It would be interesting to know if both teams flat out refused a rematch. Such an impasse might explain the final change. Certainly, I don't see anything else that does.

_________________
North Lecale

But rematch would be a stupidest idea in this stupidity fair.
If they played it under same rules, what would change?

It's not that stupid if you preface it with "We apologize for not having proper rules in place at the start of this event. From now on, these are the rules that we will use." I think it is quite diplomatic that way.

_________________
North Lecale

How could they react and help him? Do you think they would leave KGS and choose another server because of a 3-second lag? Did they do it now, after a 10-second lag?
It looks no measures that would cope with lags were taken now, even after one game was lost due to a 10-second lag.

(Moreover, if Mateusz reclaimed that loss of a period due to a 3-second lag, the referee would ask him whether he had another lag before. If Mateusz acknowledged he had some half-second lags before, it might end for him by another game lost by a refereee decision. )

So far it looks the message from the referee is

• in case of lag problems you must inform us so that we can react
• now we are informed, and we won't react

But I may be mistaken, and they will play next game with real boards and clocks, and proctors will send moves to KGS?

edit: clock->clocks

Finally a good idea.

While trying to send previous reply:



Lag appears in topic about lag, showing off now, obviously.

That would be either impractical or open even bigger can of worms. You either have smart client on players computer open for tinkering and fooling the server(there's reason why dumb clients are default...Smart clients can be tinkered and there's then no way for server to verify. In effect player could give himself more byo-yomi than assigned time and server would get moves correct times) OR you have to go for heavy duty. Private custom client with own servers installed on (laptop) computers which are delivered for the game by 3rd party for players and never left alone with players to ensure they don't install any hacks. Preferably with firewall preventing access to anything but relevant addresses for game.

Do you think that's feasible? But as it is only way to play for big prize pools online clearly. As is this is not appropriate for prize pools when server lag players can't control can decide fate of that money.

Of course only way they could do something to that would be fly them to same place and play it live rather than online.

Online go seems to be failure for big real money tournaments and more of for fame and fun.

Kazan? Howabout finland on various sites. Happens to me as well. It's not just Kazan. It's INTERNET. Lag is quaranteed period. Whole TCP protocol is built on assumptions packets WILL be lost and built so that they will get through no matter how long it takes. Because delays and packet losses are 100% quaranteed part of internet. There is no way to ensure those will never happen.

One way to reduce the costs could be:

• Play a few rounds online, but each side uses a real board and a real clock, the proctor relays moves on KGS.
• For the final rounds, use an international event (e.g. IMSA) that most players attend to anyway, and stay 2-3 more days.

I know, I should have said "at least in Kazan there is a serious lag problem which may cause delays of more than 10 seconds".

Players should call the referee or TD when an irregularity has occurred, to protect themselves.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I live in a major metropolitan area in the US, and I regularly get a message saying, "You are not connected to the internet." It can take minutes to reconnect.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The question is: what is an irregularity?

The text "to protect themselves" indicates "irregularities" might be regarded from the point of view of players.
From the point of view of Mateusz a 3s-lag wasn't irregular, and Mateusz got accustomed with it, by playing at least 10s in advance.
Only the 10s-lag was irregular, and he reported it.

Still the verdict is blaming Mateusz.
So it looks in the verdict they speak rather about general KGS/internet irregularities. But lags are quite regular with both internet and KGS.

For this particular tournament, with one player playing locally, you can have the player using a real board with a clock, while a proctor relays the plays online, plays the opponent's stones, and keeps the time record offline. The proctor may also count byoyomi, just like in the old days.

As for large tournaments with several players in one location at any time, perhaps they could play on a local network, with the local server keeping time and relaying plays to and from the internet. The organizers would be responsible for the integrity and security of the local server.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Better safe than sorry.



I sympathize. I do. IMO the netlag problem was known by the organizers and not his responsibility to report. But any net lag is, in terms of keeping an accurate record of time usage, an irregularity. Certainly a 3 second lag is significant.



Yes. I blame the organizers for using KGS to keep the time record.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Although contrived, we can think of many irregularities in face to face play:

1. A player observes that his clock is rusty and when he pushes, it takes a few attempts to push through. It's mildly irritating but no big deal. This can happen in multiple games of one player, or across a few players. They may report the nuisance or not. At one point some player tries to push and the damn thing won't. Would he lose on time for failure to report on prior nuisance?
2. A player observes that the opponent is putting his stones not quite on the intersection. But from the logic of the game, the intention is pretty clear. Occasionally the player (subject) moves the opponent's stones a few inches to get them spot on. A nuisance but nothing worthy of reporting. Then the opponent claims his stone is actually on the adjacent intersection in a vital capturing race. The subject loses the capturing race, because he failed to report the earlier nuisance
3. A kid walks about the tournament hall and bumps into the table, twice. No harm done, just a nuisance. Then the third bump pushes a few stones off the table. The opponent claims they were never there. The subject loses, with aggravating argument that he didn't report the earlier nuisance.

Are these all cases of "better safe than sorry"? What would the organizers have done if the subject had reported the nuisance? Is the player observing any kind of nuisance fully responsible for the eventual result? And is an unobserving player protected from the loss by his lack of observance?

A good point is this:

IMO these examples are different, because there may be a remedy action taken by the organizers: the clock may be replaced, opponent asked to place stones better, a kid kicked out of the room.

Contrariwise, I don't think Mateusz could expect any real action which would prevent the 10-s lag.

So, there is a contradiction between

• the Mateusz's solution, which was naturally right, but formally questionable
• the (rather rigid) formalism of the referee

It is a useful lesson for Mateusz: in legal affairs and in go disputes, natural logic may be surpassed by formalism.

edit: I said "may be surpassed" intentionally. Referees decided naturally in the case of "four passes" where one player captured all opponent's stones in his own territory, and then claimed stones in opponent's territory were living stones.
Anyway I agree with Bill's "better safe than sorry".

In most legal systems, a case A vs. B where A complains about a decision and B does not, the result would be either to keep the decision or to change it to A's favour, not to change it to B's favour. In this case it was changed to B's favour.

Had Mateusz reported the lag earlier, a proactive decision could have been made. Perhaps they would have stated that in the event of a disconnection the game would be resumed, and/or that the proctor's job requires monitoring the times. I suspect that in that circumstance, there would be fewer recriminations.

The fact that I think the referee shouldn't have decided as he did is all the more reason that we should avoid creating a situation where the referee must decide after the fact.

_________________
Occupy Babel!