EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Bill Spight]

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.

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.

Emphasis mine. By taking my quote out of context, you give the impression that it is my opinion that Surma had tacitly accepted the KGS time as authoritative. In reality I was pointing out that that could have been the conclusion of the referee, one which would have explained the final ruling.

Now, I have been under the impression, given this discussion, that Surma had been experiencing repeated netlag. For instance, in this note, viewtopic.php?p=244153#p244153 , Uberdude states:

As I said over on the facebook version of this thread (it's hard to keep track of all the parallel discussions!), even if you accept the argument that Mateusz should have reported a previous instance of lag (yet the referee statement refers to "continuing", is this accurate or an attempt to frame the situation as one to justify the decision?) and thus deserved to lose when he got another instance of lag at a more critical time, it leads to the following rather absurd situation:

Emphasis mine.

So it does seem that the referee thought that there was continuing netlag. What I think about that is irrelevant.

[Javaness2]

So it does seem that the referee thought that there was continuing netlag. What I think about that is irrelevant.

There is a disconnect between the statements of MK and MS, and this confusion is very relevant to the discussion.
In this online setup, unless you have a witness to the first loss of a byoyomi period, I don't see how you can stop the clock and report it. Post match the motivation to report it can still be low, will you risk to be seen as rubbing salt in the wounds of your opponent?
Anyway, I think that KGS timings can be used, but that proctors should be able to report on problems like the loss of the byoyomi period. That seems a practical approach to me. It's easy for the opponent to give a period back at the referee's instruction.

[yakcyll]

So it does seem that the referee thought that there was continuing netlag. What I think about that is irrelevant.

There is a disconnect between the statements of MK and MS, and this confusion is very relevant to the discussion.
In this online setup, unless you have a witness to the first loss of a byoyomi period, I don't see how you can stop the clock and report it. Post match the motivation to report it can still be low, will you risk to be seen as rubbing salt in the wounds of your opponent?

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.

[Kirby]

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?

[Bill Spight]

So it does seem that the referee thought that there was continuing netlag. What I think about that is irrelevant.

There is a disconnect between the statements of MK and MS, and this confusion is very relevant to the discussion.

Well, I was taught that in the case of an irregularity, the first thing for the TD or referee to do is to ascertain what happened. That obviously did not happen in this case, since, as Hajin Lee reports, new information came in with each appeal.

In this online setup, unless you have a witness to the first loss of a byoyomi period, I don't see how you can stop the clock and report it.

If there is such a lack of mutual respect between the players and the officials that a player needs a witness to report a consequential netlag, that is a very serious problem. Stopping the clock to do so is the proper procedure, but after the match would not have been too late (Edit: that is, as far as the possibility of future netlag is concerned), as current netlag is predictive of future netlag.

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

[Javaness2]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Bill Spight]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

They are working on it, which is good.

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]

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

Do that between sessions.

[Aram]

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]

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.

There were proctors present.

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.

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]

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]

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.