The second change of decision is hard to understand for me: Mateusz says he made some allowance for his poor connection (but that ended up insufficient to prevent time loss), and this makes the referee go from rematch to time loss. Presumably Mateusz is making this point as an argument that rematch is unfair to him (he worked hard in the game to make a 99.9% chance to win on the board position vs Eric, which becomes only 50% for a rematch) and resume is better, and the referee then goes the other way in a "If you don't like my idea, tough, have a worse result!" reaction. Why not apply the same reverse psychology to the first protest: "I say resume -> AGA players protest, fine if you don't like my resume idea -> Mateusz wins by fiat because that's obviously what would happen on the board!".

The description here is a bit interesting. A rematch seemed to be planned after the initial protest, but then after hearing Mateusz's explanation of time troubles in the second match, the decision was changed to a loss.

_________________
be immersed

I guess the argument could be made, if Mateusz were having time troubles on earlier matches, then maybe he should have done more to address the issue for this game. He said that he played moves early, but that wasn’t enough if he really lost due to lag.

_________________
be immersed

Indeed. If a rematch was not acceptable, you would expect a double default to be the next step. We do not know if Mateusz said that he did not accept a rematch. Given this was in a face to face meeting, the sequence sounds pretty cuckoo. Still, maybe the scandal can generate some newspaper headlines.

_________________
North Lecale

Well, let's hope Eric plays a stupid misclick in a huge middle-game ko fight next game

Not a surprise if Ryan Li, the best americain player, didn't participate to this protest.

The issue at hand here is not clear to me any more with all the conflicting viewpoints, so forgive me if I mixed something up. As far as I understand things, the biggest point of contention with the result was, assuming the rules do not clarify what to do in case of such an objection of the result, whether Mateusz has encountered a surprising case of lag, which he wouldn't have thought of given how his previous matches on KGS in this tournament have played out, or he could have expected something like it to occur again, making it his fault for not having prepared enough for it (whether the playing field was level on this front is another matter, one of preparation and negotiation between the teams to be done before the tournament begins). Telling Myungwan about his previous case of lag made it clear he had not prepared enough for the tournament. If it was as clear-cut a response as Mateusz is painting it, then I'd be interested if I am correct in this reasoning (it seemed natural to me).

Regardless, onto the interesting question: how will everybody handle this decision, this thread included.

It’s also a bit hasty to jump to conclusions - we’ve only heard Mateusz’s account of what happened. A lot of nuance from the original discussion could have been lost.

_________________
be immersed

As already said, every choice of the referee had pro and cons, and in my personal opinion i think its the best one.
The most important is to have a process to avoid this to repeat.
The two problems are:
-referee change decision 2 times,each time in favor of NA. considering he is living in US and had been involved in the creation of the American Professional Organization, it is a bit questionable in term of influence/pressure on the referee.
-nothing is announced(for the moment?) to avoid that in the future(continue on KGS?)

I would like to see the official statement before making my mind up. It seems flat out unreasonable that Mateusz should be expected to find a comfortable location to play (i.e. same calm playing conditions as in his own house) where he could also be sure that intermittent lag would not occur. Right now, my interest in the tournament is only ghoulish.

_________________
North Lecale

This is the only result that I believe is truly fair, and I say that as an official of 8 years for a different tournament game(which has both in person and online tournaments that suffer from timing issues). A player should not have authority over a clock unless that is already supported in the rules/underlying tournament policy. Assuming there is no policy to account for lag spikes or policy mandated sources of verification that lag had actually occurred, regardless of the player, board state, trustworthiness, eyewitnesses, I see no reason to disregard the KGS clock, since that is the server that was mutually agreed upon as the server which they would be playing on.

I definitely did not expect this timeline of decisions, and honestly I wish that it was clearer and more decisive initially, rather than this weird progression of decisions, which is satisfying to no one.

I would withdraw from the event, given the unreliable conditions in which it is played and the absence of goodwill with the opponent to deal with these conditions. Essentially, the American players state that it is to be expected the result will be affected by a random disturbance and you should just be lucky it won't happen to you.

What was supposed to be a festival of Western Go, has become a bone of contention between its two major bodies.

We, amateurs, can take consolation in the fact that meeting obnoxious trolls online is not a privilege of mediocrity.

