I would agree with you completely, oren, if they both agreed to using Japanese scoring prior to the start of the game. As I understand it, no such agreement was made, so by default, Ing scoring is used.

However, again, I felt like this was a casual tournament, so I would doubt that the loser of the game is losing sleep over it (although, I don't really know for sure).

_________________
be immersed

No. It was maybe what you recall from the last 3 months. E.g., during the EGC alone there were many clock disputes.

What was that Kim-Lu issue?



Either it was true or it was false, depending on whether you were introduced to simple rules or it was only pretence for difficult rules.



The (Western) Chess world is said to have unified its rules - the Go world has not done it yet. Your rhetorical question distracts from the issue of having to know which rule system one is playing under in every tournament game.



I do not doubt it but it could mean anything from 2 per game to 2 per year world-wide. I.e., without context it was a meaningless statement.



I prefer the rules to be unified; then the frequency would converge to 0.

ALA the rules are not unified and different tournament games are played under different rules, the "problem" may occur as often as players are stupid enough to disregard checking which rules they are playing under before the tournament (game). Go is not a game "If the score is close, then try to win by weak referee's decision." but Go is a game "The scoring system is known, then the game produces a score according to it.".

Such a statement alone is risky. Firstly one might confuse counting and scoring. Secondly for AGA Rules such a statement would be understood as using either counting procedure; in an American tournament under Ing rules, the statement's implication unclear: Does it refer to AGA Rules style counting variatin of Area Scoring or does it mean to change to Japanese style rules entirely or does it mean to change to the Japanese style rules' scoring but otherwise play under Ing rules...? However, in the dispute game the players do not appear to have agreed on changing to Japanese counting / scoring / whatever, so for their game Ing style was still valid.

If the referee wanted to construct a careless context, then his proper decision should have been "Default jigo because of unclear rules declaration by the organizers".

This statement is too general.



Nonsense. It is even possible to have a major dispute before the game start about which Japanese rules are meant to be in use.



See my reply related to unified rules.



If a tournament has such a variety of rules newbies, the tournament organizers can explain the used / allowed rules to the players at the tournament start. Or at least explain the key differences and, if the tournament is a rather careless one, they might add "if rules rarities would alter the winner, then the game will be default jigo". (But dame is not a rules rarity. They ought to explain the value of dame.)

Depending on the observers, cheating might still be possible. As a kibitz, I once noticed such but I had not counted the board before so I was not sure enough (about one of the players very quickly revealing an extra hidden prisoner) to call a referee.

I agree that it was ambiguous. In fact, even the time settings were ambiguous. On the paper that was handed out, the time settings were, I think, 40 minutes plus 5 periods of 45 seconds. But listed on a poster, it said that the period was 40 minutes plus 5 periods of 30 seconds (it might be the other way around). The person setting the clocks started setting clocks to 45 seconds byo-yomi, and the announcer said that byo-yomi was 30 seconds.

I actually played some games with 30 seconds byo-yomi, and some with 45.

So I think that some things, including the aspect of agreeing to Japanese rules before playing, were somewhat ambiguous - which is part of the reason that I felt that the tournament rules were very laid back.

However, despite this, I still feel that if the players did not agree to playing with Japanese scoring prior to playing, the default assumption is that Ing scoring should be used.

_________________
be immersed

I'm glad the issue was resolved the way it was, but still, with many good arguments on both sides of the dispute, you have to admit the situation with the rules of Go in general is less than ideal.

No? What do you mean I 'recall'? You mean there's more that I don't know? Maybe. lol.

For the Kim-Lu issue, please go to the Professional sub-forum for more information.


I think i have explained you 'many' and stated that that's nothing to do with numbers. If you insisted a number in your understanding, say 2 per game (?, do you mean 2 disputes per game? o.O...) or whatever, I can not stop you from doing so. But saying it 'meaningless' is apparently very subjective, please take it back to your own sentence.


Btw, which of my questions is 'rhetorical'? I thought they were simply questions.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Funny because I played in a tournament (only once, I'm just a beginner) and I was never told which rules were used for scoring. I used territory scoring without giving it much thought. I just checked the website of that tournament, and the one were I'm planning to go next month, and couldn't find out anywhere which rules are used for scoring. Time and komi were specified, but nothing else.

If someone then suddenly told me I lost because of not filling dame, I would be clearly annoyed. It's also the organizer's duty to communicate this kind of things if they want to apply rules strictly. 'Course I don't know how they communicate it at Cotsen.

