EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

Javaness2 · **#561**

yakcyll wrote:

You do this after the game and take this up with the referee. Your next game may be on the line because of this.
Why is this even a question? I talked to a good friend of mine, who doesn't play go, about this and his conclusion was that this would never be an issue had there been a provision in the rules to inform the tournament organizers about any and all technical difficulties that arise during the course of the tournament. I admit, I was defending the final decision despite there being no such provision, because for me it's damn clear that if something out of the scope of the tournament rules can prevent me from winning, I should figure out what to do about it and let the officials know about it, not hide it thinking it will just magically go away. Admittedly, my assumption that it is a natural reaction led to my confusion with a lot of people claiming that this shouldn't have had any impact on the final decision made by Myungwan. After all, it is only an assumption and I've been biased this way, but I can't believe I'm the only one.

Sorry, but I think this is a bit naive on several levels.
Any proposed change of the rules isn't going to stay with just the referee, the two teams would obviously have to agree to a change in rules.
I think it is safe to say that all those involved had experienced lag before. None of them thought it necessary to agree on provisions for such technical issues.
If a winning player asks to change the rules because he had a 3 second lag, I'd imagine it was marginally more likely that he would just be ignored than that the rules would be changed. We already saw here the "Get a new ISP solution".
Most go players don't complain about rule wrongness, they just get on with playing. (Mateusz's resolution to play with 50 seconds byoyomi is more the rule than the exception.) A lot of them probably consider it rude to complain about the mistakes of the organisation. This can be worsened by the small nature of the community, you're reluctant to point out to a friend that he's done something idiotic. So no, the whole complain or else something bad might happen isn't as automatic as you would imagine. Probably the only way to actually change the rules was to have this debacle.

Most organisations and tournaments don't want to think about the difficult and dirty side of things. They prefer to imagine that everything will be just fine. Griping isn't really encouraged.
Having said that, of course your reaction is perfectly valid. I might think the same way, but in my experience it isn't the typical way to proceed after experiencing a single lap blip.

Javaness2 · **#562**

Bill Spight wrote:

Edit2: Hmmm. Maybe stopping the clock in byoyomi might not be proper, but reporting the netlag problem immediately was the thing to do.

So which one do you choose as the player in overtime?

Escape your game
Contact the referee (who isn't there)

There is no written procedure to guide you here.

Bill Spight · **#563**

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Edit2: Hmmm. Maybe stopping the clock in byoyomi might not be proper, but reporting the netlag problem immediately was the thing to do.

So which one do you choose as the player in overtime?

Escape your game
Contact the referee (who isn't there)

There is no written procedure to guide you here.

Use the telephone. If there is no contact number, send an email. Contact my opponent. Contact a team member. Don't just sit there.

Javaness2 · **#564**

Don't just sit there thinking about your game. Work out what the rules might be.

Bill Spight · **#565**

Javaness2 wrote:

I think it is safe to say that all those involved had experienced lag before. None of them thought it necessary to agree on provisions for such technical issues.

The organizers dropped the ball. To say the least.

Quote:

If a winning player asks to change the rules because he had a 3 second lag, I'd imagine it was marginally more likely that he would just be ignored than that the rules would be changed.

The organizers may have been noobs, but I hope they would not be so insensitive to the dangers.

Quote:

Most go players don't complain about rule wrongness, they just get on with playing. (Mateusz's resolution to play with 50 seconds byoyomi is more the rule than the exception.) A lot of them probably consider it rude to complain about the mistakes of the organisation. This can be worsened by the small nature of the community, you're reluctant to point out to a friend that he's done something idiotic.

This attitude is quite appropriate for amateurs.

Quote:

So no, the whole complain or else something bad might happen isn't as automatic as you would imagine.

It may not be automatic, but it is professional.

Quote:

Probably the only way to actually change the rules was to have this debacle.

They are working on it, which is good.

Quote:

Most organisations and tournaments don't want to think about the difficult and dirty side of things. They prefer to imagine that everything will be just fine. Griping isn't really encouraged.

I am sure that that is so for many amateur organizations.

