All Things Go Podcast

Season Three Introduction

[00:22] Travis: Season three has begun. I'm really excited that you all are here to listen to this season. It's going to be different, even still, than the previous seasons. And when I think about the people with whom I got a chance to speak to and who were really generous with their time, it really runs the gamut from academics to folks in the world of psychoanalysis, to professional players, authors, all sorts of things. And so I think there's going to be a really nice breadth of topics to get into and things that are a little bit different, things that are not quite as directly related to playing the game, but a little bit more tangential. And I think that's where a lot of us do find meaning sometimes. And so I wanted to follow those different pathways and see where they take us. And I was just really appreciative of what our different interviewees provided. So I hope you enjoy it. Sit back and relax. Let's get started.

Fact vs. Fiction in The Match

[01:29] Travis: For our first interview of the season, I wanted to focus it on a recent new film that came out in Korea called the Match. I got to watch it. I really enjoyed it. And as I was reading around online on Reddit and I was seeing a lot of people give their feedback on what they thought of the movie and how it was, it kept bringing me back to this question of, okay, I could just talk about how I felt about the movie, which maybe you want to hear, maybe you don't. Or what if I could try to speak to somebody that actually knows about the movie or knows about Cho Hun-hyun and Lee Chang-ho or somebody that knew them personally that could actually speak to different parts of the movie? Were they true? Did they really happen? Were they likely to have happened? Or were they ignorant exaggerations or embellishments that were for making the film more exciting and enticing? So I got very lucky. I was able to come in contact with Professor Nam Chihyung at the International Society of Go Studies, and she connected me with Mr. Jim Young Kim,

[02:36] Travis: who was a longtime broadcaster for Baduk TV and who actually knows Lee Chang-ho and Cho Hun-hyun personally. And so he was nice enough to sit down and actually go through my questions on the movie, which was incredible. Albert Nah was the translator. So unfortunately, you will not hear Mr. Kim's voice throughout the recording. You will hear just the translator. Unfortunately, when we did the recording, he was on his cell phone, but the connection was a little bit patchy. So unfortunately the quality was a little bit lower. And there are some cuts in and out that make it harder at times to hear. However, I think we have edited it and made it to the level where you will be able to understand it. And so again, apologies, but I think you are in for a treat, so enjoy. Again. Thank you both for your time. Albert and Mr. Kim, let's start with the first question. So, Mr. Kim, can you please tell us your background in the world of Baduk?

[03:48] Albert Nah: So he was a student trying to become a professional. For three years, he was at an academy training to become a professional. After that, he ran a Baduk academy for a while. Then, around that time or afterward, he was a Baduk program broadcaster for 26 years. So he appeared regularly on TV programs here in Korea-Baduk TV. Basically, his entire life was involved in Baduk.

[04:18] Travis: Amazing. Let's start talking about the film a little bit. Mr. Kim, how do you know the two key characters, Cho Hun-hyun and Lee Chang-ho, from the recently released Korean film The Match?

[04:33] Albert Nah: When Mr. Kim was young, he was a student at the very competitive Baduk academy that trains people to become professionals in Korea. After he quit, Lee Chang-ho later came to visit the academy quite often. That's how he got to know him when they were very young. Cho Hun-hyun was actually one of the teachers at the academy. Mr. Kim was his student there for about a year, so Cho taught him for about a year. Cho Hun-hyun was in his late twenties at the time. And Mr. Kim's younger brother is the professional Kim Won. Kim Won and Lee Chang-ho became professionals in the same year; they were the only two people that year. So his younger brother and Lee Chang-ho were contemporaries.

[05:29] Travis: Very cool. So in the film, overall, how accurately does the film depict the key events that happened between Cho and Lee?

[05:43] Albert Nah: Okay, so basically, in reality, when he was young, he wasn't that talkative. He was very quiet, actually. But as you saw in the movie, he was quite talkative at some points and more active, which is not true in reality. Mr. Kim understands, of course, that it would have been a very boring movie. I think it was effective from the movie's perspective that he was kind of being a kid. Cho Hun-hyun was more or less like he was in the movie, except that in the movie he was more emotional than Mr. Kim believes he actually is and was. But generally similar. I'm going to ask him about, I guess, their relationship.

[06:31] Travis: Thank you.

[06:32] Albert Nah: So generally similar to the real thing, he believes, especially after Lee Chang-ho became the apprentice and in how Cho Hun-hyun's wife took care of him. That was probably how it actually was, as the movie depicted. Nobody actually knew exactly what went on inside the household and how Cho Hun-hyun taught Lee Chang-ho. But Mr. Kim thinks that, probably unlike in the movie, Cho Hun-hyun expressing emotion and sometimes anger when he taught Lee Chang-ho was unlikely, given how Mr. Kim viewed Mr. Cho. But who knows? The movie needs to be interesting.

[07:13] Travis: In the beginning of the film, Cho encounters Lee, who is playing Baduk outside, and he says he will play another match with him if he solves a life-and-death problem, which Lee later solves and which leads to him becoming Cho's student. How did Cho and Lee first meet? You said they were both at the academy. So if that was the first way they met, do you have any understanding of how they really started working together in real life?

