Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:

Javaness2 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Given the foreseeable problems with Surma's connection, IMO it was unconscionable for the organizers to use the server to keep the time.

We can go further, and suggest that the players themselves were nothing short of idiots to agree to play under such reprehensible conditions.

Why should we do that?

It seems to be exactly in the spirit of the discussion.

Bill Spight wrote:

Fenring wrote:

Kirby wrote: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.

Seems you don't understand "sportmanship"

Fenring wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Neither player was at fault. Why should either one resign?

Sportmanship is not trying to win by all ways not explicitly forbidden.
For you, all player who surrend are stupid because if you surrend you have 0%win, but if you don't surrend you have 0,00001% to win by heart attack?(which is not against the rules)

You don't know what I think.

Thats why i ask the question.
If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

Fenring wrote: If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

People resign because the rules allow them to resign.

As already said Javaness, sportmanship is not doing all that's allowed by the rules.

Fenring wrote:As already said Javaness, sportmanship is not doing all that's allowed by the rules.

I think we agree on that. What we say here isn't going to change any decision by the 'Appeals Committee', but it worries me that this is day 3 of the IMSA and no decision is yet announced. I suppose if an agreement is not forthcoming, they will, and can only, revert back to the original decision of the referee.

Javaness2 wrote:

Fenring wrote:As already said Javaness, sportmanship is not doing all that's allowed by the rules.

I think we agree on that. What we say here isn't going to change any decision by the 'Appeals Committee', but it worries me that this is day 3 of the IMSA and no decision is yet announced. I suppose if an agreement is not forthcoming, they will, and can only, revert back to the original decision of the referee.

For me there is no perfect solution, so i don't really care about what will be the Appeal's Committee decision
What we say here can influence the readers.
So i find dangerous to write that in a Go tournament, sportsmanship doesn't matter.

Fenring wrote:For me there is no perfect solution, so i don't really care about what will be the Appeal's Committee decision
What we say here can influence the readers.
So i find dangerous to write that in a Go tournament, sportsmanship doesn't matter.

In a discussion about a goodwill tournament, sowing discord matters.

Fenring wrote: Thats why i ask the question.
If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

Playing until the counting phase is not an unsportsmanlike way to lose. Do you think all pro games that didn’t end by resign were played out because the pros didn’t know the count? Or is it because they were unsportsmanlike?

Are you sure that it is I who misunderstands what “sportsmanship” means?

I’ll note that, if it were my own game and I were playing for myself in Eric’s shoes, Id probably consider giving the win to Mateusz after the fact.

But then again, if I were in Mateusz’s shoes, I’d accept my loss on time, albeit frustrating.

But I don’t blame either player for not doing so, because they are both worthy of winning the game from some perspective, and they are playing for their respective teams.

So the right thing to happen is for the organizers to come to an agreement and make a decision. It’ll then be sportsmanlike for the players to accept whatever decision that may be.

IMO sportsmanship is going BEYOND what is required by the rules to pursue the ideals/spirit of the game. Not doing so does not mean you are unsportsmanlike, it's just neutral. Unsporting behaviour is behaviour within the rules but against the spirit of the game.

So resigning a game you are clearly losing near the end to avoid a 'cheap' time win is sporting behaviour. Continuing to play is not "sporting behaviour", but it is neither unsporting behaviour, It's just neutral. Playing obviously not-working moves (for your level, what is obvious for a dan player is not necessarily for a 25k) inside territory to win a game on time is unsporting. Playing a sudden death game out to a sensible counting position and winning on time is neutral. Resigning would be sporting, it's the player's choice.

I’ll agree with that definition, Uberdude. By this definition, I don’t think that Eric was unsportsmanlike in his behavior - do you?

Kirby wrote:I’ll agree with that definition, Uberdude. By this definition, I don’t think that Eric was unsportsmanlike in his behavior - do you?

No. He was neutral.

Kirby wrote:

Fenring wrote: Thats why i ask the question.
If for you in consideration of sportmanship, you don't have to surrend when game is lost on board,the question is when have you to surrend? and why so many players surrend?

Playing until the counting phase is a totally sportsmanlike way to lose. Do you think all pro games that didn’t end by resign were played out because the pros didn’t know the count? Or is it because they were unsportsmanlike?

Are you sure that it is I who misunderstands what “sportsmanship” means?

You should stop fallacious argument like this one:
last 3 pages on go4go win by 10 points or more:1/90
win by resign:73/90.

And what you say is not "playing until the counting phase is a totally sportsmanlike way to lose" but "playing until the counting phase hoping a win by time/win by lag is a totally sportsmanlike way to lose".(I don't say it's what Eric did)

Second logic error: you assimilate loss by time and by lag as the same.
But in the first case ,its Mateus responsibility, second case it's not.(you can't ask to play 30s byo-yomi agaisnt 1 min)


If we accept loss by lag as a classic loss, you legitimate DDOS.
We are not even sure Mateus was not a victim of DDOS by an angry american kid who want to avoid a sweep.

For me the final result of this game doesn't really matter,except maybe for AGA reputation,the most important is what we do to avoid that in the next games.

P.S: Totally agree with Uberdude.
But i expect more than only neutral behavior from someone who play for his country.

Fenring wrote:We are not even sure Mateus was not a victim of DDOS by an angry american kid who want to avoid a sweep.

And here I thought we were just going around in circles without saying anything new. I'm glad I kept reading.

Who knows, if Eric is declared the winner maybe the russian secret services will attack his computer.