A Dispute Again

[RobertJasiek]

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know, and spare us from this micky mouse theater?

You consider the number 30 important, and you make a distinction to a close positional judgement score. I do not make such a distinction; I do not even make a distinction between a positive, neutral or negative score for the sake of correct rules application, but I have the view that rules application must always be correct, regardless of the score. Therefore I am interested in your "micky mouse" disctinction.

[p2501]

Why don't you just ask what you really want to know, and spare us from this micky mouse theater?

You consider the number 30 important, ...

Already said I don't:

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?

No of course not. I was referring to the specific situation. ...

Let me rephrase that quote for you:
"In my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one lost on the board, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rules is rude and unsportsmanlike."

[RobertJasiek]

For most of us (I think), sportsmanship would be to inform our opponent of the rules.

For Robert, sportsmanship is using the rules as another method of winning.

Rules are the basis of strategy and tactics, and so are, of course, the basis of trying to win.

If, during the game, my opponent asks me what the rules are, then I explain it to him, provided the tournament rules have not prescribed a very high degree of silence. (If you have too much time, you can find examples of that in KGS games in the archive.) Before or after the game, I happily talk about the rules including information about which are being used and what they are.

What I usually not do is to explain rules to my opponent during the game (except during a dispute) if he has not asked because, as I have already explained several times, I do not want to disturb and do not treat him as a stupid person. (On KGS, during the early years of using New Zealand Rules, I sometimes informed my opponents and about 35% to 40% became very angry for the disturbance or being treated as a stupid person, who would still need rules explanations.)

So, maybe - unasked during the game (before / after, it is rather obvious) - you are right with most, but it is probably a close call, see the percentage above. But... tell me, do you really disturb your opponents during your games, when your opponent has not asked, to inform him about the rules?

(Exception: the opponent did not hear an important announcement because he was absent.)

[RobertJasiek]

"In my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one lost on the board, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rules is rude and unsportsmanlike."

Now I understand your opinion better.

Since many disputes are about a player's win and the opponent's loss, and are about technicalities, you seem to be blaming many losing-on-the-board players for being in a dispute at all. I don't share such a brutal view.

[oren]

So, maybe - unasked during the game (before / after, it is rather obvious) - you are right with most, but it is probably a close call, see the percentage above. But... tell me, do you really disturb your opponents during your games, when your opponent has not asked, to inform him about the rules?

Many times I gently tell my opponents that they should hit their clock after their move. Many are new to tournaments and just learning. When I first learned, I might have been told this as well.

During tournaments using AGA rules, I have very often had to explain how AGA scoring works. It's just not intuitive to many players. Luckily I've been able to avoid bent-four and other fun situations with opponents in my games.

I've had a tournament opponent change his move a second after placing a stone. I could have demanded a win from that (and I would have won had the original stone stayed), but to me I'd rather have the game be enjoyable with my opponent than argue over it.

I think what we find here is a majority of us view sportsmanship a little differently than you do. I'm sure winning is very important to you for some reason, but most of us want to keep this a fun game to play with others. I'm sure many see your actions and would rather not play with you if possible.

Certainly on the dispute in question, I would have notified my opponent of the rules gap as you saw it and how he should play according to the rules.

[p2501]

"In my opinion trying to claim a win in a game, where one lost on the board, on the base of the opponent not understanding some of the technicalities of the rules is rude and unsportsmanlike."

Now I understand your opinion better.

Since many disputes are about a player's win and the opponent's loss, and are about technicalities, you seem to be blaming many losing-on-the-board players for being in a dispute at all. I don't share such a brutal view.

Actually I have never had or have seen a dispute over a board situation - although I'm rather new to the game, compared to veterans. Still I would maintain that is the rare exception - but I can absolutely visualize you having been involved in more than average.

Also I wouldn't generalise that the losing side is to blame in a dispute. That would be ridiculous.

[lemmata]

Even so, raising it would at least give the opportunity to clear it up. Being in a situation where it's clear the game would be decided on who had the most accurate interpretation of the rules strikes me as a poor enough end that it would be worth some possible embarrassment / insult to make sure the game was settled on the board (which I personally consider preferable to being settled on technical application of rarely applied rules).

As you admit yourself, there is personal judgement involved. Again, I emphasize that I am talking about tournaments. Many people from different backgrounds and different values participate and the games are meant to be competitive. If someone self-ataris a clump of his own stones, do we want to ask players to make a judgement as to whether it is moral to offer an undo? If you atari 20 stones, must tournament players be given the burden of judging if they should say something to their opponent as his hand hovers over a spot far away? I think Jasiek said it best (for once!) when he blamed the tournament organizing committee for not doing a better job of educating players on the rules beyond giving them a pamphlet. Nevertheless, all players were given the rules. My point boils down to this: Players should not have to think about the prevailing moral standard of play in the middle of a game. That is unfair to them. If there is indeed a prevailing moral standard, it should be incorporated into the rules to unburden the players from such decisions.