Bill Spight · **#566**

Javaness2 wrote:

Don't just sit there thinking about your game. Work out what the rules might be.

Do that between sessions.

Aram · **#567**

Bill Spight wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Edit2: Hmmm. Maybe stopping the clock in byoyomi might not be proper, but reporting the netlag problem immediately was the thing to do.

So which one do you choose as the player in overtime?

Escape your game
Contact the referee (who isn't there)

There is no written procedure to guide you here.

Use the telephone. If there is no contact number, send an email. Contact my opponent. Contact a team member. Don't just sit there.

I agree with Javaness that unrealistic things are being expected here..

No, if you have a very quick time control and byo you do not start thinking about using telephones, emails, or contacting anyone, you will try to finish the game.
Such things shouldnt really be your job as a professional player either, it should be the job of the coach, team manager, support group, etc.

This of course is a problem that is made larger with playing the games on the Internet where you dont have a physical referee present, and in this case we even know that a referee hasnt always been present for the online games either. So who do you contact? Again, its unrealistic to think that a player will read everyones mind in this situation and inform...

This is also of course a problem for a organisation that is still transitioning from amateur to professional.

Yes yes, we all agree, in a perfect world players will react in a perfect fashion and everyone will always be informed of everything instantly.
But that isnt going to happen.

Bill Spight · **#568**

Bill Spight wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Edit2: Hmmm. Maybe stopping the clock in byoyomi might not be proper, but reporting the netlag problem immediately was the thing to do.

So which one do you choose as the player in overtime?

Escape your game
Contact the referee (who isn't there)

There is no written procedure to guide you here.

Use the telephone. If there is no contact number, send an email. Contact my opponent. Contact a team member. Don't just sit there.

Aram wrote:

I agree with Javaness that unrealistic things are being expected here..

No, if you have a very quick time control and byo you do not start thinking about using telephones, emails, or contacting anyone, you will try to finish the game.

There were proctors present.

Quote:

Such things shouldnt really be your job as a professional player either, it should be the job of the coach, team manager, support group, etc.

No, immediate reporting is the player's job. So stop the clock if yu must. Or notify the proctor and report the problem to the organizers after the game.

Quote:

This of course is a problem that is made larger with playing the games on the Internet where you dont have a physical referee present, and in this case we even know that a referee hasnt always been present for the online games either.

It is a problem caused by the organizers.

Uberdude · **#569**

If we imagine Mateusz had read into the future of Myungwan Kim's mind of our current universe, and decided that on experiencing a lag of 3 seconds during his final byo-yomi period (not enough to cause loss of game) against Eric that he should leave the game to pause the clock, how do we know that Eric would not have lodged a protest that leaving the game was tantamount to a forfeit (and also was cheating as gaining extra time to read off the clock), and Myungwan would have made a ruling to that effect supported by reference to how online tournaments in Asia have treated escaping games as forfeits? As Laurent says you can use a lawyer-style sequence of reasoning to justify just about any outcome in this case, but it comes down to our judgement of what is fair, sporting and desirable for harmony in the community which one you decide to pick.

Aram · **#570**

But the referees ruling includes that to proctors job is _only_ to watch for bot use.. so stopping the clock, leaving, etc, and notifying a proctor would have been the incorrect course of action according to the ruling... So forget proctors.

Immediately notifying is not the players job when there is 0 recourses for doing so. No referee watching the game, the proctor not being allowed to play that role (due to ruling of the referee),
no other contact info, and more than anything, no rule on how to handle the situation.

Anyways, im not going to reply to this anymore after this, since the discussion here is going in circles and people have their very strong opinions digged down into the ground and wont move.
I dont mean this as a bad or negative thing, it is very unlikely ill change my opinion either, even if we continue for 100 pages.

This whole thing pretty much boils down to opinion anyway since there werent rules, so pointless to continue.

My personal view is that the ruling was harsh because even if you could argue that both the player and organizers are at fault (and i dont think the player was),
then the result still heavily disfavoured the player while the organizers responsibility was not even acknowledged.
(Well, that as well as the ruling changing several times, the explanations, etc etc.)

So i will agree to disagree.

