there is something that smells in asian game.

[RobertJasiek]

0) Not publishing the complete game record looks like an attempt to prevent the public from judging well about the referee decision - were the disputed moves pure timesujis or not?

1) In principle Area Scoring can be handled more easily than Territory Scoring especially also in such cases.

2) Sudden Death in important tournaments (other than those really requiring it like blitz) creates unnecessary problems.

3) The Chinese (?) rules about time strategy appear to be too complex. Simpler rules would be better because their application could be easier for everybody.

4) I dislike timing rules that depend on any strategic judgement because a) they invite disputes and make disputes more frequent (when behind, a player can still try his arbitration luck), b) in a dispute a player might be forced to reveal his strategy to the opponent prematurely for the sake of defending his just right to a move of his choice (like in complicated teire aji shapes), c) such rules are bound to be ambiguous.

5) Simple timing rules for non-strict sudden death games without arbitrary referee decisions could be as follows: "When a player's time runs below 1 minute, then he may request that both players' times are enhanced by a byoyomi of X seconds per move." Then the opponent can try whichever "useless" moves he likes - it would be futile timesujis.

[Bantari]

0) Not publishing the complete game record looks like an attempt to prevent the public from judging well about the referee decision - were the disputed moves pure timesujis or not?

Or maybe to prevent the public to think badly of a good player who got carried away by the heat of the moment.
Your thinking is too limited. You assume that since it was the referees/organizers decision not to publish the full record, it must be THEIR mistakes they wish to cover. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that.

[RobertJasiek]

Rather I think that players should not be protected from coverage of their game-related actions but they should all be public in principle. After all, that is a major purpose of tournaments.

[tj86430]

Rather I think that players should not be protected from coverage of their game-related actions but they should all be public in principle. After all, that is a major purpose of tournaments.

Different cultures may (or may not) have different views on this.

[Syptryn]

I think I saw that game. What happened is that there was a double ko in a semei.

The Chinese team will definitely win the semai, but to prevent capture, the Koreans can play ko threats almost indefinitely. So what happened was that every second move, they would capture one of the ko's, forcing the opponent to capture the other ko. Essentially this doubled the number of moves required to finish the game.

[RobertJasiek]

If indeed it was the game, that would be plainly ordinary strategy and not even pure timesujis. It would be like prohibiting perfect play just because it is not one of the shortest possible perfect plays. With the same right one might prohibit ordinary endgames like a fight for the last basic endgame ko or like prohibiting a 5-move late endgame sequence without any ko capture if a 3-move-sequence leads to the same score. This could go yet further up to prohibiting probes or hamete in the middle game or opening. What a terrible development potential and just because of bad time rules!

[hyperpape]

I am probably missing something, but why does capturing the ko to force the opponent to capture the other ko serve a strategic purpose?

[tapir]

I am probably missing something, but why does capturing the ko to force the opponent to capture the other ko serve a strategic purpose?

Well, it serves the strategic purpose of winning on time, which is an integral part of the game in the european view (similar to adjusting clocks e.g.).

Thank god, the korean players showed sportsmanship by giving in here and still went on to win the tournament.

[RobertJasiek]

From Syptryn's description, there appears to be a double ko death, in which capturing either ko threatens to win the semeai, which would improve on the score if the opponent did not answer by capturing the other ko in the double ko.

Therefore there might have been two different move-sequences, each leading to the perfect-play score S:

[[tt]*kk]*[t]*[pp]

[tt]*[t]*[pp]

where [] = move-sequence, t = tenuki, k = double ko capture, p = pass, * = repeated several times.

The player's strategic purpose is to achieve at least S and he will achieve it by using, e.g., either of these two move-sequence patterns.

[RobertJasiek]

the korean players showed sportsmanship

Players are showing sportsmanship, e.g., if they strive to win their game. Another aspect is whether they should have resigned the game (much) earlier because of having been hopelessly behind (were they White?). Whether their consequence since the dispute arose might have been sportsmanlike or violating the purpose of the game to win still escapes me because too little information is available in English despite all your translation and citation efforts. Which kind of aspect do you see to be sportsmanship here?

[HermanHiddema]

the korean players showed sportsmanship

Players are showing sportsmanship, e.g., if they strive to win their game.

Striving to win your game is basic game understanding, not sportsmanship. Striving to win your game at all costs is the exact opposite of sportsmanship.

Playing pointless moves to win on time is one of the most elementary examples of unsportsmanlike behavior.

[RobertJasiek]

Let us start with basic considerations for Area Scoring without specific tournament rules: Approaching stones to remove them and thereby to improve one's score is not making pointless moves but making valuable moves (valuable because one's score is improved) and therefore sportsmanlike.

Those wanting to see sportsmanlike differently should redefine it instead of presuming the non-obvious as obvious!

[Magicwand]

the korean players showed sportsmanship

Players are showing sportsmanship, e.g., if they strive to win their game.

Striving to win your game is basic game understanding, not sportsmanship. Striving to win your game at all costs is the exact opposite of sportsmanship.

Playing pointless moves to win on time is one of the most elementary examples of unsportsmanlike behavior.

agree somewhat but it is more on not defining the rule clearly.
this time it was double ko which last long as the ko threat but!
let's say there is triple ko and time was on korean player's side.
can korean players claim that they can play triple ko to burn chinese player's time?
which actually happened in changhao vs lee changho in exbition game.
lee changho accepted tie but had more time left to burn changhao's time.

i blame more on the implimentation of sudden death rule.
and also no extra time for cature stone pick up rule.

[RobertJasiek]

Striving to win your game at all costs is the exact opposite of sportsmanship.

What do you mean by "at all costs"? Applying the rules of play correctly does not involve any costs.

Playing pointless moves to win on time is one of the most elementary examples of unsportsmanlike behavior.

What do you define / exclude as "pointless moves"?

It is not an elementary example. Rather one first needs to redefine "unsportsmanlike behavior" to mean something else than "violating the rules of play intentionally".

[RobertJasiek]

let's say there is triple ko and time was on korean player's side.
can korean players claim that they can play triple ko to burn chinese player's time?

As always, it depends on the exact rules of play and tournament rules. You seem to suggest that the then valid rules suggest the players' agreement to get a No Result because of long cycle. The fault lies in the ambiguity of the No Result rule, which in particular leaves it unclear what happens if the players disagree in an equal numbers of captured stones cycle, as I have explained, e.g., here: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html