Life In 19x19

I was just reading an interview with Sin Chin-seo, now the world's Mo. 1 player, I think it's safe to say.

Three things struck me. One was the total absence of a mention of AI. Hoorah!

The second was that he said he preferred 3-hour time limits. So Mickey Mouse loses again. Double hoorah!

The final one I was less than ecstatic about. Talking about his LG Cup victory, he mentioned that he waited until his opponent was in byoyomi before unloosing a "shaking" move. This refers to what the Japanese called a shobute, which has been translated in many ways (meltdown move, do-or-die move, all-or-nothing move etc). It refers to a desperate move made when behind to create chaos and thus the possibility of an upset. In Korean they use the term "shaking" 揺 and it first came to prominence as a feature of the style of Cho Hun-hyeon, and it was later taken up most notably by Yi Se-tol.

I'm sure most players have resorted to this tactic at some point, and it seems perfectly legitimate to me, though I'd prefer a top player to win without it. It "tastes" a little bit better if the player is successful with it but then admits he was lucky (as Sin did).

But the bit that sticks in my craw is admitting that he waited until byoyomi. Yes, that is well within the rules as written. But byoyomi rules were devised for a different reason. I therefore see Sin's actions as a form of gamesmanship ("bad thing" for our European friends). If he had said nothing, I'd be none the wiser, of course. But to admit to it in public adds cynicism to the action, which makes it appeal to me even less.

I was always put off John McEnroe for what I thought were staged tantrums on court designed to upset his opponent - even though talking to the umpire is perfectly "legal." But at least he never admitted to it at the time (though I gather he may have done so in retirement).

It's not really a "pros have to make a living" thing. Amateurs do it, too. I well remember being told by a fellow competitor in an amateur tournament in England who was knocking people and chairs over in his rush to get to the playing room after the draw was announced. When someone objected, he cheerfully admitted he wanted to get to the playing room first so that he could get a seat with his back to the window, meaning the opponent would have the strong sun in his eyes. He seemed to be admitting it because he thought he was being clever and was expecting plaudits. I thought he was a bampot.

I'd like to ask what the mood in the L19 room is on this, as my only way of keeping in touch with the wider go world nowadays, but when I logged on I was told attendance was "no registered users and 1 guest".

I think there's a spectrum of gamespersonship, and this is at the legitimate end where the move on the board is within the rules and arguably a good strategy in a losing or dubious position.

I'm not sure that its that good for Sin Chin-seo though, To maintain your position at the top of the world elite, it's important to have confidence in your abilities, and it's not great for your professional self-esteem to know that you only beat your opponent through byoyomi pressure.

The clock is part of the game. Maybe it's because I come from a chess culture, where there is a long tradition of the status of the clock explicitly influencing players' strategy, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Yes, it is one reason that I see the chess scene often as a bad example for good behaviour. And for me, explicitly waiting for clock pressure also leaves a bad taste.

All I can do about it is not to root for him in the future, be better myself, and further advocate for Fischer time, which I think makes this kind of clock abuse harder.

I have little problem with this particular tactic. If I disproportionately use my time to think earlier in the game, it is not my right to expect the opponent to play peacefully when my time gets low later on.

Perhaps some taste is lost when winning this way as John says, but there are a thousand tactics I would complain about before this one.

dfan wrote:The clock is part of the game. Maybe it's because I come from a chess culture, where there is a long tradition of the status of the clock explicitly influencing players' strategy, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

At the level of these games, they are part of Go history. It's a shame if these games include byoyomi strategies. As a thought experiment, I find it difficult to think of Sin Chin-seo proudly publishing 'My Top 20 byoyomi ripoffs" to stand alongside the historical games of Shusaku. In which case there is something about such games which is not optimal.

I don't think Sin Chin-seo deserves to be dragged through the mud like this for what is nothing more than an imaginary moral turpitude.

John Fairbairn wrote:I'd like to ask what the mood in the L19 room is on this, as my only way of keeping in touch with the wider go world nowadays, but when I logged on I was told attendance was "no registered users and 1 guest"

There is no "necrosis" or lack of "attendance" in this forum. You are being toxic again.

There was a similar discussion somewhere on this board before, and one of the most enlightening posts (at least for me) was one that pointed out the difference between "gentleman" and "sportsman". Perhaps this difference is also the decisive one in this case.

