EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Bojanic]

Now, in order to adjust some slightly inaccurate memories, I got more persistent and thanks to the help of Uberdude, I finally managed to get in
Yes, there were some analogies in the case being discussed here and my game in the Netherlands, even though it was an "offline" game:
- Both games were in the very final stage with the outcome - on the board! - already clearly decided (in the case of my game, being over 20 points ahead)
- it was the final byoyomi period.

Hello Laurent,
good to see you join!

I came to your board when incident already occurred.
At the time (IIRC-If I remember correctly) it was mentioned that game was practically over, and Yuri explained that he could still do something in your territory. This is why I wrongly recollected that something like this has been played.

[Bojanic]

I thought my next paragraph explained my thoughts

Why did AGA players appeal? I can understand that in case it was Eric who had a lag problem then he wouldn't be so lucky like Mateusz, because Eric's proctor was not paying attention to Eric's moves. So theoretically Eric would be in disadvantage.

but maybe my lack of english obscured its meaning. I will explain it using other words:

My guess (based on limited info only) is: if the situation was opposite, and it was not Mateusz but Eric who suffered internet lags, then his protest would be rejected, because his proctor was not paying attention to Eric's moves. So AGA objected a theoretical inequality.

But this is only my speculation, unfortunately. Even after more detailed explanation by Hajin Lee, there is a lack of information about the case.
And that feeds negative feelings at both sides of the ocean

This could be a case to change rules in future, but I really don't see how it could affect referee's decision to change his first ruling.

[Javaness2]

It is a shame that the EGF and AGA didn't think to try to intervene and re-direct the decision to an appeals committee. They could have had appointed 2 or 3 of their experienced referees each to the committee. If the committee is deadlocked on a solution, retain a casting vote for Kim Myungwan.

I see some new rules are now being written. That's a good step at least. If they are sensible I might watch this event again.

[Laman]

cool reactions from Lee Hajin and Ali Jabarin. more sensible than most.

by the way, yesterday i gave it some thought and with a trustworthy client (which we already have guaranteed by the proctors) it would be possible to build an authoritative local clock on top of the existing KGS infrastructure with no changes to the server whatsoever. the only price would be a possible (< 1 min) error in the time visible to the spectators. just hack the client to exchange locally spent time through private chat and adjust its own clock accordingly. a bit silly, nonetheless working solution for the problem at hand.

[Fenring]

Nice reaction from Ali.
Indeed i'm very happy with the behavior of our europeans pros: Ali's statement and Mateus's choice"i will no talk about lags, i will handle this with a handicap".
I think we should not blame AGA players, they represent America well: A big minority,but the strongest one with sportmanship, the other one who want win no matter what(America first) and will use all unfair but legal ways(gerrymandering,etc).

[Uberdude]

William Gansheng Shi made the following post:

To Go fans in the European and North American community, I like to address some of the questions and concerns you have regarding the 4th Transatlantic Go Championship.

I share the same feeling with Ali Jabarin (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... =857279627) from the EGF when I saw the match live. I also thought that the best option would be to rematch. However, when the first announcement was made that the ruling was to continue play, that was when I protested this decision along.

As you can see from my email, I clearly addressed my concerns as advocated for a rematch. The AGA and EGF pros are close friends and we participate in many tournaments together so it is very saddening to see fans shaming on us as this type of behavior absolutely does not agree with the goal of a friendship tournament this was intended to be.

I am disappointed with the decision that has come out recently. The AGA and EGF pros both have sat down and agreed that we would all prefer to have a rematch as it would be the most fair decision. Ultimately the decision rests upon the organizers and the referees and I think as professionals we should also agree to follow the rules and final decisions made by them.

Email screenshot:

[Tryss]

So according to him, the only fair option is to make the format look unprofessionnal ? And this also set a precedent, and a player could still use this as an excuse to avoid a loss on time.

I can understand to prefer a rematch, but don't use arguments to dismiss the resume that could also be applied to rematch.

[Bojanic]

Email screenshot:

Comment:
1. This is true in any game played with a long break, but does it makes any difference in this game? Maybe, maybe, someone could take 1 point more, in a 10 point lead. William himself points this out partially in pt. 4.
Anyway, decision had to be brought immediately, and referee had to bring it very carefully.

2. If decision was made that Mateusz loses on time (for me justified as well), question remains why such important tournament was organized in conditions where especially one side could be subjected to technical difficulties.
So yes, this makes tournament looks unprofessional.

3. Yes, this makes important precedent, I agree. This is why it has to be analyzed carefully. In this case, this did not happen in at least 2 of 3 referee's decisions (which looks even more unprofessional).
This case had everything necessary for making precedent - high profile game, proctor as witness, clear situation in endgame.

4. I don't think that replay is a good idea. Problem happened during game, it should be solved during game, and let's move on.

----

Soon after a game team Europe fans were in the "Ohh, this is such a bad way to lose, nooo" mood.
Outcry and anger came after making appeals, decisions, and different meddling in the game.
So organizer were only to be blamed for this mess, and should apologize.

Also, please note that in all this mess we should put sportmanship on first place.
Making a case to win not by playing on the board creates one even more dangerous precedent!
It would be really awful if this would repeat on future tournament.

[Javaness2]

So remind me how things went

• Result win on time for NA
• protest by Europe because of lag
• Referee decides on resuming play
• protest by NA requesting a rematch
• Referee decides on a rematch
• protest by Europe?
• Referee decides NA wins on time. This is the final decision.
• another protest by somebody
• The final decision is the final decision.

