It's standard tournament practice for rulings to be applied consistently and objectively. We don't know for certain that a similar situation will never be reproduced because we don't even know what the rules are. Maybe next time, Windows Update lags someone's computer (who knows, that could have happened this time and it had nothing to do with KGS) and we're in a similar situation again because the rules only accommodated for KGS lag. I'm not saying that this is the best or only way to approach the situation, but I think it's a valid perspective.



Mateusz wrote, "Then, three players from the AGA pros team (William Gansheng Shi, Calvin Sun and Eric Lui) made an official protest - in their opinion I should lose by time. They wrote that the proctor's job is only to check if the player doesn't cheat."

That was not their general consensus (as Ryan/Gansheng stated in their statements) and they said nothing about the proctor's job (which Ryan/Gansheng also said). I'm not sure what else you're looking for.



Rumors and speculations are not excuses to make crude judgments and personal attacks. They should remain rumors and speculations and nothing more. Let's note that there is a difference between criticism (organizers should be more transparent and communicative), constructive opinions (I think abc should have happened for this reason), and flaming (xyz is a slimy disgrace and should be ashamed!). The first two are civil while the third is not.

I suppose such an outcome might be expected (I guess it's the nature of the Internet), but that doesn't make it appropriate. This is also why I said that effective communication is a difficult and overlooked skill. I agree that there wasn't much transparency or communication by the organizers, but that does not mean people should publicly flame them and other innocent parties.

The organization dropped the ball, pure and simple. This was something absolutely trivial that should have been handled in 20 minutes or less. Cases on the level with this, chess clocks breaking or timeouts occurring in online play happen at least daily in a Go Congress.

Since the organizers decided to take on the weight of 'who wins' instead of letting either the board position or existing rules and precedents cover it, they must also accept the responsibility that comes with that choice. However, I find it appalling that instead of acknowledging their mistakes and taking critique, the organizers are instead attacking the people offering the critique.

I mean seriously, some memes ridiculing the decision and people congratulating AGA on the "well-deserved win and show of sportsmanship" are not personal attacks, this is nothing compared to other international sports when judges make bad calls. Some level of public scrutiny should be expected and for that reason it is also reasonable to expect some level of professionalism in communication, commitment to sportsmanship and standards as well as fair play.

What we got, however, was a double standard -- the organizers are saying Surma should have figured out that a single prior lag spike must be reported or he would be punished, but on the other hand they are also saying that they should not be criticized because there was no way they could have seen lag being a serious problem. It's perfectly valid to call this out, especially since it effectively ended a winning streak in a major international tournament because of a rule that was invented on the spot. No one who appreciates Go can be satisfied with the result and the organizers need to accept this when they decide to call a game loss based on something outside the game.

Please stop repeating the lie that there were "personal attacks." There is critique against the decision and professionals, as public figures, sometimes will get negative public commentary as well. The organizers being unpaid volunteers does not excuse them of the responsibility they chose to bear or the bad choices they have made.

Edit: Added some emphasis because for some reason I'm having a hard time reading the font on the forum.

This is the first confirmation I've seen of what I suspected. The argument that resuming the game allows players to consult a friend/AI/calm down after the stress of byo-yomi would be much weaker if the referee was present as he/she should be. Or at the very least there should be a deputy referee present with the authority to make an interim ruling and instruct the players to continue the game there and then so that the result of "resume play immediately without a pause to ask AI" is available. The chief referee can then wake up 5 hours later and the players may appeal that the interim decision of the deputy referee was incorrect, at which point the chief referee can either accept the resumed game result or make another ruling*. The absence of a referee to make this call clearly disadvantaged Mateusz.

Also I think it's perfectly reasonable for a referee to judge the weight of the "pausing game lets you ask an AI" argument based on the board position. After all, if we are taking a lead from referee behaviour in Asia to be strict about time losses, referee decisions there have also been made about board positions. Indeed one of the main motivations for AGA / BGA rules is that referees in the West are often not strong players so we prefer the "players play it out on the board to resolve disputes" philosophy to "ask your 9p3k referee".

* IIRC this is what happened with the Dinerstein vs van Zeijst dispute at Tampere EGC. van Zeijst lost on time because his clock was silent. They resumed play at direction of referee/TD present and he won on the board, various appeals and counter-appeals to senior EGF referees bounced the result between them, can't remember who it ended up with.

This black PR will not be forget soon, i hope so. AGA is losing more and more respect. I dont want to wish anybody bad things, but karma always strikes back. Sometimes lag might be counted in years, but still punishment will be delivered.

Even I am not a noob in dealing with lag. Yesterday my opponent ran out of time on KGS, or so it seemed, to return later and continue with the clock suddenly going up again. I'm quite used to this. I asked my opponent "lag?" and was prepared to give more time.



