I think that the reports so far indicate that an electronic clock that manages the byoyomi all by itself absolutely needs a very noticable time alert.

I think that it is very frustrating to lose a won game mainly due to a clock malfunction. A clock that requires constant checking would be a major distraction, and a clock where you do not know that it needs constant checking is simply a trap.

The top players have a 1 minute byoyomi. I would like to know whether Rob van Zeijst really had realized he was in byoyomi, since most players would play within a minute in the late endgame anyway.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

This is also why an electronic clock that manages byoyomi itself is a necessity. So you must have the talking/beeping/singing/dancing clock, and it MUST be in perfect working order.

Personally I do not understand why some people don't like the talking clocks. You don't want it telling you you're about to run out of time? Well, if you're playing against me maybe you could win unfairly as I've been known to not notice my opponent was in byoyomi until more than 15 minutes had passed with a chess clock. So maybe that's a feature. But I think it's better for the clock to tell you so that you can make a move, than for the tournament director or your opponent to tell you that you already lost.

And this time alert at the border of basic thinking time and Byoyomi must be independent of the sound level of the clock. Best solution would be that this alert has ACTIVELY to be switched off by the player.

If you compare the situation to using analogue clocks, there is a clear sign that nobody can overlook (IF he has a look): the flag has fallen !

This it true even for the opponent who - if the player does not notice - usually would give a hint that Byoyomi has begun. Just because there is no one really counting on for the player.

So Tournament rules should make clear that a player can only clain a win by time if both players have agreed that Byoyomi for a player has started. A remark on the result sheet would be helpful.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Main problem with this issue was that there was only one byouyomi period available. When organizers decided to use only one byouyomi period instead of three, they also doomed Zeist or other top player (not to mention all other players who played with 1x30 sec killer byouyomi!) will lose by time. It is just too hard to control time in difficult situations, if there are no backups in reserve.

It is foolish to say that time control is part of the game, if it is too difficult part of game to handle even for 7-dan. 3x50 sec is far less prone to accidental timelosses. Especially in Weekend tournament where there was just 1x20 sec over time controls was absolutely horrible to play. (Having Ing clocks did not make things any better.)

Time to think about introducing Fischer Timing, even if it is only used for overtime management...

I fully agree with this and would add that the time system with a number of byo-yomi periods is the best. It leads to fewer games lost on time and fewer games lost on silly mistakes or dubious bluff play towards the end of the games. It's simply more satisfactory and better go if the games don't end in such ways, regardless of whether you win or lose.

On the other hand, once the rules have been decided the players have to adhere to them of course. The decision of the appeals committee in the casa discussed above seems very good to me.

cheers,
Henric

The 3rd arbitration instance is still investigating the case. The 2nd instance decided just before round 10, during which some of the involved persons were playing. Time in between the end of round 10 and prize giving was too short for us to solve the case until the prize giving. We will announce the final decision.

From http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/ecrules.htm

Of course, some interpretation had to be done, because the new Ing Timers can handle only 10, 20, 30 and 60s byoyomi.

Cheers,
Vesa

It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to realise that deaf people play go, too. Also, although I'm not in a position to confirm this myself, I'm told that talking clocks irritate or confuse people on adjacent boards.

I've seen games where people with difficulty seeing have been helped by their opponents when using tick-tock-only analogue clocks, but whether such sportsmanship can fairly be expected when big prizes are around is hard to say.

Maybe the most fundamental point is that a bad workman always blames his tools?

No, not at all. I rather think that this is an unfair generalization.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Everytime I heard the neighbour boards clock saying "last ... seconds ..." I could not resist looking at my clock how much time I had left.

Then trying to remember the variation I was trying to read, sometimes doing it all from scratch. This can also be as disturbing as having to constantly check in byoyomi.

And byoyomi is byoyomi, i.e. additional time. It may naturally require constant checking because you are anyway not supposed to play as comfortably as in your main time.

I don't know if it is written somewhere in the rules that the clock has to warn the players but if not, then it is just a bad habit to rely on it. If you have used up all your time, it is still your responsibility.

What about kanadian byoyomi, would you expect the clock to count your stones or would you check them yourself?

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

I have been fighting this misconception for years now. A player either has time left or not. Hassling a player for using a specific portion of his time is nonsense.

