Striving to win your game is basic game understanding, not sportsmanship. Striving to win your game at all costs is the exact opposite of sportsmanship.

Playing pointless moves to win on time is one of the most elementary examples of unsportsmanlike behavior.

Let us start with basic considerations for Area Scoring without specific tournament rules: Approaching stones to remove them and thereby to improve one's score is not making pointless moves but making valuable moves (valuable because one's score is improved) and therefore sportsmanlike.

Those wanting to see sportsmanlike differently should redefine it instead of presuming the non-obvious as obvious!

agree somewhat but it is more on not defining the rule clearly.
this time it was double ko which last long as the ko threat but!
let's say there is triple ko and time was on korean player's side.
can korean players claim that they can play triple ko to burn chinese player's time?
which actually happened in changhao vs lee changho in exbition game.
lee changho accepted tie but had more time left to burn changhao's time.

i blame more on the implimentation of sudden death rule.
and also no extra time for cature stone pick up rule.

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

What do you mean by "at all costs"? Applying the rules of play correctly does not involve any costs.



What do you define / exclude as "pointless moves"?

It is not an elementary example. Rather one first needs to redefine "unsportsmanlike behavior" to mean something else than "violating the rules of play intentionally".

As always, it depends on the exact rules of play and tournament rules. You seem to suggest that the then valid rules suggest the players' agreement to get a No Result because of long cycle. The fault lies in the ambiguity of the No Result rule, which in particular leaves it unclear what happens if the players disagree in an equal numbers of captured stones cycle, as I have explained, e.g., here: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html

Playing in double ko death does not improve ones score.



Sportsmanship is playing in a way that is socially acceptable. It is defined differently in different societies, depending on their social norms. Generally, it is widely agreed that it is unsportsmanlike to:

• Insult the opponent.
• Attempt to distract or intimidate the opponent.
• Attempt to win using extraneous strategies (this includes making clearly pointless plays to win on time or to annoy the opponent)

One need redefine nothing. Unsportsmanlike behavior has never merely meant violating the rules of play. That is one type of unsportsmanlike behavior, but not the only kind.

Indeed, if you wanted to ostensively define sportsmanlike behavior, you might cite helping up an injured player of the other team, or excessive gloating after a victory as unsportsmanlike. Either action may be part of the official rules of a game, but they sportsmanlike or not regardless of whether they are codified.

Anyone competent with the word would know that.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Pointless moves are those moves that serve no strategic purpose, other than to annoy the opponent or make the opponent lose on time.

Double ko death is a good example. The exchange clearly serves no strategic purpose.

1) The purpose is to make perfect play. Here I have used "improve one's score" in the sense "avoid less than perfect play".

2) Regardless of the strong players' ordinary aim, Go players have a right to make strategic mistakes (even intentionally, which is called hamete or trick play).



While this kind of definition separate from rules of play is also possible, to make it applicable to moves made under rules of play, one still needs to define a relation between sportsmanship and the latter.



Ok.



This is not generally agreed. It is not even generally agreed what are pointless plays and which plays annoy the opponent. E.g., one might consider each opposing play to be annoying because it reduced one's winning chances.

playing a move that doesnt improve one's score during buyomi is acceptable?
also.. playing quickly a less optimal moves or moves that doesn't really imporove your score to limit your opponent's thinking time is acceptable?

there are more than one gray area in this sportmanlike stuff.
that is why we need a rule that will clear those areas.

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

We need to start discussion somewhere. If we want a never-ending discussion, we can include tournament rules related issues etc. But the core issue is the relation between rules of play and sportsmanlike behaviour. So for the sake of simplified discussion I have tried to start with what we might agree on concerning the core relation.

Your attempted definition is so ambiguous that I do not understand it. What do you consider to be strategic purposes - what not? Which moves annoy the opponent - which not? Why should it be pointless to force the oponent to lose on time?



So, according to you, making perfect play moves is an illegal strategic purpose?

I imagine I echo many people's view when I say, "Oh no, not this again".

