Most amateur tournaments in the Far East use sudden death and they seem to have no problems. I have actually played in a team tournament in China, again with no problems, because everybody plays under the same conditions. I remember that Takagawa Shukaku said that he allocated one third of his time to the fuseki, one third to the middle game and one third to the end game. Are Western players so disorganised that they can't arrange themselves?

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

You are right, Kirby.

Usually you will have to give compensation according to the level of disability before the game starts. At least to tell what the compensation will be.

This is equivalent to give someone more time in an examination who cannot write as fast as "normal" people. Overtime has nothing to do with his mental abilities. When time (including "additional" time) is over, the paper must be handed out.

May be possible that there is something like "You may write ten minutes on even after the bell has rung.", if it is not possible to start earlier than the others. But even in this case it is necessary to have a clear signal for the start of the "additional" time.

If someone cannot hear the sound of the clock (what may be one core feature of digital clocks), it is fair to tell him that Byoyomi has begun and that he has to pay more attention to the display than before. It would be unfair to let him go through Byoyomi without signal and probably have him (unnoticed) lost by time after the first (or even several successive) period(s) of Byoyomi.

May be that this oversight can happen even to an experienced player, due to the stress in an important match.

But in one of his posts, breakfast mentioned that there had been already played about 30 moves in Byoyomi. If this is true, this case has to be evaluated in a different manner. Lets assume 30 moves in Byoyomi (of 1 minute) be at least 15 minutes in total. During this time span a player must realize that his thinking time does not decrease any more (what means that he is in Byoyomi). So if move 31 is not in time, the player has lost.

There has nothing been told about the display beeing faulty or the clock having another malfunction. So if there had been sound or not is irrelevant.

It would be relevant if there had been sound in the beginning of Byoyomi, but suddenly vanished, but this would mean a malfunction of the clock.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: http://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyoron #120 (still unresolved by professionals, maybe solved by four amateurs)

Confucius recommended: First check the names.

Nobody has yet remarked that Dinerchtein twice referred to van Zeijst, who is hardly a nonentity in European go, as van Zeist. Getting your opponent's name wrong seems worthy of losing a game

Obviously I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek, but what it brought to mind was a book published by a group of European players (last year?) who were all bidding to be pros. I was utterly dismayed by the abysmal quality of the proofreading (the writing and the layout weren't much better). I don't see how you can hope to be a successful pro if that's how you treat your prospective customers.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic, but I see it as all part of the "strong players" mix.

I think that I understand your point. I pretty much agree with you, I think. I think it is good sportsmanship, and also fair, to let a player know that they have entered byo-yomi.

Whether it is a requirement is debatable, I guess. I suppose that, if losses due to missing byo-yomi periods is enforced, it should be made clear at the onset of the tournament (eg. "The clock may not make a sound, but you are still responsible.").

I am in favor of enforcing time strictly, and giving a clarification of such at the start of the tournament. First, it seems consistent with some other rulings that have already occurred. Second, it prevents any sort of strategy to abuse accommodations made to users that run out of time.

I have run out of time in a tournament, by the way. There may have been sound enabled on the clock, but I was concentrating too hard to hear it.

I guess a good resolution might be to clearly define what constitutes a "malfunction" of the clock, and what is on the other hand, the responsibility of the player.

If these things are more clearly defined, there can't be much argument after the fact.

_________________
be immersed

I suspect that the problems are just not perceived. Does anyone have statistics about time losses and/or time usage in these games?



That is certainly a good way to allocate one's time, but I think (I may be mistaken) that the japanese professionals always have played with their only minute-precise time accounting, i.e., the time used per move is rounded down to the next minute (the origins of byoyomi lie herein).

I propose the following experiment: During a game with tournament time settings, let yourself be interrupted at a random time. Without looking at the board or clock, answer the following questions:

• How many moves have been played so far?
• How many moves will be played from now until the end of the game?
• How much time has elapsed?
• At which phase is the game now (early/middle/late opening/middle/end game)?

Then record the board and the clock at this time and complete the game. How accurate were your answers?



Your post could have been so useful without the name calling.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

That's not true even today. For example, they have tournaments where you play at, say, 30 seconds a move but on X number of occasions you can think for, say, up to 3 minutes.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the most widely used system in Japan since time limits were introduced has been sudden death using chess clocks.

The Hiseikai in 1920 was groundbreaking in introducing even games regardless of rank and time limits. These items were part of its manifesto, and as regards time the manifesto said "Time limits to be up to 32 hours per games, 16 hours per player. Players who have not finished playing before expiry of their time allocation lose the game." I would read that as sudden death.

