EGF Referee Workshop 2012

[HermanHiddema]

My post was not a personal attack, it was a statement of fact.

Saying that you do not understand sportsmanship when that is true is no more a personal attack than saying that you do not understand quantum mechanics when that is true. Plenty of people lack understanding on plenty of subjects.

Similarly, mentioning your lack of sportsmanship is not a personal attack, any more than mentioning your lack of ability to speak Japanese is. Again, it is a simple statement of fact.

You choose to prefer a strict application of the rules over sportsmanship. That's fine. There's plenty of people who do that. I really do not understand why you feel the need to try and redefine sportsmanship just so the definition covers yourself too. What next? Will you redefine "Japanese" to include the German language, just so you can say you speak Japanese?

[RobertJasiek]

common courtesy

There is no commonly agreed courtesy WRT to pointing out the last move. An alternative view is not disturbing the opponent unnecessarily.

It's the generic "you" of idiomatic English [...] I refer to several tournaments around the East Coast of the United States.

Ok, thanks.

[hyperpape]

Sure, opinions are divided about common courtesy: http://www.theonion.com/articles/report ... opl,29610/.

[RobertJasiek]

Saying that you do not understand sportsmanship when that is true

It is false. (To give just a counter-example, when having set a mechanical clock and my opponent is present, I (almost) always show him the clock so that he can check. Can we now end my person as a subtopic in this thread?)

just so the definition covers yourself too.

Can we now end my person as a subtopic in this thread?

[HermanHiddema]

Can we now end my person as a subtopic in this thread?

Well, that is quite hard. When you disagree with facts, what is left but to say "This person does not understand"?

I have made claims. I have backed them up with evidence. What more can I do?

[Splatted]

I don't know Robert but from reading this thread (and watching the video of the disputed game), he does not strike me as someone who lacks sportsmanship. To go back to the situation that was being discussed earlier, it's my impression that though Robert would insist that an opponent who had accidentally pressed their clock had passed, if the rules were different he would never cheat by pretending to accidentally press his clock to get more time.

Most of us here would differentiate between mistakes that happen within the game and those that happen outside it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with believing that if a situation is covered by the rules, it should be handled the way in which they describe. Is taking advantage of an opponent's mistake with the clock really that different from capturing after a self atari? If you ask me, good sportsmanship also requires that you accept that some people have different ideas about how the game should be played, and dismissing someones views as not worth discussing, is (apart from the outright cheating) the most unsportsmanlike thing I have seen on this thread.

[HermanHiddema]

I don't know Robert but from reading this thread (and watching the video of the disputed game), he does not strike me as someone who lacks sportsmanship. To go back to the situation that was being discussed earlier, it's my impression that though Robert would insist that an opponent who had accidentally pressed their clock had passed, if the rules were different he would never cheat by pretending to accidentally press his clock to get more time.

Most of us here would differentiate between mistakes that happen within the game and those that happen outside it, but I don't think there is anything wrong with believing that if a situation is covered by the rules, it should be handled the way in which they describe. Is taking advantage of an opponent's mistake with the clock really that different from capturing after a self atari? If you ask me, good sportsmanship also requires that you accept that some people have different ideas about how the game should be played, and dismissing someones views as not worth discussing, is (apart from the outright cheating) the most unsportsmanlike thing I have seen on this thread.

Note that I am not claiming that there is anything inherently wrong with preferring a strict application of the rules in all cases. I have in fact said quite clearly that that is an equally valid position to hold, even though it is not my personal preference.

What I object to is saying: Sportsmanship means that you always prefer a strict application of the rules over sportsmanship. The very definition is self-contradicting.

[Javaness2]

I have had some cases, where my opponent was away and I played my move and pressed the clock. The opponent came back and pressed the clock without playing a stone. I asked, if it was a pass. The opponent thought I hadn't played and he had forgotten to press the clock. In one case my opponent agreed it was a pass. In another case we asked the referee, who decided there was no pass, and still in another case the referee decided that my opponent had made a pass.

I had the referee do that to me as well

It seems that your opponent has committed a minor offence here. Normally, it should be possible to compensate your time, warn him, or deduct 2 or 3 points for such actions. (Should you feel strongly enough to demand that.) If they keep on doing that, well, they deserve to be given a pass.

[Matti]

Herman, the EGF tournament rules have been prepared by the EGF rules commission. I as chairman, Robert as member and some other members did the job. In my position I'd expect to encounter severe critique, if I would put my perception of sportsmanship above the rules. I would be asked:"Why did you prepare rules which you don't think, are correct?". I think the same would apply to Robert.

I told in earlier post that, If I would act in a certain way that would be sportsmanlike. Do you imply, that choosing another way would be unsportsmanlike? I think I know the rules, but if my opponent disagrees on something I think it is better to have the referee to explain him, rather than getting into a lengthy discussion with the opponent.

Note, that I my interest is, that a player who breaches the rules gets appropriate consequences and not who wins the game. I had a case where I would have been satisfied with a decision that both I and my opponent lost. However, that possibility did not occur to the committee deciding the case.

