Life In 19x19

This situation is not purely theoretical, it happened to me at the WMSG. I did not insist my opponent had passed.

Uberdude wrote:This situation is not purely theoretical, it happened to me at the WMSG. I did not insist my opponent had passed.

Good for you (and him/her)! But is this little anecdote of yours supposed to support or undermine any claim made in this discussion?

RobertJasiek wrote:

Matti wrote:[A] should immediately admit his error

This is an interesting approach to the problem, thank you! Immediately (within a few seconds) admitting his action of pressing the move button as being accidental is a good condition for considering it, as you suggest, analogous to accidentally disturbing the [board] position.

The aspect of immediate admitting does not occur in Javaness2's dispute description, where the order is: first B notices that something happened, then B moved, then (supposedly not immediately after his action) A argues about it having been accidental.

A novel and shocking approach -- using communication with other human beings to try to determine intent!

Kanin wrote:

Uberdude wrote:This situation is not purely theoretical, it happened to me at the WMSG. I did not insist my opponent had passed.

Good for you (and him/her)! But is this little anecdote of yours supposed to support or undermine any claim made in this discussion?

Not particularly, just that mistakes happen and normal (?!) human beings solve them easily rather than creating rule disputes out of them.

Kanin wrote:I agree with Matti that there is no difference between accidentally pressing the clock and accidentally placing a stone where one did not want to place it. It's impossible to create safety nets in the rules for these accidents. Most players will see that their opponent made an unintentional mistake and allow them to take it back, and no dispute arises. The current rule for passing can't be abused. It can only cause dispute if an accident occurs. This means some will suffer for mistakes they make, which is much better than suffering for another player's abuse of a rule.

Of course there are many differences. The most natural is that in ordinary parts of play (more than 5 or 6 moves pre-dame), it is clear to all observers that a pass is an insane move. In contrast, many (though not all) accidental moves are difficult to distinguish from poorly thought out intended moves.

====

I increasingly think that the only way to fix the rules is to include a clause that "in edge cases, the referee shall use his or her discretion to achieve good results, and shall under no circumstances allow rule-lawyering trolls to gain any advantage."

One might object that this makes the rules unclear. Rather, I would say that the current rules are exceptionally unclear. Unless you have engaged in a detailed study of the existing rules, there is essentially no way to know that some existing unclarity in the rules will end up rewarding the trolls.

This should not prevent us from trying to make the rules more clear, so that the referees' judgment is not called upon so often. But unless someone has definitive grounds for believing that some set of rules is adequate without this clause, it's needed.

hyperpape wrote:

Kanin wrote:I agree with Matti that there is no difference between accidentally pressing the clock and accidentally placing a stone where one did not want to place it. It's impossible to create safety nets in the rules for these accidents. Most players will see that their opponent made an unintentional mistake and allow them to take it back, and no dispute arises. The current rule for passing can't be abused. It can only cause dispute if an accident occurs. This means some will suffer for mistakes they make, which is much better than suffering for another player's abuse of a rule.

Of course there are many differences. The most natural is that in ordinary parts of play (more than 5 or 6 moves pre-dame), it is clear to all observers that a pass is an insane move. In contrast, many (though not all) accidental moves are difficult to distinguish from poorly thought out intended moves.

====

I increasingly think that the only way to fix the rules is to include a clause that "in edge cases, the referee shall use his or her discretion to achieve good results, and shall under no circumstances allow rule-lawyering trolls to gain any advantage."

One might object that this makes the rules unclear. Rather, I would say that the current rules are exceptionally unclear. Unless you have engaged in a detailed study of the existing rules, there is essentially no way to know that some existing unclarity in the rules will end up rewarding the trolls.

This should not prevent us from trying to make the rules more clear, so that the referees' judgment is not called upon so often. But unless someone has definitive grounds for believing that some set of rules is adequate without this clause, it's needed.

Consider the example of the FIDE Laws of Chess (italics added):
"PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view."

It is not like there would not be related tournament rules in Go.

The situation as stated -- accidental button press and prompt response -- is resolvable by a referee with common sense who is granted the power to make a judgment call. In this specific case, there should be some way for the rules to permit the "correct" outcome (A did not pass). But there can easily be more ambiguous situations.

Suppose that A presses his button without placing a stone on the board, then B thinks for a long time before responding with a move, then A objects that he did not mean to pass. Now there are several plausible scenarios, and it might be reasonable for the referee to rule that A did indeed pass, no matter which scenario really occurred:

• 1) A hit the button accidentally and was still thinking about his move without noticing the clock;
  2) A mistakenly thought he had played and deliberately hit the button to complete his move;
  3) A intended to pass (maybe late endgame), then changed his mind when he saw B move;
  4) A was running out of time and wanted to buy time with a rules dispute.

I agree that requiring a player to say "pass" would eliminate most of these situations, but that does not seem enforceable in practice. If a player punches his clock without saying "pass" or placing a stone, would a referee really want to be forced to call that a rule violation and forfeit the game?

By the way, while we are discussing perverse situations and rules, what happens if a player places a stone on the board while his opponent's clock is ticking? Perhaps his opponent has made his move (placed a stone on the board) but forgot to punch the clock.