Please, please, Robert, try and understand: you are not a native English speaker (and nor is Magicwand). You clearly don't get what we natives understand by sportsmanship. If it's any consolation, most foreigners don't get "fair play" quite right, either. What you are describing is more like part of "character" or even "personality" in sport, and while you might admire it, many people don't.

Not every English speaker will agree precisely on what sportsmanship is, but I'm certain all definitions will include some element of generosity towards opponents. It is being sporting. If you look at famous examples, you will never find examples of the type of behaviour you advocate. You will find, rather, examples such as Andrew Flintoff commisserating with Brett Lee in the England-Australia Ashes cricket series. Flintoff said: "The moment with Brett Lee at Edgbaston was something which came out of the blue - he played so well in that Test. We tried to bowl him out, we tried to knock him out. We tried everything, but he wouldn’t budge. So after it happened I went over, put my arm around him. I can’t remember exactly what I said, but it was some words of consolation - probably the reason why I did it is he did not deserve to be on the losing team - and obviously I have great respect for him."

Flintoff and other bowlers tried literally (but within the rules) to knock out Lee, normally a rabbit batsman, with 90 mile an hour bouncers. That wasn't the sporting aspect. The sportsmanship came in the words of "consolation".

The most famous sportsmanship moment in British football (according to a survey) was by Paul Di Canio. With the game at one all, Everton’s goalkeeper Gerrard was injured, but the ref waved play on. A perfect cross found Di Canio staring at an open goal. It was a formality to put West Ham ahead in no less than a Premier League game. Instead Di Canio caught the ball to stop the game so that Gerrard could receive treatment. That won Di Canio a special sportsmanship award from FIFA. Scoring the goal would have been as per the rules, but not sportsmanship.

In Britain there are courses run to teach sportsmanship in schools and youth sports. I visited the Lords cricket ground this year and learned how the cricket authorities have even run Easter courses for schools to teach sportsmanship under the heaqing "Spirit of Cricket". The courses are not concerned with the rules, which all kids know anyway. The idea is to inculcate a moral and ethical approach to the game. An extra dimension, if you like, beyond the rules.

Despite the famous line "your English fair play" beloved of hack scriptwriters, sporting behaviour is not exclusive to Britain, of course. A couple of recent high profile examples from American baseball have already been mentioned on this forum (or GoDiscussions). One was a softball game where a player hit the first and only home run of her life but was injured in the process, and so was unable to run round the bases to complete the score. Help from her own side would be an automatic out. So the opponents, instead of legitimately claiming the score was void, helped her by carrying her round the bases. Then there was the incident when Galaragga apparently threw only the 21st perfect game in Major League history only to be robbed of a place in history at the very end by a wrong call from an umpire. The game ended exactly as per the rules - but that was not sportsmanship. What was sporting, in a very widely reported and discussed and admired case, was Galaragga's dignified demeanour and refusal to slag off the umpire, the umpire's admission that he got it wrong, the Tigers fan's sympathy for both player and umpire, and the managers' refusal to turn it all into a major spat. In other words, sportsmanship is not just the province of the players.

Whether or not we practise it ourselves, we natives know what sportsmanship is. It is something that produces a heart-warming effect, and it ain't being a rule hog.

I agree with hyperpape, there is no redefinition needed here, nor is there a need to find specific applications of it to individual instances of actual in game play. For most people that I have encountered, rules of play are there to define a structure enabling people to play with consistent rules that can be as clearly understood as possible. They are not there to define the nature in which they are allowed or expected to play, which comes closer to the societal norms of acceptable behaviour. I have not yet spoken to a player (other than yourself, with your comments on the famous Csaba Mero game) that would feel comfortable with tactics that adhere to the game and tournament rules but are designed to win a game that would otherwise be lost based on the situation on the board. For most people, it seems this is very unsportsmanlike, regardless whether it is a punishable offence or not.

