DisputeCsabaJasiek
RobertJasiek gives a simplified summary:
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.
The referee Victor Bogdanov made a quick decision in favour of Csaba that had barely any justification at all, so the dispute moved to the congress's Appeals Committee, consisting of Roman Pszonka, Zoran Mutabzija, Alexandr Dinerchtein. It judged that the game had been in a Game Pause and that the players should continue with the game accordingly. It did not explain clearly why the game could still be in a Game Pause but it then watched Csaba removing stones of Robert (quite like one removes so called dead stones under Japanese style rules) and performing the Ing Fill-in Counting. So apparently its judgement was meant to be in Csaba's favour. Since its judgement was not explained clearly, Robert appealed to its decision and the third and last instance of arbitration in EGF tournaments, the EGF Rules and Ratings Commission (without Robert, who otherwise is also a member) made the final decision that declared the Appeal Committee's decision to be right while not stating any justification.
For clarity, the Appeals Committee might have explained its decision about as follows: Csaba's third pass in succession and then Robert's fourth pass in succession were considered as if they had not occurred at all. This would explain why the Appeals Committee considered the game to be still in a Game Pause. For even greater clarity, the Appeals Committee should have explained why 1) making a pass that, according to the Appeals Committee's opinion, might not have been made (starting with Csaba's third pass in succession) did not lead to any adverse consequences for the player and 2) an Appeals Committee has the power at all to nullify moves made the players.
Was the Appeals Committee right about its decision? Probably the most relevant background is seen in the report on the 4th meeting of the International Go Rules Forum:
- Jasiek: Under Ing Rules, what exactly happens after the endgame and before the Ing Fill-in Counting?
- Yang: I do not understand the question.
- Jasiek: Exactly what and exactly when do the players do from the first pass of a game until the last pass of a game?
- Yang wants to set up a whole board example. Jasiek intervenes and says that a much simpler example will do, so he sets up a very simple 5 by 7 position.
- Yang: He tries to explain Ing Rules for the example position. In particular he says the following: a) After any play, another 4 passes and in between another option for each player to remove stones will be necessary. b) After exactly 2 successive passes, EITHER player may remove some of his own stones. It does not matter in which order the players would remove some of their own stones. c) The author: Back at home, the author realizes that Yang's explanation of the relation between a player's voluntary removals and the opponent's next pass has not been precise enough. 1) Do both players remove some of their own stones and then a 3rd and 4th pass may happen or 2) does one player remove some of his own stones, then the opponent passes, then the opponent removes some of his own stones, then the player passes? The latter does not work because alternate moving might be violated with unexpected consequences for captures in a ko after an intervening pass. However, it is still unclear to the author whether the Ing Rules intend (1) or (2) and are without flaw here or not. d) Any clarifications of removals are done averbally only. A player's next pass after some voluntary removals is the confirmation of his opponent's removals and that pass may not be undone.
- Jasiek: This is more than any European ever knew before. The author: The rule texts of the Ing Rules are by far too ambiguous and imprecise about the game end. Therefore in Europe several mutually contradicting interpretations have coexisted.
- The author now tries to write down the intended meaning of passes for the Ing Rules precisely. Ing or Yang should correct him where his understanding is wrong. - 1) The players alternate plays or passes. 2) The game might end due to the following succession in order: a) There are exactly 2 successive passes: one pass by the player P followed by one pass by his opponent Q. b) There is the GAME PAUSE with neutralized time: The players (note: PLURAL) MAY AVERBALLY remove ANY of their OWN stones from the board. c) P may EITHER I) play OR II) pass. d) Q may EITHER I) play OR II) pass. IF and ONLY IF BOTH (cII) AND (dII) have occurred, THEN and ONLY THEN the GAME END occurs and scoring applies to the now final position. IF (cI) has occurred, then any stones removed during (b) remain removed, alternation continues, this game ending procedure is quit, and this game ending procedure might be entered again later during alternation. IF (dI) has occurred, then any stones removed during (b) remain removed, alternation continues after (cI)-(dI) or (cII)-(dI), respectively, this game ending procedure is quit, and this game ending procedure might be entered again later during alternation.
zinger: Robert, it would help me understand if you posted the final position from the disputed game.
RobertJasiek: I do not recall the position. See the subpages of this page for a similar example and assume a positional judgement of, I think it was, 30 points in favour of my opponent.
zinger: So, are we to understand that you were 30 points behind, both players had passed, and you decided to make a dispute? If this is essentially correct, then I would say that it sounds a little unsportsmanlike, to say the least.
RobertJasiek: It is correct that - in terms of positional yose judgement - I was ca. 30 points behind. (I do not recall the exact value.) Before completion of that succession of passes that consisted of four passes, I did not intend to have a dispute; I did intend to win the game by passing. After that succession of four passes, the dispute arose when my opponent wanted to remove stones while I said that at that stage of the game no further removals were allowed to take place. So what you write is not essentially correct.
RobertJasiek: Here is an interesting citation from the Ing 1996 Rules: "Any disputed shape should be verified for life and death by removal, no adjudication."
Why is this page named by Csaba Merö's first name and Robert Jasiek's surname?
RobertJasiek: Because I do not know which is his surname. In tournament lists, either name might appear in front; and Hungarian names have the Asian order. If you like, it can be corrected, if you are sure about which is the surname.
Links