A Dispute Again

[RobertJasiek]

doesn't it make the mero-jasiek-dispute even worse? A member of the EGF rules commission wanted to win a game in the European Go Championship (an EGF tournament), he clearly lost on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently. And that is assuming Robert was right with his claim, yet the referee, the appeals committee and the EGF Rules Committee ruled in Csabas favor.

That dispute was bad for in particular these reasons:
- The rules were too difficult.
- The tournament organisers did not properly explain the rules.
- The appeals committee did not provide a clear explanation of their decision.
- The rules commission did not provide any explanation.
- During the game, I did not consider the option of calling the referee during my opponent's third pass in succession to find out whether the procedural timing of that pass was considered legal or whether we were expected to discuss removals before proceeding with the third and fourth pass.
- During the game ending phases, my opponent's off-board behaviour was dubious.

However, I do not understand or disagree with your reasons why possibly the dispute were made yet worse:
- Does a member of the EGF Rules Commission not have a right to participate in a dispute? I.e., are you suggesting that he would have less rights than all other players? IMO, all players have equal rights to participate in a dispute.
- Is it false wishing to win a game? I think it is just and the game aim to win the game.
- Saying "the game was clearly lost" is a partial view of taking a particular conclusion before applying (or trying to apply) the (too difficult) rules.
- During the game until it entered the dispute, I could not know how much or little my opponent would know about the rules. Therefore, your assumption "on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently" does not comply with my intentions. My intentions were rather in the direction of applying the rules correctly according to my interpretation of their intended meaning.
- May a member of the EGF Rules Commission not lose a dispute? I.e., again, are you suggesting that he would have less rights than all other players?

The dispute had these consequences on EGF Rules:
- The Simplified Ing Rules were adopted and, to some good extent, replaced the Ing 1991 Rules.
- Application of the Ing 1991 Rules in EGF tournaments, where still used (such as Ing Cup), became at least clearer for the players.
- The EGF General Tournament Rules received a rule that arbitration decisions have to be accompanied by reasoning.

I think that this is more important than having lost that particular dispute in three instances. You emphasise the loss in three instances, but would you not agree that the consequences have been good?

[Uberdude]

Another beneficial consequence is the amusement it has provided to other Go players!

[p2501]

First of all, from what what I gathered from this incident, you were always well in your rights to do as you did. Meaning that there are no rules against it. Yet in my opinion, what you did was wrong and I will give you my reasons.

- Does a member of the EGF Rules Commission not have a right to participate in a dispute? I.e., are you suggesting that he would have less rights than all other players? IMO, all players have equal rights to participate in a dispute.

A rethorical question. Of course as player you have the same rights like every other player.

- Is it false wishing to win a game? I think it is just and the game aim to win the game.
- May a member of the EGF Rules Commission not lose a dispute? I.e., again, are you suggesting that he would have less rights than all other players?

More rethorical questions.

- Saying "the game was clearly lost" is a partial view of taking a particular conclusion before applying (or trying to apply) the (too difficult) rules.

This is exactly the core point I am talking about. Let's assume that you both knew the rules inside out and were well able to apply them. From my understanding on the 5 Dan+ level the substantial difference of territory would clear to both of you well before the counting phaes and it would have been common courtesy to resign the game once all reasonable options by the losing party have been explored.

Now what those reasonable options are is what we disagree on. You were clinging on the remote possibility that your opponent did not understand the rules completely and played on to the counting phase - knowing that under normal circumstances you would have lost the game long before that.

- During the game until it entered the dispute, I could not know how much or little my opponent would know about the rules. Therefore, your assumption "on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently" does not comply with my intentions. My intentions were rather in the direction of applying the rules correctly according to my interpretation of their intended meaning.

Really? Even after you kept taking out his dead stones while he kept passing, you still claim you could not know whether he understood what was happening / what you were trying?
You said:

- Saying "the game was clearly lost" is a partial view of taking a particular conclusion before applying (or trying to apply) the (too difficult) rules.

Trying to win by your opponent not fully understanding the rules was your whole aim.

[RobertJasiek]

Let's assume that you both knew the rules inside out and were well able to apply them. From my understanding on the 5 Dan+ level the substantial difference of territory would clear to both of you well before the counting phaes and it would have been common courtesy to resign the game once all reasonable options by the losing party have been explored.

Now what those reasonable options are is what we disagree on. You were clinging on the remote possibility that your opponent did not understand the rules completely and played on to the counting phase - knowing that under normal circumstances you would have lost the game long before that.

As explained several times elsewhere, my reason for not resigning was wishing to get a score so that I could better study my endgame mistakes.

I was not "clinging on the remote possibility". Details have been discussed elsewhere.

But an implied consideration is what one thinks about typical area scoring rulesets' implication that, if the players do not play and do not agree to remove stones, scoring is made by simply applying the scoring definition. I consider this rules aspect brilliant because, unless the aspect itself is questioned (as in that particular dispute), it avoids all scoring (and life and death status) disputes and replaces them by rules application.

Quite a few players used to Japanese style traditional territory scoring are surprised by the fundamentally different concept of scoring clarification design, and so tend to dislike it.

Really?

Really.

Even after you kept taking out his dead stones while he kept passing, you still claim you could not know whether he understood what was happening / what you were trying?

Sorry, but these these have been discussed often enough. Read elsewhere about the dispute.

Trying to win by your opponent not fully understanding the rules was your whole aim.

No. See elsewhere.

[p2501]

I don't think that in a game with a ~30 point difference you can expect your opponent to apply himself with 100% - so testing your endgameskill against that sounds a bit off. But in the end there is nothing wrong with that.

