Forum for Dispute Mero-Jasiek

Clarification, please [#334]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

 
reply
Bill: Clarification, please (2006-03-02 22:10) [#1188]

The main page states:

"The round 2 game Csaba Mero - Robert Jasiek of the European Go Championship 2002 in Zagreb used the rules of play of the Ing 1991 Rules. After a succession of 4 passes, there were no stones of Csaba on the board that could have been removed by wise alternating play if the passes had not occurred yet while there were still some stones of Jasiek on the board that could have been removed by wise alternating play if the passes had not occurred yet."

But looking back at the previous discussion on rec.games.go, I see some reference to plays by Jasiek after the first two passes. What is the case? Were there simply four consecutive passes, or was there play after the first two passes?

X
213.73.66.71: Re: Clarification, please (2006-03-02 23:07) [#1190]

RobertJasiek: Looking up my archives, it was as follows:

  • "... 3) Alternation of the game before the first succession of pass plays occurred without any problems.
  • 4) Then the first pass play of the first succession of pass plays was done by RJ and occurred without any problems and while both players did not say anything.
  • 5) Then the second pass play of the first succession of pass plays was done by CM and occurred without any problems and while both players did not say anything.
  • 6) At that moment strategically the board position was as follows: CM had strategically living stones and other strategically dead stones. RJ had strategically living stones and other strategically dead stones.
  • 7) Then play continued in alternation of plays with RJ only making board plays, CM only making pass plays, RJ making the last of the board plays before the next succession of pass plays. The board plays of RJ approached all strategically dead opposing stones and removed such stones as soon as some were breathless. These plays by CM and RJ were made reasonably quickly with two exceptions: Twice CM used a few minutes each to smoke... During that continued alternating play problems did not occur yet and both players did not say anything, except that CM indicated to smoke just before he did.
  • 8) Then reasonably quickly the first pass play of the second succession of pass plays was done by CM and did not cause any problems at that time. Both players did not say anything at that time.
  • 9) Then reasonably quickly the second pass play of the second succession of pass plays was done by RJ and did not cause any problems at that time. Both players did not say anything at that time.
  • 10) Then reasonably quickly the third pass play of the second succession of pass plays was done by CM and did not cause any problems at that time. Both players did not say anything at that time.
  • 11) Then reasonably quickly the fourth pass play of the second succession of pass plays was done by RJ and did not cause any problems at that time. Both players did not say anything at that time.
  • 12) Then the clocks were stopped.
  • 13) Then after the fourth pass play of the second succession of pass plays the following occurred: While CM was about to remove stones that had been strategically dead before the first succession of pass plays, RJ pointed out to think that CM had probably done a (strategic) mistake, that the rules did not allow removal of any stones after the fourth pass play of a succession of (two plus two) pass plays, and that the rules allowed only fill-in counting to be done.
  • 14) CM and RJ disagreed about the legality of the possibility of removing any stones after the fourth pass play of the second succession of pass plays and therefore asked the referee to judge. ..."

So yes, the first succession of exactly two passes was followed by my board-plays and his pass-plays, and then the second succession of pass-plays occurred that consisted of four pass-plays. Bill, do you think that it makes an essential difference?

Bill: Re: Clarification, please (2006-03-02 23:40) [#1194]

I believe that my ruling as a director would have been different, given your plays after the second pass. The section about pauses states:

"18 Play pauses when each side passes once, making two consecutive pass plays. If there is disagreement about life and death, play can resume."

Since there was apparently no discussion about life and death during the pause, my prima facie reading would have been that there was no disagreement about life and death, and that play should not have resumed. So I would have declared all those subsequent plays invalid, and rolled the play back to the pause.

213.73.66.71: Re: Clarification, please (2006-03-02 23:59) [#1195]

RobertJasiek: It depends on what is meant by "disagreement" in the rules text (it could also be an averbal disagreement expressed by means of continued alternate moves). However, this your interpretation has another problem: A ko recapture is not possible due to only passes but, following your theory, only due to both passes and verbal disagreement about some (related or unrelated) life and death. I do not find this interpretation convincing. - However, you are indicating for us just how many different things one might possibly interpret into those Ing 1991 Rules...

Bill: Re: Clarification, please (2006-03-03 01:02) [#1196]

Well, as for taking a ko back, if both players agree about the life or death of the stones involved in the ko, there is no need to play the ko, is there?

Also, if play is not allowed to resume unless there is a disagreement, how can plays during resumption be construed as disagreement? They are not allowed.

213.73.66.76: Re: Clarification, please (2006-03-03 09:31) [#1203]

RobertJasiek: About the ko: good argument. - About resumption: Also pass-plays are plays. So, by your argument and if the players agree verbally (and thereby Ing 1991 Rules would have been different than what Mr. Yang currently says about them, i.e. that removals are done averbally), it would not be allowed to make any 3rd or 4th pass-play in succession. This, however, contradicts the definition of Game End that requires 4 pass-plays in succession.

reply
AndyPierce: $0.02 more (2006-03-03 01:36) [#1197]

Agree with Bill. If you still wanted to make plays, why did you pass in the first place?

X
213.73.66.76: EUR 0.02 more (2006-03-03 09:40) [#1204]

RobertJasiek: This is not how Ing rules think. The first two pass-plays are reminders that now the removals begin. Either by informal removal or, if not sufficiently many stones are removed informally and thereby the players do not then both pass to confirm the Game Pause phase of informal removals, by alternating play removals. - However, since there is so much ambiguity in the official Ing rules, from now on I rather prefer to choose the safe way when playing under official Ing rules: continue board-plays to remove as many stones as I like before I make my first pass-play, unless I should be in time trouble (in which case my opponent may force me into more time penalty points anyway, but I do not need to force myself into that).

 
Back to forum     Back to page

New reply


Forum for Dispute Mero-Jasiek
RecentChanges · StartingPoints · About
Edit page ·Search · Related · Page info · Latest diff
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library