[07:48] Albert Nah: Yes. Cho Hun-hyun used to teach at the academy for about a year when he was younger, in his twenties. But the time when he taught there was earlier, before Cho Hun-hyun became the number one and a very important figure in Baduk. That was in the late 1970s, when he taught for a year, and Lee Chang-ho joined the academy around 1983. So they didn't know each other then. But when they first met, I think it was similar to how the movie showed it, though the movie didn't really detail it much. Lee Chang-ho was a brilliant kid in one of the smaller cities in Korea. He was taught by a local teacher and was already very famous locally. So Lee Chang-ho's teacher invited Cho Hun-hyun because he was senior to Cho Hun-hyun and knew him. He asked, 'Can you come down and actually see him and tell us what you think?' That's how they first met.

[08:47] Travis: Lee Chang-ho's character is portrayed in the film as quite arrogant and spoiled as a child. Was this actually the case or do you think this was an exaggeration by the filmmakers?

[09:04] Albert Nah: You know, he was very good at Baduk already at that time. But that's not true. Basically, he was never arrogant or spoiled, even at a young age. Basically the same as how he looks now. He was the youngest among the group of people he studied with. Most of the other students at the academy were teenagers or in their late teens, but he was eight or nine. So in the movie, that was probably the most dramatized part, where the filmmakers took license.

[09:38] Travis: It makes sense, right? They need to do these things in films. Next question. Cho is portrayed in the film as being frustrated with corporate sponsors that care more about money than the game of Baduk. What has Cho's public opinion been about corporate sponsors and bringing money into professional Baduk?

[10:04] Albert Nah: So Cho Hun-hyun, as you probably know, used to study in Japan, and he became number one there already at that time in Japan. When he studied there, the relationship between sponsors and professional Baduk players was well established, even at that time in Japan. So he was used to that. Of course, sponsors provide money. When he came back to Korea, that relationship was not so established. But he and his seniors in the Baduk world built a good relationship together. And Cho Hun-hyun becoming number one brought, of course, publicity and a lot of sponsors. Basically, Cho Hun-hyun was instrumental in establishing a good relationship between sponsors and Baduk professionals. He had nothing against getting contributions or money, and sponsors were excited to work with him.

[10:57] Travis: That's great. It probably again just looked really good and very intense in the movie, right? I'm not doing it for the money. Okay, great. Moving along. So the next question, if you're ready, Albert. Throughout the film, a stone is placed on the corner of the board. And this is to signify the player's resignation. Was this a standard way to resign during that period of time?

[11:23] Albert Nah: So that was a very curious thing for us, both for me and Mr. Kim. He never saw people resign in that way-never-and I never saw it. They say maybe one out of a hundred times it's possible that people resign that way, but he personally never saw it in the past or now. How people usually resign is to say, 'I lost,' or, without saying anything, maybe pick up a couple of captured stones and put them on the board. These days, they have automatic clocks, and they just turn them off without saying anything. That's how they resign. Or sometimes they start reviewing without saying anything. That's just resigning, but never that way. I personally want to know why the director chose it.

[12:11] Travis: That's very interesting to hear. From both of your experiences, that's not something you see.

[12:17] Albert Nah: Mr. Kim tried to guess why the director chose it that way. Given that it's a very intense match, usually between professionals, expressing 'I lost' to the other person could be quite difficult for the person who is losing. Actually saying 'I lost' would be very difficult for anybody to do. Maybe the director tried to find a kind of balanced way-not to provoke the other person, but at the same time not to hurt himself by resigning.

[12:49] Travis: So this next question was somewhat answered already by Mr. Kim, but maybe we can still ask it. So my understanding, Mr. Kim, is that you are close with Cho's wife, and you did let us know that, you know, you don't know what happened behind closed doors. But your sense is that how they depicted the relationship between Lee and Cho's wife was possibly very much a sort of son-to-mother relationship. What was that relationship like? Or how do you think it might have changed? Or did it change as Lee came to be very dominant and sort of surpass Cho? I mean, is there any way for us to understand how that might have changed?

[13:36] Albert Nah: The relationship between them was almost like son and mother, and Cho's wife really took care of Lee almost like a son during his stay. It is true that when Lee Chang-ho became more dominant, the relationship may have been a little uncomfortable, as the movie tried to depict. It was pretty accurate. Mr. Kim actually heard from her directly. She's a very good cook, and Mr. Kim and she had regular contact. Mr. Kim visited their household quite a few times. She liked to share a lot of good Korean side dishes, which Mr. Kim was very happy to receive sometimes. And the relationship, as he understands it, between Cho's wife and Lee Chang-ho is very good, has been good even afterward, and still is.

[14:29] Travis: That's great to hear that you guys have that connection through cooking and those things and that relationship was probably pretty accurate. In the film it was said or it was shown that Cho would bounce his leg or he would start humming like during matches and during very big ones. Is this true and was this considered inappropriate behavior during a professional match?

[15:02] Albert Nah: Sorry, Travis. First of all, the leg shaking was interesting for me to hear as well, so I had some questions. Basically, his actions would not be very acceptable or appropriate nowadays, as you can imagine, especially the humming part. But 40 years ago, at the time shown in the movie, it was probably more acceptable. Even his seniors in the Baduk world were doing that. Maybe not as dramatically as Cho Hun-hyun did, but they smoked all the time while playing matches, hummed, and made a lot of motions. It was okay at that time. Something I didn't know was that one of Cho Hun-hyun's very famous habits-or I guess tactics-when he was playing a match was saying things like, 'I lost. This is so bad. I suck.' I thought he started it, but he didn't. When I asked Mr. Kim, he told me about Mr. Cho Nam-chul, who was the founder of modern Baduk in Korea. He was the first generation and also studied in Japan.