I do.



I do.

I find the whole discussion here targeting the wrong people. There's one actor whom I'm not inclined to give some slack. It was perfectly possible for that party to gracefully get out of this, but they chose not to. So the opposite party gets out with grace and presumably with victory too.

Let's be clear. Nobody said it was the job of the referee to watch the game.

_________________
North Lecale

Question: Do you not find it hypocritical that they are asking for slack and you are asking for slack for them when they themselves decided that no slack was to be given to Surma? Why should Surma have realized lag was a big thing when now the organizers are saying they could not have seen it coming?

Why do only some people get slack? Because we like them better?

A rematch is a worse decision if it must be applied consistently when "all else besides the board state being equal". Compare the impact on this game :

Resume "Surma timeout" / Resume "Lui timeout"
New game "Surma timeout" / New game "Lui timeout"


In my opinion, the correct ruling would have been to continue the game right away. The laging player signal it to the proctor, and give him his move, the proctor confirm the situation, the clock is restarted and the player play the announced move, That's how you get minimal disturbance.

This is flawed in many ways.

The ruling to resume the game is just as independent of the board position as the ruling to play a new game.

Also, the ruling should not focus on potential future cases but on the case at hand. The sensible thing to do is to restore the conditions such that the continuation resembles an uninterrupted continuation.

Future cases should be avoided by using better equipment and modified rules to take failing equipment into account.

Of the board position, yes, but not of the other external factors, such as the delay between the pausing of the game and the ruling being published. People seem to underestimate the 'but you've ruled X in the so-and-so's game' argument.

Absolutely agree, I don't see them moving forward with the next game without presenting official measures to prevent this from happening again.

I don't understand how can rematch be more independant from external factors.
If in a next game the guy far behind disconnect he san say"now its rematch"

Watching it is different than being available for refereeing. Obviously a referee in a tournament is not watching all the games. But he's readily available should any dispute arise.

I was reacting to "There was a consensus that the ruling should be objective, and thus be independent of the board position"

Of course the ruling cannot be independent of the external factors, since the ruling called for was precisely due to external factors, not due to the board position.

Conversely, if the referee was called in to rule a board position (say some weird superko beast) then you cannot ask the ruling to be independent of the board position.

The players were not at fault. They did nothing wrong. No need to give them slack.

Earlier I laid the most blame on the organizers. This mess is the result of their incompetence. Netlag was predictable, and they even talked about losing connection, but assumed that that would be no problem, since the player could simply reconnect to KGS. So they let KGS be the official timekeeper for the event. The referee consulted people who ran professional online go tournaments before making his final ruling. The organizers should have consulted such people while planning the event. They should have known that they did not know what they were doing.

But we have a ruling, and the organizers are working on new rules for the event, sadder but wiser, now. It is time to move on and support the event. It would be sad for this event to disappear because of recriminations and ill will.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Well, in this case new rules and conditions of contest are being written, so it will not be a precedent.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, I am shocked at the naiveté of the organizers. Had none of them played on KGS before? But that is, as Albee put it, blood under the bridge.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I meant the organizers chose not to give Surma slack in the judgement, but they are now demanding slack for themselves.



Agreed, agreed, agreed, etc.



I'll be happy to move on when the organizers take action, admit they made a bad call but are sticking to it, and detail how they will work to eliminate lag as a game-decider in the future. So far they've just blamed everyone else except themselves on all accounts.

Yes. If there can be a proctor present there can be an assistant referee present, who could have made the initial ruling. OC, that may have involved some expense, as the assistant referee needs to have had some training.



Actually, resolving disputes by playing it out is the philosophy behind the Ing, Japanese, and AGA rules. (The Japanese rules may use hypothetical play, but it is still based upon that philosophy.) It may be the philosophy behind the Chinese and Korean rules as well, but I am not as familiar with them. It is true that Japanese hypothetical play is difficult for amateurs to apply, but the Japanese rules were not written for amateurs, who, IMHO, should not use them.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, and it could have been with an assistant referee on site, as Uberdude suggests.



I have not been following all that. IMO, it is improper of the organizers to engage in public debate about this. In Hajin Lee's post, quoted here by Uberdude (Many thanks, sir. ), she admits that they did not anticipate network problems with time controls, an astonishing admission(!), but did not say that they could not have anticipated that.



As a TD, I know that there was no rule invented on the spot. The ruling, though harsh, is in line with standard practice. It was not made to punish Surma.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The organizers have not been engaging in public debate (and I agree that this is the correct course of action). There was one brief Facebook post with the decision. Hajin Lee made one separate Facebook post with some additional background. All other statements of the form "the organizers have been saying" are interpretations of their statements. (I am not arguing here whether those interpretations are valid or not and am not going to get into "but what else could they possibly have meant??" debates.)