lessons for go?

Regarding the chess analogy, I think win incentives seem to work well, as does the no draw within 30 moves rule. As an example, chess round robins at the top level typically have a draw rate between about 55% and 70%. The latest tournament at Biel (the only one AFAIK at the top level to implement 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw) has only a 33% draw rate (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8376), and the games have been entertaining as no-one particularly wants a draw until it's clearly the only reasonable result left. I think it's always good if incentives can be used to achieved the desired effect (which in this case is maximising spectactor and sponsor entertainment).

We don't have that problem in Go: you can't "settle" for a draw because without unusual tournament/match circumstances, you can't get one. I'm not entirely sure what level of ability you are aiming this at (professionals, amateurs at a senior level, local national tournaments, online tournaments, online general games?), but with the exception of the top level I don't see it as a problem if a player comes to the board and doesn't try particularly hard to win.

If I go to a real life tournament I go mostly for the social side of things, with the games being a bonus. Sometimes I'm well rested and firing on all cylinders wanting to win everything, sometimes I don't much care for the results of the games but am just enjoying the day out. In both cases I don't remember a circumstance where my opponent and I didn't enjoy the game anyway, and I don't see anyone being harmed by it, so I don't particularly see that as being selfish of me (although maybe it is, I'm interested in comments on that one).

Similarly, with online games, sometimes I'm really wanting to play a serious game, and other times (like my last one) I just want to go a bit crazy and try something new, or generally let off steam after a long day, and couldn't care less what happens on the board as long as my opponent and I both enjoy the game.

Professionals have an obligation, but we don't _have_ any professionals in the UK, and very few and far between in Europe (and soon, the USA), so is this issue one of particular concern in Go?

Well, one lesson that can be taken from this, in general, is: don't use a tournament system in which it is sometimes better to lose than to win (or draw).

I don't know what the circumstances were in the olympic badminton case. I can imagine that in a double elimination go tournament someone might decide that it is in his interest to lose deliberately in the "winners" section because of an expectation that opponents will be easier to beat in the "losers" section.

Political scientists are familiar with the fact that, when there are more than two candidates, many election systems can be manipulated through "dishonest" voting in preliminary elections. In other words in the preliminary election you vote for a candidate you don't want to win because you think your real favorite will be more likely to win in the final.

In bicycle racing (e.g. the recently finished Tour de France) it sometimes happens that a contender for the over-all lead suffers a misfortune unrelated to the race (e.g. a fan knocks him off his bike) and the racers who would benefit from this decide not to race all-out to take advantage but slow down to allow the rider who was interfered with to catch back up with the group. This is considered good sportsmanship.

In the case of "time limit" tactics in go, they have been around for a long time in one form or another. Honinbo Shusai Meijin was famous for arranging to make the sealed move at the end of a day's play so he could have an advantage in thinking about the game over the break in play, a form of time limit tactics. And there is the case of his opponent, Kitani, sealing a forcing move in the retirement game. Besides trying to make the opponent run out of time, often people make forcing moves in byo yomi to give themselves more time to think. There is a story in Nakayama's Gokyo Monogatari about two young players in the oteai, which had no time limit and no adjournment. One was Sakata and the other Hoshino(?) and Hoshino embarked on a time tactic by taking a very long time (hours?) to make an obvious move in an attempt to make Sakata so fatigued that his play would suffer. Playing forcing moves in byo yomi to gain thinking time seems to be generally accepted, but playing moves that obviously don't work just to make the opponent's clock run down is not acceptable to many people, and might earn a punishment on a go server.

Had I been a spectator at the matches, I would probably have been outraged as well. That said, I actually disagree with some of the original post.

$3000 tickets? So what? I know that under the new collective bargaining agreement in the U. S. National Basketball Association (remember the lockout?) 50% of all basketball related income (BRI) goes to the players. I could not say what percentage of olympic badminton related income goes to the players, but I am willing to wager a considerable sum that it is less than half the proceeds from those $3000 tickets. The players are there for the opportunity to win medals, which is their only real road to glory. The players responded rationally to the incentives offered them, just as players have in all sorts of other sports over the years (see the comments to the linked post for many examples - Barbados vs. Grenada is the best!). Their crime was that they were not better actors.

From the Los Angeles Times:
'...But the punishment has not settled what one sports ethicist described as an "iffy moral issue."

"Was this against the rules?" said Jay Coakley, author of "Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies." "It's something we have to decide on a case-by-case basis."

