if you downloaded the sequence then you will no that there were no such moves played by korean players.
ref stopped the game when there were only 1 min left for chinese players and they pressed the clock with wrong hand.
clearly showing that time were major factor of the game.
the game was not that clearly finished and still many moves to play and there was not reason for ref to stop the game.
i do not believe that korean players resigned as chinese website claims.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Still waiting for an SGF.

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

If you were referring to the game record I provided the link to in post #7, I already indicated it was incomplete. There were 20 or 30 more moves after move #261 (it is not clear to me whether "20 or 30" was the number of white moves alone or both black and white moves). If you have the game record that shows moves beyond #261, I'd like to see it.

At move #261, black had over 1 min left and white, 4 min. The game was not suspended until 20 or 30 moves after move #261. In fact, that is when the Chinese team got a 1 pt penalty for failing to remove all captured stones from the board.



Exactly. It would be against the rule for the referee to stop the game. I believe the Chief Referee merely suspended the game to allow time for some communication with the players.



Do you believe Kim Su-Chang 9p was involved in the incident? If it was such a controversial matter, why didn't he object?

Looks like we are not going to see the complete game record after all, as the organizing committee just announced that they would not make public the game moves beyond #261. The reason for that decision and the detail of what happened before and after the incident were given in http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_593a18380100ma0l.html?tj=1. It is a long post. In essence, the Korean team accepted the result and acknowledged that their moves beyond #261 in the game were due to their misunderstanding of the rules.

Ah, sorry, my bad.
The news from China said the players resigned after having talked with the Korean chef ref.
And I thought that was what happened.
So, ok, one of the media did not tell the truth. And now we don't know what happened exactly.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Who cares now about this incident? Both South Korean pairs qualified for the semi finals anyway. The big news should be the pair on place one however.

Do anyone know how they break ties (SOS seems to be first tie breaker, but afterwards?)

I kind of care that the OP stuck in a dig against the host nation without much to go on.

The latest link from Chinese news source: http://yayun2010.sina.com.cn/go/2010-11-22/13345327746.shtml. It appears to have been translated from an article on cyberoro, as it even included a screen shot of the Korean web page. The caption under the second photo says "Korean coach Yang Jaeho explaining to Korean media reporters details of the incident". The first paragraph of the text ends by saying that this is the second time Yang 9p publicly affirmed his support of the referees' decision.

I assume OP would have no problem locating the original article on cyberoro and, since it is from a Korean news source, believing what it says, it is about time for him to bring the thread to a closure.

I agree completely. There is nothing that non-participants can usefully add except nationalistic bluster.

There have been several incidents to do with rules in recent years, but they are rarely contentious issues. Most are just careless "oops" incidents. The commonest thread appears to be players forgetting that they are playing under a rule set other than their own. This is not just when playing abroad, as in the case of a Chinese player tossing a captured stone back into the opponent's bowl when playing in Korea earlier this year, only to find to her surprise she had lost by half a point. One of the saddest cases was a game between two Chinese in China, where a 9-dan carefully counted the game and calculated he was one point behind. With just two dames left to fill -one each - he knew he couldn't catch up. so he resigned instead of going through the tedious counting procedure. The problem was, this was a Nongshim Cup qualifier, a Korean-sponosred event, so Korean rules were in force. Under Korean counting he would have won by half a point.

These are typical mistakes, and they have nothing to do with national rivalries. They would be rectified easily if professionals would act professionally.

Even if there are cases of rivalry spilling over into a tinge of nationalism, to those who wish to overemphasise this I would say that some of us can remember it was not so very long ago that the international events could not even take place. Further, we should remember the many positive happenings at the individual player level. In the case of China/Korea I think the goodwill engendered by players like Mok Chin-seok and Yi Yeong-ku regularly playing in the China Weiqi League offers a much stronger and thoroughly wholesome "smell".

International Standard Ruleset.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

0) Not publishing the complete game record looks like an attempt to prevent the public from judging well about the referee decision - were the disputed moves pure timesujis or not?

1) In principle Area Scoring can be handled more easily than Territory Scoring especially also in such cases.

2) Sudden Death in important tournaments (other than those really requiring it like blitz) creates unnecessary problems.

3) The Chinese (?) rules about time strategy appear to be too complex. Simpler rules would be better because their application could be easier for everybody.

4) I dislike timing rules that depend on any strategic judgement because a) they invite disputes and make disputes more frequent (when behind, a player can still try his arbitration luck), b) in a dispute a player might be forced to reveal his strategy to the opponent prematurely for the sake of defending his just right to a move of his choice (like in complicated teire aji shapes), c) such rules are bound to be ambiguous.

5) Simple timing rules for non-strict sudden death games without arbitrary referee decisions could be as follows: "When a player's time runs below 1 minute, then he may request that both players' times are enhanced by a byoyomi of X seconds per move." Then the opponent can try whichever "useless" moves he likes - it would be futile timesujis.

Or maybe to prevent the public to think badly of a good player who got carried away by the heat of the moment.
Your thinking is too limited. You assume that since it was the referees/organizers decision not to publish the full record, it must be THEIR mistakes they wish to cover. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that.

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

Rather I think that players should not be protected from coverage of their game-related actions but they should all be public in principle. After all, that is a major purpose of tournaments.

Different cultures may (or may not) have different views on this.

_________________
Offending ad removed

I think I saw that game. What happened is that there was a double ko in a semei.

The Chinese team will definitely win the semai, but to prevent capture, the Koreans can play ko threats almost indefinitely. So what happened was that every second move, they would capture one of the ko's, forcing the opponent to capture the other ko. Essentially this doubled the number of moves required to finish the game.

If indeed it was the game, that would be plainly ordinary strategy and not even pure timesujis. It would be like prohibiting perfect play just because it is not one of the shortest possible perfect plays. With the same right one might prohibit ordinary endgames like a fight for the last basic endgame ko or like prohibiting a 5-move late endgame sequence without any ko capture if a 3-move-sequence leads to the same score. This could go yet further up to prohibiting probes or hamete in the middle game or opening. What a terrible development potential and just because of bad time rules!

I am probably missing something, but why does capturing the ko to force the opponent to capture the other ko serve a strategic purpose?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Well, it serves the strategic purpose of winning on time, which is an integral part of the game in the european view (similar to adjusting clocks e.g.).

Thank god, the korean players showed sportsmanship by giving in here and still went on to win the tournament.

From Syptryn's description, there appears to be a double ko death, in which capturing either ko threatens to win the semeai, which would improve on the score if the opponent did not answer by capturing the other ko in the double ko.

Therefore there might have been two different move-sequences, each leading to the perfect-play score S:

[[tt]*kk]*[t]*[pp]

[tt]*[t]*[pp]

where [] = move-sequence, t = tenuki, k = double ko capture, p = pass, * = repeated several times.

The player's strategic purpose is to achieve at least S and he will achieve it by using, e.g., either of these two move-sequence patterns.

Players are showing sportsmanship, e.g., if they strive to win their game. Another aspect is whether they should have resigned the game (much) earlier because of having been hopelessly behind (were they White?). Whether their consequence since the dispute arose might have been sportsmanlike or violating the purpose of the game to win still escapes me because too little information is available in English despite all your translation and citation efforts. Which kind of aspect do you see to be sportsmanship here?