Forum for Dispute Mero-Jasiek
The horror [#322]
The main problem is: In case of a dispute about removals under official Ing Rules, is alternating play before the succession of 4 passes the only legal option to decide what will be removed?
The Ing 1986 Rules are ambiguous but give a hint that yes.
The Ing 1991 Rules are very ambiguous but, IMO, give a slight favour for yes. Most other Europeans disagree about the literal meaning of the 1991 text.
The Ing 1996 Rules are ambiguous but give a strong hint that yes.
Mr. Yang, who had been listening to Ing for decades and is the secretary of the Ing Wei-ch'i Educational Foundation Taipeh, makes statements that all point to yes.
No the main problem is that the rules were used in the first place. The dispute seems to be an attempt to exploit an ambiguity in the rules that has no logical purpose, or function, in the context of the game under discussion. To say that a player must lose the game owing to an action whose result was invariant under the step specified by the rules is clearly disingenious to the purpose of the game itself .As such I agree wholeheartedly with the decision reached by the EGF rules committee in this instance.
RobertJasiek: Ok, if you want to view the fundamental question of which ruleset is used at all, then I agree that usage of official Ing rules the main problem. - The dispute arose when my opponent made the third pass in succession without thinking about the consequences and then I took advantage of that strategic mistake to win the game. The logical purpose is "to win the game". What do you mean by "invariant under the step specified by the rules" here? The purpose of the game is "to have the players compete to see who will be the winner".
Forgive me if I misunderstand or misrepresent.
Mero would have won the game because he was ahead on the board, therefore in my eyes his win should arrive irrespective of where the pass appears.
I do not understand how you can argue that the only penalty reasonable for such a trangression (if it is a transgression, and it seems clear that nobody actually knows whether or not it is) is forfeit or disqualification. Why on earth would Ing rules be designed to specify this - it serves no useful purpose whatsoever.
The correct punishment is surely at worst a time penalty, or 2 point fine. If during a game White plays a stone and does not press his clock, then Black (illegally) places a stone on the board, would you argue then that Black should be disqualified? For me the most puzzling thing about this dispute is why you supposed the correct penalty was to award Mero Csaba a loss. Playing out of turn in Pair Go is totally illegal and this heinous crime merits only a 2 point fine. Breaching ones main time in Ing Rules also merits only a 2 point fine. (For some value/set of Ing)
RobertJasiek: Mero was "ahead on the board" in terms of strategic positional judgement until he made the 3rd pass in succession. - I have not argued that a penalty for making a strategically doubtful pass should be forfeit or disqualification. I do not even say that it deserves or requires any penalty. It leads to the game being scored, but scoring a game is not a penalty, nor is losing the game. It is a consequence of the 3rd pass, but not a penalty. - The Ing rules are designed to solve all questions related to life and death by removal. This is a purpose of all Area Scoring rulesets and of those Territory Scoring rulesets that have a playout to clarify removals. Ing rules are not special here; rather they do what one should expect from every Area Scoring ruleset. - It is another question how forgiving a ruleset is. Ing rules stop being forgiving with the 4th pass in succession. The Simplified Ing Rules stop being forgiving with the players' fixing of the result (i.e. signing the result sheet by both players or making the equivalent verbal action) or with the start of resuming alternation (after which the players need to remove by aletrnation). - You say: "you supposed the correct penalty was to award Mero Csaba a loss". I do not consider a regular scoring to be a penalty at all. It was (although not being a penalty) correct because under the Ing 1991 Rules after 4 successive passes the game may not be resumed for any reason (e.g., not for the reason that you might feel uncomfortable about it). - Pair Go has other rules and tournament rules; so one cannot easily draw conclusions from there.
I see, when you appealed then, through the various stages, what penalty exactly did you seek to impose on M.Csaba?
That he put the stones back and pass before removing them?
RobertJasiek: No penalty whatsoever. My aim was to apply scoring to the board position after the 4th pass in succession.
Would the score have been the same before and after the pass? If not, could you explain the differences to me.
(noticing your earlier words "- The dispute arose when my opponent made the third pass in succession without thinking about the consequences and then I took advantage of that strategic mistake to win the game" - are you really being honest here? )
![[Diagram]](diagrams/39/c85ac85470d244b3f9ed2ce3b6698e9b.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/25/ecffa64e2211a5f048055349ec2bfc69.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/13/0a1af2296520a6bb6294e415528c3976.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/29/f0f64a21e528567f35a1242cd7173035.png)
![[Diagram]](diagrams/6/082560f3b82c551272f5969deb9c451f.png)
The two pass rule is questionable, because the passes do not necessarily indicate a willingness to end play by both players. One pass may have been forced by the ko rule. (See Moonshine Life for an anomaly that remains in the AGA rules and Tromp-Taylor rules.) Yasunaga's proposed rules in the early 20th century included a three pass rule for that reason. Ing added another pass. The fourth pass is harmless, and is obviously equitable.