Bill Spight · **#571**

I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

Aram · **#572**

Bill Spight wrote:

I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

My opinion? No, its unreasonable to think that he has to do that.

Anyways, as i said in the last post, agree to disagree.

Bill Spight · **#573**

Aram wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

My opinion? No, its unreasonable to think that he has to do that.

But he could have done that quickly, right? We can agree on that.

And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

k0n0 · **#574**

Bill Spight wrote:

No, immediate reporting is the player's job. So stop the clock if yu must. Or notify the proctor and report the problem to the organizers after the game.

You said Mateusz should have behaved like a true professional. But in this tournament he was never in a situation of true professionals. The tournament had no rules, the referee was sleeping, and later he found out the only official present (proctor) was not allowed to do any other job except to check AI cheating.

Why do you think Mateusz didnt complain to the proctor about the short lags? It is quite likely he did it.
Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

Fenring · **#575**

The referee decision is ok, its not fair to Mateus, but when there is insufficient rules, fairness of the tournament is based on player's sportmanship.
At moment american decided not only to not resign to avoid a win by disconnection, but to contest referee first's statement, (some of them publish their arguments and we can see they are stupid) , unfair decision was the only issue according to the rules.

k0n0 · **#576**

yakcyll wrote:

because for me it's damn clear that if something out of the scope of the tournament rules can prevent me from winning, I should figure out what to do about it and let the officials know about it, not hide it thinking it will just magically go away.

Kirby wrote:

He explains an incident where he lost a byoyomi period. Did he think it was unlikely to happen again? Seems he wasn’t too concerned about it when the game result wasn’t on the line.
I don’t know if he should be required to initiate a discussion, but not doing so certainly seems risky, doesn’t it?

Could you look at the similar situation which I described in italic here
viewtopic.php?p=244896#p244896
and could you explain whether you would repeat your argument in that situation too?
If not, what is the difference between these two situations?

Bill Spight wrote:

And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

Mateusz probably complained to the proctor during the game, or the proctor noticed the lag himself (he noticed a 10-s lag, he probably noticed a 3-s lag too).
And Mateusz probably didn't see a reason to do it. He could expect another behaviour of organizers, read above.

Bill Spight · **#577**

k0n0 wrote:

Why do you think Mateusz didnt complain to the proctor about the short lags? It is quite likely he did it.

I never said that he didn't.

Quote:

Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

We do not know that.

What we do know is that this tournament was poorly organized. It should have been possible to get in touch with an official on a moment's notice. And netlag in particular should have been provided for. But the organizers are working on new, and hopefully better rules and provisions.

Bill Spight · **#578**

k0n0 wrote:

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.

At this point you talk to the TD, referee, or other official.

Quote:

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.

At this point you call the TD or referee.

Quote:

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.

At this point you call the TD or referee in a loud voice. Stand up, jump up and down, whatever it takes.

Bill Spight · **#579**

k0n0 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

Mateusz probably complained to the proctor during the game, or the proctor noticed the lag himself (he noticed a 10-s lag, he probably noticed a 3-s lag too).

Maybe so. The referee should have asked the proctor what he saw. First, ascertain what happened.

Quote:

And Mateusz probably didn't see a reason to do it. He could expect another behaviour of organizers, read above.

He could expect incompetence from the organizers.

Edit: Later thought. Maybe he did. Why else impose a 10 second penalty on each byoyomi period if you expect the organizers to take care of netlag situations? Why keep silent about the problem if you expect a helpful response?

k0n0 · **#580**

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:

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.

At this point you talk to the TD, referee, or other official.

The organizers chose this playing area, they see the alleys are narrow. What kind of their reaction would you expect?

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:

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.

At this point you call the TD or referee.

Again, what reaction would you expect?

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:

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.

At this point you call the TD or referee in a loud voice. Stand up, jump up and down, whatever it takes.

This is what Mateusz did.

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:

Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

We do not know that.

We know nothing, all time we are only speculating here.

But it looks that one of proctor's activities was nullified because it "was not included in the proctor's written job description" (quoting a fb post of Hajin Lee). If the referee want to be compact, he should apply this rule in any proctor's activity.

EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

Who is online