It is unfortunate that a pro player was unfamiliar with the rules used in domestic play---these are not foreign rules. Moreover, asking about the rules during a game can be considered seeking advice, which makes me very uncomfortable about this situation.

The situation is different from the one that RJ was in, but the comments of Kim Sujang reveal the pros' attitude toward the rules. Kim was a referee in the main tournament of the 56th Guksu. One of the players (the young Ahn Sungjun) asked if a particular group he had was dead according to some arcane section of the rules. After much fuss, the answer ("yes") was given to him and he resigned. Kim's quote reveals that he thinks it is shameful for a pro player not to know the rules, even the arcane parts, and that talking about the rules during a game is taboo because it may be construed as advice. Heck, if the rule is arcane enough, who knows if the advice is correct or not? RJ is not a pro, but he was in a similarly serious tournament setting (one in which the players had received the rules pamphlets no less). Somehow I get the feeling that Kim Sujang would come down on RJ's side of this as far as the morality of his actions is concerned.

The fact that after two passes, Robert proceeded to play stones in his own territory to capture all of his opponent's stones after two passes, and knowing the detail of the 4 passes rule, strikes me as the action of trying to win on the basis his opponent wasn't clearly enough aware of the letter of the rules.

At the end of a game, even an area scoring one, I have never spent a number of extra moves capturing every enemy stone in my territory before passing, and I suspect most other people don't sit there doing this either. I struggle to see a single reason for doing it after each player has passed other than to play on rule technicalities.

Again, people keep on talking about "rule technicalities" when they are talking about rules. This seems to be unfair framing. All rules, including the rules for capture, ko, atari, etc., are technicalities because go is a logical game. The status of the bent-four and points in seki are among important things that are technicalities, too! RJ was merely playing the best possible moves according to the rules. After seeing the sensei's page, I see RJ's claim as this:

My opponent played a move (third pass) that gave me a move (fourth pass) to make my stones live

In essence, we might see this as not playing the middle point of a three-in-a-row shape of a completely surrounded 40 point group. Again, the rules were available to everyone, why must Robert Jasiek be burdened with judging if it is moral to point out an implication of the rules to the opponent? Was this mistake due to ignorance or a momentary lapse? Does it make a difference? Is it fair that RJ has to first judge which case it was, then judge if that distinction matters and then, on top of that, decide whether it is "proper and moral" to play the optimal continuation (fourth pass...in his mind) or not? Would RJ have to weigh the future gains and losses of his opponent from having a memorable loss related to a particular rule and judge which would be better for his opponent's future? It all seems so simple at first glance, but there are a number of implicit decisions we could be forcing on the tournament player.

Look, I am not saying that what RJ did was somehow a praise-worthy act. I am saying that it was an uninteresting and morally neutral act...just middle of the road. If someone wants to resign a game that they could have won because he was losing badly before his opponent made a momentary lapse in judgement (or did not bother to read the new rules pamphlet that he had), then let us praise that person for being exceptionally considerate and for being clear enough in the head (and quick-thinking) to make that judgement in the heat of a timed tournament game. Let us praise the people whose first consideration is for others, but let us not lynch people online for playing optimal moves. These two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, the general message I am gathering from RJ's detractors is: Oh he thinks that wins and losses are so important that he tried to win based on a technicality. However, we could also conjecture that the reason he felt so comfortable doing this was precisely because wins and losses did not matter much to him and therefore he though that they would not matter much to his opponent as well---that is, perhaps he felt that him winning this game wasn't going to affect his opponent's life in a significant way. Who knows, maybe RJ would have resigned if this was the deciding match of a pro qualification exam. We can't say. All this mind-reading just boggles my mind.

EDIT: spell/minor

[Javaness2]

One important point to consider would be Mr Ing's own feelings on the subject. Obviously, since the guy is dead now, that would be difficult.

You can pontificate about what "Under Chinese rules, since stones and spaces are both territory and life and death can be demonstrated by actual removal, there is no need for any special rulings." might imply. I find arguments about the correct interpretation of the rules to be dubious, especially when you read " Location of stones: During the game, there should be no stones except the live and dead stones on the board, unplayed stones in the bowls, and removed stones in their designated containers."


Personally, I thought Mr Bogdanov nailed everything in his initial ruling. The rules are very clear about his authority to decide on the matter.

