EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[tneva82]

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.

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.

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.

And either way you don't play serious cash tournament in enviroment like this just as you shouldn't play serious cash tournament in net since fair game isn't possible in either situation.

[HKA]

Let's be clear we have now public statements of the americans players where we can see they contested a resume-the-game decision with only stupid sentences.

Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.

I think there are strong arguments for why the resume the game option was problematic and a poor choice and not merely stupid sentences. In this particular board position, with Mr. Surma's account accepted (which I do) and the ability to immediately restart the game, perhaps it is the best ruling. But it is dependent on a particular board position, believing Mr. Surma (which in this case everyone does) and a prompt restart which was impossible and did not happen.

This is a horrible situation. But, from what I have seen, Mr. Surma did not lose because of the American's protest. He lost because his "flag" fell, and he refused a rematch.

[Bill Spight]

Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.

{snip}

This is a horrible situation. But, from what I have seen, Mr. Surma did not lose because of the American's protest. He lost because his "flag" fell, and he refused a rematch.

Thanks for the new information.

OTOH, what happened is even murkier, because it seems to contradict previous accounts of what happened.

[jann]

Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.

Which makes sense to me. Unlike the "accept 1-2 sec lag = accept 10+ sec and disconnection means losing" arguments, accepting a rematch would really had some "legal" consequences for him (still in quotes )

That would have meant he accepts the whole situation, that a broken clock could really mean a half-game loss, and that the organizers don't try to avert or remedy a technical problem. (To be fair they did try that, only the AGA protest prevented it.)

IMO the current outcome may not be that bad, as most parties got what they wished for (moral victory vs. official "win"). Even the public - this interesting incident likely made go history.

[Fenring]

Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.

I think there are strong arguments for why the resume the game option was problematic and a poor choice and not merely stupid sentences. In this particular board position, with Mr. Surma's account accepted (which I do) and the ability to immediately restart the game, perhaps it is the best ruling. But it is dependent on a particular board position, believing Mr. Surma (which in this case everyone does) and a prompt restart which was impossible and did not happen.

If there is strong arguments, why do you continue to use arguments already shown as false?
1)" It is dependent on a particular board position". No. The rule "in case of proven disconnection,resume the game", its a general rule, not dependent from a particular board situation. Can't be retained against the decision "resume the game".(this rule is even better in this particular case,but doesn't mean she is bad in other cases, indeed, its the best one to reduce impact of disconnection)
2)"believing Mr.Surma", no, it's "believing Mr.Surma and his proctor" which according to the other rules is a necessity.
This is not an argument.
3)"a prompt restart which was impossible" only in this particular case, du to a fail in the organization.
BUT by luck, the particular failure of the organization in this case does not change the fact that it is still the best rule.

So basically this 3 arguments means "we are not going to apply the best rule in general ,which is also the best rule in this particular case, because if the organizers repeat the sames mistakes in others cases, this rule can't be applied".

"In case of disconnection,resume the game", its the best general rule, if organizers checks proctors can check clock and referee is available to communicate with proctors. And Its the best rule in this particular case too.

[Kirby]

The discussion about right and wrong about referee decisions is starting to feel a little repetitive, even to me now - and I repeat things to death!

What's become more fascinating to me, now, is how to accurately measure time in the presence of lag. The best that I can think of is what other's have already thought of - client-side timing. This could still present interesting dynamics during the game. For example, in the presence of severe network lag, I might play a move - then my opponent's clock appears to be going down. Now he has only 1 minute of main time left. Wait a minute - I got a response from the server. He doesn't have 1 minute left - he actually has 8 minutes left, now. I guess that's not a big problem, but it'd be a little bit weird - though, I already experience this on KGS from time to time . A different experience than playing in person, for sure. There's also the concern about "hacking" client side timing, but that technical aspect is not all that different than preventing folks from using AI.

Trying to ensure a stronger network connection between the two player is another potential option. That's hard to do with existing go servers - though, a lot of servers may do better than KGS... I suppose another option is to do away with time limits for Internet games. But this could lead to some pretty drawn out matches.

Or just give up, and limit serious tournaments to face-to-face ones... Trying to think of other options, but nothing else comes to mind ATM.

[sybob]

I have been quiet about this topic, for many reasons, but Kirby's last post finally triggers me to enter this discussion.