Jasiek: please define meaning, in an essay written outside of this thread. Pay careful attention to a variety of 20th century sources from each of philosophy, linguistics, and the foundations of math, including post 1951 material.

or is it ?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Jasiek: You really need to experience the Cotsen first hand to appreciate the laid back style. It is held every September in LA. Please be my guest some year: I live about 10 miles away, and you'll have free room and board for the weekend.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Invitations to New Zealand, Costa Rica, now to California, ohoh, I guess I am missing some pocket money for the flights:)

Well, if you win for your division in the Cotsen, the prize money might offset the travel costs a little bit.

_________________
be immersed

Chess has less problems but they are not completely absent.

- Was it now 40 / 50 / 150 or another number of moves that needs to be played to make the game a "draw" and what is the procedure for claiming it?
- Is "eternal check" a win or a draw?
- Can a game have 3 black knights, or 2 white kings?
- If you touch a piece that cannot move do you have to move the king?
- if you touch a piece of the opponent do you need to capture it?
- and what are the rules if more pieces are touched? (PS they differ if they are yours or your opponents)
- When is there insufficient material to continue (this is spelled out in the USCF rules )
- Are you allowed to promote a pawn to a pawn?


Go is behind on competition regulations (the rules of the game outside the board)
and also there is discussion what (the best?) "rules of the game" are.

But having said all this is it not amazing that in almost all games (and that is even more than 99%) the players agree on the outcome.

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

50 moves on either side without a pawn move or capture. You claim it by writing down the move you intend to play and stopping the clock.
A draw.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
The first piece-touch that forces a move, forces a move.
This is the only annoying one of all these questions. Luckily the preferred answer these days is "use a delay clock, in which case this rule is obviated".
No.

Chess has a lot of rules but it is pretty rare for there to be a big debate on what they are.

Agreed. If you look at the US (or international) official rules of chess, most of them are about about tournament rules such as the use of the clock, when to offer a draw, touch-move, rules for pairing, etc., rather than about the rules of the game itself.

Yeah, although that can create a false sense that the details of the rules don't really matter, which can then cause a real problem in the other 1% of the cases.

A draw is official if you go 50 moves with out moving a pawn capturing a piece.
Perpetual check which you call eternal check is always agreed on as a draw unless a player can get checkmate
A game can have as Up to 8+ the number of any piece on a board except king because of pawn promotions. Will it happen? No in most top level games you don't have two queens and your opponent resigns if he can't stop your pawn from promoting in endgame.
Touch move rule states that if you touch a piece that can't legally move then you may move another piece.
also if you touch an opponents piece first and it can't be legally captured you are not required to capture, but if it can you are required to capture it
if you touch more than one piece in one movement it counts as adjusting the pieces
insufficient is determined by basic endgames, if there is a pawn on the board it is never stalemate. Insufficient material is just both kings, a king and a knight, a king and a bishop, or a king and two knights.
pawns can only promote to back row pieces except the king.

_________________
“I’m here to play go and chew bubble gum, and I’m all out of gum”- misquoted duke nukem

wow dfan beat me two it didn't know we had another chess player on this site.

_________________
“I’m here to play go and chew bubble gum, and I’m all out of gum”- misquoted duke nukem

Almost all correct, but unfortunedly not all



minor:

"eternal check" is neither draw or win. (but it probably leads to a draw because of repeated positions)
the claiming method is the FIDE method the USCF method is different.


The touched piece rule it is more complicated than you described. (in fact it is almost 3 pages in the rule book)

Wrong:

Your last answer is wrong. rule 14D - insufficient material to continue - has nothing to do with the time system, you are confusing it with 14E - insufficient material to win on time-



I would say the rules of go have something "natural" about them that many players create their own opinion about them.



But even only the rules of the game together are longer than some complete go rule sets


this is the list of 14E -insufficient material to win on time-

_________________
Promotor and Librarian of Sensei's Library

it is insufficient for end of game as well any tournament player will tell you. Basic checkmates are two bishops a knight and a bishop king and rook king and queen assuming the the opponent has one king anything else when there are no pawns on the board is stalemate.

Also perpetual is draw for the reason that three of the exact same board positions that happen during a game can be a forced draw

_________________
“I’m here to play go and chew bubble gum, and I’m all out of gum”- misquoted duke nukem

With all the discussions above, I do think Go is easier than Chess now
Are there any special meaning of 'touch' in chess? Or you simply can not touch your opponent's stones?

_________________
长考出臭棋.