[yakcyll]

So remind me how things went

• Result win on time for NA
• protest by Europe because of lag
• Referee decides on resuming play
• protest by NA requesting a rematch
• Referee decides on a rematch
• protest by Europe?
• Referee decides NA wins on time. This is the final decision.
• another protest by somebody
• The final decision is the final decision.

To be more precise:

• Mateusz lags out.
• Mateusz brings up that he attempted to make the move within the allotted time, which was noticed by the proctor on his side.
• Referee decides on resuming play.
• AGA pros request a rematch, citing the concerns mentioned above (not necessarily limited to them).
• Referee decides on a rematch.
• Question mark indeed. Mateusz appeals the decision to rematch and mentions that it's not his fault KGS is malfunctioning and he had issues with lag before.
• Referee decides NA wins on time. This is supposedly the final decision. Why it had to be final remains a question.
• Another appeal is brought up.
• More discussions occur and ultimately the last decision is upheld.

[jann]

William Gansheng Shi made the following post:

Both players are given extra time to think about the game and the possible moves or outcomes.

This is almost completely irrelevant in this particular case, because of the state of the board. Bringing this up just tries to complicate an already very sensitive situation - what for?

Resuming play sets a precedent for future tournaments. I can imagine future scenarios where players may use this example as an excuse for a loss on time.

I can not imagine a future scenario where an official proctor would confirm the software or network malfunction and that the player made his move in time, yet this could still be abused. Again important facts are ignored here.

EDIT: It's actually lucky that this incident happened, since the particular case could have been resolved completely satisfactory (because of the above points) - yet the problem surfaced and can be addressed for the future (where the best solution would not be so clear as here).

[gowan]

As I see it, the match rules are the match rules. Everyone (organizers, players, coaches, team managers) could/should have known that time was kept on the server, not by the client, all the problems that implies regarding netlag. To me that means that Surma timed out, it is that simple, no matter how upset Surma and some European fans may be. Regarding "poor sportsmanship", it is not poor sportsmanship to assert your right to play the game to the counting phase, no matter how much of a lead your opponent has. This is especially true when in the game both sides are in sudden death byo yomi. In that situation either player might easily time out. It is poor sportsmanship to demand that the result be changed when the game had finished (by time out) in accord with the rules unless there is evidence of cheating. Was there actual cheating on either side? It is poor sportsmanship to assert, with no evidence, that the referee was biased in favor of one team or the other. The best solution is to accept the referee's final decision, get over it, and move on to play the rest of the match in good spirit.

[hyperpape]

While I liked, and still kind of like the idea of resumption, it does create an ambiguity.

In this scenario, resuming is quite fair. The game was effectively over, so it changes nothing to resume the game. But in another situation, you are giving one player time to study the position, and potentially change the game. So, the decision to resume is (in general) either going to sometimes be very unfair, or rely on the referee's judgment to pick circumstances where it is fair. That seems like a valid reason to dislike resumption.

[jlt]

But in another situation, you are giving one player time to study the position, and potentially change the game.

Resuming the game should be possible only under the following circumstances:

1) If player A loses on time because of a lag or disconnection, he should immediately inform proctor A where he intended to play his move n. This move is kept secret until resumption of the game.

2) When the game resumes, proctor A checks that player A makes the move n at the announced intersection.

In this way, during the extra thinking time, player A can think about move n+2 but doesn't know what move n+1 is (unless move n is a forcing move), and player B can think about move n+1 but doesn't know what move n is (unless move n-1 was a forcing move).

So yes, in some circumstances one of the players could get an advantage, but which player gets the advantage is not predictable.

[Uberdude]

Ryan Li speaks too:

On the discussions regarding the Surma-Lui game in the 4th round of the 1st Transatlantic Professional Go Team Championship

At the current IMSA tournament, I talked with the organizers, the AGA pros, the EGF president, and EGF professionals Pavol Lisy and Ilya Shikshin. I will not reiterate the whole situation here because it is covered in full by Hajin Lee in her post here: https://www.facebook.com/hajin88/posts/2184711538232227 and on the official page. Here are some information and opinions from me as a player.

First I'd like to point out that I consider many of us close friends. I met Pavol and Artem in the 5th KPMC back in 2010 when we were all amateurs (although Pavol said he wanted to kill me; yes, Pavol is very violent on the Go board). I also met Ilya, Ali Jabarin, and Mateusz Surma in multiple tournaments and reviewed games with all of them. Of course, there are the countless blitz games played online. The overarching goal of the Transatlantic tournament is friendship.

The main dispute seems to come from the fact that Eric was losing the game. Who is to say that a player should not finish a game to the end when they are losing? Most current top players in the world do that. 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.

The AGA did not protest to win by time. See William Gansheng Shi’s post for his original e-mail that was sent to the referee. Calvin’s arguments were similar. I was not fully involved in the protest but I also believe that the best decision is to either replay the game or eliminate both Eric and Mateusz, both for the audience and the players. At this moment, many other pros are posting similar comments, from both the EGF and AGA (see Ali Jabarin's post). Both Eric and Mateusz have their own standpoint but at this point it is pointless, as Ali put it, to get the fair or logical decision.

The players want a rematch but the referee was firm on the decision.

Unless you know enough of both sides of the situation to make constructive comments, please be civilized and avoid impetuous responses. I felt very disturbed by some of the mindless comments. However, I still feel optimistic for future tournaments between the AGA and EGF. Thanks for reading this far and understanding.