A Dispute Again

[Ortho]

"Meta-discusser" sounds like a really good battle-rap insult.

[RobertJasiek]

I will not [...] answer that strongly manipulative questionaire.

This shows a difference between those favouring much versus those favouring little use of the concept of sportsmanship. Those wishing much usage do not wish to become specific (also why my questions would be manipulative). Those wishing little usage become specific.

"Sportsmanship" has no value if somebody cries "This person is unsportsmanlike." but nobody knows the reason for such an opinion.

Also sportsmanship must be explained so that players know which behaviour will receive sportsmanlike / unsportsmanlike judgements by the arbitration bodies.

Before 2007, the standard problem was a loss on time in games with finite thinking times when ahead on the board. Some referees declared the player having run out of time but claiming a win unsportsmanlike, some other referees declared the opponent pointing out the player's run out time unsportsmanlike. For sportsmanship to work well, there must be a consensus. There is no sportsmanship consensus on being involved in a dispute when being behind on the board.

So I am not surprised that you do not dare to answer my questions.

[RobertJasiek]

I'm going to have to consider this meta-discussion

Great, we agree. (Discussing your meta-discussion continues it as meta-discussion indeed.)

[HermanHiddema]

So I am not surprised that you do not dare to answer my questions.

Answering flawed questions has no purpose. It is not a question of "do not dare", it is simply useless, even counter-productive, to do so.

[p2501]

I will not [...] answer that strongly manipulative questionaire.

This shows a difference between those favouring much versus those favouring little use of the concept of sportsmanship. Those wishing much usage do not wish to become specific (also why my questions would be manipulative). Those wishing little usage become specific.

"Sportsmanship" has no value if somebody cries "This person is unsportsmanlike." but nobody knows the reason for such an opinion.

After having failed to explain sportsmanship to you, I will not try the same with common sense.

Your choice of questions was heavily biased and highly manipulative - that's why I didn't care to answer them.

[daal]

Not resigning when one is 30 points behind opens the dam for accusations that one is speculating on some weird fail on the part of one's opponent.

This is particularly enticing, because just such a weird fail took place. But it's certainly not the first time someone has blundered.

I certainly understand accepting a win due to an opponent's blunder, and I daresay that few of Robert's detractors would allow an undo for a blunder in a real tournament. Most would not accept it even if offered. In this game, Robert saw that his opponent's failure to remove the dead stones before passing would cause them to be counted in his favor, and presumably viewed this as a blunder. It was in the passing stage of the game, but a blunder nonetheless.

He who would allow an undo for a blunder should cast the first ... well too late for that.

[Matti]

Top players have spent countless hours in playing through professional games, studying joseki, tsume go end game etc. To learn, how a new rule set differs from the old, which one is familiar with, requires less than an hour. When a player does not know the rules, he risks in getting a dispute or losing. Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

Sportsmanship. Why is that concept so incomprehensible to both of you? (which I find alarming, given your positions in the EGF)

I think this question as flawed. On what basis you claim that concept of sportsmanship is incomprehensible to me and how incomprehensible do you cali it is?

Again, this is not about rules. Robert did nothing wrong according to the rules.

Fine.

[HermanHiddema]

I certainly understand accepting a win due to an opponent's blunder, and I daresay that few of Robert's detractors would allow an undo for a blunder in a real tournament.

Just for the record: I would.

[Bonobo]

I certainly understand accepting a win due to an opponent's blunder, and I daresay that few of Robert's detractors would allow an undo for a blunder in a real tournament.

Just for the record: I would.

Methinks the question here is whether an undo would be offered before the opponent asked for it.

[HermanHiddema]

I certainly understand accepting a win due to an opponent's blunder, and I daresay that few of Robert's detractors would allow an undo for a blunder in a real tournament.

Just for the record: I would.

Methinks the question here is whether an undo would be offered before the opponent asked for it.

Yes, I would.

[RobertJasiek]

After having failed to explain sportsmanship to you, I will not try the same with common sense.

You have provided your general view on sportsmanship, but not explained how it breaks down to the dispute. I.e., in a next game, I would not know how to behave so as to comply with your view on sportsmanship. (If I applied my view to your general view, then probably still a different sense of sportsmanship would be revealed.)

Your choice of questions was heavily biased and highly manipulative - that's why I didn't care to answer them.

You could explain why and suggest better questions.

[RobertJasiek]

Not resigning when one is 30 points behind opens the dam for accusations that one is speculating on some weird fail on the part of one's opponent.

No. Such does not occur for other games with similar positional judgements.(*) Related accusations occur only because a dispute in such a game has already occurred.

(*) With the exception of a very few server games, where leading players start bad language and random accusations when their opponent does not resign when THEY think he should resign. In real games, without anonymity, I have not seen such during a game. (Besides, real games do not have the rather frequent scores of 50 - 110, which can occur in server games; half of them resigned after removing all dead stones instead of pressing Done. Too many players do not do positional judgement at all.)