By the rules player B is perfectly within his rights to interpret player A's action as a pass. Player A's action clearly benefited himself since time was being counted against player B's time. Now, if it was an obvious unintentional mistake in player B's eyes, it may be advisable for player B to offer the "undo" to player A. This would be more important during the beginning of the tournament, because our psychology usually won't let a person take what he perceives as an ill gain without penalizing him later.

mitsun wrote:By the way, while we are discussing perverse situations and rules, what happens if a player places a stone on the board while his opponent's clock is ticking? Perhaps his opponent has made his move (placed a stone on the board) but forgot to punch the clock.

In this case, I don't see a reason to cry foul. Once the stone is placed on the board it can not be legally moved so in a sense the first player has made his move. By playing the next stone the second player has benefited the first player by limiting the first player's loss of time. I must add that the second move should be made after the first player has retracted his hand from the board. I could see a situation where a player could be disruptive by not giving the first player a moment to punch the clock. This sort of act is an intentional foul.

Perhaps we should stop using clocks that require you to push a button to see the opponent's time?

HermanHiddema wrote:Perhaps we should stop using clocks that require you to push a button to see the opponent's time?

Well, you don't actually have to see your opponent's time in order to play go. In any case, on an Ing-clock the buttons are very different and you do only have yourself to blame for pressing the wrong button at the wrong time. I don't see why people are unsatisfied with a rule that puts the person who made a mistake (pressing the button by accident) in the wrong in case of a dispute. To me it seems very fair. Unlike a rule which allows people to buy time for themselves/waste their opponent's time and still be in the right.

Kanin wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Perhaps we should stop using clocks that require you to push a button to see the opponent's time?

Well, you don't actually have to see your opponent's time in order to play go. In any case, on an Ing-clock the buttons are very different and you do only have yourself to blame for pressing the wrong button at the wrong time. I don't see why people are unsatisfied with a rule that puts the person who made a mistake (pressing the button by accident) in the wrong in case of a dispute. To me it seems very fair. Unlike a rule which allows people to buy time for themselves/waste their opponent's time and still be in the right.

Pushing the wrong button is a mistake.

Claiming that it is a pass and starting a dispute is an abuse of the rules in an attempt to gain an unreasonable advantage.

The second is the greater evil, IMO.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Kanin wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Perhaps we should stop using clocks that require you to push a button to see the opponent's time?

Well, you don't actually have to see your opponent's time in order to play go. In any case, on an Ing-clock the buttons are very different and you do only have yourself to blame for pressing the wrong button at the wrong time. I don't see why people are unsatisfied with a rule that puts the person who made a mistake (pressing the button by accident) in the wrong in case of a dispute. To me it seems very fair. Unlike a rule which allows people to buy time for themselves/waste their opponent's time and still be in the right.

Pushing the wrong button is a mistake.

Claiming that it is a pass and starting a dispute is an abuse of the rules in an attempt to gain an unreasonable advantage.

The second is the greater evil, IMO.

Since the thread started with a scenario. I will paint a scenario, too:

So you accidentally press the button without making a move on your 5th turn, an obvious mistake. You immediately tell your opponent that you didn't mean to press the button. Unfortunately your opponent is the douchebag kind, and he says 'Sorry, but you passed. It's my turn now'.

He's not gonna win any social points with the go community, or any sportmanship awards. But why should the rules not put him in the right? Bottom line is that you're the one who made a mistake when you pressed the button.

I agree with you that abusing a rule in your favor is more evil than making a simple mistake. But the point here is that a rule in the other direction can also be abused. The difference is that the current rule cannot be abused unless a mistake has been made. This means that if you take care to press the correct button you are immune to this sort of abuse. Whereas in the other case (where you allow for accidental passes to be retracted), people can pass by 'accident' at any stage of the game and you have no proper way of telling if they're being absuive or not. Nor do you have any support in the rules for calling them out on their mischievous 'accidents', other than if they do it repeatedly.

One tihng that could make the current rules clearer, or even a little different in implication, is if you add a statement saying that an accidental pass may be retracted if the opponent agrees to it. This is what would happen most of the time in practice, but it could still be nice to present that possibility clearly in the rules.

Kanin wrote:He's not gonna win any social points with the go community, or any sportmanship awards. But why should the rules not put him in the right? Bottom line is that you're the one who made a mistake when you pressed the button.

Because you have just forfeited a game based on a trivial mistake.

Saying that one person made a mistake does not exempt you from considering the consequences of the rule. And the consequences of your way of doing things are quite bad.

Kanin wrote:
Since the thread started with a scenario. I will paint a scenario, too:

So you accidentally press the button without making a move on your 5th turn, an obvious mistake. You immediately tell your opponent that you didn't mean to press the button. Unfortunately your opponent is the douchebag kind, and he says 'Sorry, but you passed. It's my turn now'.

He's not gonna win any social points with the go community, or any sportmanship awards. But why should the rules not put him in the right? Bottom line is that you're the one who made a mistake when you pressed the button.

All humans at one point or another make mistakes, it is something that is completely unavoidable. being a douche is very avoidable. That is why he should not be put in the right.

In general, it comes down to values, but in general good rules shouldn't encourage being a douchebag