Life In 19x19

Maybe because it would be a shame to give up something you enjoy a lot over something so trivial and that only makes up about 0.1% of your time playing a game.

Uberdude wrote:Maybe because it would be a shame to give up something you enjoy a lot over something so trivial and that only makes up about 0.1% of your time playing a game.

The question asked whether I enjoyed tournaments to begin with. And I did. But towards the end I was not enjoying it as much because the few which were within reach of me required an overnight stay - nothing within about 250 miles. So the fact that there was these contrived rules, totally alien to tradition, was enough to push me against any further ones.

Dr Straw wrote:But towards the end I was not enjoying it as much because the few which were within reach of me required an overnight stay - nothing within about 250 miles.

Good. I'm glad to hear you were just being over-dramatic about the pass-stones. The thought of someone giving up tournaments just because of pass-stones is truly sad.

Good. I'm glad to hear you were just being over-dramatic about the pass-stones. The thought of someone giving up tournaments just because of pass-stones is truly sad.

He didn't say it was "just because" (it was a "last straw"), and I don't think he was being over-dramatic. At least I understand his feeling. I stopped going to a tournament very close to where I live because they introduced komi bidding. I wanted to play go, not nim.

Like pass stones this may seem trivial, but these things are often symptomatic of a wider mindset (e.g. disregard of tradition, obsession with numbers or rules) that a particular person may not be sympathetic to. Doesn't necessarily make the mindset wrong, but neither is regarding it as alien wrong.

The obvious solution to both these problems is to get stronger so your opponent resigns and then neither pass stones nor komi matter .

The obvious solution to both these problems is to get stronger so your opponent resigns and then neither pass stones nor komi matter

Unfortunately this is not so, because a very common effect of these new rules is that the first half an hour of every tournament is spent explaining the rules and then repeating the explanation for latecomers or those in the toilets, with further adumbrations, and so annoyance to others, during the games for those who didn't grasp or (like me) couldn't hear the explanation. The consequence is a half hour of boredom and then either missing the lunch break or getting home half an hour later.

So the solution may instead be to bring along a meat cleaver and defeat your opponent with that. As the proverb tells us, キリ一本が勝負のカギ。

John Fairbairn wrote:So the solution may instead be to bring along a meat cleaver and defeat your opponent with that.

that's basically how they settle it in the new movie, Divine Move.

John Fairbairn wrote:

Good. I'm glad to hear you were just being over-dramatic about the pass-stones. The thought of someone giving up tournaments just because of pass-stones is truly sad.

Like pass stones this may seem trivial, but these things are often symptomatic of a wider mindset (e.g. disregard of tradition, obsession with numbers or rules) that a particular person may not be sympathetic to. Doesn't necessarily make the mindset wrong, but neither is regarding it as alien wrong.

At least in the US, there are significant communities of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans that are part of the broader go community. While it would be nice to appeal to tradition as the way we play, which tradition would you care to pick and choose to the exclusion of others? Pass-stones are a kludge, to be sure, but they do allow for a game that is countable to the satisfaction of players coming from either the area counting or territory counting traditions. I'm highly skeptical that it's better to ignore one group of players for another because someone made a subjective judgement that this tradition is better than that one.

Komi bidding, however, does seem rather pointless when I suspect the majority of the games played at the tournament are won by margins greater than people would be bidding over.

skydyr wrote:Komi bidding, however, does seem rather pointless when I suspect the majority of the games played at the tournament are won by margins greater than people would be bidding over.

Isn't that the whole point of komi bidding? If you think that having komi < 10 won't affect the outcome of the game, but you would rather play black, then you would want to bid up to at least komi of 10. If your opponent thought that that komi 10 would affect the outcome more than going first, then you both are happy with the result. Seems sort of like a new Joseki for Nigiri.

Of course, a lot of this depends upon how it's done. I think komi bidding would be fun to do before a game, but if people were being really pedantic about the bidding rules or trying to game them in some way, that could be really annoying. The same is true if someone tries to be really annoying about normal Go rules (like agreeing on which groups are dead, etc.). It seems like most of this comes down to playing with the nice people

Shawn Ligocki wrote:

skydyr wrote:Komi bidding, however, does seem rather pointless when I suspect the majority of the games played at the tournament are won by margins greater than people would be bidding over.