1-
First, I have not noticed a discussion on the 'type' of lag (sorry if I missed this).
It seems to me to not have been an 'ordinary' lag.
I don't mean in terms of number of seconds, or (varying) frequency of lag, but in the way this lag manifested itself. Normally, also on KGS, if you have lag and run out of time, you lose. Everybode knows, understands and accepts. I suspect in this case, mr. Surma clicked 'on time' on his computer, but his click seems not not have been received or processed (2 different things, by the way) by the KGS server. If such a thing happens, the client computer screen can freeze. One can click, (seemingly) on time, but to no avail.
If it would have been a 'normal' lag, where the clock at the client side still ticks and the client/local program still functions, I understand mr. Surma's anger and frustration, but the final decision would make sense (at least, to me).
With a normal lag ánd manifestation thereof, we would better understand the final decision, I think. But if this was this 'freezing' lag, it is difficult to understand the final decision (for me).
I hope I made myself clear (?).
2-
Internet traffic is technically done in packets. Packets can be routed and distributedly routed. Normal internet traffic can cross many (regularly over more than 20 hubs for international traffic) crossing points.
The question I have missed so far to have been addressed is: who's to blame: mr Surma, the client program on mr Surma's computer, his ISP, KGS or some hub inbetween.
We want go and this game to be a a challenge between experts, a clash of minds, but where lies the responsibility, and the extent of that responsibility, for reliable international internet traffic, and under which circumstances would either party be to blame?
The cause-effect-responsibility-consequence relationships in this matter are not very clear (to me, at least, even up to now).
3-
Which brings me to my third thought.
It is not just about rules (as frequently discussed here). It is not just about procedures. It is not just about 'legal' or formal matters like about the status of a proctor. It is not just about technicalities and internet traffic. It is about a carefully considered, weighted balance between of all those aspects. Perhaps even including halting/adjourning an important game if difficult technical matters come up. I think there should be some side/emergency procedures in place (e.g. having another medium/call/app/server available), as others have already suggested. I hope the organizers are able to come up with a proper solution for future events.

I do have some other thoughts and ideas, but these are my 2 (or 3) cents.

[Laurent]

Ok. IMO, the issue is more polarizing than clear cut - almost like politics or religion.

Yes, unfortunately, though I would rather call it a "fairness vs formalism" thing.

I think there are strong arguments for why the resume the game option was problematic and a poor choice ...

Oh, really? Could you please tell me what they are or where I can find them?
I still found only those lawyer-like-win-by-all-means ones...

... In this particular board position, with Mr. Surma's account accepted (which I do) and the ability to immediately restart the game, perhaps it is the best ruling. But it is dependent on a particular board position, believing Mr. Surma (which in this case everyone does) and a prompt restart which was impossible and did not happen.

I totally agree that the pause between the issue and the resumption of the game would be a strong argument in many cases, but not in this case and it is only this case that has to be judged. Creating new rules is a seperate process and has nothing to do with the ruling of this case.

So if immediately resuming the game would have been the best choice, you surely agree that resuming would also be the best choice if:
- The winning probability (WP) for both parties, at the time of the resumption, is the same as it was when that issue happened.
And because in this case the EGF-team will always accept a resumption, it is even sufficent to have a situation where:
- Eric Lui's WP at the time of the resumption is not below his WP at the time when that issue happened.
And what was his WP at the time when that issue happened?
As already been pointed out somewhere else and I am sure every (somewhat strong) player can confirm, even if Eric Lui gets all the remaining endgame moves, he will still lose the game.
So his WP at the time when that issue happened was exactly 0% (which OC can never drop lower).

The discussion about right and wrong about referee decisions is starting to feel a little repetitive ...

Yes, absolutely, and IMHO this isn't even the real problem. The real source of anger of so many Go-fans is, IMHO, the protest of members of the AGA-team (and especially of the player of that game himself).

While I totally agree with Uberdude that Eric Lui's behaviour was still neutral when he didn't resign this 0%-WP-game (for pros it is also important to find the right moment to resign, so maybe he simply missed it. At the time the issue happened it was definitely already past) BUT the moment he protests against ANY ruling of the referee concerning this game, his behaviour becomes very unsportsmanlike!

[mhlepore]

1) As an American, I am very sorry for Mateusz, and the European team deserves to be 4-0. I believe I can say this and simultaneously hold the opinion that a rematch was the fairest option.

2) To those saying this is an easy fix, we can resume just for this one game, no need to worry about slippery slopes, and it won't require referees to have plans in place for other contingencies (e.g., obvious misclicks, less than obvious misclicks), I hope you are right.

3) This is the most divisive thread I have ever read on L19 where trolls were not involved. It has gone beyond bouncing ideas around and has become pretty hard to read.

[k0n0]

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

They are on notice.

They see it, so they are on notice.

To take note of the situation. Perhaps to make an announcement. Perhaps to restrict movement between tables during play. But the main thing is that they have been notified of the problem.

No need to notify them.
They see people touch tables when walking around, and it is likely that sometimes stones will shake, or in an extreme situations, will be moved.
They know that TCP/IP doesn't assure packets will be always delivered.

Also, putting them on notice may give you some protection, as it probably would have in this case.

I agree with your point "better safe than sorry". I see that once you participate in a tournamennt, you probably read Fire Prevention Directives of the building where you play, and check whether organizers follow them.
But personally, if I followed your council then I would feel a bit like an extremist and impolite towards organizers ("you are so stupid that I must warn you that ...").

But although I agree "better safe than sorry" is a valid idea, I don't think it would affect the fact that
organizers made serious mistakes and subsequently they were blaming Mateusz for their own mistakes. And that it is unfair.

[Kirby]

Ok. IMO, the issue is more polarizing than clear cut - almost like politics or religion.