[p2501]

Herman, the EGF tournament rules have been prepared by the EGF rules commission. I as chairman, Robert as member and some other members did the job. In my position I'd expect to encounter severe critique, if I would put my perception of sportsmanship above the rules. I would be asked:"Why did you prepare rules which you don't think, are correct?". I think the same would apply to Robert.

What you say is true. But doesn't it make the mero-jasiek-dispute even worse? A member of the EGF rules commission wanted to win a game in the European Go Championship (an EGF tournament), he clearly lost on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently. And that is assuming Robert was right with his claim, yet the referee, the appeals committee and the EGF Rules Committee ruled in Csabas favor.

If you as the chairman of the EGF rules commission see nothing wrong with that... sorry that goes beyond imagination.

[Matti]

Herman, the EGF tournament rules have been prepared by the EGF rules commission. I as chairman, Robert as member and some other members did the job. In my position I'd expect to encounter severe critique, if I would put my perception of sportsmanship above the rules. I would be asked:"Why did you prepare rules which you don't think, are correct?". I think the same would apply to Robert.

What you say is true. But doesn't it make the mero-jasiek-dispute even worse? A member of the EGF rules commission wanted to win a game in the European Go Championship (an EGF tournament), he clearly lost on the sole base of his opponent obviously not understanding the rules sufficiently. And that is assuming Robert was right with his claim, yet the referee, the appeals committee and the EGF Rules Committee ruled in Csabas favor.

If you as the chairman of the EGF rules commission see nothing wrong with that... sorry that goes beyond imagination.

The Ing foundation gave the EGF big money, because the EGF agreed to use Ing rules. Some strong players did not like the rules, but liked the money and had the attitude that let's pretend to play by with Ing rules, but not Robert. He wanted to paly by the rules. There was an ambiguity in the rules and in my opinion Robert's actions were an honest attempt to get the thing decided.

[HermanHiddema]

Herman, the EGF tournament rules have been prepared by the EGF rules commission. I as chairman, Robert as member and some other members did the job. In my position I'd expect to encounter severe critique, if I would put my perception of sportsmanship above the rules. I would be asked:"Why did you prepare rules which you don't think, are correct?". I think the same would apply to Robert.

I think, especially as a member of the rules committee, you should realize that the rules cannot cover all eventualities, and that there always will be cases where the rules should be ignored in favour of the morally superior course of action. If you do not think this is true, then I do not think you should be writing rules.

In fact, I would expect that, as a member of the rules committee, you would consider every potential dispute as an opportunity to consider whether the rules are working as intended in this situation. Rules are written with a purpose, and a member of the rules committee should try to be the first to recognize when the rules did not achieve their intended purpose, and should be the most willing to then admit that their rules are not perfect, and to ignore them.

After all, especially if you wrote the rules you should avoid getting a benefit from them that is widely considered unreasonable by players.

I told in earlier post that, If I would act in a certain way that would be sportsmanlike. Do you imply, that choosing another way would be unsportsmanlike? I think I know the rules, but if my opponent disagrees on something I think it is better to have the referee to explain him, rather than getting into a lengthy discussion with the opponent.

No, not acting sportsmanlike is not the same as acting unsportsmanlike. Most behaviour by players is neither.

[RobertJasiek]

To reduce thread derailing, my reply to p2501 is here:

viewtopic.php?p=112425#p112425

[RobertJasiek]

especially as a member of the rules committee, you should realize that the rules cannot cover all eventualities,

As long as I have been a member, the commission has been aware that
- flawed rules of play do not cover all cases,
- correct rules of play cover all cases,
- tournament rules cannot cover all cases explicitly.

and that there always will be cases where the rules should be ignored in favour of the morally superior course of action.

If the rules are good, then such cases need not occur. Resorting to other means of decision, such as sportsmanship or reference to player intention or reference to earlier court decisions, is then necessary only where the explicit rules do not rule something. If the rules are bad (e.g., if they contradict each other), then other means might be better than applying the afffected rules.

If, amoung other means of decision, one resorts to sportsmanship or moral considerations, then either a particular action is obviously morally superior or different choices of potentially morally acceptable decisions can exist. I.e., I do not share your view that there would necessarily be only one always obvious morally good solution. Moral questions can be non-obvious, e.g., what is a just war or does it exist?

In fact, I would expect that, as a member of the rules committee, you would consider every potential dispute as an opportunity to consider whether the rules are working as intended in this situation.

The rules commission makes such considerations, but not for every potential dispute. We are free time volunteers, not paid law researchers.

Rules are written with a purpose,

Usually several purposes.

and a member of the rules committee should try to be the first to recognize when the rules did not achieve their intended purpose,

Ok. That is one reason why I have spent years of my life on researching in rules:)

and should be the most willing to then admit that their rules are not perfect, and to ignore them.

The rules commission is not the forefront of rules violation, but shall enforce rules application. Therefore, our approach tends to be different: We suggest (and sometimes adopt minor) rules changes for the sake of improving the situation.

[ez4u]

especially as a member of the rules committee, you should realize that the rules cannot cover all eventualities,

As long as I have been a member, the commission has been aware that
- flawed rules of play do not cover all cases,
- correct rules of play cover all cases,
...

and that there always will be cases where the rules should be ignored in favour of the morally superior course of action.

If the rules are good, then such cases need not occur...

Sadly, I think that there is simply no common ground here.