From: Pieter Stouten <stouten <at> SHOGI <dot> NET>
Date: 12 apr 2000
Subject: Written rules

On 00/04/12 at 14:33 +0100, Nick Bardsley wrote:

>The real question might be about etiquette... Something Western players
>prefer to avoid by turning etiquette into rules speaking of illegality ot
>legality rather than the formalized application of good manners. This is
>generally because there are a lot of what are called 'bad sports' in the
>Chess world - which is, again, where all the nonsenses come from.
>
I think in general, people in the West are less inclined to accept
authority or to adhere to etiquette. In a Japanese amateur
tournament, a visiting professional might be the ultimate authority
and players may accept his rulings without a second thought. However,
in the West, players may argue with the arbiter that a ruling they
disagree with cannot be applied when the rule is not written black on
white. When the stakes get higher (as is happening in Shogi in the
West), more and more players may dispute arbiters' decisions. In
general, we won't be able to change people's attitude, so we will be
forced to produce rules and regulations.

The problem is that if one has rules but does not exhaustively cover
all contingencies, people can easily misuse the rules. Silly example:
a player stops his clock to go to the bathroom. If it is not
described in the rules that under no circumstances the clock can be
stopped (or something to that extent), the player may argue it is not
forbidden by the rules, so I can do it. If there are no written
rules, to a large extent players will have to accept the arbiter's
decisions.

Note that I am *not* arguing not to formalize the rules and current
practices; I am arguing that this is an important job that needs to
be done very carefully.

Ciao,

Pieter