POLL: Lui vs Surma clock dispute

[Arcaress]

Kirby, considering that Ali Jabarin already called the game for Surma at that point, it's probably accurate to say "clearly lost" and "obviously". Plus there were no weak groups or dangerous cuts left to mess up position, right? So that what it was, clear win for Surma, we all know that. Why obfuscate that fact?

[Kirby]

Kirby, considering that Ali Jabarin already called the game for Surma at that point, it's probably accurate to say "clearly lost" and "obviously". Plus there were no weak groups or dangerous cuts left to mess up position, right? So that what it was, clear win for Surma, we all know that. Why obfuscate that fact?

Because it's not "clear" or "obvious" considering the time situation. We are talking about two different things. It is surely clear that Surma was leading on the board. It is not clear that Surma won the game, even now. It is not obvious that he should win the game. Am I speaking a different language?

I guess it might just be a difference in perspective that's hard to overcome.

[EdLee]

off-topic:

Hi Kirby,

Am I speaking a different language?

Depends: Literally, no. Else, yes.

Option 1: "...the game clock says he won."

• the clock doesn't literally speak;
• even if it's a Citizen clock that literally speaks, it still wouldn't have announced that so-and-so had won or lost, or the reason -- it still would be up to the TD to officiate the result;
• who exactly is "he" here? even though the sentence already states the name;
• which game clock are we talking about, exactly?

"...the game clock says he won" is non-literal, shorthand for "the KGS server timer for this particular game showed that game time had run out for so-and-so," understood by a general English-conscious audience.

Similarly, "...he had a clearly won game" is also non-literal, shorthand for "so-and-so had a board position that's obviously winning for so-and-so, because so-and-so was obviously ahead on points, and nothing was going to change this situation if both players continued to play 'normal', 'optimal' moves for the rest of the game, and if no crazy stuff happened, such as heart attacks or the Spanish Inquisition, etc." Thus encapsulated in Javanes's literal "lost on the board". This, too, is understood by a general English-conscious audience.

Balance between normal chats, theses, and legalese.

If anything, one can pick on the wording of the original poll language.

it's a type of persuasion that pushes your own thoughts/bias about the situation.

Sound advice; good for one to ponder the reasons one's take is different from certain others'.

Years ago, someone coined the term Literal-Man. For me.

Pick our battles. Wisely.

[Kirby]

Pick our battles. Wisely.

Point taken, and I think the advice is appropriate here. Thanks for the perspective.

[Uberdude]

From the options presented I'd give half a vote to 1 (Eric win), nothing to 2 (Mateusz win by fiat, thought option 3 is effectively the same and Eric may resign immediately to be sporting), and a whole vote to all of options 3-6. But having to pick at most 2 went for 3 and 5. Most important is picking one both sides can accept and continue in good spirits. This event is supposed to be a celebration of the AGA and EGF pro systems and something I've been looking forward to for years, and hope continues for years. I wouldn't want this unfortunate incident to jeopardise that.

[k0n0]

Who should win?

The question is unclear and may be interpreted in may ways:

Who should win considering the Transatlantic tournament rules/agreements (which we don't know, seemingly)?
Who should win from my personal point of view and in a general situation? Is it a question how any sensible rules of a (general) tournament shall be formulated?
Who should win from my personal point of view and in this concrete situation, supposing organizers forgot to set up clear rules about internet lags?

[Bill Spight]

Most important is picking one both sides can accept and continue in good spirits.

Hear, hear!

[silviu22]

I would give Eric Lui the win and let him play the next European player. But, since there is this a highly unusual and controversial situation, I would not eliminate Matheusz Surma and push him to the end of the list. It might be the other 4 European players would defeat the two remaining Americans and then it won't matter that Matheusz wasn't eliminated

[dsatkas]

I still believe the most honest response would be to resume the game, which is basically the same as giving the win to Surma, but that's not my favourite outcome. If it were up to me, i would prefer Surma to win on paper, but Eric be able to continue with the next EGF pro. That way, we accept the superiority of Surma and we get an extra game.

[Galation]

the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Monty Python’s Flying Circus

Sorry I haven't been unable to resist any more

[Knotwilg]

Sorry I haven't been unable to resist any more

The winner can play the next match. The loser gets ... the comfy chair!

[Joaz Banbeck]

I've changed my signature to four thumbs down in protest of the fourth Transatlantic game.
I urge all K19 members who dislike the decision to do the same. ( a thumbs down emoji is a colon, "tmbdown", and a colon )

[smartgo]

My blog post on the topic:
https://smartgo.blog/2019/05/15/spirit-of-the-game/

[gamesorry]

I think any decision that implies 100% win/lose for one side or the other would be quite an unsatisfactory. Even flipping a coin would be better than that.

I feel "Rematch. Void the game and play it again" is the best solution. We can watch another exciting game and the stronger player naturally gets a better chance to win. And everyone has much less to complain if the game result is decided by the game itself.