[16:10] Albert Nah: He was from an earlier generation than Cho Hun-hyun, but he was actually the inventor of this kind of thing. He got it from Japanese masters. So he said the same things: 'I lost. I suck.' And when people asked Mr. Cho Nam-chul, 'Why are you saying that? You are winning this game. Why are you saying, "I lost"?' he said, 'Oh, I mean the other guy lost, not me. The game is done for him, not me. I don't talk about me.' Anyway, Cho Hun-hyun said similar things when he played games. He studied in Japan and played a lot of games there, and a similar culture existed in Japan at the time. Especially the top players in Japan-they talked a lot, to themselves a lot. Of course nobody really liked it, but they were top players. So Mr. Kim thinks maybe Cho Hun-hyun learned it from those players and brought it home. That is also true. He did that.

[17:14] Albert Nah: But it was not considered as inappropriate as humming would be. It was similar to scratching your head while playing the game. The opponent could point it out and say, 'Please stop disturbing me,' obviously, but it was not as much of an issue.

[17:30] Travis: The relationship between Cho and Lee-I want to understand that a little bit more. To your understanding, did Cho and Lee have a father-son relationship, as it was sort of shown during their time as teacher and student? Also, I'm curious: do you have any sense for what the relationship might be like today?

[17:53] Albert Nah: So yes, more or less, how they treated each other when they were living together in the movie is true, except perhaps for a little less anger on the part of Cho Hun-hyun. So basically similar. But as you can imagine, Mr. Lee is more of a quiet person-still is-and doesn't volunteer much information about his life. So a lot of things can only be guessed. But from what we saw and how Mr. Lee relates to Mr. Cho these days, their relationship is, of course, very good and respectful. One behind-the-scenes story Mr. Kim heard about the movie is that Mr. Lee, at first, when approached by the director, refused to have his name used for a character. When Mr. Cho told Mr. Lee, 'Hey, I'm going to do it. I'm going to let them use my name. Why don't you let them use your name as well to make the movie better?' Lee Chang-ho said, 'Okay, teacher. If you will do it, then of course I will do it.' That's one of the stories he heard. You know Nam Ki-cheol, the rival to Mr. Cho-you remember him?

[19:05] Albert Nah: He is also based on a real person. Seo Bong-soo is his name. He was also approached by the director for permission to use his name, but Mr. Seo actually refused. We don't know exactly why. Maybe he was a little unhappy about the script at some point; we don't know. Mr. Seo was not persuaded, but Mr. Lee was persuaded. That's why we have both Cho and Lee's names. A little more explanation from Mr. Kim: in terms of the relationship between Mr. Lee and Mr. Cho, understandably, when they were teacher and student, from Mr. Lee's perspective the relationship was good, but Mr. Cho was a little difficult to approach. He was a towering figure, the teacher, Mr. Cho. So Mr. Lee was a little deferential, and it was sometimes difficult when they were competing against each other. When Mr. Lee was surpassing Mr. Cho, it was more difficult and more uncomfortable. That's how Mr. Kim would describe the relationship during that period.

[20:18] Albert Nah: Then the relationship became better and more comfortable when Mr. Lee became clearly the leader, number one in Korea, and Mr. Cho was in more of a retiring stage. Their personal relationship was more comfortable.

[20:36] Travis: Next question. Lee is portrayed as having low self confidence and playing poorly for some period of time before he really becomes the player that starts to beat Cho in top world major tournaments. Was this actually the case where there was a sort of low confidence, low self esteem period before he really started dramatically improving?

[21:05] Albert Nah: All right, so there is a little bit of an age difference between Mr. Kim and Mr. Lee, so he didn't know directly. But his brother was the same age as Mr. Lee and they were close, so he heard from his younger brother. Around that time, Mr. Kim believes it is not really true that Mr. Lee suffered a lot in reality, and that was reflected in Mr. Lee's record at the time. There wasn't such a dramatic period of suffering for Mr. Lee as the movie showed. Although Mr. Lee was very young, he was always recognized as one of the next generation, and he was Mr. Cho's only private student. Maybe Mr. Lee felt a little pressure from all those expectations, but he didn't really show it, and his record didn't show much suffering from the expectations. What Mr. Kim added was that Mr. Lee's record was always good. His worst period is probably now, in middle age.

[22:15] Travis: So there's a point in the film where Lee is Now dominating and he's winning all of the tournaments. And Cho has lost many of the top titles at this point. And they show Cho losing matches because he would not show up in the first place. And so he would lose because the time pretty much runs out. So they show the timer going to zero. Did this ever happen?

[22:42] Albert Nah: So from Mr. Kim's memory, not really, no. That was probably a dramatization in the movie. Mr. Kim understands that there may have been times when Mr. Cho was late showing up, but he didn't do that. Although it's probably true that Mr. Cho was strongly affected psychologically by Lee's rise. The movie, I think, made him say one thing: 'Yeah, Mr. Lee Chang-ho is going to surpass me, but it's going to take at least ten more years.' Cho actually said that. One of the famous Japanese players, Sakata Eio, had a famous saying that to become a top player, you have to be at least 40 years old. You just don't understand the beauty of the game before then. But now Lee Chang-ho shows up at 12 or 13 and is kicking the butt of Cho Hun-hyun, who is at the height of his career, in his thirties. It was unimaginable at that time. Nowadays, of course, the younger you are, the better a player you are, but that wasn't true at the time. So Cho was probably strongly affected by that.