Isn't that the whole point of komi bidding? If you think that having komi < 10 won't affect the outcome of the game, but you would rather play black, then you would want to bid up to at least komi of 10. If your opponent thought that that komi 10 would affect the outcome more than going first, then you both are happy with the result. Seems sort of like a new Joseki for Nigiri.

Of course, a lot of this depends upon how it's done. I think komi bidding would be fun to do before a game, but if people were being really pedantic about the bidding rules or trying to game them in some way, that could be really annoying. The same is true if someone tries to be really annoying about normal Go rules (like agreeing on which groups are dead, etc.). It seems like most of this comes down to playing with the nice people

http://senseis.xmp.net/?DisputeMeroJasiek

At least in the US, there are significant communities of Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans that are part of the broader go community. While it would be nice to appeal to tradition as the way we play, which tradition would you care to pick and choose to the exclusion of others? Pass-stones are a kludge, to be sure, but they do allow for a game that is countable to the satisfaction of players coming from either the area counting or territory counting traditions. I'm highly skeptical that it's better to ignore one group of players for another because someone made a subjective judgement that this tradition is better than that one.

To go off at a tangent first, I personally am not agin AGA rules - I helped the BGA introduce them in the UK - but I'm not their greatest fan either. By choosing them you are discriminating a little against Japanese and Korean players who are used, for example, to treating bent four as dead without the need to play it out, so it is about more than just pass stones. As it happens, my experience is that both Japanese and Chinese players are uncomfortable with AGA-style rules, and indeed most westerners are too, to some degree, judging by typical tournament behaviour where AGA rules are technically in force but virtually no-one takes a blind bit of notice and typically plays under what might be called "traditional" (i.e. Japanese based) rules. I've seen this even at a US Congress. My sense is that something like 95% of players in AGA-rules events I've seen have skipped the pass stones. (I've even come across players who weren't aware that AGA rules were in force, and had they been aware they wouldn't have known what they were.)

Further, it is my experience that, among amateurs, Japanese/Korean players are uncomfortable playing with Chinese rules, but Chinese players are totally comfortable playing with Japanese-style rules. There is a good reason for this - they effectively apply Japanese rules when they are counting mentally during a game. Both the area (territory + stones) and territory-alone concepts are therefore familiar to them. Indeed, the entire corpus of Chinese pros (and Taiwanese pros) routinely plays under Japanese, Korean, Ing and Chinese rules within China, depending on who the sponsor is. There are a very few Korean and Japanese pros who are used to playing under Chinese rules because they take part in events in China, but on the whole JK pros lack the Chinese flexibility. So from that point of view, Japanese/Korean rules, especially the modern version where dame are all played out, would probably be the best option if you had a wide spectrum of players to cater for. That is not saying that Japanese/Korean rules are perfect, just that they lie within the comfort zone of nearly all players, and so next to no-one is being ignored.

But to come back within the circle, my impression is that by "tradition" Dr Straw really meant western tradition, which is Japanese-based to be sure, but is still distinctively western. Using clocks has long been normal in western events, for example, but until recently was alien to Japanese players. We have always used komi even when Japanese pros sometimes did not. We have sometimes used free placement of handicap stones, and Japanese players have even copied us there. But the element that most western adherents of "tradition" cleave to, perhaps, is not rules but the ethos of Japanese go that has been handed down to the west. There is something quixotic in this, of course, but those adherents tend to dislike changes that encourage those who try to win games on rules technicalities, for example.

Abyssinica wrote:

Shawn Ligocki wrote:Of course, a lot of this depends upon how it's done. I think komi bidding would be fun to do before a game, but if people were being really pedantic about the bidding rules or trying to game them in some way, that could be really annoying. The same is true if someone tries to be really annoying about normal Go rules (like agreeing on which groups are dead, etc.). It seems like most of this comes down to playing with the nice people

http://senseis.xmp.net/?DisputeMeroJasiek

Yikes! Perfect case in point. It sounds like I would not enjoy playing someone like Robert Jasiek who would resort to these sort of rule technicalities and misleading of opponents just to win a game.

xed_over wrote:But, after gaining a little skill, its probably not necessary to insist on using them [AGA/area rules]. So, maybe you're right afterall.