I would have expected from any player (and all the more from a representative from the tournament organisation) in that situation to explain to his opponent what the rules are and how they are applied when it became obvious that they didn't understand. You were not required to by the rules. But it would have been sportsmanship to do so. Especially if you had him go through a meaningless tiresome endgamephase in a won game in a tournament with many rounds - many would consider this rude.

PS: Usually when someone argues with you I think to my self 'There is no point in arguing with Robert'. Now I find myself in that position, but having come to my senses I will stop right here.

[RobertJasiek]

I would have expected from any player (and all the more from a representative from the tournament organisation) in that situation to explain to his opponent what the rules are and how they are applied when it became obvious that they didn't understand.

1) During a game of mine, I act as a player, not as a representative. I was not part of the tournament organisers, but active for forming the supergroup. The rules of play were, IIRC, decided by shortly before round 1 by members of the EGF executive (i.e. not the rules commission).

2) During a game, explaining the rules to the opponent (if he has not asked) is disturbing and consuming his thinking time.

3) It was not obvious, also not during the dispute. During the dispute, it became clear that my opponent had a different understanding of the rules. Apparently he was surprised by the consequences of the third and fourth successive passive.

4) During the dispute, I explained my view as far as the appeals committee allowed me to do so.

it would have been sportsmanship to do so.

BEFORE the dispute, it would have been unsportsmanlike because
- I would have had to assume a stupid opponent, too stupid to know even the rules,
- unrequested explanations during the game disturb the opponent,
- unrequested explanations during the game take away the opponent's thinking time.

Especially if you had him go through a meaningless tiresome endgamephase

It is meaningful (because it determines removed stones ultimately clearly) and not tiring (some a few plays, which can be performed fast; i.e., nothing compared to the hours of the plays before).

in a won game in a tournament

Rhetorics.

with many rounds

More rhetorics.

- many would consider this rude.

kibitz opinion is immaterial.

having come to my senses I will stop right here.

More rhetorics.

[hyperpape]

BEFORE the dispute, it would have been unsportsmanlike because
- I would have had to assume a stupid opponent, too stupid to know even the rules,
- unrequested explanations during the game disturb the opponent,
- unrequested explanations during the game take away the opponent's thinking time.

Implying that Csaba Mero is stupid on the boards, on the other hand, well that's just classy.

[RobertJasiek]

Implying that Csaba Mero is stupid on the boards

Eh? Who is implying that?

[Matti]

I think the reason why people found the case upsetting was that it revealed a strong player not knowing the rules. Suppose a two kyu plays his first tournament on real boards. He does not know that bent four is dead and loses a game because of it. Would anyone blame the opponent taking an advantage of this?

[Ortho]

Do you really think this is a reasonable analogy?

[RobertJasiek]

Judging from dozens of talks, among the upset people, most had one or both of these motivations:

- "Strict rules application should not contradict obvious positional judgement."
- Japanese rules' perfect play analysis was assumed to apply for the Ing 1991 Rules even after four successive passes. ("Ing rules are like Japanese rules with different stone rearrangement mechanics and some not understood ko rules differences.")

Most of those having had such motivations then tried to "justify" their view by trying to interpret the Ing 1991 Rules but sooner or later realised that they are too complicated or that the "no adjudication" references posed problems to their interpretation.

[Matti]

Do you really think this is a reasonable analogy?

Why not?

[daal]

I think the reason why people found the case upsetting was that it revealed a strong player not knowing the rules. Suppose a two kyu plays his first tournament on real boards. He does not know that bent four is dead and loses a game because of it. Would anyone blame the opponent taking an advantage of this?

I suspect that many of us, quite unlike Robert, do not take the time to verify the rules details before a game, and I don't think it's particularly surprising that a strong player would stumble if he started the game under mistaken assumptions.

Your analogy is however questionable. I suspect that there are few 2k's who would object to losing a game under such circumstances. Why would he assume that the bent 4 was alive? If what you mean is that they were playing with Japanese rules and he made the wrong assumption because he was unfamiliar with this rules oddity and there was a ko threat seki on the board, then he would presumably be upset about the rules (rightly) and not about the result.

In the case of Jasiek-Mero, what people generally find upsetting is not that Ing's rules are poor or unclear, but rather that the victory was un-earned. Jasiek claimed that his stones were alive - not because of their formation - but rather because Mero had not removed them from the board i.e., due to a technicality - and in this case an apparently obscure one.

Imagine two boxing matches. In one you lose by split decision, in the other one, after knocking out your opponent you lose because your shoelaces were tied incorrectly.

[RobertJasiek]

technicality - and in this case an apparently obscure one.

There are two basic aspects of the game ending technicality:

1) The question whether, after exactly two successive passes, the players are supposed to remove stones by verbal or implicit averbal agreement.

2) After four successive passes, no more stones may be removed at all.

Both aspects can be called obscure in terms of difficulty of rules interpretation.

AFA I observed in the years 1994 - 2002 (until the dispute), everybody (up to 6d; e.g., I observed it for Alexei Lazarev) made four successive passes quickly without verbal or removal interruption; any stones would be removed afterwards. Maybe a few players did it differently, but I do not recall to have seen such at that time.

[HermanHiddema]

Implying that Csaba Mero is stupid on the boards

Eh? Who is implying that?

Well, when you were removing stones and Csaba Mero was passing, there are two possible interpretations you could have:

1. He did not know that his territory would be seki under Ing rules after four passes.
2. He did know, but was too stupid to realize that he would lose if all his territory became seki.

Since you disavow the first, that leaves the second.