Life In 19x19

Hi there,

even before John Fairbairn's thread Chess vs go in lockdown, I was musing about organising a go blitz tournament by combining chess.com's Speed Chess Championship and Total Biscuit's SHOUTcraft Kings.

In Fairbairn's thread I wrote that all go players I know, play on the internet anyway. But online go as a spectator sport is still somewhat wanting (though there are quite a few more go streamers on Twitch now).

So I thought of ways to get something fun, engaging, thrilling and action packed while supporting players and streamers of go.

A go blitz tournament:

• Games are played on OGS and broadcasted by me on my Twitch channel (https://www.twitch.tv/sdn_desu). Co-host possible. I'll probably use a Lizzie overlay for analysing and lazy estimating the win-percentages.
  
  Starting player will be made known beforehand.
  
  Pairings will not be known beforehand but are chosen by me on the fly. (I'll contact players beforehand and ask if they are willing to play in a specific time-frame. Communications will probably run through Skype.)
  
  We'll play best-of-three with decreasing time controls.
  • First game: 5 minutes main time, 7 seconds Fischer - a win brings 1 point
    Second game: 3 minutes main time, 5 seconds Fischer - a win brings 0.75 points
    Third game: 1 minute main time, 5*10 byo-yomi - a win brings 0.5 points
  Each best of three has EUR 22,50 prize money and will be split among the players according to the points scored (PayPal). (So we will always play all three games but points will determine the winner.)
  
  Winner stays and plays the next best of three against an opponent chosen by me.
  
  Players will be (for now) 5d+ and either known to me, known to people I trust or publicly known (ie streamers).
  
  Depending on how long the games last, the tournament will end after around two hours or if I run out of opponents.
  
  There will be various forms of chat interactions like "re-buys" of players who lost a best-of-three through donations and polls before each best-of-three, who will win, with some prize to the user with the most correct guesses.

So far the raw idea... (I already made some more rules pertaining disconnects and cheating but let's keep in concise for now.)

Now a little poll for my target audience: Does such a tournament actually interest you?

Please also add a clarifying post to your vote : )

I’d be interested in playing, if you need players.

I will need players and will get back to you - thanks! : )

Blitz is fun but Fischer is not.

A tournament on OGS demands clarification of the scoring system and tournament rules for overriding wrong automatic OGS scoring by human referees.

Online, prizes and AI? Hm.

Just as a counter point: Blitz is fun, but only with Fischer time.

A first draft of the rules is now available: https://senseis.xmp.net/?SoDesuNe%2FIKotH

Any suggestions or comments are welcome!

I'll start contacting players soon.

"Rules: Japanese" is ambiguous. Which Japanese ruleset?

Since the organiser issues prizes and acts as a referee, his real name ought to be known.

RobertJasiek wrote:"Rules: Japanese" is ambiguous. Which Japanese ruleset?

There is only one ruleset named "Japanese" on OGS and - in a very quick search - I couldn't find a detailed description of it. Needless to say those "Japanese" rules will be used in this tournament.

Since the server's declaration of rules as "Japanese" is ambiguous, it is the tournament organiser's duty to clarify by declaring a context ruleset (such as Verbal European-Japanese Rules) as interpretation.

One may have a referee (and appeals commission) for the tournament. If a plaey or both think the server has got the wrong winner they may refer the case to the referee and the case will be decided with a predefined rule set.

These rules are in place and should cover the majority (likely all) of the practical cases, which can arise:

https://senseis.xmp.net/?SoDesuNe%2FIKotH wrote: 8) If OGS' automatic counting declares the wrong player as the winner, upon objection or in case of a miscount obvious to the organiser, the organiser will declare the correct winner based on the actual board position (and maybe with the help of the players and a bot).

• Objections to the automatic count have to be made during the match. If the next match started, there will be no changes to prior match results.

[...]

16) If any disputes arise that are not detailed in this rules, it is in the organiser's discretion to come up with a ruling.

Since these rules still do not specify a Japanese context ruleset, they do not cover almost all, let alone all, practical cases. E.g., it is ambiguous whether sekis have territory, when and how stones from sekis can or must be removed, whether teire must be played or otherwise can have territory, what are statuses related to hidden kos (such as bent-4), complex kos (such as double ko death and another ko on the board) etc.

Since I'm not a developer of OGS and the documentation for the specifics of the used Japanese ruleset is... non-existent (as in, it links to SL), I can only say: The specifics are... https://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseRules.

SoDesuNe wrote:Since I'm not a developer of OGS and the documentation for the specifics of the used Japanese ruleset is... non-existent (as in, it links to SL), I can only say:

Tournament organisations, unless overridden by an association or federation, have the right to set tournament rules, such as declaring a particular ruleset of play. In particular, you as the tournament organiser have this right. That the tournament shall be held on OGS does not prevent you from exercising your right.

The specifics are... https://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseRules.

In other words, you say that it is ambiguous whether a region has any territory at all if at least one surrounding string has at least one dame. (The Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules say: no territory. The Verbal-European Japanese Rules say: territory.) By leaving such an extreme ambiguity with extreme frequent relevance in practice, you do not fulfil your duty as a tournament organiser.

Do declare a specific context ruleset of rules of play!

For reference, a typical German tournament played on KGS clarifies a context ruleset because KGS-Japanese Rules are too ambiguous (although less so than on OGS).

I really try to see your point. But then I read...

RobertJasiek wrote:In other words, you say that it is ambiguous whether a region has any territory at all if at least one surrounding string has at least one dame. (The Nihon Kiin 1989 Rules say: no territory. The Verbal-European Japanese Rules say: territory.) By leaving such an extreme ambiguity with extreme frequent relevance in practice, you do not fulfil your duty as a tournament organiser.

...which poses a question miles away form any practical implications. But to nourish your curiosity: OGS automatic scoring handles this pretty fine in accordance to, I guess, "Verbal-European Japanese Rules".

Again, I can imagine where you're coming from (I guess) but - as far as I see - we're even (way) past the figuratively ivory tower here.

On a side note: I was in the organising committee of mulitple OTB tournaments over the last years and "Japanese Rules" was the only thing we announced. People were fine then, people will be fine now. Otherwise, rule #16 ; )