In an ideal world both players would have an unlimited amount of time so that they could truly showcase the highest possible level of play but we're not living in an ideal world. I'd say my answer depends on the specifics of the situation. Was the game lost already (e.g. 15 point difference, 99% chance of a loss that could only be avoided by an uncharacteristic blunder from the opponent) or was there still a chance (e.g. 5 point difference, 70-80% chance of a loss, a complex situation with a lot of aji that would require accurate reading)? Needless to say, I'd be more judgmental about the former than about the latter.

I do generally strive for the highest possible level of sportsmanship, however, I'm not sure where to draw the line. Something that I've thought about a lot is the fact that we're expected to try to complicate the game when behind, frequently even overplays are encouraged (one defense being that the opponent should prove that they know what they're doing). I've always found this a bit disrespectful towards the opponent (such overplays imply the opponent is weak enough to make such mistakes) and more than a bit disrespectful towards the game itself. In a game where making the best possible moves is the goal, intentionally playing bad moves just doesn't seem right. Yet I still do it, as do probably most of us.

Perhaps the best I can say is that we should all strive to do better. (Then again, who's to say that producing masterpieces of skill and sportsmanship is truly better than winning.)

It's a "trick" for sure but I think it's all part of the game. Just like reviewing your opponent's games to analyze their strengths and weaknesses before your match with them. If a player only wins because they realized that their opponent had not studied a particular set of variations as deep, that's a bit tricky and is gamesmanship, but there is nothing wrong with that.

What if the player is a try-hard? Why are some players always using AI derived joseki instead of using good old classic techniques like a gentleman? What gamesmanship! Sounds silly, huh?

dust wrote:...As a thought experiment, I find it difficult to think of Sin Chin-seo proudly publishing 'My Top 20 byoyomi ripoffs" to stand alongside the historical games of Shusaku. In which case there is something about such games which is not optimal.

Shusaku has a lot of games as black where he pulls ahead immediately, simplifies the game, and the opponent resigns not long after from a hopeless position. Those are instructive games. But the ones held up as his "masterpieces" are where a powerful opponent strongly resists Shusaku's plans throughout, forcing him to reveal the powerful fighting abilities below the surface of his moves.

Or similarly, I've heard it lamented that Dusaku didn't have a proper peer, somebody his equal to gauge his strength against. Not that his games aren't instructive as is, but that perhaps we could have learned more about his understanding of the game if an opponent had been sharp enough to follow along as an equal and probe his hypotheses.

In that line of thinking, winning a lost game because the opponent couldn't follow along fast enough into the complex underbrush you zagged into doesn't produce a masterpiece for you. But: if the opponent responds correctly, it is now a more notable game for them. A top professional sprung a trap in byoyomi, and the player continued to demonstrate their understanding of the position, cleanly refuting it. Thus, there is balance: perhaps you mar an otherwise good game, or else you polish it into an excellent game.

If we're going to use short time controls, then the challenge is to demonstrate profound understanding of the game of the go in short time frames. Your opponent should be challenging you to demonstrate the depth of your fast reading skills. If you blunder, I can't blame the opponent for that. You could have read the right move out in time. Or you could have saved your time for this. Or you could have foreseen the trap and had the rebuttal at the ready. The opponents role is to demonstrate the weaknesses in your play.

kvasir wrote:There is no "necrosis" or lack of "attendance" in this forum. You are being toxic again.

(Personal opinion, not an admin action). “Toxic” is a bit much, don’t you think?

hyperpape wrote:

kvasir wrote:There is no "necrosis" or lack of "attendance" in this forum. You are being toxic again.

(Personal opinion, not an admin action). “Toxic” is a bit much, don’t you think?

I don't think so. We have a thriving community with many contributors and a much larger number of lurkers but there is someone who is frequently knocking it. I'd say "being unpleasant in a pervasive and insidious way" or something like that if this wasn't a mouthful, there is a perfectly good word for it anyway, and I don't think it is too much to describe such negative remarks as toxic, especially when repeated frequently.

At least this is my view or characterization of what I see as knocking the forum and the people who participate or lurk in it.

kvasir wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

kvasir wrote:There is no "necrosis" or lack of "attendance" in this forum. You are being toxic again.

(Personal opinion, not an admin action). “Toxic” is a bit much, don’t you think?

