I heard that was some minor confusion about the top board on the first day of Cotsen regarding the finer points of dame rules? I understand it might have affected the outcome of that match. Does anyone know the details?

_________________
The road to wisdom? Well, it's plain, and simple to express: Err, and err, and err again; but less, and less, and less!

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can jump in, but my understanding from overhearing discussion on KGS is that it was another Ing issue; the player who "should have won" passed instead of filling dame, which caused the other player to "win". Controversy ensued. I don't know how it was resolved.

I am not positive, but I believe that on KGS they said that the player who "should have won" was declared the winner.

There might have been a language issue--the player may have been Chinese or Korean with poor English comprehension, but that's second-hand or speculation.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You will probably have to rely on KGS for info. At the tournament itself, the atmosphere is so laid back that people don't make that much of a big deal of it. There is a question about rules, the TD comes by and offers his opinion, the loser congradulates the winner, and everybody heads off to enjoy the free food.

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

There's nothing 'should have won'.
Anyone knows any details?
How comes nowadays there are so many rules dispute...
Are there many disputes due to rules in chess as well?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Those were scare quotes. What it meant was the player who would have won had he played properly while filling dame.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

According to http://www.cotsengotournament.com/ "Ing Go rules" were in use. Regardless of which Ing ruleset that might mean, it implies Area Scoring. As a strategic consequence, two-sided or one-sided dame are one endgame point each. I.e. passing while there is an odd number of two-sided dame or passing while letting the opponent fill dame are strategic mistakes. Easy. Why would there be any need for a rules debate?!

kokomi, what do you call "many" disputes?

RJ: I don't understand your question.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

You wrote: "How comes nowadays there are so many rules dispute..." I ask: "what do you call 'many' disputes?" So what is "many" for you in this context? 2 per year world-wide? 2 per game? What else?

Here is the game: http://www.usgo.org/news/2010/09/2010-cotsen-open-round-2-board-3-the-dame-dispute-game-w-deuk-je-chang-7d-b-curtis-tang-7d/

I'll paste the note at the end of it here:

RJ: It's not about numbers. Other than this one, you have EGC clock one, you have the Kim-Lu captured stone one. This were what happened in the last 3 months.

This game is ' the rule is very simple game' when i was first introduced to it. I wonder if chess get the same situation that people do not agree with the result for this or that reason now.

You doubt the 'many' I said, then what frequency do you think is ok for this kind of problem to come over and over again?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

Maybe we need more definition around the "spirit of the Cotsen".

And I'm surprised they used Ing rules, and not AGA rules (though it wouldn't have changed the dispute).

I am inclined to agree with you, xed_over. It seems to me that black should win if white plays poorly on account of not understanding the rules properly.

I will say, though, that my experience at the Cotsen (it was my first time attending) was that it was quite laid back. *All* 5 of my games were played using Japanese rules, because I agreed to doing so with my opponents before we started the game. Most people didn't like the Ing scoring method. We were told by one of the officials that it was OK to count using the Japanese scoring method, if both opponents agreed in advance.

Based on this, and also the general atmosphere of the tournament, things seemed pretty laid back.

Although, if there were a lot of prize money - or anything else important at stake, I would side for the player that "technically" won the game by the rules. As Robert says, not filling in dame is a strategic mistake.

_________________
be immersed

I think you need to give a stone when passing under AGA rules? So it won't affect the results? I'm not sure, I'm very bad at understanding different rules...

_________________
长考出臭棋.

I disagree with your disagreeing.

Most people are accustomed to playing with "Japanese" rules. Due to these rules, you can pretty much play a complete game with anyone else and not have major issues. The purpose of the rules should be to let people play Go against one another and not cause changes of the scoring due to someone not understanding them. Tournaments as you know have a variety of people show up and very few will know all the issues with Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA rules, so I agree with the decision. I like AGA rules, but I would not agree that someone who accidentally passes early should be penalized for it on their first time using it.

That does explain better the "spirit of the Cotsen", I suppose, but it just reinforces my surprise all the more at not using AGA rules -- which can be scored using Japanese or Chinese scoring methods without changing the score.

by playing a pass stone instead of the dame, he still would have lost the point(s) needed to win.

the pass stone, then, is in effect a reminder of losing a point if there might still be points on the board.

to help people play the same game.

if the rules aren't followed, then the players could be playing a different game (as was obviously the case here)

This is not that true. Most chinese people doesn't know 'Japanese' rules well. Even chinese pro sometimes forgets that one needs to keep captured stones under Japanese rules.

I agree with xed_over and kirby. A rule is a rule.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

I'll try to define by example:

In my last game, I won by one-half point. Because it was so close, we counted twice. We shook hands afterwards and both agreed that it had been a great game. We immediately cleared the board and started post game analysis.
After that, he circled HIS number on the game report slip, and handed it to me to sign. I - as gracefully as I could - told him that I had won. I repeated the counting that we had done, 10 points here, 40 there 10 here, 10 there, etc. He thought about it for a few seconds, and agreed. And without change in demeanor, he circled my number, and signed his name.
Having won or lost the game was of little consequence to him. What mattered was that we played a good game that both of us enjoyed. Playing the game was most important. Analyzing how we could have played better was next. Winning or losing was last.

BTW, there was no way that he could have been trying to cheat. It had been a fighting game with both players in byo-yomi, and we had observers standing around from mid-game through counting. He genuinely had not realized who had won.

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