Fans seem to understand when Michael Phelps holds back during a preliminary race in swimming, finishing just fast enough to qualify for the final. Officials don't suspend anyone when a playoff-bound team keeps some of its starters out of a meaningless game.

At these Olympics, the coach of the powerful Japanese women's soccer team instructed his players not to score in their final group game Tuesday against South Africa, according to numerous reports. The 0-0 tie gave Japan a more favorable matchup in the next round.

Soccer's international federation said it would not take action.

Because of the way the badminton draw played out, those players knew that if they entered the knockout round with a lower seeding, they could avoid facing a talented team right off the bat.

Officials deemed it a case of "not using one's best efforts to win a match" and "conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport."...

"The rules allowed it," said Tomas Berdych, the world's seventh-ranked tennis player from the Czech Republic. "We have played some round-robin formats in smaller tournaments, and if somebody thinks that's good for them that they can go farther in the tournament, OK... But it's simple: Don't give some guys sitting behind a table making the rules the opportunity to do this, and then nothing is going to happen. The rule-makers should think smartly and have one match, win or go home like we have, and then this isn't an issue."

At the 2006 Turin Olympics, the gold-medal-winning Swedish hockey team raised eyebrows by falling, 3-0, to heavy underdog Slovakia in a final preliminary-round game. That loss enabled the Swedes to avoid powerhouses Canada and Russia in the quarterfinals.

In a documentary, Swedish star Peter Forsberg was quoted as saying, "We did all that was needed to win the tournament. I think you can blame the whole system."...'

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

I must admit I don't quite see the issue in elimination format tournaments. If you want to win, you have to beat everybody. Being in the loser's bracket of a double elimination still forces you to play the person who hasn't lost, and overcome a game disadvantage to win.

The only difference being is if, for example, there are substantial incrementally increasing prize funds for subsequent rounds. In the case of a group + knockout system, making sure the winners of groups are always seeded against runners up (depending on the amount that go through) still puts the incentive on teams/players to do as well as possible, as it means that the next round will have you playing a lower finishing team only if you win your own group. Of course you may play to finish second to avoid a specific opponent, but I don't see that affecting the overall winner very much.

I suspect the morale and team spirit type impact of deliberately managing a certain result would override any other impact - for one thing, making your team play a certain way to avoid team X could easily create a psychological bogeyman syndrome should you play them in later rounds anyway.

I find the whole thing really not very compelling to be honest. The only ethical problem I really do have is, for example, imagine an 8 player round robin where the top 2 play in a final, and the player in first coming into the last round is guaranteed a place in the top 2. Depending on his opponent, he could deliberately throw a final game to ensure he gets that player in the final, and this feels like an abuse. Any dealings of such kind with financial implications I think should be considered more severely, but I still see very few instances where a tournament winner could be affected by this kind of thing.



This is exactly what I mean about financial implication issues .. it's not easy to prove compliance (particularly as all it takes is for one player to suddenly see a marginal advantage and decide not to play ball and it can all blow up in the other player's face), but it still feels like financial arrangements for an event can be designed to make this kind of abuse as difficult as possible.

The Baidu Weiqi forum has been discussing this a bit too. One question I thought to be interesting is "what would happen if Gu Li and Lee Sedol played each other and both tried to lose" :p

Personally my initial reaction was that the players (well, probably more accurately, the coaches) behaved badly, but then I saw the tournament format and thought it not the most appropriate. Allowing for the possibility of situations that ask players to expend energy (granted, when the other side wants to lose there's not much work involved) in order to try to win and face tougher opponents is rather strange.

It seems like the biggest issue was that it was too obvious. Had two of the teams tried to give a good show to the audience, the games would have looked much nicer (as games where both sides try to lose are rather obvious) but the honest teams would have been punished by the format in having to face tougher competition next round.

It's quite sad that a simple change to the system (e.g. random drawing for next round after progression) would have prevented this misalignment of interest between the players and the audience and hence this entire debacle.

Pair Go Manners
(1) Pair Go, like contract bridge, is an intellectual contest between ladies and gentlemen. Please avoid unmannerly speech, conduct, attitudes, or dress.
(2) Be careful to avoid behavior or gestures that might give or seem to give your partner a hint concerning the next move.
(3) Please refrain from trying to win on time when you have a lost game.
(4) Gentlemen should wear coats and ties at official Pair Go tournaments.
(5) Smoking is not permitted during play at official Pair Go tournaments.
(6) Partners must not leave their seats at the same time during a game at official Pair Go tournaments.

Pair Go is the only body saying that dirty wins on time are not on. Some people I have seen advocating that dirty wins on time are okay, were Pair Go players, (international reps at that.)