Yes, unfortunately, though I would rather call it a "fairness vs formalism" thing.

Meh - I think the ruling was fair. You don't. Let's repeat our opinions for another 30 posts or so

[k0n0]

Let's be clear we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch.

Could you post your source?

Many people confirmed there was only one verdict of the referee. That verdict did not include a rematch as an option. So how could Surma refuse something that was not an option?

I think there are strong arguments for why the resume the game option was problematic and a poor choice ...

Oh, really? Could you please tell me what they are or where I can find them?
I still found only those lawyer-like-win-by-all-means ones...

I agree that so far I found only lawyer-like-win-by-all-means arguments why the game could not be resumed.

On the other hand I believe both the sportsmanship and the will to win are equally legal.
Imagine there is an abscissa with two extremes:
a) an absolute sportsmanship (imagine a player who plays a bad move deliberately, anytime he sees a heavy opponent's mistake)
b) an absolute will to win (imagine a player who is able to topple a table "accidentally" in order to win)
Any player keeps its own position on some point of the abscissa, between these two extremes.
A player usually considers all players who are closer to a) than him, to be silly players. And he usually considers all players who are closer to b) than him, to be unfair players.
In other words, morale is relative, every man has its own definition of "be silly", "be moral", "be unfair".

So I somewhat agree with Ryan Li who advocated AGA players this way:

Park Junghwan once played inside his opponent’s territory in a game using absolute time in order to win the game. This is a competitive mind sport.

edit: a typo and wording details

[Bill Spight]

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

They are on notice.

They see it, so they are on notice.

No. As R. D. Laing pointed out, the assumption that you know that I know that you know that I know that . . . , is not in general true. You are putting the organizers on notice that there is a problem, and also that you know there is a problem. By alerting them to the perceived problem, you are helping them to run a better tournament.

To take note of the situation. Perhaps to make an announcement. Perhaps to restrict movement between tables during play. But the main thing is that they have been notified of the problem.

No need to notify them.
They see people touch tables when walking around, and it is likely that sometimes stones will shake, or in an extreme situations, will be moved.

Probably so. But you don't know that they perceive the problem unless they say so. OC, they may make an announcement about it, but maybe not. And if you wait until the tournament has started, they may not make an announcement or otherwise address the problem until something bad happens. The important thing is to share knowledge, so that everybody knows the same important things, and everybody knows that everybody knows those things.

My longterm girlfriend in my 20s and 30s thought that a good relationship was based upon knowing and being known. She had a good point.

They know that TCP/IP doesn't assure packets will be always delivered.

In this case, we don't even know if the organizers know what a packet is. We do know that they discussed a loss of internet connection, and thought, naively, that that was not a problem because the player could simply reconnect. I am amazed at their ignorance. Surely they had experienced netlag themselves. But they were clueless. The kind thing to do would have been to alert them to the problem they were clueless about.

Also, putting them on notice may give you some protection, as it probably would have in this case.

I agree with your point "better safe than sorry". I see that once you participate in a tournamennt, you probably read Fire Prevention Directives of the building where you play, and check whether organizers follow them.
But personally, if I followed your council then I would feel a bit like an extremist and impolite towards organizers ("you are so stupid that I must warn you that ...").

A lack of mutual trust and respect between tournament officials and players is a recipe for trouble. If a player has a concern and expresses it to the TD, referee, or organizer, and the official dismisses it out of hand, then, as my wife used to say, We are doomed. Speaking as a TD, I want to know about the players' concerns, so that I can run a better tournament. Give me some credit, please.

But although I agree "better safe than sorry" is a valid idea, I don't think it would affect the fact that
organizers made serious mistakes and subsequently they were blaming Mateusz for their own mistakes. And that it is unfair.

I did not see where they were blaming Mateusz for their mistakes. If so, We are doomed. In fact, if the latest about the appeal process is accurate, that Mateusz declined a rematch, then offering a rematch was not blaming him for anything.

This incident underscores Laing's and my girlfriend's point. Sharing knowledge makes for good relationships.

[Bill Spight]

Ok. IMO, the issue is more polarizing than clear cut - almost like politics or religion.

Yes, unfortunately, though I would rather call it a "fairness vs formalism" thing.

Meh - I think the ruling was fair. You don't. Let's repeat our opinions for another 30 posts or so

It is fair for players to play under conditions of contest that they have accepted, unless the conditions are set up ahead of time to favor one side or the other. In this case, the KGS clock kept the official time, and that was known to all, and so losing on time by the KGS clock was fair.

However, as was his right, the player who lost on time asked, with good cause, for the loss on time to be overruled. Once that happened, and the appeals process became muddled, the question of fairness switched from the conditions of contest to the appeals process, and became unclear.

Out of this mess I hope that new conditions of contest and appeals procedures will result that will be satisfactory to all. It would be a shame for this tournament to disappear.

[Joaz Banbeck]

...we now have public statements by Mr. Surma that he refused a rematch...

So Surma lost by forfeit?

Got a link to this?