EGF Referee Workshop 2012

[Kanin]

He's not gonna win any social points with the go community, or any sportmanship awards. But why should the rules not put him in the right? Bottom line is that you're the one who made a mistake when you pressed the button.

Because you have just forfeited a game based on a trivial mistake.

Saying that one person made a mistake does not exempt you from considering the consequences of the rule. And the consequences of your way of doing things are quite bad.

I am considering the consequences. The consequences in most cases would be that the opponent simply acknowledges that it as an accident and the 'pass' is allowed to be retracted. So, no, the consequences aren't bad - they COULD be bad if you run into an abusive player. You also state that a pass is the same as forfeiting a game, it's usually not. Everyone who is used to tournament play knows that an extra byo-yomi period could mean the difference between win and loss. This means that a rule in the other direction also can be abused to swing a game.

My point is that in both cases an abusive player is necessary for the rule to affect the outcome of a game. But only in one of the cases a mistake has been made. Which one is better?

[speedchase]

I am considering the consequences. The consequences in most cases would be that the opponent simply acknowledges that it as an accident and the 'pass' is allowed to be retracted. So, no, the consequences aren't bad - they COULD be bad if you run into an abusive player. You also state that a pass is the same as forfeiting a game, it's usually not.

For strong players passing at any time other than the late endgame is the same as forfeiting.

[Kanin]

For strong players passing at any time other than the late endgame is the same as forfeiting.

No. That's not even remotely true. Not even true at the professional level. Proof? There are plenty of games where a player played the wrong sequence and squandered a move (essentially passing) and still won the game.

--------

Anyways, let me put more clearly how I view the problem. First let me roughly describe the two alternative rules the way I see them:

Rule A: Pressing the button without making a move means passing unless you immediately declare that it was a mistake, in which case you are always allowed to take it back.

Rule B: Pressing the button without making a move means passing unless you are allowed by your opponent to take it back.



From an abusive player's point of view rule A always presents an oppurtunity to abuse. In every tournament game, several times in every game. Rule B on the other hand presents an opportunity to abuse only when and if the opponent makes the mistake of accidentally pressing the button. You don't need to be a statistics-whizz to realize which rule is going to be abused more often.

This doesn't in itself speak for rule B since, as noted by some of you, the consequences of a mid-game pass might be much more dire than the consequences of fake 'accidental passes'. This is however an empirical matter. If you wish to perform a study that determines which is more detrimental to a players result in a game of go - a random pass (assuming we call accidentally hitting the clock random) or a few extra byo-yomi periods for your opponent. Then be my guest. To me, however, it seems the occassional abuse made possible by the quite rare occurance of an accidental pass (while up against an abusive player) compared to the ever present abuse made possible by rule A makes for a compelling argument in favor of rule B.

In fact, even if it's determined that a random pass is far more handicapping than granting extra byo-yomi periods to a player's opponent, this must still be seen in light of the fact that these random passes only will occur occassionally.

[Kanin]

All humans at one point or another make mistakes, it is something that is completely unavoidable. being a douche is very avoidable. That is why he should not be put in the right.

In general, it comes down to values, but in general good rules shouldn't encourage being a douchebag

Yes, we shouldn't encourage anyone to be a douche. But it can be good to put a douchebag in the right if the alternative is to put more douchebags in the right, more often. See my recent post for an explanation of what I mean. Laws often work this way.

[speedchase]

No. That's not even remotely true. Not even true at the professional level. Proof? There are plenty of games where a player played the wrong sequence and squandered a move (essentially passing) and still won the game.

The proof is that most high level games are decided by less than 7 points, and at any given time, the temperature is above 7 (except for the late endgame).

From an abusive player's point of view rule A always presents an oppurtunity to abuse. In every tournament game, several times in every game. Rule B on the other hand presents an opportunity to abuse only when and if the opponent makes the mistake of accidentally pressing the button. You don't need to be a statistics-whizz to realize which rule is going to be abused more often.

This doesn't in itself speak for rule B since, as noted by some of you, the consequences of a mid-game pass might be much more dire than the consequences of fake 'accidental passes'. This is however an empirical matter. If you wish to perform a study that determines which is more detrimental to a players result in a game of go - a random pass (assuming we call accidentally hitting the clock random) or a few extra byo-yomi periods for your opponent. Then be my guest. To me, however, it seems the occassional abuse made possible by the quite rare occurrence of an accidental pass (while up against an abusive player) compared to the ever present abuse made possible by rule A makes for a compelling argument in favor of rule B.

In fact, even if it's determined that a random pass is far more handicapping than granting extra byo-yomi periods to a player's opponent, this must still be seen in light of the fact that these random passes only will occur occasionally.

losing 10-15 seconds is often inconsequential, besides clocks can be reset. loosing a move in the middle game is often disastrous.
There is no reason that there can't be a rule to prevent a single person from doing this multiple times in a game/tournament.

There is no reason to believe that there would be any form of abuse from pretending to pass accidentally.

[RobertJasiek]

There is no reason to believe that there would be any form of abuse from pretending to pass accidentally.

Of course, there is! E.g., there are players that like to disturb their opponents by every available means.

***

Accidentally dropping a stone from, say, a height of 10cm is easily recognised as such, as is intentionally throwing a stone onto the board with mighty force. This is different from placing a stone on an intersection, then, a fraction of a second later (with or without the finger still touching the stone), noticing the mistake (but not admitting it), then trying to make a case of having made a play "accidentally".