In a tournament setting for amateurs with a wide range of skill, I consider them necessary (when compared to the alternative). Even with "a little skill", disputes can still arise. For example, here are eight games that I personally played in that could have benefited from dispute resolution. The ranks are from 12k to 9k. One of the games was a KGS tournament game, back when KGS used Japanese rules for tournaments (they have long since switched to AGA).

Can Dr. Straw present an "elegant" way to resolve those disputes in the Japanese tradition, in a tournament setting? Or perhaps John Fairbairn?

By the way, if pass stones are considered ugly or confusing, the easy solution is to drop the Japanese pretense and just use area scoring/counting without the pass stones.

John Fairbairn wrote:By choosing them [AGA rules] you are discriminating a little against Japanese and Korean players who are used, for example, to treating bent four as dead without the need to play it out, so it is about more than just pass stones.

Maybe for pros and dans this isn't a problem, but AGA tournaments are meant for a wide range of players. Such players may not even be able to correctly identify a bent four, let alone know how to remove it via play. And if a player can't remove it via play, then arguably it shouldn't be marked as dead. It so happens that the KGS tournament game I played in and mentioned above involved a bent four shaped. Also, there's no need to play it out if both parties agree to the status (though if I was a kyu I would challenge my opponent to remove it -- skill needs to be demonstrated in tricky situations).

Can Dr. Straw present an "elegant" way to resolve those disputes in the Japanese tradition, in a tournament setting? Or perhaps John Fairbairn?

I've just seen a post in which someone says he has had 8 disputes in 1000 games. That's about 8 times more than I've had in 50 years with Japanese rules, and I was a beginner once.

Choice of the word "elegant" always conveys to me being afflicted with a mathematical view of the world. Even though it can take quite a bit of conscious effort, I would prefer go to be played in either a "gracious" way in which you try to explain away the problem, but give way if the opponent is obdurate, or a "considerate" way in which make sure you learn the rules and social conventions before you enter a tournament, or a "humble" way in which you seek to learn rather than get a "1" on a scoresheet. Think of go as like driving. There, passing a test and considerate behaviour are not just desiderata but essentials, and graciously giving way can make the traffic flow so much more smoothly.

Actually, I'd like to call "gracious, considerate, humble" behaviour "elegant", but regrettably it's been hijacked for another use.

John Fairbairn wrote:I've just seen a post in which someone says he has had 8 disputes in 1000 games. That's about 8 times more than I've had in 50 years with Japanese rules, and I was a beginner once.

Yes, and your point? My games are all documented and online for your perusal. I have demonstrated that even with "a little skill", disputes can still arise. On the other hand, I can't verify your statement or your memory of your 50 years of playing Go.

Choice of the word "elegant" always conveys to me being afflicted with a mathematical view of the world.

"Afflicted"? Should I say you are "afflicted" by your adherence to Japanese tradition? And it's not math, so much as it is logic. For all the pretense around Go and tradition, at its heart Go is a simple and logical game. It's just that centuries of shortcuts and tradition based on agreement among skilled players has resulted in perverse situations that defy logic and undermine the basic premise of competition through skill.

Even though it can take quite a bit of conscious effort, I would prefer go to be played in either a "gracious" way in which you try to explain away the problem, but give way if the opponent is obdurate, or a "considerate" way in which make sure you learn the rules and social conventions before you enter a tournament, or a "humble" way in which you seek to learn rather than get a "1" on a scoresheet. Think of go as like driving. There, passing a test and considerate behaviour are not just desiderata but essentials, and graciously giving way can make the traffic flow so much more smoothly.

Actually, I'd like to call "gracious, considerate, humble" behaviour "elegant", but regrettably it's been hijacked for another use.

That's a long way to drive to avoid playing out a game of Go using simple rules. I don't see anything elegant about that, or even gracious.