It strikes me as most peculiar that we allow winning on time by filling in your own territory, BUT, we do not allow Go players to make grandmaster draws. Two Russian players were disqualified from the London Open, whilst leading, and the decision upheld by the EGF, over a 'triple ko' game. I would have thought that the balance is incorrect there.

If the Olympics have a shred of credibility, deliberate losses should be punished.

_________________
North Lecale

Aparently, from news reports, the "misbehavior" was not explicitly against the rules. It's a case of not wanting behavior that looks bad, even if it is not forbidden by the rules. I wonder whether this whole issue is an indirect result of allowing professionals to compete in teh olympics.

Bizarre incentives in tournament formats lead to bizarre (if absolutely hilarious) games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZjLJnQM-Dg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHTTZ4lwuNg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3nS8GmGQI

Politicians and officials should condemn the badminton federation for setting up rules which make losing a good strategy. The goal of the badminton team is to win a gold medal, not to please spectators, so I find it hard to fault them. Instituting a vague rule that players are required to play their best or attempt to win every match is not a good solution.

This is minor compared to the allegations about sumo wrestling ( http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?it ... bcatid=138 )

What is noteworthy here, IMHO, is not just the usual matches that don't look right or the unsubstantiated claims by whistle blowers, but the statistical evidence. In certain 15-round events, a sumo wrestler must get at least a 8-7 score to maintain his position with his house/club/guild. In the last round when wrestlers who are 7-7 and need one more win are paired against opponents who already have their 8th win, you would expect the guy with 8 wins to be slightly better and therefore win more often. But an amazingly high percentage ( 80% !!! ) of such matches are won by the guy with 7 wins.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

During my time playing online poker (2002-2006) the technology and rules framework were open to numerous exploits. I doubt I was the first but I certainly championed and used "short stacking" as a way of reducing rake and rapid multitabling to maximise profits. Certainly I was never banned for doing this as it was within the rules BUT many players around the table objected to the strategy. They were "there to play and have fun". I was there to take money.

The thing I was probably guilty of starting up was a flaw in the timing sequences and prize structures of satellite tournaments.This techniques relied on going to full time every hand then passing. Thus wasting vast amounts of time for everyone at the table. Satellite tournaments are such that by slowing down play in this manner you increase the odds of getting through to the next stage. It's a bit like stepping aside from a battle - watching everyone kill each other - then joining in at the last moment to kill those who remain.

The first time I did this I got several complaints against me. The poker house view was quite clear. I had not broken any rules so they upheld my position.

Playing a game professionally is very different to playing for fun. My only reservation about the actions of the badminton players was that they didn't confirm with an official that their action was acceptable. This was very sloppy and high risk.

Interestingly in real life poker you can show down an inferior hand, look your opponent in the eye and claim the hand. Unless he checks your cards and confirms he has won - the pot is yours!

As I understand it, losing was a good strategy only because there were two Korean and two Chinese teams, and they didn't want to be in a bracket where they could eliminate conationals. Is that the federation's fault?

As I understand it your statement is incorrect. Check the news reports. It all cascaded from the unexpected loss by the world #2 ranked Chinese pair. This lead to everyone else trying to be in the bottom half of the table for the finals. Your explanation does not explain the role of the Indonesian pair.

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

Certainly the 7-7 sumotori who needs the win is going to have stronger motivation, and there is some risk of injury in sumo so the 8-7 sumotori is not going to take any risks. Whether that is enough to explain the 80% figure I don't know.

The actual study was a bit more robust that just the part Joaz cited, if I recall one of the most damning things was that not only would the 7-7 wrestlers win 80% of the time....but the next time the same two faced it was something like an 80% reversed result, regardless of tournament score (as if the original 7-7 wrestler was paying back the favor).

If both teams want to loose they can't cooperate for a good show. They have to compete in underperformance. If the rules don't allow underperformance they have to compete in masquerading underperformance. Masquerading might be more fun to watch.

Yes, that was what I was trying to say, but got lazy and failed epicly at communication. By "...two of the teams tried to give a good show to the audience..." I meant "one team each from the two games tried to play well and win despite it being disadvantageous".

Meanwhile over on the basketball court....

Will Brazil And Spain Tank To Avoid Team USA?

"In the immediate aftermath of the Olympic Women's Badminton scandal that saw eight participants disqualified for trying to throw their final pool play matches in order to secure more favorable matchups in the knockout stage, we discussed a nightmare scenario that could play out in men's basketball. As it happens, that perfect storm for tanking has formed once again...."

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