Maybe we can take a break from this to appreciate that both EGF and AGA pros are currently playing in the IMSA event in China, and Ryan Li just played a great game against Japanese Judan title holder Murukawa Daisuke, though unfortunately he stumbled at the end: viewtopic.php?p=243993#p243993.

I sympathize with Surma, because a loss on time was not the decision I'd have preferred.

I think it's also a poor choice to write a Facebook post before the official decision was announced, even assuming every word he wrote was true. It would have been appropriate to let there be a joint statement, or failing that, official statements from each team.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I haven't seen any official announcement of this yet, on the AGA page, the EGF page, or the tournament page.

It is quite possible that there is a language problem here. Or someone could have hacked/impersonated Surma.

I urge that everyone wait for an official announcement. ( There could be a fourth ruling )

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

I missed that part of what Knotwilg said.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I could, until I learnt the American team complained about the decision to resume the game where it was unfortunately stopped by conditions outside either control.

With "meeting obnoxious trolls online is not a privilege of mediocrity" I meant that, the experience of losing a game due to people taking advantage of deficiencies in the playing system, is apparently not restricted to us, amateurs. Whether Eric or Mateusz is the troll here, I leave for anyone to decide. Mateusz may have lied and actually carelessly lost on time, after which he tried to take advantage of the system to still get an undeserved win. Or Eric may have realized Mateusz was speaking the truth, but thought he could still squeeze a win out of the situation.

There is unfortunately no middle ground. Either Mateusz lied or he didn't.

Even if Mateusz is not lying, in the absence of a lag policy, it is subjective to assume this implies he won.

_________________
be immersed

I really hope the referee didnt actually change his mind twice in a row, and in both cases to benefit the AGA (while also being connected to the aga and aga pro system if i havent misunderstood?).

First decision to restart play sounds logical and something that would happen in any pro tournament when outside circumstances outside the players control intervene.

Replay the game after AGA protest.. ok.. fine, i can understand. I dont agree, but i can understand.

And then directly changing the result to a EGF loss after an EGF protest.. what the ****?

How did that happen?


(And no, the player cant control how their packets are routed around the world.. thats not how the internet works)

And when it comes to tournament policy, it is generally a poor decision to take a competitor at their word, especially to overturn a game result.

Rather good then that apparantly two proctors at the location to monitor no cheating can confirm it was due to lag?

There may be some lag.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

And who knows, maybe we will also see some changes to the content of it later on.

From my understanding, that was not their role in the tournament, their job was not to keep local time. If that's a role we would like them to have going forward, I do think that changing the rules and their role responsibility is a good idea, but for this situation, taking their word when timekeeping isn't their purpose doesn't seem, at least to me, like a good idea either.

I still would like to hear from the referee to get their reasoning as to why the decisions changed so many times, and why they came to this final decision, but my stance is still that if you want to accept player and eyewitness accounts to overturn the result of the game, that has to be written into policy first, not come up with as a solution when one player objects to the result.

One thing that Mateusz's post has brought us for sure is people jumping to conclusions and adding fuel to the fire by sharing gossip. A lot of people are saying how unprofessional it is for the referee to change his mind multiple times, but he has not made his mind up yet, otherwise we'd see evidence to the contrary coming from them in person. Judging from experience up until now, it seems that it's better to observe and wait rather than speculate; the latter helps nobody.

I agree that no one came out of this looking good, but there doesn't have to be a bad guy. Certainly not an obnoxious troll.

Are you seriously suggesting you can not trust two individual persons whos job was to constantly monitor the game on-site to make sure that no cheating happened?
You do realize that to monitor the "no cheating with bots" they have to constantly watch the screen and as such would also be aware of time, specially since there was 10 seconds remaining...
You seriously think that the player played at 10 seconds and didnt say a single word or swearword when the move was not registering?

If you cant trust the two people monitoring the "no bot cheating" then throw all the results out of the window and cancel the tournament, since in that case you couldnt trust them on bot monitoring either...

Assuming that Surma's recollection is informed and accurate...

EDIT: *** I removed the rest of this post, because I'm starting to have doubts about the accuracy of Serma's post. It has been in the wild for 7+ hours, and neither the AGA nor the EGF has confirmed it.
There have been posts on other sites refuting parts of it. ***

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Yes, their role is not to check the time. They are though a trustworthy person who is there to attest that no cheating went on. When you have an incident, you generally get the opinion of both players, then find out if anybody else saw something. Here you have 2 witnesses who are supposedly reliable. It isn't a question of policy for me, it is a question of standard refereeing practice. Anyway... we have 1 side of the story from Facebook, we have to wait for the other side.

From reading Reddit I seem to have the impression that part of the refereeing team was absent at the crucial moment. That's sad +2. A protest from the NA side was perfectly natural. For me that big delay in making an initial decision only adds to the merit of choosing a rematch as the best solution.

_________________
North Lecale

I am not in any way disputing what Mr. Surma and his proctor, or proctors said. I can confirm that the proctor is not responsible for monitoring the clock, simply to prevent cheating and maintain communications with the broadcast team. It seems to me you could provide that function from the other side of the room. From a distance, without getting in the players space, you can make sure he is not looking at anything or cheating, but not be able to see his time remaining.

Now, that does not mean that Mr. Surma's proctor's did not see what they said they saw, but you are incorrect to maintain that you could not properly proctor the match without seeing Mr. Surma's clock.

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

It seems there were no rules regarding lags.
In case we are in a situation of a lack of rules, we are in a somewhat unfortunate situation. Therefore we should accept any provisional means, including any trustworthy witnesses.

(Still we are theoreticizing, we don't know what happened exactly and what kind of rules/agreements sides agreed on)