If the lag objection was not taken into account, then this decision is expected and justified. However, objection from AGA team that proctors (there were two of them), were not there to monitor lag are not justified. They were there, closely monitoring the game, and they witnessed what happen, regardless of it not being their primary role.

Judge's first decision was to approve lag complaint, and now it seems that it was overruled not because of lag, but because witnesses are not trusted? Seems stupid...

KGS adopts the same policy toward lag, so the tournament result is as valid as any KGS rank. You can argue to make a better lag policy. That’s great, but it should be agreed upon before the game is played.

This situation reminds me a little bit of HNG where Isumi was playing Hikaru. Isumi had a clear lead, but was freaking out and his fingers left the stone. He didn’t say anything because he wanted to win, but when Hikaru mentioned something, he resigned. Turned out bad for both players.

It’s a little different here, depending on whether you consider Mateusz to be blameless in this situation, I suppose.

_________________
be immersed

PS for european side, I would demand that next year match is to be played at KGS (Kazan Go Server), so other team could experience same difficulties.

Strangely, it seems that playing at your home server has bigger role than expected.

OC, this does not give the referee's thinking. But it does suggest something that is common in tournaments, whether written down or not. The referee's decision is final. That does not mean that you can't protest and appeal the decision, but that the appeal is to the referee, not a higher authority. Kim was not overruled, he changed his mind -- twice. But he has made his final decision. Each side got their opportunity to make their case to him, which he considered before making his final ruling.

The thing for each side to do in such a case is to accept that ruling with grace. (Maybe with private grumbling, OC. ) This is a different question than that of net lag. Each side agreed upon the referee beforehand, and made their appeals to him. He gets to make the final decision, and he did.

Note that it was a good idea to give a third party, a respected Korean professional with no loyalty to either side, the final decision. That way any dissatisfaction with that decision can be directed at him, not the other side.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Your level of tolerance for bad behavior online must be far lower than mine.

Essentially, your position is that Eric Lui is an "obnoxious troll". And you make this decision based upon one version of the what happened leading to the decision, certainly not any official one.

I share the frustrations of everyone regarding the failure to anticipate this issue, and the time it took to "resolve" it.

But we have a set of rules, such as they were. Under those rules the "obnoxious troll" won. He then sat for over 5 hours without hearing from anyone, although he was well aware that his opponent was disputing the loss on time. He was not asked what his position was, nor could he, under the rules resign a game that was over. Obviously, there was no "winner's" interview.

Furthermore, this is a team event, and for the "obnoxious troll" to take it upon himself to set aside the result is problematic.

When informed of the initial ruling, the team of the "obnoxious troll" protested, just as his opponent had protested the loss on time. It is all well and good for us to calmly look at the board position for a week and say he had no chance of winning, that was not the situation the two players were in when the "flag" fell. Restarting from that position under these changed circumstances was protested by the American team and the "obnoxious troll".

We have no information regarding the position of the "obnoxious troll" and his team regarding the second trial balloon of a rematch. And Mr. Surma's remarks do not technically indicate that he objected either, although his further remarks regarding his earlier lag experience would suggest that he was still arguing, but perhaps he was providing info to try to clarify the situation going forward. I would submit that we do not know.

It appears from what we have is that, with new (?) knowledge of the prior issues, the Referee may (again we do not know) may have adopted the "playing with fire" sentiment that has been expressed here, and the loss stood.

In a world where we condemn people as trolls, and have to deal with people who do so, waiting for official announcements, at minimum, seems appropriate. We may find that the official position was that it was a loss all along, but respect for Mr. Surma and what he says happened led to a negotiation of a solution, not a ruling. We do not know, nor do we know precisely who objected to which proposals.

Cannot we agree that two players of good and unblemished standing and strong fighting spirit have been put in a truly unfortunate position?

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

I think any kind of vitriol against the American team or its players is poor sportsmanship. The referee was ultimately the arbiter of this situation and using their decision to attack the American team or its players seems misguided at best.

I trust Justin Teng and given that I don't really understand how Surma's account of the decision progression came to be, I would wait for information from more sources before jumping to conclusions.

It feels to me like Surma may be trying to imply from his statement that his objection to a rematch prompted the referee to punish him by giving him a loss by time, which to me feels like an unlikely series of events. I think there should be more information from other sources we should wait for before believing this particular causative relationship.

As someone on neither side, I would recommend having time kept locally, offline.



Well, I have been online since 1983. Network problems are to be expected.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.