In this case, the board situation would have been clear to both teams which side had won based on score alone, and tactics designed to win by other methods than points counting is, in most of the west, considered a breach of etiquette because people don't "feel" that it is an appropriate way for the game result to be decided, as the primary deciding factor should be the quality of play on the board, which had progressed far enough for the victor to be relatively clear. You can't create simple rules of sportsmanship that apply here, that are not abusable in the other direction. Sportsmanship is an unspoken principle designed to make people use their subjective opinions to create the fairest atmosphere with which to compete in, so that the adage "may the best man win" has the best chance of being true.

I also agree with everything John wrote too, a great post

I take it that you are uncomfortable feeling obliged to adhere to this sort of principle that cannot be easily defined and sits there being unpleasantly ambiguous?

Not the same thing, but ok.

By this definition, almost filling your own territories under area scoring after dame are filled is an example of "perfect play". An mathematically, it is. But at the same time, in a real life tournament setting it is an example of play that serves no purpose other than to annoy the opponent. There is a good reason that TDs do not look kindly on this kind of "technically not illegal" play. This is exactly the area where sportsmanship comes in.



In the case of hamete, the player makes a strategic choice where he considers it sufficiently likely that the opponent will fall for the trap that he his willing to risk the (usually small) loss if the opponent does not. It is unrealistic to say that, when taking in double ko death, the player considers it sufficiently likely that the opponent will ignore the double ko. Again, this is a good example of an area where sportsmanship comes in.



There are plays that increase your score (give a better result than pass), those that decrease your score (pass would be better), and those that are pointless (you might as well have passed). The last two categories is where the pointless plays are.

John, don't worry about translation problems. German has the word Sportlichkeit, too.

Every game (sports) has a different culture of sportsmanship, refereeing, etc. The closest example in Go might be a player falling unconscious during his game and the opponent, whose time is about to run out, calls an ambulance immediately instead of making his move. This aspect of sportsmanship is related to humanity and I guess we pretty much agree about its importance (the opponent's health is more important than the player's win). The existence of such aspects of sportsmanship does not relieve us though from finding an agreement on the aspect of sportsmanship very closely related to application of the rules of play.

topazg, it is not necessary to discuss the dispute with Csaba again. It has been discussed enough even up to a likely correct interpretation of the rules of play intention.

It is possible that you have not seen such players - I have seen many (including many amateur high dan) different players filling dame while being 100 points behind for the last 200 moves or, before the 2007 tournament rules changes, trying to win on time by filling territory moves and hoping for a 50% chance of a favourable referee decision. This tells us one thing very clearly: There is no general agreement on the relation between rules of play and sportsmanship. Rather that relation must be defined. The current EGF General Tournament Rules have solved the latter case successfully. It is (approximative) definition in the tournament rules that solves such cases, i.e., leads to their non-occurrance. The former case of when it is appropriate to resign is not defined and so everybody has and follows his own opinion about it. From the Treasure Chest Enigma extreme to the other extreme of simulating virtual pass-fights (popular mostly on servers) everything occurs. Also opinions about either extreme vary greatly. Only a commonly accepted written definition would ever change that fundamentally.

I am somewhat puzzled by the notion that sportsmanship is a concept only native English speakers are able to grasp. (And that this post was liked by another native speaker.)

Di Canio is not a native English speaker after all.

Given no other written or verbal tournament rules consensus, my personal opinion is that I do not mind filling territories. (Actually I like it because it permits simple rules.) I accept though some different tournament rules consensus, which usually exists.

Such descriptions as yours now could bring us closer to a written description of what usually is the consensus and where it might start to differ.



Given sufficiently "strong" players with enough thinking time.



Now I understand at least your intention.

No, you are quite right, I haven't encountered this with a single opponent I have ever played, online or in real life, over quite a few hundreds of games. If it is that common at high dan level, then I hope not to reach it and come across it more often, as I would not enjoy Go played in that manner.

I think, at the end of the day, if the people in question do not believe they are acting in an unsportsmanlike manner, then I think no foul is committed. If they know what they are doing is against their interpretation of the spirit of the game, then I think their behaviour is wrong. We cannot easily get around people's cultural differences on their interpretation of fair play and sportsmanship, though it may make me more inclined to avoid games with people from countries where I feel confident that the definition of sportsmanship is different to my own.