Kanin wrote: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.
<3
As far as I can see, there are two possible good rules for pressing the clock:
Rule ZA: "Pressing the clock without placing a stone on the board is considered a pass."
Rule ZB: "Pressing the clock without placing a stone on the board is considered a pass. If this was done by mistake by Player A, Player B may choose to allow the pass to be retracted using the following procedure: [Description of a clear procedure for undoing a pass, such as calling a judge who then adjusts the clock back by five seconds or something]."
In both cases, the rule is first and foremost clear and precise and secondly resilient to abuse because any attempt at abuse is summarily punished according to clear criteria. The second rule allows for courtesy, but in the correct way: It makes clear that a mistake was made, and it is wholly the opponent's decision to let that slide or not. It has no room for initiation of a laborious, disruptive dispute process and promotes playing precisely.
HermanHiddema wrote:I think, especially as a member of the rules committee, you should realize that the rules cannot cover all eventualities, and that there always will be cases where the rules should be ignored in favour of the morally superior course of action. If you do not think this is true, then I do not think you should be writing rules.
In fact, I would expect that, as a member of the rules committee, you would consider every potential dispute as an opportunity to consider whether the rules are working as intended in this situation. Rules are written with a purpose, and a member of the rules committee should try to be the first to recognize when the rules did not achieve their intended purpose, and should be the most willing to then admit that their rules are not perfect, and to ignore them.
After all, especially if you wrote the rules you should avoid getting a benefit from them that is widely considered unreasonable by players.
I would say this is wrong. Spotting something amiss is indeed cause for alarm - but the rules to which the players have agreed on entering the tournament should be upheld (except perhaps in the case where all players unanimously agree to change a rule, but that is a whole different can of worms). After the event, there should naturally be a discussion on how issues could be fixed.