[23:53] Albert Nah: But Mr. Kim doesn't think Cho missed games because of this.

[23:58] Travis: That's incredible. So it pretty much was unprecedented. I mean, you'd never seen anything like that, where somebody was so masterful at such a young age, when the tradition had been that you need to be at least, you know, 40 years of age or older to really have an understanding of the game. Wow, that's incredible. Perfect. Okay, so just a couple of wrap-up questions. What is your sense, Mr. Kim, of the critical reception for the film in Korea? How has it been received by the general population and by the Go community? And then finally, how do you think Cho and Lee feel about the film?

[24:35] Albert Nah: Well, this was very interesting for me to hear too. First of all, Mr. Cho actually came to the opening screening, but Mr. Lee didn't come. He probably watched the movie, but he's a quiet person and doesn't like to be shown publicly much. As far as the reception of the movie in Korea, it was profitable. The movie was made two or three years ago. It was completed but wasn't able to be shown on screens for those years, for reasons I don't know. People suggested to the director, 'You should just go directly to streaming. Otherwise, you might not be able to show it at all.' But the director resisted and waited, and I think it paid off. The movie was successful.

[25:22] Travis: Okay, so quickly pulling out of the interview, I wanted to give a little response to this comment. It looks like there is a reason for the delay in releasing the film from the director. So when I look it up online, what I find is the following. It says that the release of the film was delayed for several years, primarily due to a high profile drug scandal involving one of its lead actors, Yoo Ah-in. That is the character that plays Lee Chang-ho. Originally, the film was completed in 2021 and they were scheduled for a Netflix release in 2023. But the film's premiere was postponed after this actor was charged by the South Korean authorities for illegal drug use, including Propofol and marijuana, back in October of 2023. And I guess the whole issue is that South Korea maintains a very strict zero tolerance policy on drug use.

[26:13] Travis: And so he had legal troubles, including a conviction and a prison sentence supposedly. And this sparked a lot of controversy. And so the production team was sort of faced with this challenge, like do they remove that actor and find another one? But the director actually decided against re editing it or recasting it. And so he thought that the fundamental importance of that actor's role in the film should stay. And so that whole decision, coupled with sort of ongoing legal issues for that actor and public scrutiny, led to them just keeping on hold. And then after a few years and some changes in the distribution rights, the match was finally secured for a theatrical release. So that is what I found when looking online. Okay, back to the interview.

[27:09] Albert Nah: And because this movie was successful and well received by critics, Baduk became a little more popular. Baduk academies are more popular. People in the Baduk world have been very happy that a movie like this was made. There were a couple of other movies made around Baduk, I would say, but in those earlier movies, Baduk was used in more of a negative way. This movie was different. It showed Baduk in a positive light and told a really exciting, dramatic story. That's very helpful. Both professionals and amateurs in the Baduk world are very happy about it. They'd like to see more movies like this come out. Although Mr. Kim understands that Baduk itself is a very difficult topic to make a movie about, this movie was somehow successful, and he is very happy to see that. Hopefully more movies like this come out.

[28:10] Travis: Maybe the last question I can leave you both with is for Mr. Kim, were there any elements of the relationship between Cho and Lee or any special circumstances that you think were not included in the film that you thought maybe, oh, it would be great if they included these things in the film.

[28:33] Albert Nah: Mr. Kim actually gave some thought to this question. He did see the list of questions beforehand, but Mr. Kim thinks that Mr. Lee Chang-ho especially is a very private person in reality, so it's a little difficult to think of anything that would have added more. The movie itself already has a lot of fictional elements added to make the movie and the relationship between them more interesting, and Mr. Kim generally thinks those additions were very helpful.

[29:07] Travis: Albert, thank you so much for providing your time to translate this. And Mr. Kim, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

[29:14] Albert Nah: No problem, no problem. Thank you.

[29:16] Travis: All right, take care.

[29:17] Albert Nah: Bye-bye. Bye.

[29:22] Travis: Before we move on again, I want to extend my gratitude to Professor Nam Chihyung at the International Society of Go Studies. She was incredibly generous and willing to make these connections to have that conversation. So thank you again. I do want to remind everybody that the International Society of Go Studies is out there. They're doing great work. Please take a look and Google them online. Professor Nam is also the Secretary General for the International Pair Go Federation. So for those who might be interested in that, please check that out as well.

Sponsor and Support Message

[30:19] Travis: Hey everybody. Just taking a quick break from the first episode to thank our individual contributors. You know who you are. I really appreciate the support and also the sponsors of this episode, which is BadukPop, which is a great app for Go players of any level to practice Go problems, do interactive Go lessons, things like this. You can also play against other people all around the world. Play against AI bots, and they have amassed quite an impressive set of Go problems. They have over three and a half million user accounts and if you want to download the app, you can go to your App Store or you can go to badukpop.com that is b a d u k p o p dot com this episode's also sponsored by SmartGo One. You're a complete app for the game of Go. You can learn to play, you can practice against a computer, solve problems. I love their ability to read Go books and you can get all sorts of things there.