I don't think so. We have a thriving community with many contributors and a much larger number of lurkers

Ehh... I don't know about that. For sake of comparison let's look at 2 forums that I frequent.

One forum is for a game that's been in production for thouands of years, has tens of thousands of players worldwide, has hundreds of professional players, and millions in prize money each year.

The other forum is for a game that was in production for 3 years in the 1990s, was produced by a company that went bankrupt and is licensed and so cannot be reproduced, and has a minimal number of game pieces available for purchase second hand such that new players would be hard pressed to find enough to play.

Which is which? Of course, this is not saying that discussion on Go the game is dead. But it does show that this forum is relatively dead. And the necrosis can be seen from the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20110121015 ... com/forum/. But still, there's no need for others to poke a dead horse with a stick.

I mean I don't consider games in which complicated positions could end up decided during 1 minute byo-yomi in the same category as a kisei game. As far as I see, time is another dimension just as valid as the two played on the go board, and using time in your strategy is absolutely fine.

The fault is not the players but the time limits

I guess I think perhaps three-game matches should be replaced with one 12-hour long match.

John Fairbairn wrote: . . .I well remember being told by a fellow competitor in an amateur tournament in England who was knocking people and chairs over in his rush to get to the playing room after the draw was announced. When someone objected, he cheerfully admitted he wanted to get to the playing room first so that he could get a seat with his back to the window, meaning the opponent would have the strong sun in his eyes. He seemed to be admitting it because he thought he was being clever and was expecting plaudits. I thought he was a bampot.

I'd like to ask what the mood in the L19 room is on this, as my only way of keeping in touch with the wider go world nowadays, but when I logged on I was told attendance was "no registered users and 1 guest". . .

The Sun being in my eyes would be an advantage to me! Not to mention I might get a nice view!

Low population is actually good for human psycology. Other than that, this a great oppurtunity to even greater diversy those . kasvir's assement that John Fairbairn's use of Mickey Mouse Metrics--overly simplistic assessment tools--to determine the health of the go world is reaching a toxic level--in and of itself seems to be what is toxic in that it seems to be a deliberately provocative way to say something that could be said much more civliised fashion, perhaps due to some sense of self-rightousness, but self-rightousness is destructive, so even though I mostly agree with kasvir, the attitude is . . .

Mysterious!

I don't see what so toxic about mentioning we're in the middle of mongolia. Whiney, maybe. However often negative assumptions cause the very problem one is trying to avoid. Claiming something is toxic when you're not absolutely sure, then have to stand by it 100% to protect one's image, can actually cause someone who feels innocently accused to be more toxic in a defensive relfex--do more of the bad behaviour to justify your beh. It's just as whiney to exaggerate the faults of other.

In other words, what I'm really proposing is a Malkovich match with kasvir and John Fairbairn, mano a pseudenymo. The winner is right. And no Mickey mouse time limits--we'll bring it back to the good ol' days. We call it match of the whiners with me, also a pretty good whiner myself, giving the gripping commentary.

I bet they will both gain one stone when they master these aspects of ther personality.

And their is nothing wrong with whining.

Other than that I don't see what the big deal is

36 midlif crises starts. Although I'm showing all the classic signs of midlife crisis in my early twentiews

24+ people pretending their more grown up than they are

24 Grown Up

21 semi-provisional Grown up

18 adult, provisional Grown up

15 semi-provisional adult

12 provisional adult

On a serious note, It is my dream to create a go tournament with a 12-hour long final in a 'room of profound darkness'. In fact, if you gave each side simply 6 hours per side, I seriously think that Mickey Mouse makes the deep philosophical point that even things that are as small as a mouse, but the application.

That's why I really like the New RyuSei. It's Minnie Mouse, not Mickey Mouse, since it i applied exquisitely and highly appropriately.

Another solution I like is simply to have fast time limits on the lower rounds of tournaments and increase them in the quarter finals. I believe the same for tennis-- first of all, their should be an open and women's section, not a Men's section and a women's section. Then, in the open section, women can deliberately be paired with younger opponents. Then, in both the open an women's sections, set's should always be best-of-three until the semi-finals and finals, which should always be best-of-five.

Japanese tournaments increase the time limits further on goes into tournaments, I believe. So as far as I can see only Japan has it right.

A sorry for being so opinionated here, but I don't fully understand China and Korea here, haha.