[daal]

My point boils down to this: Players should not have to think about the prevailing moral standard of play in the middle of a game. That is unfair to them. If there is indeed a prevailing moral standard, it should be incorporated into the rules to unburden the players from such decisions.

People are never free from the necessity of deciding for themselves what's right and what isn't, and following even the best intended rules is no guarantee that one is on high moral ground.

[lemmata]

My point boils down to this: Players should not have to think about the prevailing moral standard of play in the middle of a game. That is unfair to them. If there is indeed a prevailing moral standard, it should be incorporated into the rules to unburden the players from such decisions.

People are never free from the necessity of deciding for themselves what's right and what isn't, and following even the best intended rules is no guarantee that one is on high moral ground.

I would counter with the following: People are never free from the option of deciding for themselves what's right and what isn't, and following even the best intended rules is no guarantee that one is on high moral ground, which tells us that determining moral high ground is very difficult, therefore it is unfair to criticize a person for actions within the rules of play that the two parties mutually agreed to play by from the start, especially because it really is just a game. This sort of extended morality debate seems more appropriate for more serious issues than mere gameplay.

[jts]

My point boils down to this: Players should not have to think about the prevailing moral standard of play in the middle of a game. That is unfair to them. If there is indeed a prevailing moral standard, it should be incorporated into the rules to unburden the players from such decisions.

People are never free from the necessity of deciding for themselves what's right and what isn't, and following even the best intended rules is no guarantee that one is on high moral ground.

Let's compare and contrast. (I will omit the bolding and the underlining, but I hope that does not impair the validity of the argument.)

"Surgeons shouldn't have to think about prevailing moral standards in the middle of a surgery. That is unfair to them. If indeed there is a prevailing moral standard concerning cutting out people's organs for fun and profit, that should be incorporated into tort laws to unburden the surgeons from such decisions."

"Drivers shouldn't have to think about prevailing moral standards in the middle of the road. That is unfair to them. If indeed there is a prevailing moral standard concerning unsafe or egotistical driving, that should be incorporated into the traffic laws to unburden the drivers from such decisions."

"Lovers shouldn't have to think about prevailing moral standards in the middle of a date. That is unfair to them. If indeed there is a prevailing moral standard concerning respect for your date, that should be incorporated into harassment and rape laws to unburden lovers from such decisions."

I'm sure you could use the cookie-cutter to generate more examples, mutis mutandis. Here is what I observe:

1. "X-ers shouldn't have to think about prevailing moral standards in the middle of an X." This is equivocal. If you mean "they shouldn't have to actively cogitate about standards," it seems true. If you mean "they shouldn't have to have any regard for standards," it seems false. For example, consider the prevailing moral standard prohibiting cannibalism. I should hope that I wouldn't, in a game of go, be put in a situation where I need to think seriously about whether or not I should make a casserole out of my opponent! If I were forced to do so, either there is something seriously wrong with me, or the tournament director has made some very tragic mistake. (Perhaps he held the match on a life boat in the middle of the Pacific.) Nonetheless, the moral principle continues to apply throughout the game.

2. "This is unfair to them." Why only unfair? I would make it, This monstrosity is barbarous to them! or, This barbarism is monstrous to them! or, To them this indignity is nothing short of a catastrophe! And then I would put it in a red, 72-pt., blinking font.

3. "If there is indeed a prevailing moral standard, it should be incorporated into the X-rules to unburden the X-ers from such decisions." This relies on the unstated but nonetheless universally accepted maxim that when we want to unburden people from making complicated decisions, the obvious answer is to heap more rules onto them (preferably with subsections, footnotes, and plenty of unexpected exceptions).

[Zombie]

A board game tournament (which you presumably voluntarily agree to participate in) is a bit of a different matter than potentially lethal activites governed by laws enforced by the violence of government.

EDIT: Furthermore, the players have agreed to activity governed by certain rules. Why suddenly usurp then amidst a short period of activity? Such ambiguities as described here are certainly grounds for discussion and changing the tournament rules so they are actually clear so people know what to expect. This makes disputes such as this one ideally extinct and people can just focus on playing.

[topazg]

lemmata, you appear to approaching my text as if I'm claiming Robert did something incorrect or invalid. I did no such thing.

