EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

Ferran · **#241**

Bill Spight wrote:

The custom at the time was to have Takahashi take and fill the 10,000 year ko, which would unquestionable have left a seki on the board.

OK. Thanks. DDK, here; I thought I might have misread it.

Thanks a lot. I'll release the thread from my hijack. My pologies, everyone.

Take care.

ez4u · **#242**

Uberdude wrote:

... The real life counterpart would be some cheeky child stole the real game clock and replaced it with another one with same settings, you press that one within your time limit and then 10 seconds later the real one announces "black lost on time" from across the room...

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then the more appropriate hypothetical counterpart would be choosing to use a board three meters from the clock and pushing the button with a long stick. Then there's no one but himself to blame for missing a few times as he tries to push the button. Surely he has to bear responsibility if he chose a location with poor connectivity.

k0n0 · **#243**

Blaming Eric for not to resign before his opponent loses connection,
assigning full responsibility for the internet route to Mateusz,
it is all nonsense of a similar caliber.

ez4u wrote:

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then ...

But asking a player to travel 2000 km for his game of go ... that beats all.

ez4u · **#244**

k0n0 wrote:

Blaming Eric for not to resign before his opponent loses connection,
assigning full responsibility for the internet route to Mateusz,
it is all nonsense of a similar caliber.

ez4u wrote:

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then ...

But asking a player to travel 2000 km for his game of go ... that beats all.

Really? I thought this thread was about a game for money between two professional go players. My mistake!

Kirby · **#245**

the go world sure has changed a lot recently. i'm reminded of the recent controversy regarding the case of Carlo Metta - 5 years ago, it wouldn't be a controversy at all, because computers weren't that good at go. now, we are embarking into new territory with internet go competitions worth lots of money. it's unfortunate that these controversies come into existence, but it's also somewhat of an interesting era for go.

k0n0 · **#246**

ez4u wrote:

Really? I thought this thread was about a game for money between two professional go players. My mistake!

1) This is not Ing cup. Travel costs of 2x2000 km might exceed the prizer money
2) I believe there are better ways how to increase the chances that the internet connection won't cause problems

;-)

Uberdude · **#247**

ez4u wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

... The real life counterpart would be some cheeky child stole the real game clock and replaced it with another one with same settings, you press that one within your time limit and then 10 seconds later the real one announces "black lost on time" from across the room...

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then the more appropriate hypothetical counterpart would be choosing to use a board three meters from the clock and pushing the button with a long stick. Then there's no one but himself to blame for missing a few times as he tries to push the button. Surely he has to bear responsibility if he chose a location with poor connectivity.

ez4u, I don't know Mateusz's current living arrangements, but I do know he recently married and his wife is from Kazan.

To continue with the stick analogy, Eric was playing with a 80 cm (New York is about 2500 km from the KGS server which is in Texas IIRC) long stick made of reliable American steel, whilst Mateusz's 3m stick was wobbly Russian wood, usually straight but occasionally bends. Given the foreseeable problems with his connection I'd agree it was unwise of him to play the game so close to the time limit (but playing faster to compensate puts him at a disadvantage 1h + 5x30 seconds vs 1h + 5x60 seconds is not a fair clock setting) or not seek to clarify from the organisers the rules regarding lag. Though I don't think that lack of wisdom means losing on time is automatically the correct result (unless he asked the referee, was told lag = lose, and then just prayed to the Gods of Russian internet).

Javaness2 · **#248**

ez4u wrote:

k0n0 wrote:

Blaming Eric for not to resign before his opponent loses connection,
assigning full responsibility for the internet route to Mateusz,
it is all nonsense of a similar caliber.

ez4u wrote:

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then ...

But asking a player to travel 2000 km for his game of go ... that beats all.

Really? I thought this thread was about a game for money between two professional go players. My mistake!

It's nice that some people actually take ez4u's joke seriously here.
On a serious note, I suppose that the final announcement about what is going to happen ought to come today. The original referee's decision was probably to resume the game. We all wait to see what the new friendly agreement will bring. Most likely nuclear war or a nude wrestling match in front of a log fire.

