EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Kirby]

Saying that the referee “did judge the way they expected” depends on what you consider to be a decision of judgment.

Yes, it’s true that, according to discussions that happened behind closed doors, it appears that the referee had a change of heart. According to Hajin, this was due to added information that the referee received.

But the fact of the matter is, no official judgment was made until the end when the decision was announced to the public. If the referee now changed the judgment after the public announcement, that’d be a different story.

—

The stuff that happened before the public announcement was not made public, so if we want to speculate about the decision making process, we have to go off of rumors or what interested parties have told us.

In my view, there was a single ruling - the one that was officially announced. How they got there has been partially described, but we are really just gossiping about it since we aren’t part of the discussion.

[Kirby]

The way I understand it, the referee's interpretation was that Mateusz knew that he was experiencing significant lag on a regular basis - enough to lose byo-yomi periods in games.

It is good that you are able to understand something from the referee's statement.
Both the AGA and the EGF have a tradition of an appeals committee. Will they now institute one?
The AGA has overruled KGS server rules before. The EGF has never had the opportunity to. What will they decide there?
Will they decide to connect referee and proctors over skype?
Will they decide that the referee should watch the game?
Will they decide that a byoyomi period lost via lag can be reclaimed? (Both the AGA and EGF support immediate protests related to clock malfunctions in any one game)

I hope we get the chance to meet in person someday, Javaness - I think we’d be friends

[Laurent]

Yes, it’s true that, according to discussions that happened behind closed doors, it appears that the referee had a change of heart. According to Hajin, this was due to added information that the referee received.

It is that added information that I would like to know. This case is so clear-cut that I really can't see how there could be relevant information that was not known the moment the proctor confirmed that Mateusz made his move in time.

[Kirby]

Yes, it’s true that, according to discussions that happened behind closed doors, it appears that the referee had a change of heart. According to Hajin, this was due to added information that the referee received.

It is that added information that I would like to know. This case is so clear-cut that I really can't see how there could be relevant information that was not known the moment the proctor confirmed that Mateusz made his move in time.

Ok. IMO, the issue is more polarizing than clear cut - almost like politics or religion. Yours is one perspective that many share. This thread shows evidence that it’s not the only perspective.

[Bill Spight]

Yes, it’s true that, according to discussions that happened behind closed doors, it appears that the referee had a change of heart. According to Hajin, this was due to added information that the referee received.

It is that added information that I would like to know. This case is so clear-cut that I really can't see how there could be relevant information that was not known the moment the proctor confirmed that Mateusz made his move in time.

First, according to the conditions of contest, written or not, Mateusz did not make his move in time, since the official record of time was kept by KGS. (A lousy decision by the organizers, IMHO.) OC, the referee could have overruled the official record, and apparently did so at first. The referee has a good deal of discretion.

As for what the added information was, which should have been discovered before the initial ruling, I don't think has been revealed, but is easy to guess, given a principle that referees and TDs follow in a number of games and sports. The principle in question is that players have a responsibility to protect themselves.

For instance, suppose that I am playing a ko fight and the opponent takes the ko back without playing a ko threat. We have both been lost in thought and I play a threat and then take the ko back. At this point I realize what happened and call the TD. The TD rules, correctly, in accordance with that principle, that by continuing to play after my opponent took the ko back I tacitly condoned his infraction, and have no recourse.

In this case, Mateusz continued to play with serious net lag for a long time, without complaining to the referee or organizers or asking for relief. That is the new information that could have affected the ruling, as it can be construed that by doing so he accepted the KGS time record as authoritative, even with netlag. OC, one can argue that each instance of net lag was a new irregularity, but the referee need not accept that argument.

[AloneAgainstAll]

First, according to the conditions of contest, written or not, Mateusz did not make his move in time,

Ah, so there are some unwritten conditions?

According to rules that are written (japanese rules), Mateusz did made a move (as was corroborated by his proctors), but KGS server failed to recognize that.Referee job was very simple, to question proctors and outrule KGS fail.I guess we will ping-pong that matter all the way, till some admin/mod will close this topic.

[k0n0]

That's why I would really like to know what arguments this protest contained, that made the referee change his mind?
So far, I only found things like "it was not the job of the proctor to control time" or "Mateusz should have complained earlier about lag-issues"

There might be another argument hidden in the post of Hajin Lee on facebook:
viewtopic.php?p=244202#p244202

edit:

Ah, so there are some unwritten conditions?