[p2501]

Not resigning when one is 30 points behind opens the dam for accusations that one is speculating on some weird fail on the part of one's opponent.

If you generalise it like that, of course. But this follows the same path Robert is taking which is trying to formulate some sort of rule. Which is the wrong way to go about things like sportsmanship imho.

There will always be a gray area. And situations will fall somewhere between black and white. And in my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one is behind by about 30 points, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rarely used rules is very dark gray.

Would it have been me, I would have resigned after exhausting all possibilities on the board for a comeback. And if it was a close game, and we would have gotten to the counting phase, I would have pointed it out to my opponent, that dead stones are required to be taken from the board. After counting, I would have shaken his hand and asked if we could go over the game.

Top players have spent countless hours in playing through professional games, studying joseki, tsume go end game etc. To learn, how a new rule set differs from the old, which one is familiar with, requires less than an hour. When a player does not know the rules, he risks in getting a dispute or losing. Why to blame the players who knows the rules instead of the player who does not?

Sportsmanship. Why is that concept so incomprehensible to both of you? (which I find alarming, given your positions in the EGF)

I think this question as flawed. On what basis you claim that concept of sportsmanship is incomprehensible to me and how incomprehensible do you cali it is?

I don't really understand what you are saying. Could you retype that question?

[topazg]

You could explain why and suggest better questions.

RE Your questions:

1) not resigning when being aware of being 30 points behind

I think this is bad sportsmanship. The "working on endgame" is a straw man. At that level, you have no assurance that your opponent is going to be trying very hard any more, as the game is clearly over.

2) my opponent's preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

3) my preference of averbal to verbal actions until the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

4) my opponent's third successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

5) my fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

6) my opponent's rules interpretation that he might remove stones after the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

However, if you had any idea that he might have had this interpretation (and frankly, you'd be a fool to think otherwise unless you thought he was deliberately throwing the game), it is bad sportsmanship not to have raised it to make sure you are both playing in the spirit of a fair game.

7) my rules interpretation that my opponent might not remove stones after the fourth successive pass

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

8) the appeal committee's use or abuse of power to the effect of declaring (by the assumption above) legal moves (the third and fourth pass) by the players invalid

Arguably revelant with respect to your sportsmanship. It's unsportsmanlike if you were aware of the lack of sportsmanship in deliberately aiming to win on a rules technicality. If you felt like that method of winning was sportsmanlike, there's no problem in this.

9) bending the rules contrary to my interpretation for the sake of getting a game result that agrees to positional judgement (by allowing my opponent to remove stones after the fourth successive pass)

Definitely sportsmanlike, as it was a judgement being made in accordance to their interpretation of the spirit of the game.

10) applying the rules according to my interpretation with the consequence of creating a result contrary to positional judgement

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

11) careless, presumably wrong application of the rules by many other players

Irrelevant with respect to sportsmanship.

Different questions:

1) When realising your opponent was unaware his conduct would result in a loss by the precise interpretation of the rules, do you feel that explaining them to him would have been sportsmanlike (and not explaining them would have been unsportsmanlike)?

2) When the game had completed, your opponent lost on a strict rules interpretation. Do you think it would have been sportsmanlike to have realised that the outcome based on the spirit of the rules were contrary to the outcome based on the strict interpretation of the rules, and thus allowed your opponent to remove your positionally dead stones and therefore win the game (and that not allowing this would have been unsportsmanlike)?

To me, these are the only two questions on which you are likely to differ with the majority of the people here, and are the crux of the big fuss that has surrounded this game since.

[RobertJasiek]

in my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one is behind by about 30 points, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rarely used rules is very dark gray.

The more points the darker? This, however, is no good concept for arbitration. Arbitration can say nothing about sportsmanship, declare "sportsmanlike" or declare "unsportsmanlike". There is no grey area for an abitration body's declared decision.

The rules were not rarely used but were used in EGCs, IIRC, in most of the years 1994 - 2002; either on all board or on all except the first 16 boards. They were used also in a few other EGF or Ing tournaments in Europe.

I could not know my opponent's rules understanding until the fourth pass in succession. Sure, I did not change my rules understanding just because I then learned that my opponent had a different one. But your words "on the base" sound like I would have desparately sought a win of the grounds of knowing for sure my opponent's different understanding during the game; I expected to lose the game until my opponent's third successive pass.

Why do you mention a grey area for me related to my opponent's by you supposed missing understanding of rules technicalities, but do not also mention a grey area for my opponent and his by you supposed missing understanding of rules technicalities? Do you consider rules knowledge more unsportsmanlike than missing rules knowledge? IMO, rules knowledge is in principle a duty of all players. Not bothering with the technicalities of applied rules is in the grey area of unsportsmanlike because it drives players who know the rules better to a position in which people with about your sense of sportsmanship then perceive "unsportsmanlike" behaviour for them.