In addition, there are references to Oteai games, for example, which normally had no scorekeeper and where the players were each expected to memorise the game and record it afterwards - not always accurately or with the same moves. To avoid embarassment some pros would confer, and they would usually omit the ko threats for a final half-point ko (as is still done today).Chess clocks are also specifically mentioned. So putting two and two together and making five, it seems that sudden death was the only system that will fit all the available facts.

The system of byoyomi (counting the seconds) was of course used in the early Yomiuri ten-game matches. It's hard to know exactly what was done in lessser games where the expense of a scorekeeper was a burden. The typical procedure was that a senior pro would secure a contract with a newspaper and he was expected to find two players, arrange every detail of the game, and write a commentary. Apart from the prize-money (about a third of the fee) his budget was meant to cover accommodation and catering. Fees for were not large or regular. Naturally it was not unusual that games were played in his house where Mrs Senior Pro's maid did the catering. It's possible that young pupils were drafted in to keep score, and they could also keep the time, but the players who did not belong to the senior pro's school might worry about bias, so I could imagine more readily that chess clocks were used. In any case, the Yomiuri claimed - I'm not sure how justified the claim is - that the Meijin was the first tournament to use byoyomi. Since it seems to be first and only mentioned in their earlier ten-game matches, it perhaps really was their trademark gimmick.

In more recent times in Korea, there was controversy in the 2000 Nongshim Cup qualification tournament, when it was claimed that the reason for the major upsets of top players was that the games were run on a novel basis: shock, horror, the pros had to press their own clocks. With a time allowance of just 70 minutes and a single overtime period, the older pros were apparently finding it hard to adjust and were either getting into time trouble or even losing on time. The implication is that they were not yet used to overtime - not very many got to play in title matches, remember - and were used to long time limits (the minimum before then was three hours each).

So I infer from all this (and of course from some other things I'm too lazy to mention) that sudden death was the norm in both Japan and Korea, and maybe still is, but long time limits were a natural concomitant. And, as T Mark said, sudden death has long been the norm among Oriental amateurs - it seems likely that they would tend to ape the pros.

Even with byoyomi, pro usage has differed from ours. In game 3 of the 2009 Myeongin title match, Yi Ch'ang-ho went to the loo during byoyomi, having just made his move. While he was away, the timekeeper started counting down for Weon Seong-chin, who was startled but made his move in time. The reason Weon was startled is that the rules say that the clock can be stopped while the opponent is at the toilet. In other words, Weon expected to have had all the extra time while Yi was in the loo.

The debate was initially whether the timekeeper was right. The rules say the clock "can" be stopped, but don't actually say who makes the decision. One view was that the scorekeeper was correct but perhaps too literal minded. The next debate was whether this should affect the result. It appears that Weon "with good grace" gave way during the confab afterwards with referee Kim Tong-myeon because he was some way behind anyway (he lost by 3.5), but the inference was that if it had been close, or if he had made a mistake when rushed, he could have had a valid claim for a ruling in his favour.

There is potential for similar disputes with another Hanguk Giwon rule, which is that the clock may be stopped "for a short while" in the case of a large capture while prisoners are removed. No time or number is specified. This is essentially the law of unintended effects wreaking havoc again. The gentlemanly rules were drawn up in the days before the very short time limits of modern Korean go became the norm, when byoyomi was much less of a consideration, if any.

It also has to be said that the tournament rules for Korean pros are much more complex than the Japanese equivalent - more like the way we would do it - and are constantly being tweaked. It's therefore no surprise to me that the Koreans have more disputes than the Japanese, though there are other factors.

Sorry, that should have been "always had played", and was meant with respect to the era Takagawa played in.



That this was a newer invention is new to me, thanks for the information. Since the accounts of the Go-Kitani game of 1957 mention that Black entered byoyomi, it must have been established at that time. Perhaps one could try to ask the players who were around at that time for details.



The thing that I find telling is that the top professionals play with byoyomi, while amateurs do not. I read from this that their games should not suffer from time hassles, even when their time has to be limited. Amateurs' games, on the other hand, are not important enough for the added effort of timekeeping. This comparison indicates to me that byoyomi is seen as adding quality.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Off-topic indeed, but something I'me very sensitive too. My job is writing and editing, and I often see such "artisanal" books published where they're just checked for spelling errors by "the person whose English is best."

Anyone writing a go book: ask me for editing, in exchange for lessons or similar.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

There are even new books with so many simple spelling mistakes that one gets the impression "hardly proofread at all". That is the real pity.

Yes, it's not limited to go books either. But anyone who's not a "real" writer and who publishes a book should get someone qualified to proofread and edit the book. It makes a difference in how people perceive the book's overall quality.