Probably not. At least I deduced it from a post of Justin Teng:
viewtopic.php?p=244736#p244736
"I think the main conclusions that should be drawn from this whole situation are that detailed tournament rules should be in place from the beginning"

(It looks Justin Teng is well informed and has a direct connection to the AGA team. He was able to correct statements of Mateusz Surma:
viewtopic.php?p=244744#p244744 )

[Bill Spight]

First, according to the conditions of contest, written or not, Mateusz did not make his move in time,

Ah, so there are some unwritten conditions?

Could be. After a few moves it would be apparent to all that KGS was keeping the time. No need to write that condition down.

According to rules that are written (japanese rules), Mateusz did made a move (as was corroborated by his proctors), but KGS server failed to recognize that.

I don't know about that. It is apparent that he made a move, but it is also apparent that he did not make it in time to prevent his byoyomi period from expiring on KGS.

Referee job was very simple, to question proctors and outrule KGS fail.I guess we will ping-pong that matter all the way, till some admin/mod will close this topic.

As far as I am concerned, I have no dog in this fight. But as a TD, I have a good idea what may have happened, and I can share that.

[sorin]

Referee job was very simple, to question proctors and outrule KGS fail.I guess we will ping-pong that matter all the way, till some admin/mod will close this topic.

As far as I am concerned, I have no dog in this fight. But as a TD, I have a good idea what may have happened, and I can share that.

So, what may have happened?

[Joaz Banbeck]

...

For instance, suppose that I am playing a ko fight and the opponent takes the ko back without playing a ko threat. We have both been lost in thought and I play a threat and then take the ko back. At this point I realize what happened and call the TD. The TD rules, correctly, in accordance with that principle, that by continuing to play after my opponent took the ko back I tacitly condoned his infraction, and have no recourse.

In this case, Mateusz continued to play with serious net lag for a long time, without complaining to the referee or organizers or asking for relief. That is the new information that could have affected the ruling, as it can be construed that by doing so he accepted the KGS time record as authoritative, even with netlag. OC, one can argue that each instance of net lag was a new irregularity, but the referee need not accept that argument.

So..let me extrapolate on this idea...

Assume that someday I should happen to play in some event in which Kim is the referee, and I happen to play the same player twice ( maybe the second game is a playoff game ). And further assume that in the first game I take a ko without making a ko threat, and my opponent does not notice, and I get away with it. My opponent realizes that I have snookered him, and that a complaint would not change the result, so he does not complain.

Continuing this line of assumptions: in the playoff game, I try it again, and this time my opponent realizes it before he makes his move. He insists that I have made an illegal move. He calls the TD over to the board. Kim listens to both sides, and says 'You know by now that Joaz cheats, and you didn't complain last time, so his move is okay."
My opponent is disgusted, but he respects the decision and makes his ko threat, I defend, and he takes the ko. I again take back without making a threat. Again he calls over the TD. Again, Kim tells him that he missed his chance. So I win the ko, and the game.

It seems logical to me.

[k0n0]

In this case, Mateusz continued to play with serious net lag for a long time, without complaining to the referee or organizers or asking for relief. ... it can be construed that by doing so he accepted the KGS time record as authoritative, even with netlag.

So..let me extrapolate on this idea...

Joaz Banbeck made a good point.

But let us analyze it a bit more:

Let us think about reasons how a referee may reject a complaint:
a) You didn't complain before, so you accepted status quo
b) You didn't complain before, otherwise we could provide treatment for the problem
c) You didn't complain in time, you ask to nullify one half of the game

Now let us stock up some examples
1) the example of taking ko too early, in same game, by Bill Spight
2) the example of taking ko too early, in another game, by Joaz Banbeck
3) the case Eric-Mateusz
4) my example that I will describe now

Imagine a classic real tournament. The organizers chose a small playing area, and so there is not enough room for tables and alleys between them. Alleys are extremely narrow. in order to walk in alleys, people must touch tables.
I am in byo-yomi, someone walks around and shoves to the table slightly. Stones shake themselves, but they stay at their intersections and I can play and press the clock in time.
Later someone walks again and shoves to the table more swiftly, all stones are moved, they must be rearranged and I cannot play within my byoyomi limit.