[31:15] Travis: It's available in the App Store for iPhone, iPad, Mac and the Go books are also available on EPUB format for other devices too. So check that out. The episode is also sponsored by AI Sensei. You can get your games analyzed with their advanced AI for free and take your Go to the next level. Just go to AI Sensei. The final sponsor of this episode is Go Magic, which is a modern way to study Go like never before with an online platform. To learn the game of Go, you can find them at gomagic.org okay, back to the episode. Next up, we're going to shift gears and talk to Gazza White, who we've had on the show and has been really helpful with talking through things that are happening in the pro world to discuss the LG Cup final that happened early in 2025. This year he's going to just take us through it because it was a very interesting situation.

[32:17] Travis: He does a really nice job of giving us a very clean summary of what transpired and then some of the things that happened afterwards. So take a listen so maybe you can go back and you can sort of paint us the picture like what happened with the LG Cup, where did things go and then what's kind of the current aftermath of it?

The LG Cup Fiasco with Gazza White

[32:41] Gazza White: Well, to start at the beginning, the LG Cup is an international tournament. It's considered a world major. It's one of the most prestigious tournaments in professional Go. All professional players from around the world have a chance at winning it, and all those professionals participate in qualifying. But in the end, only 24 can compete in the final tournament. That tournament takes place over several months, with long breaks in between. But in the end, two players reach the final where they'll play a best of three. For the most recent LG Cup, the two finalists were Ke Jie from China and Byun Sang-il from from Korea. And it was like all world major finals. They're always exciting. But this one was considered to be particularly notable because Ke Jie has had a very successful career. In the end of the 2010s, from 2015 to 2020, he won eight World Majors, which is the most by a Chinese player yet. He hasn't won any since 2020 and this was actually his first final in four years,

[33:58] Gazza White: so a lot of his fans had high hopes that he would finally win his ninth crown. Furthermore, he was playing an opponent that had never beaten him in the past, so there was a lot of anticipation and a lot of excitement. So at the start of 2025, the final took place and Ke Jie won the first game quite convincingly. But then in the second game, something dramatic happened. Ke Jie violated one of the rules of the tournament, which was that he didn't place his captured stones inside the lid of his bowl. Now, this is something that players will typically do in amateur tournaments, but for this particular tournament, it was an explicit rule. That's because this tournament uses Korean rules, which use the Korean or Japanese counting system, and that includes the captured stones. So the captured stones are important to determine who wins and who loses. As such, the Korean Baduk Association made it a rule that the captured stones had to be placed in a specific place, that is the lid of the bowl.

[35:13] Gazza White: And the reason for this rule was because in the past, when there have been Chinese players playing against Korean players, sometimes the Chinese players will inadvertently or sort of accidentally keep some captured stones in their hand. And then the Korean players get confused about how many captured stones there are and will then think they're ahead when they're actually not.

[35:40] Travis: And Gazza, why would the Chinese players, why would they think that's okay under Chinese rules versus Korean or Japanese?

[35:47] Gazza White: Yes. So it's worth pointing out that under Chinese rules, the counting is done using area scoring, which counts the territory and the stones on the board, but doesn't require including the captured stones. And so when Chinese players typically play, the captured stones serve no purpose. And thus they'll typically put the captured stones wherever is convenient. And oftentimes, especially in junior competitions in China, players will return the captured stones to their opponent's bowl.

[36:26] Travis: Oh, wow.

[36:28] Gazza White: So I've actually played against some Chinese players that have done that, and I've had to fish the stones back out and give them back to them. Under Korean rules, those captured stones are important. And so it's important that they're kept track of this rule. That the stones must be kept in the bowl lid has actually not been an official rule until recently. I believe they introduced it prior to the Samsung cup last year. Before there wasn't an explicit rule, but now there is. And so that further adds to the confusion because while you are meant to keep captured stones in the bowl leading Korean tournaments, there's never been an explicit rule for it. So there's never been a punishment for it in the past. And so this is where the drama took place because Ke Jie violated this rule in game two of the final. The punishment that was assigned this rule was a two stone penalty. So essentially Byun Sang-il got two extra points. And this was quite controversial immediately.

[37:35] Gazza White: And the game was suspended while the players and their managers discussed this matter with the tournament referee. And after, I don't recall how long, but it may have been half an hour, the Chinese team decided to accept the penalty and continue the game. It is worth mentioning also that at this point of the game, the AI said that Ke Jie was in a very strong position on the board and that the two stone penalty did help Byun Sang-il, but it was still in Ke Jie's favor. They then played several more moves in which Ke Jie got an even stronger position on the board. However, later on in game two, Ke Jie once again captured his opponent's stone and did not put it in his bowl lid. Right. At this point, to be specific, Ke Jie went up to get some water and when he did that, Byun Sang-il got the attention of the referee and pointed to this rogue stone. The referee then intervened to stop the game and penalized Ke Jie for the infringement. The dramatic thing here is that because this was the second violation in the game,

[38:53] Gazza White: the penalty was a loss of game. Ke Jie was essentially disqualified. Wow. Yeah, it was. It's a typical rule in the Korean rules where any violation that warrants a two stone penalty, if there is a second such violation in the game, then the player loses automatically. This was obviously quite dramatic because this is a final of a world major, it's an extremely important game and Ke Jie was given a game loss simply for not putting the stone in the bowl lid. It should also be pointed out that Ke Jie put the stone in a visible area. So the essence of the rule, or the spirit of the rule in that it prevented players from hiding captured stones wasn't violated. However, the letter of the rule was violated and that was the reason for the penalties.