The lack of clarity in the Ing rules is another question.
RobertJasiek: Is about willingness? One could also say it is about necessiety. If you are forced to make the second, ending pass because it is the only legal or reasonable move, then it is not about willingness. One can have different aims in rules design; some favour 2, some 3 passes as a consequence.
RobertJasiek: Not a need, but it can be useful if pass-pass serves as a ko threat. Whether such ko threats can occur at all also depends on the ko rules, of course. Since official Ing rules allow a basic-ko recapture also after at least one intervening pass, pass-pass can be a useful ko threat. So three passes make sense. The fourth pass is introduced for the additional meaning to have both players thereby agree on what has happened in the last Game Pause. Without any Game Pause, three passes would be sufficient even for Ing rules.
![[Diagram]](diagrams/1/c98665a0bdaabad2017d6e57111c41dd.png)
= pass
= pass, ending play under AGA rules sans komi
and then capture White's stones.
Under AGA Rules, the alternation can be resumed, too. They are 2 + (2 or 3) pass rules.
Rulesets that talk about "eyes" and "life" and "death" are suitable for lawyers only. AGA Rules score the stones on the board and the empty regions surrounded by stones of only one player. This is very easy to understand.
RobertJasiek: If you are the potential loser under, say, Japanese Rules, then you can make any number territory filling plays without harm. You lose anyway, so you can make any defense or invasion you like. This is pretty much the same as under AGA / Ing / Chinese or other Area Scoring rulesets. - If by "require a whole load of redundant moves at the end" you mean dame, then the same has to be said about the official Japanese rules, the WAGC rules, and the Korean rules. They all require filling of the two-sided independent dame, partly because of explicit requirement by the rules, partly because of strategic necessiety (the Japanese 1989 Rules let independently alive groups live "in seki" if they have at least one adjacent dame). The difference to Area Scoring is that there the dame are valuable already on a strategic level. - What do you mean by "abuse"? Application of the rules is not abuse. Abuse is if the rules are violated. Maybe you mean "the rules allow actions that could not occur if the rules were designed carefully and well"? How do you think that such actions can occur under AGA Rules? Is a surviving Moonshine Life the only problem you see? Why is it problem? Because it never occurs in practice since any tenuki serves as a ko threat? Is the theoretical possibility that it can occur on tiny boards (when tenukis might not be available, except for killing a group by filling one of its last two remaining liberties) the thing that you call a problem? If so, then please present a clear ruleset that avoids even this theoretical problem. Ok, no need to study: Ikeda Rules with 3 passes ending the alternation and Basic-Fixed-Ko Rules are such a ruleset. Now you will complain that you do not like 3 passes? If so, then do present a ruleset that avoids all problems, according to your opinion!
Well, Moonshine Life (in a different form) was the subject of the earliest known rules dispute. The opinion of the best players in Japan about it flip-flopped for centuries. In the 20th century both Shusai and Go Seigen expressly favored a "play it out" approach, under which these White stones could not be captured. It's not really a question of what everybody knows.
While crux's language may be a bit harsher than I would have chosen (flame wars are not productive for anyone), I agree with his general idea. If you had an issue with the rules, you should have addressed that before playing the game. By playing out a game to the last move and then protesting, you disrespct your opponent, other players in the event whose standings might be affected, and the tournament organizers. To me, these factors render the actual merits of your argument irrelevant.
Last, I observe that you did not choose to make this protest about a game you had won. Why not?
RobertJasiek: I do not know how often I have tried to pursuade tournament organizers or organizations responsible for a tournament to explain and declare the used rules and tournament rules clearly to everybody. Mostly, the responsible persons are annoyed by such requests instead of being constructive. In a few cases, I was successful with my requests, and sometimes that meant that I was the one to explain the rules before the tournament. Since this is better than no explanation, I have done it then, although there is a danger of it creating a feeling of partiality if it is one of the participating players who explains. - It is somewhat doubtful to suggest that I was the one complaining; rather my opponent was not happy with just scoring after the 4th pass in succession. So if you feel like calling someone the complaining person, this would rather be my opponent. - Why I have not claimed it in a game where I had a "favourable position" (strategic lead)? Of course, I would have done likewise there, too. It was just that the incident did not occur under this circumstance. However, the strategic winning margin is immaterial for whether the rules have to be applied. Always the rules have to be applied. - My earlier opponents in games under official Ing rules had not been so unreasonable as Csaba to pass without thinking; if they did not opt for informal removals during a Game Pause, they at least noticed that I removed their stones by means of alternate play and would do likewise rather than risking to trick themselves by possibly not knowing the rules well enough.