In essense, my opinion of the whole situation can be summed up as follows:

* Sportsmanship is subjective
* In most parts of society, appropriate conduct and behaviour is generally considered to be determined by the majority, even if that ends up being some sort of "mob consensus" subjective approach
* In this game, Robert behaved in a way that he considered sportsmanlike, to the extend that he felt it applied to the situation at hand
* In this game, Robert behaved in a way that the majority of observers and adjudicators at the time felt was inappropriate
** This does not mean Robert was in the wrong, merely that his behaviour and actions were going to be the butt of some serious criticism
* In this game, Robert followed the precise letter of the rule very accurately

I asked my two question to Robert for specific reasons. Sadly, he didn't actually answer either directly, but from other things he's posted I think it's fair to say "yes" that he felt his behaviour was sportsmanlike in both cases. As a result, I don't think it's possible to demonstrate that his behaviour was morally unjustified, as morals are fundametally subjective, and he clearly thought about it. I also don't think it's possible to demonstrate that his behaviour was incorrect, as he followed the tournament rules perfectly well. He has stated himself that he deliberately played the pass to win the game, so it's very clear that he was happy using his opponent's ignorance of the game end rules to win.

So, if I'm honest, I think the correct decision would actually to have judged in Robert's favour, as that was the rules of the tournament. The referee, giving the benefit of the doubt, explained the rules to Csaba (he clearly was not aware he was supposed to remove all the Black groups), and was asked to proceed, to which he was quite happy, but Robert refused. As 4 passes had been made, this is quite reasonably Robert's right to do so, and if the judgement goes to a rules committee, I would genuinely have expected the correct decision to call the game ended at that point, with Robert the victor.

From what we do know about Mr Ing's attitude towards Go, and from the reason the rules in question are applied, it seems clear that the purpose of these ending rules is to allow an easier resolution of disputes. It seems like the problem is in the wording and ambiguity of the rules. There would be no reason why every pair of passes couldn't create a "game pause" phase where the players mutually agree on the status of the stones, and only continue when there is disagreement, before passing and revisiting the question - but the rules not only don't allow for it, they explicitly exclude it.

However, despite a judgement in favour of Robert being correct (that is, on the basis that the referee is responsibly simply for enforcing the rules of the tournament to the letter), I feel that it would have been a bad decision. The reason for this is entirely subjective, but it's based on the fact that most tournament attendees are going to play games of Go, have fun, and socialise. The possibility that they may be heading towards a loss by some aspect of the rules of which they are unaware (this particular game ending scenario is, IIRC, unique to Ing, although J1989 and others have their own problems as well) may be strong enough to put people off from attending. I know that as a result of this I wouldn't want to play Robert in a tournament game, and I know plenty of other people who still feel the same way. I think the fact that people still feel strongly enough to debate about a judgement in a single game played over 10 years ago speaks loudly for people's desire not to see the behaviour happen again, particularly against themselves or in a tournament deciding game. I think the referee ruling in favour of Robert would have damaged the credibility of both the tournament and the referee, even though he would have no problem justifying the decision as correct by the game rules. These sorts of disputes and decisions have ramifications that stretch well beyond the game and tournament in question.

I do have sympathy for Robert here, because I can fully understand why he felt both his behaviour was appropriate and that he was in the right, but I also applaud Mr Bogdanov for making a decision that supports the wider image of Go, the decision that the majority of observers feel was the intended spirit of the rules (and common sense vis-a-vis ending a Go game generally).

[Bartleby]

I can agree with those people who say that they wouldn't want to win a game on a rules technicality. For most of us, a game of Go is a contest of playing strength that should be decided over the board based on the quality of the opponents' play, and not by a rules committee ruling on a technical issue.

But I don't see why people make such a big fuss about this incident. It should be obvious to everyone that Robert takes the rules and their technical application very seriously, much more seriously than most of us. Given this fact, his actions in this case were understandable, as they raised an important (to him) question regarding the application of the rules.

I don't see this as some kind of moral issue or even an issue of sportsmanship (and I am all in favor of good sportsmanship), so much as a question of emphasis: to Robert, the rules are very important and invoking them in a borderline case is perfectly legitimate and perhaps even critical for development of better understanding of the rules. To the rest of us, the rules issue seems somewhat trivial. Who is to say who is right?

[Zombie]

The thing I am irritated about in this thread is that people seem to think that the rules should have been usurped in this case. If so, why have rules anyway if they can be usurped in the name of some nebulous concept? Rules should be enforced as they are during the event, that is the whole reason they exist.
Winning on such an uncomfortable technicality or ambiguity as happened in the game is not a sign to usurp the rules. It is a sign to acknowledge the problem and draft new, better, clearer rules that have no room for such unfortunate circumstances. It is in the best interest of everyone. Of the sportsmanship people's, of folks like me and Robert, of the judges, of newcomers. But that is a task entirely separate from actual rules enforcement in the tournament. In the tournament, Robert was correct, Csaba did not know the rules which he should've and should've lost the game as such. Simple as that.