Rules debate at Cotsen

[apetresc]

I heard that was some minor confusion about the top board on the first day of Cotsen regarding the finer points of dame rules? I understand it might have affected the outcome of that match. Does anyone know the details?

[dfan]

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can jump in, but my understanding from overhearing discussion on KGS is that it was another Ing issue; the player who "should have won" passed instead of filling dame, which caused the other player to "win". Controversy ensued. I don't know how it was resolved.

[hyperpape]

I am not positive, but I believe that on KGS they said that the player who "should have won" was declared the winner.

There might have been a language issue--the player may have been Chinese or Korean with poor English comprehension, but that's second-hand or speculation.

[Joaz Banbeck]

You will probably have to rely on KGS for info. At the tournament itself, the atmosphere is so laid back that people don't make that much of a big deal of it. There is a question about rules, the TD comes by and offers his opinion, the loser congradulates the winner, and everybody heads off to enjoy the free food.

[kokomi]

There's nothing 'should have won'.
Anyone knows any details?
How comes nowadays there are so many rules dispute...
Are there many disputes due to rules in chess as well?

[hyperpape]

Those were scare quotes. What it meant was the player who would have won had he played properly while filling dame.

[RobertJasiek]

According to http://www.cotsengotournament.com/ "Ing Go rules" were in use. Regardless of which Ing ruleset that might mean, it implies Area Scoring. As a strategic consequence, two-sided or one-sided dame are one endgame point each. I.e. passing while there is an odd number of two-sided dame or passing while letting the opponent fill dame are strategic mistakes. Easy. Why would there be any need for a rules debate?!

kokomi, what do you call "many" disputes?

[kokomi]

RJ: I don't understand your question.

[RobertJasiek]

You wrote: "How comes nowadays there are so many rules dispute..." I ask: "what do you call 'many' disputes?" So what is "many" for you in this context? 2 per year world-wide? 2 per game? What else?

[dfan]

Here is the game: http://www.usgo.org/news/2010/09/2010-cotsen-open-round-2-board-3-the-dame-dispute-game-w-deuk-je-chang-7d-b-curtis-tang-7d/

I'll paste the note at the end of it here:

The result of this exciting game was the subject of dispute, due to White's failure to play a dame at the end which would cost him 2 points -- and the game --under Ing rules. There was a long discussion about this situation among the players, TD Chris Hayashida and Yilun Yang 7P. The TD asked Yang to serve as a referee and Mr Yang ruled that the proper course of action was to score the game as a win for White, who he said had misunderstood the need to play dame under Ing scoring. To adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules would not be in the spirit of the Cotsen, Mr Yang said.

The discussion went on so long that the round -- which had already started late for everyone but the Open section, which was awaiting pairing depending on the outcome of this game -- was rescheduled for 8a the following morning so that players could get some rest instead of playing late into the night.

[kokomi]

RJ: It's not about numbers. Other than this one, you have EGC clock one, you have the Kim-Lu captured stone one. This were what happened in the last 3 months.

This game is ' the rule is very simple game' when i was first introduced to it. I wonder if chess get the same situation that people do not agree with the result for this or that reason now.

You doubt the 'many' I said, then what frequency do you think is ok for this kind of problem to come over and over again?

[xed_over]

Here is the game: http://www.usgo.org/news/2010/09/2010-cotsen-open-round-2-board-3-the-dame-dispute-game-w-deuk-je-chang-7d-b-curtis-tang-7d/

I'll paste the note at the end of it here:

To adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules would not be in the spirit of the Cotsen, Mr Yang said.

I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

Maybe we need more definition around the "spirit of the Cotsen".

And I'm surprised they used Ing rules, and not AGA rules (though it wouldn't have changed the dispute).

[Kirby]

Here is the game: http://www.usgo.org/news/2010/09/2010-cotsen-open-round-2-board-3-the-dame-dispute-game-w-deuk-je-chang-7d-b-curtis-tang-7d/

I'll paste the note at the end of it here:

To adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules would not be in the spirit of the Cotsen, Mr Yang said.

I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

Maybe we need more definition around the "spirit of the Cotsen".

And I'm surprised they used Ing rules, and not AGA rules (though it wouldn't have changed the dispute).

I am inclined to agree with you, xed_over. It seems to me that black should win if white plays poorly on account of not understanding the rules properly.

I will say, though, that my experience at the Cotsen (it was my first time attending) was that it was quite laid back. *All* 5 of my games were played using Japanese rules, because I agreed to doing so with my opponents before we started the game. Most people didn't like the Ing scoring method. We were told by one of the officials that it was OK to count using the Japanese scoring method, if both opponents agreed in advance.

Based on this, and also the general atmosphere of the tournament, things seemed pretty laid back.

Although, if there were a lot of prize money - or anything else important at stake, I would side for the player that "technically" won the game by the rules. As Robert says, not filling in dame is a strategic mistake.

[kokomi]

Here is the game: http://www.usgo.org/news/2010/09/2010-cotsen-open-round-2-board-3-the-dame-dispute-game-w-deuk-je-chang-7d-b-curtis-tang-7d/

I'll paste the note at the end of it here:

To adhere to a strict interpretation of the rules would not be in the spirit of the Cotsen, Mr Yang said.

I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

Maybe we need more definition around the "spirit of the Cotsen".

And I'm surprised they used Ing rules, and not AGA rules (though it wouldn't have changed the dispute).

I think you need to give a stone when passing under AGA rules? So it won't affect the results? I'm not sure, I'm very bad at understanding different rules...

[oren]

I'm not sure I would agree with this ruling.

It sounds like, if we don't understand the rules, then we can just throw them out?

I disagree with your disagreeing.

Most people are accustomed to playing with "Japanese" rules. Due to these rules, you can pretty much play a complete game with anyone else and not have major issues. The purpose of the rules should be to let people play Go against one another and not cause changes of the scoring due to someone not understanding them. Tournaments as you know have a variety of people show up and very few will know all the issues with Japanese, Chinese, Ing, AGA rules, so I agree with the decision. I like AGA rules, but I would not agree that someone who accidentally passes early should be penalized for it on their first time using it.