Your book, Robert, BTW, is pretty good. There are a handful of typos, and some odd constructions (which John F pointed out elsewhere), but otherwise it's fine.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I don't know what your definition of "real" is, but I'm not sure they should be exempted either. The last 4 fiction books I've read have all had at least one glaringly obvious (to me) typo. I personally don't have any issue with them, and it doesn't affect my opinion of the quality of the material, but I know it would for some, and it does seem to happen rather a lot.

Hi Mark,

While I'm not looking into entering into an argument with you I think that your approach of the case is not the best possible one. There are also Eastern players (famous professionals) who many times were getting into time trouble. Were they disorganized?

While Takagawa's style was in his own words ... "In the early going I don't waiver between which line is best, this one, or is it this one? I choose at once" combined with "I don't have a well developed intuition", other people are not like that. Again Takagawa's own words, "Fujisawa [My note: Hosai] resembles Kitani in that if he cannot decide the best thing to do in a situation he simply cannot bring himself to play. When he must choose between two reasonable continuations, he will knowck himself out trying to decide between them" (source: Go World #41, Autumn 1985)

I don't think that this is a matter of organization (there might be some exceptions though ). It's more like a competition oriented approach vs. go as art approach.

Adrian

P.S. My post may be regarded as off-topic. It's not related at all to Alex vs Rob dispute. If you ask me, "Well, then what is the best approach in your opinion?", my answer is that ... I'm not going to enter into the "Alex vs Rob competition". Sorry

Real means someone who writes for a living. It's even more of an issue when the author is not a native speaker of the language in which they write (such as the many go players who write in English but are not natives.)

Yes, pretty much every book has typos; there is a law of the conservation of typographic errors which posits that for every typo removed in a book another one self-generates. There has been a great deal of research into this, and scientists have not been able to figure it out. The latest theories suggest it has something to do with dark matter.

This said, "one... typo" is nothing big. John and I were both talking about books which are clearly full of errors.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Maybe this should be moved to a different thread...

By the usual law regarding complaints of inaccuracy you commit one of your own
Catalin Taranu is a professional already from what I gather.

I didn't see much wrong with the layout, When I am reading analysis I prefer efficiency to subjective beauty. Likewise, the quality of the English has little bearing on my enjoyment of the text. I was, like you, disappointed that the book containing some obvious mistakes in the diagrams. The players were most probably guilty of not spotting these, but there was a non player responsible for publication and one should not exclude their guilt either. Overall though, I found it to be quite a nice book, and I enjoyed reading and playing through its games. How did others find the book?

Maybe, maybe not. He seems to have entered the European as a 7d amateur. And he was a Japanese pro. Now he wants to be a European pro - a different and, oddly, a much harder task!

My problem with the layout was with the magazine format and all those tracts of white space. If I pay book money I prefer to get a book, not a hard-cover copy of the British go journal. This, however, was the least of my concerns.

I found the commentaries to be just commentaries, which you can get anywhere, usually done by a higher level of pros. That may be acceptable (as in Go World) for games that have just been played and so are being presented as much for their news value, but in a book I expect the author to work a bit harder and provide overall themes (how to use thickness, how to invade, etc), or to imbue the actual commentaries with novel insights. We either didn't get that here or it passed me by.

I'm not saying the book was a waste of time, but I don't think it did much to help the budding pros set out their stall. And, of course, all the English mistakes and typos are just like buying a shiny apple from the stall only to find it's worm-eaten on the other side.

Strike 2 for you. Looking the actual registration http://www.egc2010.fi/registered.php?sort=5 it is pretty obvious that he did actually enter as 5p. Strange things seems to happen when actual pairings are made in the EGC http://www.egc2010.fi/results/egc-main-pairing-r1.txt.

In a McMahon, amateur and pro ranks are badly comparable and some pairing programs expect amateur ranks. Therefore pro ranks might be translated to amateur ranks. Currently 7d is assumed to be the top amateur rank of a European.

As pointed out, the owls are not what they seem. The pairing program used - MacMahon 2.50 - is a reliable tool for huge tournaments but does not understand professional ranks. The 7d rating in the result lists is just a matter of this implementation. Catalin Taranu entered EGC 2010 as a 5 dan pro.

Cheers,
Vesa

Vesa, could you upload the TUR file, please?

Surely this is not needed as the tournament data is fully available in the European Go Database. The Main Tournament is artificially split in two but "that is how it's done since 1996" according to the EGF Rating Manager.

http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... y=E100725A
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... y=E100802A

Cheers,
Vesa