For clarity: I started this thread with a wink and didn't think it would end up as a flame. I fully understand Robert's viewpoint. In particular for someone who has taken a special interest in rules, his being frustrated about the lack of rigor with which tournaments are organized and the laziness when it comes to defining and enforcing clear rules, is fully justified. I also understand that for those who never have a game ending in half a point, or if it ever does it is pure coincidence, and who wouldn't recognize a rules beast if it's staring them in the face with its false eyes, like myself, arguing about the rules has a treacherous flavour. I'm convinced Robert's cause is genuine, and goes well beyond winning a game.
That said, the admins may well decide to cut down the discussion for insults.
If you read the parent page it wasn't a half-point situation, Robert himself says he was 30 points behind. Whether it's 100 points or half a point, I'd expect a reasonable player to accept the fact that the other guy played a better game, and not insist that the game should be counted against him because he may have made an error on a technicality. Even in sports like professional tennis you sometimes see players overruling the referee in favour of their opponent ("that ball was good"). That's sportsmanship: not winning at any cost, even at high stakes (such as several hundreds of thounds of $CURRENCY).
If the tournament organizers chose a broken ruleset (and it sounds very much like they did - what's with the four passes in a row?), anyone is free to take it up with them, but other people shouldn't be dragged into that argument.
Creating a rules dispute, with the rules unclear in the first place, over a clearly lost game in an amateur tournament is, in my eyes, about on the same level as someone on IGS marking the opponent's live groups as dead after the game (the client allows it, so it must be permitted by the rules). I just can't understand either behaviour.
Alex: I agree. Although I'm sure Robert has a case, technically speaking, it all sounds rather unsportsmanlike.
As another example, if your opponent drops a stone while making his move and it changes the position slightly, you're within your rights, under Canadian tournament rules, at least (assuming there is no game record being kept), to claim victory. The rule is there for obvious reasons - so that if the position is too scrambled and there is a disagreement about where certain stones were, the game is lost by the player who disrupted the stones. Would I claim victory like that in a game I was losing, if I was reasonably sure the position had been restored correctly? No way. Or if my opponent made a move, then tried to take it back, would I claim instant victory? No, I'd insist that he stick with the move he made, but wouldn't demand an instant resignation because he picked his stone back up.
Go is a game and, unless you're a professional, which none of us are, it's meant to be fun. Are you really going to feel much pride over a trophy on your shelf that you won on a technicality?
On the question of sportsmanship, what if the shoe is on the other foot? Suppose that you are in an important amateur tournament, and forgetfully take a ko back without making an intervening move, and lose the game thereby? Do you accept your loss gracefully or accuse the opponent of poor sportsmanship for calling the director instead of just letting you take your move back? Suppose that you usually play by Japanese rules, but the rules of the tournament use a superko rule, which you have not bothered to find out about, and you repeat a position in a superko, thinking it was legal? Again, do you accept your loss gracefully, or complain about your opponent's calling the director?
I think that most of the people concerned with sportsmanship, like myself, would only blame ourselves in these cases, and would not question our opponent's sportsmanship. In the latter case, especially, do I not have a responsibility to find out about the rules I am playing under? I don't mean studying them like a lawyer, I mean learning the basics.
Speaking as a tournament director, of both go and bridge tournaments, in my view when there is a rules question the proper thing to do is to call the director. That is not unsporting, that's the right thing to do. As a director I woud have ruled that a prima facie reading of the Ing rules says that the fourth pass ended play, that all stones on the board are considered to be alive, and that it is time to count'em up. I would also have informed Csaba of his right to appeal. (If I were to hear the appeal, I do not know how I would rule.)
If that had happened, and Csaba had appealed, would people be accusing him of bad sportsmanship? Of attempting to get around the rules instead of abiding by them? (His quick third pass was arguably an infraction.)
I think that calling the director in this case was correct, and that there was nothing wrong with the appeals. In fact, I wish this case had been appealed all the way to the Ing Foundation, to get a definitive ruling. (Apparently that was not possible, but if you are going to play by Ing rules, why shouldn't appeals to the source of the rules be allowed? We are talking about the European Championship, right?)
Having been reminded that there were other irregularities, and having learned that passes are not always permitted under Ing rules, I now think that I would have ruled differently as tournament director.
I still think that the tournament organizers should have laid out clear end of game procedures. Then this mess would not have happened.
