Since this appears to have arisen from RJ's comment in the rules thread,

I'd just like to add that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with killing a newer player en masse.

But it has to be kindly and good natured. I tell the people I teach not to care too much about the score. The closeness of the game may not be represented by the score.

The cause of a person leaving is not going to be the level of death on the board, it's going to be the way death visits!

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

On a 13x13 board with 4H, a dan player has a nontrivial chance of killing all of a DDK's stones without even trying---especially if the DDK is being aggressive. Heck, even just playing simple moves may result in such an outcome. In fact, against DDKs with an aggressive slant, a dan player may need to make an active effort to avoid this.

RJ's opinion about the causal relationship between the features of the Japanese rule set and the frustration of his opponent is certainly very debatable---as many of his opinions are. However, to admonish him for bad manners because he ended up killing everything against a beginner on a tiny board is ridiculous. Yes, the self-proclaimed 13-kyu player is a beginner if he cannot understand the life-and-death status of groups at what he himself agree was the end of a game (with the exception of bent-four and the like). Was RJ supposed to play bad moves intentionally? Given how many people on this forum seem to think that learning from examples (in particular, the moves of stronger players) is so effective, wouldn't seeing a high-dan player play bad moves actually hurt the weaker player?

Honestly, I find the story to be more informative about the counterproductive pride of his opponent. If that particular beginner's pride could not bear being crushed by someone with many more years of experience and time invested in the game, then I am glad that he quit. Sounds like the kind of person who would belittle weaker opponents once he got stronger.

Did RJ belittle his opponent with his speech because he was the stronger player? Was he playing inside his own territory to taunt his opponent with useless moves? We can even debate whether trying to crush your opponent is the best way to teach (Do we know that this was RJ's goal? Do we know how his opponent was playing?) Are people imagining details that were not mentioned in RJ's post from their preexisting opinions of RJ's character? Would people start criticizing the DDK if we replaced RJ's name with some pro's name? Would we perhaps even trot out some variation of "Asian players learn faster because they are willing to undergo trial by fire"?

Yes, RJ can be frustrating when you try to debate him, but that is no reason to essentially call him a dishonorable jerk based on his extremely brief description of the incident. Again, there's almost zero information in there. In fact, that's why the story doesn't support RJ's argument about Japanese rules. If we can recognize that, then we should be able to recognize that there is not enough information to impugn RJ's character either.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you say. Two quick comments below:



Well, this is not necessarily so. As a so much stronger player, easily crushing your opponent, you can make the game the game more interesting by, for example, setting specific goals. Like: lets see if I can win by 1 point. Or, better yet, lets see if I can make such moves as to lead my opponent into saving his group. This can be quite challenging and often requires much more skill than simply killing everything in sight. And it can be very satisfactory if done right. And very instructional.

Remember HnG when both Akira and Hikaru attempted to get jigos in their simul games against much weaker opponents. I know HnG is fiction, and a poor one at that, but would you say that they 'played bad moves intentionally' and so robbed their opponents of a chance at learning by example? Or was their desire not to easily crush their opponents a much better lesson?



Slight issue I have with the above paragraph... As you say on one hand we have not enough information about the actual case, and on the other we *know* how very frustrating it can be to enter almost any kind of discussion with RJ, especially if it is a dispute. Based on this, my strong suspicion is that at least part of the problem is on RJ's side for... well, being RJ, his usual lovely self. Although I have also said that there is the possibility of the beginner's character flaws contributing to the sad outcome.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Yes. My point is that both scenarios are reasonable possibilities.
Yes, but that is closer to an issue of efficacy rather than one of morality. There are certainly enough stories of people hardening their skills through bangnegi, which sometimes involves crushing your opponent by employing unreasonable moves. Even Hikaru himself was viciously sliced to pieces by Sai in many practice games. Moreover, Akira and Hikaru had many motives for trying to get such results, and not all of them had to do with teaching someone else. In the case of Hikaru, he wanted to train himself in the endgame and counting. When Akira played the politician and his aides and one by 0.5 against all three, he actually seemed to be trying to demonstrate how strong pros were---in a way, his goal was similar to that which one might have when crushing a weaker opponent.
That is not an unreasonable inference to draw in private conversations. I only object that this became the justification of a public denigration, which I believe requires a higher standard of proof. In a sense, I do understand how this can happen, because sometimes site like these do feel like private enclaves rather than public fora. Of course, you do not have to agree with these standards, but that's where I am coming from.

Look, you seem like an intelligent person if I read your other posts. You must know intelligent people with whom you can have a stimulating conversation. I just think that you and others will be happier if you talk to someone else. I won't insist upon this point any further now that I've gotten my two cents in. After all, whatever I say is only opinion as well.

Cheers.

Ok, all good points, I accept that. Will tone down my criticism, with apologies to Robert.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

And this is what I did as part of the scoring.



I do not recall if we did scoring by imagined sequences or temporary stones on the board. Maybe a combination of both.



Eh? You want me (and others in similar situations) to LIE about group status and to do so just in case the opponent MIGHT otherwise go away (something I had not even anticipated, because I had not seen it before)?!



Apology accepted.

Thank you.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Totally OT comment about how I perceive this here

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?