Life In 19x19

Matti wrote:When I was running the EGF referee workshops I said:"The purpose of tournament rules is to distinguish the skill of playing go from other skills for example physical, social, technical skills. The effect of other skills shoud be minimized."

This should be put as first rule for tournament rules that trumps all others.

Creating set of rules with idea to give same playing rights and obligations to players is correct thing to do, but they should never be more important than game itself.

Matti, do you remember case some ten years ago in Holland when Laurent Heiser lost on time when filling dame?

Bojanic wrote:some ten years ago in Holland when Laurent Heiser lost on time when filling dame

What happened then? Was there any dispute about the result of the game?

jlt wrote:

Bojanic wrote:some ten years ago in Holland when Laurent Heiser lost on time when filling dame

What happened then? Was there any dispute about the result of the game?

IIRC, game was completely over, dame points were played. Heiser has clearly won.
Heiser's opponent played some threat inside his territory, which could be dangerous if not answered correctly (some kyu level).
But before that move was played, someone asked Heiser something, he turned away and got distracted, and he lost on time.

There was argument after the game, and since they argued that game was not over yet due to threat, it was declared that Heiser lost on time.
Out of the protest, he left tournament.

-----

IIRC it was in Amsterdam go Oza 2006.
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... n=10337085
Game was against Jurij Pljusch 4d.
Oddly, Heiser is not listed, and Pljusch was listed as being free (0+), which is not possible on this tournament.

Matti was there also, he could confirm.

Bojanic wrote:

jlt wrote:

Bojanic wrote:some ten years ago in Holland when Laurent Heiser lost on time when filling dame

What happened then? Was there any dispute about the result of the game?

IIRC, game was completely over, dame points were played. Heiser has clearly won.
Heiser's opponent played some threat inside his territory, which could be dangerous if not answered correctly (some kyu level).

If the game was completely over, the opponent could not have made a play.

Bill Spight wrote:This rules crisis occurred at the Nihon Kiin in 1928, before official written rules.

Nice one. But wouldn't that be seki?

Take care.

Bill Spight wrote: If the game was completely over, the opponent could not have made a play.

Thanks Bill. I was wondering how Yuri managed to play a move, but now I understand.

This topic is obviously turning into argument between those who consider that tournament rules, their application and finding loopholes and failures in them should be above skill shown in tournament game.

Bill, your comment shows that. "Game was not definitely over bcs they did not pass after filling dame". Please.
Playing part was over.
Trying to win by playing stupid moves when your opponent is distracted is far from sportsmanship.
Such attitude should not be approved by any means.

Bojanic wrote: Oddly, Heiser is not listed, and Pljusch was listed as being free (0+)

So basically Pljusch won but Heiser did not lose.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for the "there's something wrong with winning a game you are far behind on the board with almost zero chance of winning if normal play continues right near the end due to lag". But by using imprecise / outright false language like "game was completely over", "clearly lost game" you just make an easy target in your argument to disprove and attract contradiction.

Uberdude wrote:I have quite a lot of sympathy for the "there's something wrong with winning a game you are far behind on the board with almost zero chance of winning if normal play continues right near the end due to lag". But by using imprecise / outright false language like "game was completely over", "clearly lost game" you just make an easy target in your argument to disprove and attract contradiction.

Uberdude,
yes, it is good to mess with nitpicking instead of what is important.

Time loss often feels unfortunate. Being ahead on board and losing on time seems wrong in some way: look at the skill I showed here - I performed better than my opponent.

But it’s dangerous to discount, because it’s a factor in the game. The person that did NOT lose on time may have played less than they were capable of at times in the game, because they didn’t want to lose on time.

We can see a near final board state here, which shows a lead by Surma. But would that board state be the same if both players had infinite time to play? Probably not, because the time limits impacted the moves played by both players.

It’s an over-simplification to argue that better board position is independent of time on the clock.

Kirby wrote: It’s an over-simplification to argue that better board position is independent of time on the clock.

I don't see anyone doing so.

Time loss in a winning position because you thought for too long and didn't press the clock in time is sad/annoying for that player* but yes it's part of the game and I don't think anyone here is claiming that if there were no lag then it wouldn't be Mateusz's fault for playing too slowly and gifting Eric the time win (some people may say it would have been nice/polite/sporting of Eric to resign earlier, but he's totally within his rights to play out a losing game to counting). The questions is what effect does lag have if it causes the time loss, and the answer could well be different in a random KGS online game vs a pro game as part of a serious tournament with €10,000 up for grabs which is being played online for convenience with insufficient rules agree beforehand. The real life counterpart would be some cheeky child stole the real game clock and replaced it with another one with same settings, you press that one within your time limit and then 10 seconds later the real one announces "black lost on time" from across the room.

* I've experienced it many times myself, e.g. https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 14#p220014 because I misread the clock, so I went and bought a better clock. More common though is the player who used more time to get a better board position then has to play quickly near the end, avoids losing on time but plays bad moves and loses the game on the board.

The questions is what effect does lag have if it causes the time loss, and the answer could well be different in a random KGS online game vs a pro game as part of a serious tournament with €10,000 up for grabs which is being played online for convenience with insufficient rules agree beforehand.

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

I also don't think this is a case of "nitpicking". This is a case of "insufficient rules agree beforehand", as you describe.

Bojanic wrote:This topic is obviously turning into argument between those who consider that tournament rules, their application and finding loopholes and failures in them should be above skill shown in tournament game.

Bill, your comment shows that. "Game was not definitely over bcs they did not pass after filling dame". Please.
Playing part was over.
Trying to win by playing stupid moves when your opponent is distracted is far from sportsmanship.
Such attitude should not be approved by any means.

Sorry, every serious rule set requires filling the dame during play or after the players have agreed which stones are alive or dead. The Japanese 1989 rules have been in effect for 30 years. They technically require filling the dame, but because of custom they allowed the possibility of filling the dame informally. Since then some end of games accidents have occurred, so that, as I understand it, Japanese pros now fill the dame during play. Your attitude is 30 years behind the times.

Edit: Not knowing the circumstances of the particular game, I cannot comment on the question of sportsmanship. But the game was plainly in progress for a loss on time to happen.

Ferran wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:This rules crisis occurred at the Nihon Kiin in 1928, before official written rules.

Nice one. But wouldn't that be seki?

Take care.

The custom at the time was to have Takahashi take and fill the 10,000 year ko, which would unquestionable have left a seki on the board. But Takahashi refused to do so, and there was no way to force him to do so. Also, there were no passes back then, games ended by agreement, and Takahashi did not agree. One question that arose during discussions at that time was whether making a play was a right or an obligation.

Takahashi had the support of his teammates and I think that Nihon Kiin politics played a part in the eventual ruling.