RobertJasiek: There is a fundamental difference between alternating moves and determination of the score afterwards: During the alternation, the players make the decision whether to board-play or pass-play, make strategic decisions, choose moves accordingly, and have the right to make strategic mistakes. During the determination of the score, the players do nothing of the kind - instead they have the duty to determine the correct score. - Therefore passing when it is a strategic mistake or an answer to an opponent's strategic mistake is fair and just while (on a go server) clicking on stones in an escaper-like manner is cheating.
The thing is a difference in point of view. Is winning by using to rules to win ok or is it not? This is like the atari in dame in the title game a couple of years ago. You can have the moral point of view or the rules point of view. Both are valid and both should be taken into account by all.
Rules should be clear and as easy as possible. Players are responsible for knowing the rules, but this doesn't mean that using the rules to win is ok. I would have notified my opponent of the problem and discuss the rules problem later with the organization. The thing is that is hard to draw the line between following the rules and using the rules.
I understand Robert's annoyance with the lack of interest in better rules and in he lack of information tournament organizer give about the rules used. I sometimes win a game on KGS because I play with Chinese rules and some people refuse to play the dame( especially Japanese cannot fathom the idea that they are worth points). I warn them and offer them an undo, but in the end I just can't pass with points on the board left. It still feels bad but did all I could to get them to play till the end.
If I understand this correctly, Robert did not make the dispute. His opponent started the dispute by disagreeing with Robert's (correct?) interpretation if Ing rules (which I have to agree I don't understand). I agree that tournaments must have strict rules, and so I think we should thank Robert for giving us this example, so that together we can strive for a solution to the continuing problem of such disputes arising.
I can think of a similar example, to help explain what I mean when I say that Robert did not create the dispute. I played a game in a tournament where I was losing by about 6 points very late in the endgame, and my opponent lost on time. He literally just spent too long thinking, when he could have just played any move and easily gone on to win. So I won the game, when I didn't deserve to. But there was no dispute. Why? My opponent could have argued that the win should be his. The rules would not allow it, but he could have argued, much as people have here, that I was abusing the rules to win the game. He didn't, but if he had, it would have been he who created the dispute, not me.
Alex: Yeah, but there's a "spirit of the rules" issue here. The spirit of the time rule is that if you don't play fast enough, you lose, regardless of the situation on the board. So if you're behind by 6 and your opponent plays too slowly and loses, fair enough. The spirit of the rule is that he should lose.
The (ironic, given these events) spirit of the Ing rule in question is that it was an attempt to remove the ambiguity inherent in other rule sets about what is dead and what is alive, and how to score a position. Using that rule (and the opponent's ignorance thereof) in order to trick the opponent into letting a stone both players know damn well is dead become "alive in seki" on a technicality is blatantly against the spirit of the rule.
Now, if Robert made all this fuss in order to illustrate the inherent absurdity of Ing rules, rather than to rob an opponent of victory, okay... I still disagree with his actions, but I can understand them. If he just wanted to win the game at all cost, then I see no moral difference between what he did and any of the other unpleasant, quasi-cheating tactics mentioned earlier.
RobertJasiek: I agree that the Ing rules are an attempt to remove the ambiguity inherent in other rule sets about what is dead and what is alive, and how to score a position. (While "the other" rulesets failed with contents and wording, apparently the Ing rules fail "only" / mainly because of ambiguity of the wording.) - It is hard to assess the spirit of the Ing rules concerning "alive in seki". Either the Ing rules wanted to require the filling of all two-sided dame that the players did notice or the Ing rules wanted to score any position regardless of still available two-sided dame by assuming the players' strategic wisdom to fill them therefore so as to improve some player's score until the Game End. - I made the 4th pass to win. Only once the dispute had arisen, the case was also suitable (at least in principle) for making up a precedent about the meaning of the pass and late game rules. (Unfortunately, the arbitration bodies did not take to chance to make it a precendent and left the situation as unclear as before.)
Robert did takes actions that led to this dispute, as reported in another thread (Clarification, please). Before the 4 consecutive passes there were 2 consecutive passes. Then, without reaching an explicit agreement or disagreement about the life or death of stones, Robert resumed play and captured Mero's dead stones while Mero passed. Only then did the 4 consecutive passes occur. Robert believed, and still believes, that all his actions were legal.
Based upon Robert's pre-2002 writings on rec.games.go, I think that Robert was also pursuing a strategy to bring about the final position and claim that his remaining stones were alive, taking advantage of Mero's mistake, his 3d consecutive pass at the end.
Robert, please correct me if I am wrong.
RobertJasiek: I gave a report of what happened earlier. - I would not write "Robert did takes actions that led to this dispute". It is too imprecise to be answered.
![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")