[39:51] Travis: And Gazza. Can you speak to the level of strictness that you generally see when you look across Chinese professional games versus Japanese or Korean? Is there a particular country that is more stringent on rules or is it difficult to say?

[40:09] Gazza White: I've watched many professional games via streams, not live. However, I will say I haven't had the opportunity to watch too many Chinese domestic games because they're not available on YouTube. But Japanese games and Korean games are regularly available. And I have noticed that the Korean association tends to be particularly strict in their application of the rules. Some instances that I've seen that if you capture a group but you don't collect all of the stones before pressing the clock, you are assigned a game loss. And I've seen occasions where a player will capture maybe a 10 stone group, they'll pick up nine stones before they hurriedly press their clock, but because they didn't pick up that 10th stone, they lose the game.

[41:00] Travis: Wow.

[41:01] Gazza White: I've seen cases where a player has disturbed the board, considered to have disturbed the board too much when hurriedly making a move and pressing the clock. In amateur games, a player, if they disturb the board after pressing the clock, they'll just fix it immediately. But in Korean professional games, you get a game loss. I've seen a case where a player, I believe it was Choi Cheol-han, a very famous and experienced player, has hurriedly put his stone down, but he put it too far away from the intersection. And then he. He had to push it to the intersection, but because he placed it too far away, it was assigned a game loss.

[41:45] Travis: Is it true that in Japanese professional games or in Japanese culture, they will often place the stone down on the board, but then slide it into the intersection if it's in a part of the board where there's already a lot of stones down? But that, based on what you're telling me, in the Korean system, when you put that piece down, it has to land almost right on the intersection.

[42:07] Gazza White: You're spot on. In Korea, you can't slide the stone when you put it down. You have to put it down on the intersection. And indeed in Japan, especially in the title games, they will slide their stone along the board. Iyama Yuta very often does that, especially at the beginning of games. But in Korea, you are not permitted to do that if you slide the stone. I could be wrong, but I believe that's now a two point penalty.

[42:39] Travis: And can you give us context? I would imagine these top level professional games are decided by half a point, 1.2 points. So is there a way to think about a two point penalty in these sorts of game? Is that a. It's a huge deal, correct?

[42:54] Gazza White: Oh, it certainly can be. For instance, if you consider that Korean games are played with six and a half komi, a two point penalty means if you're black, you're giving white eight and a half points, which you simply wouldn't want to do at the start of a game. So to give a player eight and a half points, komi, without, you know, just outside of the moves of the game is. It's a big deal.

[43:21] Travis: That's crazy. Okay, so we were talking about the second game. The second time that could put a stone down on the board. He goes away to grab some water. Byun Sang-il sees this, points to it, and calls the referee over. And then the. There was a whole bunch of arguing, I believe from Ke Jie's side, and rightfully so. Any comments on that?

[43:46] Gazza White: Yes. I should point out that this is only the second game. And Ke Jie won the first game. So even if he forfeits this game, there's still a Game 3. But after the second violation in the second game, there was a game pause and a discussion with the referees. This was held behind closed doors. You couldn't see this on stream, but I believe it took quite a long time, perhaps an hour or so. And in the end, the Chinese delegation, well, the Chinese team, Ke Jie and his manager decided to accept the penalty of a game loss and were looking forward to playing game three. It should be mentioned that as a new rule, it was communicated to the Chinese national team in advance of the final that this was a new rule. So the Chinese team was aware of the rule. It was not a case of the Koreans suddenly making up some arbitrary rule to try and trick the Chinese team. So I believe that is part of the reason why the Chinese team were willing to accept the result of Game two. Because strictly speaking, Ke Jie did violate the rule as.

[45:01] Gazza White: As arbitrary and strict as it seems, the letter of the law was followed. So.

[45:07] Travis: And is my understanding correct that one of the reasons why he was arguing quite a bit was that while there were these pauses, there was no written down move placed in an envelope, so that there was no advantage or unfair advantage given to one over the other. Weren't they both? Or weren't those spots stopped when Byun Sang-il had his turn? And so could it be argued that gave a huge advantage to Byun Sang-il?

[45:34] Gazza White: You're absolutely spot on. I think the real controversy in the real drama and what turned this final from a slightly controversial event to a bit of a farce, was what happened in game three, where Ke Jie captured several stones and did remember to put them in his bow lid. But. But at some point later on in the game when there was a big complicated fight, Ke Jie again was a bit forgetful and made two captures, one after the other, that he didn't put in the bowl lid. After the first capture happened, I believe the referee went to speak to the Chinese national coach rather than immediately interrupt the game. But then once the second coach capture happened, the referee paused the game once again. And this is where Ke Jie got quite upset. Because as you said, this pause happened while it was Byun Sang-il's time to think. It was Byun Sang-il's move, and the position was quite complex. According to AI, Byun Sang-il had a commanding position.

[46:49] Gazza White: But there was a fight in the top right corner that put one of Byun Sang-il's groups under a lot of pressure. And so it really was a pivotal moment in the game where Byun Sang-il had to find the right continuation to save his group. So Ke Jie was upset that in such a pivotal moment, the game was paused, which gave Byun Sang-il essentially free time to think about the position because the clocks were paused as well. So Byun Sang-il could think about the position and try and figure out what moves to play without losing any extra time. So Ke Jie immediately got upset about the game being paused in such a way. And indeed, in Game two, the pauses happened while it was Byun Sang-il's move as well. It is a point worth discussing because the penalty for such a rule violation is meant to be two points. But if it's paused on the opponent's time, then the opponent gets the extra benefit of not just the two points, but extra time to think about the position.