Now let us compare possible argumentations of a referee:

In situation 1) only c) may be applied
In situation 2) no argument may be applied. The Argument a) is invalid
Situations 3) and 4) are very similar. Myungwan applied b), but I think it has serious flaws: it was the organizers who chose KGS / a small playing area, they should expect problems with lags and people walking between tables. And players knew that organizers knew, and so it was natural that players would try to manage non-ideal circumstance by themselves, if possible

[Bill Spight]

...

For instance, suppose that I am playing a ko fight and the opponent takes the ko back without playing a ko threat. We have both been lost in thought and I play a threat and then take the ko back. At this point I realize what happened and call the TD. The TD rules, correctly, in accordance with that principle, that by continuing to play after my opponent took the ko back I tacitly condoned his infraction, and have no recourse.

In this case, Mateusz continued to play with serious net lag for a long time, without complaining to the referee or organizers or asking for relief. That is the new information that could have affected the ruling, as it can be construed that by doing so he accepted the KGS time record as authoritative, even with netlag. OC, one can argue that each instance of net lag was a new irregularity, but the referee need not accept that argument.

So..let me extrapolate on this idea...

Assume that someday I should happen to play in some event in which Kim is the referee, and I happen to play the same player twice ( maybe the second game is a playoff game ). And further assume that in the first game I take a ko without making a ko threat, and my opponent does not notice, and I get away with it. My opponent realizes that I have snookered him, and that a complaint would not change the result, so he does not complain.

Continuing this line of assumptions: in the playoff game, I try it again, and this time my opponent realizes it before he makes his move. He insists that I have made an illegal move. He calls the TD over to the board. Kim listens to both sides, and says 'You know by now that Joaz cheats, and you didn't complain last time, so his move is okay."

No, because making an illegal move is an infringement of the rules. Your opponent is responsible for protecting himself, but does not have the authority to change the rules. Neither does Kim. (Edit: Condoning an infringement of the rules by continuing to play does not make the next instance legal, because the rules remain the same.)

KGS is not doing anything wrong by keeping the time. Indeed, as the organizers set the tournament up (although I hope they change that before the next game) KGS was supposed to be keeping the time, regardless of netlag. The question is whether Surma accepted that condition, despite obvious and ongoing difficulties with netlag. Kim had the authority to overrule the loss on time, because of the netlag. But he had no obligation to do so.

In my opinion, had the netlag been a single incident, the principle of restoring equity would not have been in conflict with the responsibility of Surma to protect himself, because he brought the problem to the attention of the referee or organizers when it occurred. So I would have overruled the loss on time. Apparently that was the first ruling in this case, as well. But once it became clear that Surma had not brought the continuing netlag problem to the attention of either the organizers or the referee, the two principles came into conflict. OC, it was possible to regard each incident of netlag independently, but they were not really independent. Furthermore, the tournament had been set up (erroneously, IMO) without any provision for netlag. The referee's decision could go either way, but the default is not to overrule the official KGS time, and I suspect that a lot of TDs and referees would have declined to do so.

[Bill Spight]

Referee job was very simple, to question proctors and outrule KGS fail.I guess we will ping-pong that matter all the way, till some admin/mod will close this topic.

As far as I am concerned, I have no dog in this fight. But as a TD, I have a good idea what may have happened, and I can share that.

So, what may have happened?

Virtually all of my notes about this incident have addressed that question. Here is a recent one. viewtopic.php?p=244875#p244875

Kim consulted people with experience running online go tournaments. I suspect that he got advice to the effect that, by not complaining about the continuing netlag, Surma had tacitly accepted the KGS time as authoritative. The way the tournament had been set up, the KGS time was the official time.

[Javaness2]

by not complaining about the continuing netlag, Surma had tacitly accepted the KGS time as authoritative.

MS does not suggest that he had continuing netlag. He states that had one incident before. You are aware of that already.

We could accept the judgement that KGS's clock is the absolute truth, but clearly nobody had previously decided that they were. There is no confirmation the previous netlag incident was observed y a third party, hence it can be considered impossible to objectively rule upon. (Just like a misclick would be.) Here you had an instance where netlag was observed by a third party, it could be ruled upon. The nature of that ruling will probably only become clear when the new rules appear for the remaining matches.

[yakcyll]

by not complaining about the continuing netlag, Surma had tacitly accepted the KGS time as authoritative.

MS does not suggest that he had continuing netlag. He states that had one incident before. You are aware of that already.

That's what he meant by 'continuing netlag'. Consider the rest of Bill's argument in the light of that.