For me there is no perfect solution, so i don't really care about what will be the Appeal's Committee decision
What we say here can influence the readers.
So i find dangerous to write that in a Go tournament, sportsmanship doesn't matter.

In a discussion about a goodwill tournament, sowing discord matters.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Playing until the counting phase is not an unsportsmanlike way to lose. Do you think all pro games that didn’t end by resign were played out because the pros didn’t know the count? Or is it because they were unsportsmanlike?

Are you sure that it is I who misunderstands what “sportsmanship” means?

_________________
be immersed

I’ll note that, if it were my own game and I were playing for myself in Eric’s shoes, Id probably consider giving the win to Mateusz after the fact.

But then again, if I were in Mateusz’s shoes, I’d accept my loss on time, albeit frustrating.

But I don’t blame either player for not doing so, because they are both worthy of winning the game from some perspective, and they are playing for their respective teams.

So the right thing to happen is for the organizers to come to an agreement and make a decision. It’ll then be sportsmanlike for the players to accept whatever decision that may be.

_________________
be immersed

IMO sportsmanship is going BEYOND what is required by the rules to pursue the ideals/spirit of the game. Not doing so does not mean you are unsportsmanlike, it's just neutral. Unsporting behaviour is behaviour within the rules but against the spirit of the game.

So resigning a game you are clearly losing near the end to avoid a 'cheap' time win is sporting behaviour. Continuing to play is not "sporting behaviour", but it is neither unsporting behaviour, It's just neutral. Playing obviously not-working moves (for your level, what is obvious for a dan player is not necessarily for a 25k) inside territory to win a game on time is unsporting. Playing a sudden death game out to a sensible counting position and winning on time is neutral. Resigning would be sporting, it's the player's choice.

I’ll agree with that definition, Uberdude. By this definition, I don’t think that Eric was unsportsmanlike in his behavior - do you?

_________________
be immersed

No. He was neutral.

You should stop fallacious argument like this one:
last 3 pages on go4go win by 10 points or more:1/90
win by resign:73/90.

And what you say is not "playing until the counting phase is a totally sportsmanlike way to lose" but "playing until the counting phase hoping a win by time/win by lag is a totally sportsmanlike way to lose".(I don't say it's what Eric did)

Second logic error: you assimilate loss by time and by lag as the same.
But in the first case ,its Mateus responsibility, second case it's not.(you can't ask to play 30s byo-yomi agaisnt 1 min)


If we accept loss by lag as a classic loss, you legitimate DDOS.
We are not even sure Mateus was not a victim of DDOS by an angry american kid who want to avoid a sweep.

For me the final result of this game doesn't really matter,except maybe for AGA reputation,the most important is what we do to avoid that in the next games.

P.S: Totally agree with Uberdude.
But i expect more than only neutral behavior from someone who play for his country.

And here I thought we were just going around in circles without saying anything new. I'm glad I kept reading.

Who knows, if Eric is declared the winner maybe the russian secret services will attack his computer.

It is questionable whether conditions where Eric could decide between "i will be sportmanlike" / "I will be neutral" were met.

I mean, they were met only if Eric knew that Mateusz had so serious connection problems that there was a danger to lose on time.

So let me clarify what you mean: it is not unsportsmanlike to go to the counting phase, but it IS unsportsmanlike to go to counting phase if you are 10 behind on the board.

Is 7 points ok? At what move shall we be required to resign? Is it a function of points?

Please enlighten me...




Um, no. Why do you want to change the content of what’s i said? I believe this is called a straw man argument.



This is debatable. There were no special rules for lag as far as I know. If I were playing under those conditions, I’d avoid playing on a poor connection. I’m sympathetic to his situation, so I wouldn’t say a lag is his fault. But it’s not totally resistant to mitigation, either.



I do not advocate DDOS in any way.




I’d hope that you’d hold Mateusz to the same standard.

_________________
be immersed

We need to stop treating Mateusz as the victim of connection issues. Do we have data about his network latency?

Some point to the city he was in - obviously he had a bad connection. This is problematic:

1.) If his choice of Internet connection does have worse latency, then this was a poor strategic choice on his part to play an Internet game.

2.) It has not been shown that Mateusz even had worse network latency. Some folks argue this since he lost on time. But how do we know Eric’s connection wasn’t worse? Maybe Eric lost a byoyomi period from lag. Maybe he lost thinking time. All what-ifs. We have no data on latency issues from either player, except that one player lost on time.

FWIW, my parents live in rural Michigan, in the USA. I wouldn’t think of playing a tournament game there, because their internet connection sucks.

_________________
be immersed

If there was no connection issue, there would be no debate : Mateusz would have lost.

The only factual question is : Did he makes his move on his computer in due time?

If the answer is yes, he's a victim of connection issues. Note that it doesn't say what to do in this case, you could still award the game to Eric, void the game, or whatever the organizators decide.


(by the way, if the answer is no, he's a liar, and that could be considered cheating)

I believe there are plenty of ways for the answer to be no and for him not to be a liar (e.g., he thought he played his move but the KGS misclick-prevention system denied it, and he didn't notice).

Yes, I agree that being a victim of network connectivity issues is possible - my complaint is more that it is a slippery slope to label Mateusz as a network connectivity victim without more data.

I work in the field of network analytics, and we make graphs of latencies, netflow coming from routers, and so on. One thing that's clear is that the streaming data is quite volatile. Even for a 10 second window of streaming data, you'll have jumps and drops in network activity on a regular basis. Customers are often interested in anomolies, and in order to detect anomolies, we need to analyze the trends of historical network data. For example, sometimes a router might get a lot of traffic at 10pm UTC on Tuesday, but less traffic other days.

Coming back to the problem at hand, let's assume that we say that, "yes, there was network lag at the 10 second window of time in which Mateusz lost on time". What can we do with only that data to be fair? Not much.

Let's say you make a concession to Mateusz for his network issue at time [<game-end> - X] for an X-second window of time. Then to be fair, we need to backpedal the game and see what network issues occurred at earlier windows of time. Maybe Eric had more network lag than Mateusz for the entire game. Or maybe it was up and down. Or maybe Eric had worse latency except for at the very end of the game. Who knows?

It's a big oversimplification to give an exception for a lag at one moment near the end of the game, when no concessions have been made for the other couple of hundred moves.

Unless the rules stated what to do for lag beforehand - which they didn't.

_________________
be immersed

Referee (in)decision: Mateusz lost on time

its not a question of points, its a question of intention.

this what you say:
"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."
For me it means:You can't expect someone to resign if he can have a win by lag/time.
For me both part of the sentence are true,but the second one to justify the first, it is for me unsportsmanlike behavior.



But if a player is DDOS, its a free-win for his opponent, and no-contest possible, because if your connection is your responsibility protection against DDOS too.

Fenring, ddos attacks, trying to get your opponent to lose on time by playing inside their territory, etc. are all unsportsmanlike. None of that happened here as far as we can tell, but if it did happen, the person doing it would be cheating, Id think.

There should be a policy on what happens in the case of lag for future tournaments.

_________________
be immersed

Very interesting. I think we had all guessed what the original decision from Kim Myungwan was.

The reason for the protest sounds a bit petty to me. You are after all trusting the proctors to make sure that no cheating happens. It would be interesting to see the exact wording of the protest.

All in all, I'm pretty disappointed that the referee's original decision was reversed. I really expected a rematch to take place.
<edit>
It is particularly surprising to go from Restart from the clock malfunction > Rematch > Mateusz loses by time.

_________________
North Lecale