OC, Ing clocks are an extra issue and the best would be to never use any.

Pressing one's clock with directed determination (of the finger or the arm) would not be the equivalent of a ccidentally dropping a stone, but must be considered a legal pass. Pressing the clock while almost throwing it off the table sure enough is an accident rather than a pass. Moving one's hand towards badly placed water behind the clock, in between making a directly determined extra movement downwards aimed at the button is both a pass and the act of fetching water. Moving one's hand towards badly placed water behind the clock in a straightforward direction accidentally passing and hitting one's button is, we can say, not a pass, but is disturbing the opponent by bothering him with the consequences of having to reflect and discuss the nature of the fake pass instead of thinking about his next move; disturbing the opponent for the first time during a game can receive the referee's warning.

Due to the variety of these possibilities, a "simplifying" accidental rule addition a la Kanin is not the right way towards a solution.

[HermanHiddema]

There is no reason to believe that there would be any form of abuse from pretending to pass accidentally.

Of course, there is! E.g., there are players that like to disturb their opponents by every available means.

Can you refer to any actual cases where players deliberately pretended to pass in byoyomi in order to gain time?

Because I can refer to several cases where unscrupulous players did (attempt to) abuse this rule to gain an unreasonable pass from their opponent during his main time.

[RobertJasiek]

I did not have such specific opponents but similar ones:
- launching a totally unreasonable dispute (such as leaving a stone a few seconds on the board before noticing that it was a tactical mistake, then trying to move it elsewhere) apparently for the major sake of getting much extra thinking time while I was searching a remote referee
- during opening (including move 2) and middle game, repeatedly "accidentally" pressing the clock without playing a stone to make me nervous
- before the EGF introduced clear(er) rules that pressing the clock finishes a move (even a pass), trying to construct a dispute that it would be my fault that their clock had run out
- removing stones on my time
- not removing stones

[HermanHiddema]

I did not have such specific opponents but similar ones:
- launching a totally unreasonable dispute (such as leaving a stone a few seconds on the board before noticing that it was a tactical mistake, then trying to move it elsewhere) apparently for the major sake of getting much extra thinking time while I was searching a remote referee
- during opening (including move 2) and middle game, repeatedly "accidentally" pressing the clock without playing a stone to make me nervous
- before the EGF introduced clear(er) rules that pressing the clock finishes a move (even a pass), trying to construct a dispute that it would be my fault that their clock had run out
- removing stones on my time
- not removing stones

How are these cases relevant?

The only one in any way related to the "accidental pass" case is number two, and that one is a clear example of "disturbing the opponent" that any competent referee could easily handle without the need to refer to any clock rules at all. E.g under the EGF GTR with rules 3.2.3 and 4.5.

[Matti]

I have had some cases, where my opponent was away and I played my move and pressed the clock. The opponent came back and pressed the clock without playing a stone. I asked, if it was a pass. The opponent thought I hadn't played and he had forgotten to press the clock. In one case my opponent agreed it was a pass. In another case we asked the referee, who decided there was no pass, and still in another case the referee decided that my opponent had made a pass.

[HermanHiddema]

I have had some cases, where my opponent was away and I played my move and pressed the clock. The opponent came back and pressed the clock without playing a stone. I asked, if it was a pass. The opponent thought I hadn't played and he had forgotten to press the clock. In one case my opponent agreed it was a pass. In another case we asked the referee, who decided there was no pass, and still in another case the referee decided that my opponent had made a pass.

This is a different case. Clearly, this is not a case where an opponent wanted to check your time and accidentally pushed the wrong button, it is a case where the opponent is under the (mistaken) impression that he has forgotten to push the clock, and deliberately pushes that button. This case could happen with any clock, not just Ing clocks.

The correct approach in this case for the opponent would be to ask whether you moved, not to blindly assume you didn't.

BTW, I think the correct response for you, in this case, would be to press the clock, tell your opponent that you made a move while they were away, and point out which move it was. That's just good sportsmanship.

[Matti]

BTW, I think the correct response for you, in this case, would be to press the clock, tell your opponent that you made a move while they were away, and point out which move it was. That's just good sportsmanship.

Those tournaments were played with (simplified) Ing rules. If I would press the clock without playing a stone, there would be two consecutive passes in the game. It means, that at the end of the game we would have to remove all the dead stones by actually capturing them.

[HermanHiddema]

BTW, I think the correct response for you, in this case, would be to press the clock, tell your opponent that you made a move while they were away, and point out which move it was. That's just good sportsmanship.

Those tournaments were played with (simplified) Ing rules. If I would press the clock without playing a stone, there would be two consecutive passes in the game. It means, that at the end of the game we would have to remove all the dead stones by actually capturing them.

No, you pushed the clock to restore a mistake. No passes have happened.

[RobertJasiek]

How are these cases relevant?

The relevance is that there are players exploiting freedom left by tournament rules. With an explicit rule about accidental clock pressing, such players will start to focus their pass disputes around this offer, trying to pretend accident when it was intention.

[RobertJasiek]

tell your opponent that you made a move while they were away, and point out which move it was. That's just good sportsmanship.

No. I do not want to be treated like a stupid child by my opponent. When I leave the board and come back, then I check the position (and possibly also the number of prisoners and thinking times) and find out whether anything or what has changed. Good sportsmanship is to trust your opponent that he is able to do likewise and thus to remain silent.