Fenring · **#249**

Kirby wrote:

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Bill Spight · **#250**

Uberdude wrote:

ez4u wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

... The real life counterpart would be some cheeky child stole the real game clock and replaced it with another one with same settings, you press that one within your time limit and then 10 seconds later the real one announces "black lost on time" from across the room...

Does he live in Kazan now rather than Poland? If not, then the more appropriate hypothetical counterpart would be choosing to use a board three meters from the clock and pushing the button with a long stick. Then there's no one but himself to blame for missing a few times as he tries to push the button. Surely he has to bear responsibility if he chose a location with poor connectivity.

ez4u, I don't know Mateusz's current living arrangements, but I do know he recently married and his wife is from Kazan.

To continue with the stick analogy, Eric was playing with a 80 cm (New York is about 2500 km from the KGS server which is in Texas IIRC) long stick made of reliable American steel, whilst Mateusz's 3m stick was wobbly Russian wood, usually straight but occasionally bends. Given the foreseeable problems with his connection I'd agree it was unwise of him to play the game so close to the time limit (but playing faster to compensate puts him at a disadvantage 1h + 5x30 seconds vs 1h + 5x60 seconds is not a fair clock setting) or not seek to clarify from the organisers the rules regarding lag. Though I don't think that lack of wisdom means losing on time is automatically the correct result (unless he asked the referee, was told lag = lose, and then just prayed to the Gods of Russian internet).

Given the foreseeable problems with Surma's connection, IMO it was unconscionable for the organizers to use the server to keep the time.

Bill Spight · **#251**

Fenring wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Neither player was at fault. Why should either one resign?

Javaness2 · **#252**

Bill Spight wrote:

Given the foreseeable problems with Surma's connection, IMO it was unconscionable for the organizers to use the server to keep the time.

We can go further, and suggest that the players themselves were nothing short of idiots to agree to play under such reprehensible conditions.
The best was to go with a telephone match.

Fenring · **#253**

Bill Spight wrote:

Fenring wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Neither player was at fault. Why should either one resign?

Sportmanship is not trying to win by all ways not explicitly forbidden.
For you, all player who surrend are stupid because if you surrend you have 0%win, but if you don't surrend you have 0,00001% to win by heart attack?(which is not against the rules)

Bill Spight · **#254**

Fenring wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Fenring wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Neither player was at fault. Why should either one resign?

Sportmanship is not trying to win by all ways not explicitly forbidden.
For you, all player who surrend are stupid because if you surrend you have 0%win, but if you don't surrend you have 0,00001% to win by heart attack?(which is not against the rules)

You don't know what I think.

Bill Spight · **#255**

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Given the foreseeable problems with Surma's connection, IMO it was unconscionable for the organizers to use the server to keep the time.

We can go further, and suggest that the players themselves were nothing short of idiots to agree to play under such reprehensible conditions.

Why should we do that?

Javaness2 · **#256**

Bill Spight wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Given the foreseeable problems with Surma's connection, IMO it was unconscionable for the organizers to use the server to keep the time.

We can go further, and suggest that the players themselves were nothing short of idiots to agree to play under such reprehensible conditions.

Why should we do that?

It seems to be exactly in the spirit of the discussion.

Fenring · **#257**

Bill Spight wrote:

Fenring wrote:

Kirby wrote:

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Fenring wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Neither player was at fault. Why should either one resign?

Sportmanship is not trying to win by all ways not explicitly forbidden.
For you, all player who surrend are stupid because if you surrend you have 0%win, but if you don't surrend you have 0,00001% to win by heart attack?(which is not against the rules)

You don't know what I think.

Thats why i ask the question.
If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

Javaness2 · **#258**

Fenring wrote:

If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

People resign because the rules allow them to resign.

Fenring · **#259**

As already said Javaness, sportmanship is not doing all that's allowed by the rules.

Javaness2 · **#260**

Fenring wrote:

As already said Javaness, sportmanship is not doing all that's allowed by the rules.

I think we agree on that. What we say here isn't going to change any decision by the 'Appeals Committee', but it worries me that this is day 3 of the IMSA and no decision is yet announced. I suppose if an agreement is not forthcoming, they will, and can only, revert back to the original decision of the referee.

EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

Who is online