If I'm provisionally 10k and draw (get even score with integer komi) against 5d, it shouldn't affect my rating?

The BGA have said that triple ko was a draw. I don't know why you would want to make draws not count where they can happen? That seems creepy...

No, it should not.
Why? Well... there can be many justifications.

For example:
1) Since draws are not possible in on-board play, such 'arranged' draw does not mean anything about your strength. Maybe you had toothache and your opponent graciously agreed to a draw.
2) Draws against much stronger/weaker players are also obviously 'arranged' for whatever reasons, and thus should not be part of ranking adjustment.
And so on...

In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Why should they? Nobody won, nobody gets a candy. Nobody lost, nobody gets spanked. What's creepy about that?
And why this should be any more or less 'creepy' than declaring 'no-result' in case of triple-ko?

Its just a convention, so we can set it to whatever we want.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I believe that palapiku was referring to the situation where the draw was due to the situation in the on-board game:

_________________
be immersed

I understand.
I addressed this in my other post. In the sentence about triple-ko being declared no-result. Sort-of the same thing.

But I'm not really invested in the idea very much, so I won't be insisting that Draws are good.
Its just that I don't really see any very convincing reasons for them to be bad, neither.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Man, I have a headache. Sorry for the messy posting.

I remember what I meant and why I said what I said. Part of the stipulation was that 'Since draws are not possible in on-board play...'
This was also expressed in the sentence of mine that you quoted: '[In Chess] you CAN get a draw [...] in on-board game' - this stipulates in Go you cannot.
So I was clearly referring to 'arranged' draws only. Sorry I did not make it clear.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Edit: I see your post edit, so my explanation is irrelevant.

Anyway, I agree with what I believe to be your main point: "It's just a convention, so we can set it to whatever we want.".

_________________
be immersed

KGS has the dishonest play clause in its terms of service that explicitly forbids rating manipulation. EGF tournament rules contains a more generic sportsmanship clause.

So no, resigning while winning may not always be allowed, depending on your intentions and the rules you are playing under.

There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.

In chess? That would really surprise me (although I've been wrong plenty of times before!). "Grandmaster draws" are a pretty endemic part of chess, although many people find them regrettable. Many, many tournaments end with the leader making a quick draw in the final round, and many of those draws were prearranged (or effectively prearranged, when it is obvious that it benefits both players). Some tournaments now have rules where you can't offer a draw until move 30, or not at all until an arbiter proclaims the position truly dead. I'd think this tournament would have had to have had a very unusually draconian rule for a prearranged draw to be punished by disqualification. I'd be interested to hear the details.

No, this was go (and amateur go at that).

Ah, OK! I combined "Russian" and a European city and the fact that draws are super-rare in Go and made a bad assumption. Apologies.

This post reminds me the little unpleasant thing in Chinese Pro selection. In last two rounds, children who would be surely qualified as a pro were often approached by other possile-qualified children's parents or coach offering money to buy wins. I think they changed the system now, and qualified child no longer plays later rounds?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

I do indeed, but the following discussion encompassed chess as well.

I know that, but I never liked this rule.
I think it should be abolished.

A player should have the right to resign when he decides that he cannot win anymore. And only he can be a judge of that! Regardless of the position on the board. I have seen many weak(er) players resigning in position which were not lost, or even won, even in tournaments (and especially), and nobody can hold them against it. I saw some strong players doing that as well.

This sort-of ties up with my reasons for why I think draws should be allowed.
Its a loose knot, though...

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

1991 I think it was. They rather proved their own complicity by firing out the game in 6 minutes flat when asked twice to replay it OR asked to replay, then replay under observation. That's what I found to be so odd about the case - they clearly believed they were doing absolutely nothing wrong. If they were properly warned of their fate, I can't imagine it as having happened.

I did see an article in Go World on the art of resigning, which pointed out that Otake Hideo was such an artist that he would resign when he realised he had played a bad move, regardless of the situation on the board. He just got dispirited at his own bad play. I have also seen some players resign because, I think, they get bored with their opponent playing on in hopeless positions.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Er, wha? Any dan player should be able to replay his game just after finishing it. What's surprising about two people so strong that they are likely to be winners of the tournament being able to do that in 6 minutes?

I can't be absolutely certain about "people strong enough to win the tournament", but usually when I've watched dan players reviewing, they have similar "now, is that when this sequence happened, or was that after that sequence?" moments to the ones my opponents and I do, only they're more likely to come up with an answer to the question. They certainly don't usually rattle them off fast, particularly not in the first review.

Later they might do it quickly, but that's for games they've reviewed and thought about a lot, IME.

_________________
My European rating.