I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

I managed to catch a couple of the Tuesday matches from the EGC this morning. There was some drama at the end of the Alexander Dinerchtein v. Ondrej Silt match. During an endgame ko fight, Ondrej (B) recaptured the ko without making a threat. A referee (or referees) initially declared the game over in favor of Alexander, but after inspecting the rule set (simplified ING) they ruled that the game should rewind one move and continue. After the decision, Alexander resigned and said he would appeal this decision according to the scribe.

In my opinion, considering that Ondrej was ahead and the ko, with regard to the result, was meaningless, this is poor sportsmanship by Alexander. Any opinions? Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the go tournament scene -- are these types of disputes common?

Here is the match for those interested: http://gokifu.com/s/m61-gokifu-20110726 ... 7d%29.html

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

I think this makes it quite clear.

How many incidents of questionable sportsmanship has Dinerchtein been involved in?

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

Could it be that Ing is referring here to the 1980 Meijin tournament, where Cho Chikun asked the game recorder whether it was his turn to take the ko, and the game recorder incorrectly told him that it was?

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one, but mostly through sympathy as being in his position here would suck. The fact the first declaration was an incorrect application of the rules I see as irrelevant once the declaration has been made. If I was in an intense, important game, being told "Ok, game over, you've won" and then shortly later "Oh, actually, no you haven't, play back a couple of moves and carry on" I wouldn't be able to re-focus regardless of how the board looked.I think the original declaration, once made, should be binding, and if it is an incorrect application of the rules then it is up to Ondrej to launch a successful appeal against the decision.

But neither of them was initiated by him? It wasn't him who ran overtime, neither was him who played an illegal move? I'd say he's rather hapless.