[47:59] Gazza White: And this is essentially what the Chinese team disagreed with in Game three. And they disagreed with it and said that when such a violation occurs and the game is paused, the person whose turn it is should be required to declare their move to the referee. And then when the game is unpaused, the referee plays the declared move and restarts the game. So that way, neither player gets extra time to think about the position. But that's not what happened. And Ke Jie subsequently refused to continue Game three.

[48:39] Travis: Wow. Fireworks. I remember seeing some of the responses from the Korean Baduk Association, the Chinese Weiqi Association. Was there any mention around the Korean association of the referee saying, oh, we're sorry, we didn't follow our protocol on that step or anything.

[48:59] Gazza White: There was a lot of discussion from the Korean and the Chinese side, and some of it was translated. I've seen a lot of discussion from fans online, and I do recall the initial discussion from Korean officials was defending their application of the rules. And essentially they didn't get into any discussion as to whether the rules were valid or too strict or, you know, just. But really just defending the referees and their application of the rules and stressing the importance of having such a rule. The Chinese side. Well, from what I could see, they were criticizing essentially the size of the punishment, essentially the severity of the rule and the way in which the rule was enforced, with the games always being paused on Byun Sang-il's turn, and also complaining that these rule enforcements and the game pauses made it very difficult for the players to concentrate. The Chinese team also officially said that they did not accept the results of Game three,

[50:15] Gazza White: which is quite notable because they did say that they accepted the result of Game two.

[50:20] Travis: Wow. So this all happens. And then I remember, just from a Western, English speaking perspective, social media kind of exploded. I've never seen so many messages on one event. In the relatively small English speaking world of go, there were a million messages. I don't know if it was the same for what you saw. And there was also a lot of, how I would say, a lot of anger. I mean, a lot of anger. And it seemed to be directed, at least from where I was seeing, a lot of it was directed at Korea and the Korean player. Do you have any reactions to what you saw?

[51:02] Gazza White: The volume of opinions and reactions from English speaking fans was greater than I've. I think I've ever seen since. Well, at least since the AlphaGo matches with the professionals. I don't think I've ever seen so much activity on a Go event. From what I saw, the majority of it was it was extremely passionate and a lot of it was not very pleasant towards the Korean Association. There were many people that were accusing Byun Sang-il of trying to get Ke Jie disqualified in Game 2 by getting the referee's attention. There were people that were accusing the Korean association of being opportunistic in their application of the rules. Basically they were. They were accusing them of looking for ways to get the Korean player the victory. The most extreme were essentially accusing Korea of cheating. I've also had discussions with some people who are very close to the Korean professional scene. And even for those people, the common opinion, the common feeling is that the penalty was too much.

[52:20] Gazza White: Having a two points penalty for the first violation and then a game loss for the second violation is over the top from what I heard. And indeed, the Korean Baduk Association did have a meeting perhaps a month after the final and they did change the penalty to be, I believe, two points for every violation. So the first violation is still two points, but every subsequent violation in that game will also be two points. There won't be a game loss.

[52:52] Travis: And aren't there other major tournaments? Is it the Ing Cup where there are time penalties? Or is this across most of the majors?

[53:00] Gazza White: The Ing Cup is quite a unique tournament in that they do have a time penalty, but it's not really a rule violation. They have maybe 2 hours and 40 minutes of time to play your game and then if you use up 2 hours and 40 minutes, you can spend 2 points to get an extra 20 minutes.

[53:21] Travis: Got it. So the way you're saying it, it's really built into the rules as opposed to a rule violation.

[53:27] Gazza White: Yes, yes. I don't think that players intend to spend more than 2 hours and 40 minutes, they would rather not spend any points to get extra time. Sometimes it simply happens, and players can use it strategically if it benefits them at that point in the game. For instance, if they see that they're winning by a comfortable amount of points and they want to spend a little bit extra time to make sure that all of their groups are safe and everything like that, then it may be advantageous. But for something like this LG Cup penalty, there's no advantage to not putting your stone in the bowl.

[54:07] Travis: So what's been the fallout since? So you reference the fact that Ke Jie has or has not entered certain other big tournaments. What have you seen there?

[54:19] Gazza White: Yes. So in the months following the LG Cup final, there have been two international tournaments that have begun. One of them is the world's strongest tournament, which is a round robin featuring nine of the strongest players in the world. Ke Jie was given a wild card entry into that tournament. So one of the nine players was a wild card picked by the organizers, and that decision was Ke Jie. But he withdrew from that selection after the LG Cup final, and so he was replaced by Dang Yifei. Another tournament that happened in April, the Beihai Xinyi Cup, I probably haven't pronounced that correctly. I'm sorry, but it's.

[55:05] Travis: It's better than I would do. Yeah.

