Yes, just beep, but not say "ten, nine, eight...". You can even get it in chid0ri's (author of empty triangle comic) voice.

From a TO and EGF referee (though not for a while) perspective, I would like to sum up the situation:

* One player was on their last byo-yomi period.
* A game loss by time was decided by the server.
* Player claims they had played their move while 10 seconds in the clock were remaining.
* Proctor/observer in the room confirms this.

To me it seems obvious that the game must resume. No other option is fair or reasonable or in the spirit of the game.

In the future steps can be taken to mitigate these kinds of events, including:

* Local time stamps, even if server time is used local time for each move SHOULD be recorded, for cases such as this at least.
* Proctors/observers should be instructed to pay close attention when in last byo-yomi period (or last minute or last 1-3 stones in the case of Canadian byo-yomi or similar).
* A camera recording the player could be used.

The raison d'etre of time rules is to keep the tournament at a reasonable length. They should never be about "HA! HA!" moments for the player with the worse Internet connection, especially in a game between professionals or any other serious game.

I have lost games with time. I have won games with time. I have used time-suji on occasion and had time-suji used against me. I have called wins and losses for time and resumptions on many occasion, including once where a player lost the same game 3 times with time in the european go congress. Time settings are an integral part of any tournament and they should be respected, but the rules and the rulings must also align with the spirit of the game and the tournament and outside interference (faulty clocks, natural disasters, fire alarms, internet lag) should never be a major factor. If it seems like it would be a major factor, the TOs must take action to prevent or mitigate such problems.

In the case of a fire alarm or a natural disaster, it is obvious that any games would be returned to a known good state and continued if it is possible to do so and both players are capable. In my opinion, if the tournament rules do not account for internet lag, it is outside interference and should not be a major factor in deciding any game result. Chess clocks break or get faulty buttons all the time, you don't call games based on that.

If the tournament organizers decide to call the game loss by time or other options except resuming, they are essentially washing their hands from the results of their own choices of venue/rules/observers, saying they are not responsible for KGS problems or Internet problems, KGS rulings are the word of Gord and that they do not trust their own proctors. Why have them in the first place, then? This is a game between professionals and even the idea that one player should be handicapped by being forced to play within 30 or 40 seconds when the other has 1 minute is absurd.

TL;DR If the chess clock breaks, you get a new one and carry on with the game.

Resuming the game is one option, but clearly not one that people universally find to be the best option. The length of this thread proves that.

_________________
be immersed

We should roll a die to determine what happens:

1 = Eric wins right now
2 = Mateusz wins right now
3 = Resume game
4 = Rematch
5 = both are eliminated and next players are up
6 = nothing - roll again until get 1-5

I'm not even joking. Making it random will take away people's ability to complain about the organizers' rationale when they reach their decision. This is a crappy situation, and there is no consensus, so roll a die/flip a coin and move on with life.

That's what the referees have been doing for days.

This brings up an interesting aspect - a lot of the discussion has been about losing due to lag, i.e., lagging out to the point of running out of time.

But it's also problematic for Internet players who experience lag at other points in the game, because it can lead to losing more time than expected. It can add stress to the situation, and be harder to handle than in a real-life game.

_________________
be immersed

FWIW, my 7-year-old son thinks they should rematch (though, he doesn't have much context into the situation)

_________________
be immersed

It's true that we will not have a consensus, but I think the thread has been pretty measured. I may be putting words in others' mouth, but it seems like a lot of people think that there's no ideal solution, and we're just discussing which solution would be the least bad.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

If anything, it helps us weigh pros and cons of each potential solution better in case any of us ever happens to find themselves in such a situation. Finding a consensus in a delicate tournament matter was never considered the role of this thread, I'm sure. And besides, 'what ifs' are a good starting point for imagination.

Fair enough.

But some for some people, the best solution is trying to find the most proper application of the tournament rules, and for other people, the best solution is to compromise. As I read these posts, people do seem dug in one way or the other.

And some people's views have changed. My initial view was that the game should be resumed from where the alleged lag occurred. But I've changed my mind a little bit, because I don't know if it's completely fair, given the agreed-upon time constraints and game server. Here, there was a lag that resulted in time running out. But laggy internet could have occurred throughout any of the other games, too - we just may not have seen it so obviously. So since they agreed upon this server and time settings, I now lean more toward an approach that takes those agreements into stronger consideration than simply to resume the game.

_________________
be immersed

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

The distribution of probability between the choices is not random but a value-judgement of the die-roller.

Does anybody in this discussion know what the tournament rules were? My impression is that they were not specific enough as regards the timing of moves.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

i don't think the goal of this discussion is to find a universally accepted ruling. indeed, what would it be even good for, given we are just some guys (and possibly gals) at an online forum, not the organizing team responsible for the decision. people are just happier if they can talk about the issue. i don't consider this discussion very fruitful myself, so i contributed with just a few posts - yet there were raised some interesting points.

PS: a pretty cool story you posted earlier

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

Thank you! If one person read the scissor post story, then this whole headache has been worth it.

This is what I’m using:

_________________
be immersed

Thanks.

As a TD, I would not consider those to be actual tournament rules.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

*shrug* I don't know of any other public rules. For kicks, I looked at AGA tournament rules (https://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/AGATDGuide.pdf) in regard to timekeeping, but couldn't find anything directly applicable, given that they don't address internet tournaments directly.

The closest thing I found was this:


Not sure how to interpret that in this scenario - lag seems a bit different, doesn't it?... And it doesn't even really matter, because I doubt it was agreed upon to use any sort of AGA rules.

_________________
be immersed

EGF rules here (https://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm), I guess:



Anyway, none of it matters unless the rules were agreed upon beforehand.

_________________
be immersed