It has been established that sudden death, i.e., a fixed amount of time for an unfixed number of moves, does not work out. That is why some portion of a player's time is only allotted to him in connection with moves made. The use of this time is by no means "extra" but has to be seen as a portion taken from the overall thinking time. Intentionally making the use of this time "uncomfortable" is contrary to the spirit of sportsmanship.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

The idea is not making it uncomfortable. If you have a limited amount of time, it will inevitably be uncomfortable towards the end of it, regardless of whether it is byoyomi or sudden death main time.

If it is possible to reduce this ratio uncomfort, without disturbing other players, it is all fine with me. If not, then it is a trade-off between the comforts of different players.

In case it is found that the clocks are really required to warn the players because it is too difficult to check their own time, then the rules should be amended accordingly.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

I also find talking clocks pointlessly disruptive. I'm sure my opponent and the tables next to me would be unhappy if I sat there calling out the seconds left as his clock went low, and I don't see the difference.

I can see going over to digital clocks, because it can be very hard to tell if you have 40 seconds left or 1 minute 50 seconds left if you aren't used to seeing how long it takes for the pin thing to drop, whereas on a digital display it is easy at a glance. However, I would instantly vote against talking clocks in a tournament I'm involved in, and would think twice about attending one with talking clocks at all (it probably wouldn't affect my decision, but it would certainly be a substantial negative factor that would affect which way I decide).

I think people are entirely responsible for managing their time, and that includes checking how much time is left on the clock when appropriate. I do see the argument for people with poor sight, and I would not have the slightest problem having a talking clock for their benefit, that also says 30 minutes left, 25 minutes left at whatever intervals works, but the majority of Go players are not in this position. There is a Go player who is a fairly regular attender at UK tournaments who has difficulties in placing the stones on the board, and so calls out the move and has someone assist him by placing the stones. I likewise have no problem with this, but for the most part minimising each table's impact on the next seems reasonable to me.

Can it be sportsmanlike to have an additional handicap for one of the players, especially in a game that uses handicap stones to match the players strength ?

Go is a competion of minds,
not of hands (someone who is motor skill impaired should get some additional time to make the use of "hands" between both players even),
not of eyes (someone who cannot locate if the flag has fallen or not should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support),
not of ears (someone who has difficulties in realising what a "talking" clock says should be helped with either a more suitable clock or some human support).

As I mentioned before, when "big prizes" are there to lay a smoke screen around the players mind (and put their sportsmanship into the dark), it is mendatory to have both players agree that one of the surrounding cirumstances of their match has changed, e. g. Byoyomi has started.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

I like this quote. I think it fits the situation well.



If you want a competition that doesn't require attention to the clock, play without clocks - or with very long time settings.

Tournament go often involves timekeeping skills.

_________________
be immersed

What else is there to consider in a further appeal?

1. The clock was working and set correctly (according to the original post).
2. Both players knew the time limits and were aware of the penalty of exceeding the time limit.
3. A player ran out of time and therefore lost.

Nothing else seems relevant to the inquiry, except perhaps the fundamental law spanning all of Sport throughout time of not wanting referees to interfere with the proper result of games. Dinerchtein would probably acknowledge that he got lucky if he had a poor position on the board, but he has no moral obligation to offer his opponent an additional byo-yomi period or a new game.

Is there something I am missing?

In the meantime, we should comfort the loser (losing on time is a horrible thing has happened to us all) and get to work on that earbuds idea (and maybe some sort of vibration notification system for the deaf).

_________________
I am Tartuffe from GoDiscussions.com

There are things to consider...
1. Previous rulings
2. The idea of byoyomi is that it is reading seconds, there is supposed to be an audible countdown
3. Did the clock malfunction (the type 2 timer volume slider can move during the game more easily?)

I think it is impossible to give an answer both sides would be happpy with.

That's not the question.

If digital clocks should be designed to a "normal" use that would make it "usually" unnecessary to pay constant attention to the time (because there is something like a "beep" as warning signal) but makes it possible to have a constant look on the board, this "normal" use would be inadequate for someone who is audible disabled.

To be fair, you will have to give this diabled player more thinking time. Or a clock at which both players can realize the time be visible means only.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

You can make accommodations for disabled individuals, but if their time runs out, they should still lose the game. I'm not sure I've understood your point clearly. Can you elaborate?

_________________
be immersed