there is something that smells in asian game.

[palapiku]

This thread is like the Daoist-Confucian debates all over again!

[tapir]

This thread is like the Daoist-Confucian debates all over again!

I would not mind, if you can give a short summary of this debate. Thank you in advance

[palapiku]

This thread is like the Daoist-Confucian debates all over again!

I would not mind, if you can give a short summary of this debate. Thank you in advance

The Confucian ideal was that all aspects of society should be governed by strict rules, rites, and ritual. The rules of course are good enough to cover all cases and don't need to change. The Zhuangzi spends a lot of time quite skillfully making fun of this ideal.

[jts]

The Confucian ideal was that all aspects of society should be governed by strict rules, rites, and ritual. The rules of course are good enough to cover all cases and don't need to change. The Zhuangzi spends a lot of time quite skillfully making fun of this ideal.

I don't quite think that's accurate. In a nutshell, the Legalist position was that (strict, formulaic) rules would be enough to cover all cases, and that within those rules everyone should do their best to get whatever it was they wanted.

The Confucian position was that society worked because people aspire to follow a moral code that embodied a certain ideal of what a human being should be like (the moral code of a gentleman), and that therefore we need to educate people to share those aspirations. (That education may require a certain amount of ritual, but the rituals aren't an end in themselves, and the resulting concept of gentlemanly behavior is a flexible one shared by a community, rather than something chiseled in stone.)

It's hard to pin down Daoism precisely, because it changed a great deal over its history. Both Confucianism and Daoism, after all, think their adherents should follow "the way" (道, dao = way, path, road), and they both think that you follow the way by being virtuous. But while Confucians have in mind mainly the social virtues, Daoists prize spontaneity, creativity, and (eventually) aestheticism.

Anyway, if you want to use this framework, Palapiku, it's very clear that...

... Jasiek is a Legalist,
... Fairbairn is a Confucian,
... and the Daoists are off playing go somewhere.

[hiyayang]

... Jasiek is a Legalist,
... Fairbairn is a Confucian,
... and the Daoists are off playing go somewhere.

Here is my take:

... Zhongguo Qiyuan is a Legalist (they knew people would try to win with timesuji in SD games, so they put in a rule to thwart it),
... Nihon Ki-in is a Confucianist (they expected players to adhere to certain moral standard),
... Hangul Kiwon is a Daoist (they chose to do nothing about fixing their rules, even after a series of disputes)

[cyclops]

Sportmanship does it allow mirrorgo? For me it feels a little bit like cheating but I do not see good reasons to forbid it or to disapprove it strongly.

[HermanHiddema]

Sportmanship does it allow mirrorgo? For me it feels a little bit like cheating but I do not see good reasons to forbid it or to disapprove it strongly.

Although not illegal, it is widely frowned upon.

When Fujisawa Hosai used it regularly, many pros tried to convince him that mirror go was anti-social, by complaining about him or refusing to play him.*

[cyclops]

one prisoner as penalty each time you make a symmetrical position. Nobody proposed such a thing? I think if you are too lazy to forbid it you should accept it.

[Laman]

one prisoner as penalty each time you make a symmetrical position. Nobody proposed such a thing? I think if you are too lazy to forbid it you should accept it.

i don't think we need such artificial rule (either the prisoner or forbid symmetrical position). if you imagine game where one side is strictly mirroring, black clearly lose, because he won't overcome white's komi. for white mirroring, black can just prepare his position and then play tengen.

Fujisawa Hosai (and also Go Seigen) showed manego is not advantageous at top level and at amateur (kyu) level it at most ensures that you won't fall much behind, but at some moment you have to deviate and then the real game begins.

in my opinion, go wouldn't be very good game if you could win with only copying your opponent's moves. however, some time ago, i wondered how big free-placed handicap would black need to win only by manego. perhaps 8 (or less, 6?), arranged around tengen would do the job. other thing is politeness of such play, and it is pretty sure you wouldn't convince the "victim" to play you again. i believe this and lose of others' respect should be enough punishment

[cyclops]

But then, would go be a very good game if it depends on group pressure to enforce some unwritten rules to keep it pleasant/ competitive. Well, maybe I shouldn't try to repeat the main discussion in this thread. After all it seems manego is not beneficial for advanced players.

[HermanHiddema]

one prisoner as penalty each time you make a symmetrical position. Nobody proposed such a thing? I think if you are too lazy to forbid it you should accept it.

Why? There are plenty of legal moves that I will not accept.