[55:08] Gazza White: This is a Chinese tournament featuring 64 players, and Ke Jie was once again selected as a wild card. He also withdrew from this tournament, and he was replaced by Dang Yifei. Now, in the Beihai Xinyi Cup. Byun Sang-il did participate in that one. So people were speculating that he withdrew from the tournament because Byun Sang-il was playing and he didn't want to play Byun Sang-il again. However, in the world's strongest tournament, Byun Sang-il didn't qualify for that tournament, and Ke Jie withdrew from that one as well. So the speculation is that Ke Jie is a little bit, perhaps maybe currently disillusioned from professional Go. Understandably, he feels like this LG Cup opportunity was stolen from him, or at least taken from him unfairly. And so perhaps he may be disillusioned with playing professionally at the moment. And in the two and a half months since the LG Cup final, I don't believe he's played any official games.

[56:14] Travis: It's interesting. And you think about all this and you can really. You could lean a lot of different directions. You could say, oh, shame on the Koreans. You could say, oh, shame on the Chinese or all these sorts of things, or you could give everybody the benefit of the doubt. But the reality is it's one of the largest world championships and it has a lot of status and history from what I hear. And there's also a lot at stake. So it's hard for it not to be a very charged event. I was just so surprised at the reaction afterward.

[56:48] Gazza White: It's an excellent point. The fact that it is such prestigious and such a high profile event. It does mean that the organizers have an obligation to make sure that the event runs smoothly. And obviously if a player is being disruptive or willfully breaking protocol, then those players should be punished. But I think here we really had a perfect storm. We have a Korean tournament with Koreans who are known for their strict application of the rules. You have Ke Jie, who is a bit of a maverick, I would say. Like he forges his own path, he does his own thing both on the board and off. And not really someone who's known to keep the status quo, stay in line, that sort of thing. Also Byun Sang-il, who I don't really know much about him, I don't know anything about him personally, but he seems like the kind of person who's just. Who seems to be easily intimidated. Not on the board per se, but certainly someone who doesn't break rules, someone who keeps in line. Yeah, I think all of that combined to lead to what was a bit of a farce,

[57:56] Gazza White: bit of a disappointing way to end a tournament.

Playing Go Seigen with TelegraphGo

[58:19] Travis: This season. Our Go player in residence is none other than TelegraphGo, who you may know from his great commentaries on YouTube, as well as him being a very high dan-level player in the US and also teaching. So I was able to ask some fun and varying questions with TelegraphGo. We're going to start with the first conversation we had which was around who he would play with, if he could play with any historical Go figure and why. So let's go to that now.

[58:54] TelegraphGo: Frankly, most of the historical figures would absolutely obliterate me. Pretty much anyone that you could name. It would annihilate me off the board. But it would be very interesting to play the ones who have interesting thoughts about the opening. The way that Go Seigen and the way that Shusaku played. Both of them actually sort of innovated towards a more influential style in the opening in a way that's a little bit counter to the idea of the modern AI 3-3. So I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen to Go against particularly Go Seigen would actually be Playing a 4-4 that you could 3-3 under. I'd be so curious to see how he would handle that. And it's not like the rest of the game would be that different, but sort of to see the, the reaction if I could play some historical player. The main problem is I'm so weak that they probably just think I'm an idiot.

[59:58] Travis: See, but that's crazy, right? Because your level from an amateur perspective is like so high. Like let's just say for argument's sake, they were like, okay, I get it. TelegraphGo. You're, you know, at this level and I'm, you know, Go Seigen is almost like kind of considered the Go genius. If they accepted that premise and played with you, I mean, it's just like a teaching game, right? It's like if you gave me a teaching game, I mean, there's still something you would get in the obliteration.

[01:00:28] TelegraphGo: Oh yeah. From that perspective, I would definitely pick Go Seigen. I think he has the most, the coolest historical style, the most interesting and the most brilliantly human. At least to me there's lots of stuff. When I see a Go Seigen game, I'm like, oh my goodness, this guy is generational, you know, absolute once in a humankind talent.

[01:00:50] Travis: Right? Please correct me, but it sounds like Go Seigen's style and his games are how I would say, maybe less straightforward then other players. Like I keep hearing that a very famous player like Lee Chang-ho, the Stone Buddha. Sometimes people say, hey, you can look to his games as being perhaps oftentimes a little bit easier to understand.

[01:01:15] TelegraphGo: The thing about understanding Lee Chang-ho is that it's easy to recognize his moves as valid moves, but very hard to recognize his moves as necessary moves. To know why the other moves are not valid to Lee Chang-ho is the hardest part and that's why he is so much better than his, his opponents. So to me actually that style is really hard. Well, it's really hard. But also I can play against that style by playing against AIs or even just very strong human players today. But there's this sort of magic and innovation. That's why I want to play Go Seigen. He's the one who, who knows that, who can maximize the mystery in the game as he would. You know, naturally blew me off the board as everyone else would,

[01:02:03] Travis: but it would be so amazing to be blown off the board by him. And just to finish that thought with Lee Chang-ho, I think is what you're saying that he plays a move and then after the fact, you say, oh, that move makes sense. I can understand, like, what it's trying to accomplish. But then to be Lee Chang-ho and get through the thought process to say, oh, I'm gonna play that move and not play other moves, that's the challenging part.

[01:02:26] TelegraphGo: That fair. There's a huge amount of detail in the game that is very easy to overlook, and Lee Chang-ho overlooked a lot less of it than basically everyone else. When you watch this game, you will also overlook all the detail. It looks easy. What he was doing.

[01:02:48] Travis: Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it. Well, that's all the time we have for this episode. We covered a lot of ground, so hopefully you enjoyed it, and I will catch you next time. This is all things go.