A lost game implies that it is a game which is lost on the board.

_________________
North Lecale

Depends on whether you play to win or not. A tournament game is lost when one of the losing conditions is met, including but not limited to losing a match by having less points on the board after two passes.

In practice, there are various ways to lose a game. For example, SGF specification indicates this in game records: https://www.red-bean.com/sgf/properties.html#RE



The types of loss include:
* Loss by some number of points
* Loss by resignation
* Loss by time
* Loss by forfeit
* Void for no result
* ? for unknown result

There is already enough ambiguity in this situation due to the lack of clarity in the rules. Let's not add to it by saying that Eric "clearly lost". If you want to say that he "lost on the board", the added clarification is essential for this situation, which is already ambiguous.

_________________
be immersed

Below are quotes from both threads. It is not intended to exhaust every point that was made, but to highlight some of the different perspectives people have.

Lag matters?
“I think this comes down to whether we believe Mateusz’s statement.”
“i believe Mateusz wholeheartedly, but i think the opposite.”
“You simply can not put a rule in that says that players are responsible for their connections”
“remember that we are playing Go, not ‘who has the better Internet connection.’”

It’s obvious – what should happen is:
“probably the fairest thing would be to declare the game without result and let the players have a rematch under the new conditions.”
“It baffles me why there are other options except the 2nd (Give Mateusz Surma the win because he had a clearly won game.) and 3rd (Resume the game at the point at which there was an alleged communication failure.)”
“I think Eric Lui is highly embarrassed with the whole situation and will gladly accept any reasonable offer, such as playing a new game or continuing from where Mateusz allegedly left it.”
“if there is no specific rule about lag or disconnection in place, i think the cleanest solution is (for Mateusz) to accept the loss (unless Eric wants to decline his victory)”
“I think there could be only 2 options for ruling:
- loss in the game due to timeout,
- continuation of game if lag argument is accepted.”
“To me it seems obvious that the game must resume. No other option is fair or reasonable or in the spirit of the game.”
“Wind back the clock, continue play from the position from where the disruption happened.”
“Resumption would not be equitable because the property of being in byo-yomi has been lost.”
“Sorry, but estimates are needed.”
“One thing I would disagree with is adjudication.”

It’s about tournament policy:
“the integrity of the tournament must be protected above all else. … ”
“Nothing else matters here, because we are trying to determine tournament policy”
“Tournament policy is beyond the scope of any inquiry.”
“finding an outcome that both sides can accept and preserving goodwill is relatively more important.”

There should only be satisfying victories:
“What is the purpose of this tournament? Isn't it to find which team is the strongest? How a win for Eric furthers this purpose?”
“Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides”
“I don't understand what the fuss is all about. Mateuz was clearly ahead, there were what 10 moves, basically dame remaining? And he claims he played with a 10 sec margin. Give him the win already and next time plan more carefully the tournament.”

You can do that if you like, but when somebody talks about somebody "having a lost game" the interpretation most people will make is that he is "lost on the board". That is, he is literally walking around on the goban and he has no clue where he is.

_________________
North Lecale

Indeed. The fact that there have been so many conflicting statements of the form "It is obvious that the only reasonable solution is <A/B/C/etc>" is a pretty clear indication that any resolution is going to offend a lot of people.

(The only way that massive hurt feelings could have been avoided would have been for the participants to agree to a resolution quickly; lots of people might still be annoyed by it but at least they'd have to admit that the players agreed to it. It's too late for that now, though.)

He didn’t say “having a lost game”. He said:


Which brushes over the time setting aspect of the game completely. Given that it was still possible to time out - lag or not - shows that it was not a “clearly lost game”.

Maybe Eric will still lose the game from the ruling, but it is certainly not clear.

_________________
be immersed

Yes, the brush is at that height because his expression means that Eric is lost on the board. Nobody considers that a possible external event* should be taken into account when assessing the position on the goban. You would take into account time pressure, but not crazy stuff.

* some examples being lag, a heart attack, a DOS attack, the Spanish Inquisition.

I wonder who sponsors the event, and what they make of all this. The diplomatic solutions of rematch or double default are all that can be chosen now. Clearly the win options and resumption option are already ruled out.

_________________
North Lecale

Maybe it would be good to have discussion on how to improve go servers for important matches.
Servers being used now are 20 years old, and lot has changed since. Connections are faster, but still sensitive.
There are AI programs

Yes, you would take into account time pressure, which means that it is not accurate to say it was a "clearly lost game". When you use phrases like, "clearly lost" and "obviously", it's a type of persuasion that pushes your own thoughts/bias about the situation. That's why I responded in the other extreme by saying that one could say that Eric had "clearly won". Obviously, I'm not talking about the board position here, but the statement has the same degree of "clarity" as the one about the board.

I don't think it's a bad thing that I'm pushing for more clarity in an already ambiguous situation. It's not clear to me why you have a problem with this.

_________________
be immersed

Kirby, considering that Ali Jabarin already called the game for Surma at that point, it's probably accurate to say "clearly lost" and "obviously". Plus there were no weak groups or dangerous cuts left to mess up position, right? So that what it was, clear win for Surma, we all know that. Why obfuscate that fact?

Because it's not "clear" or "obvious" considering the time situation. We are talking about two different things. It is surely clear that Surma was leading on the board. It is not clear that Surma won the game, even now. It is not obvious that he should win the game. Am I speaking a different language?

I guess it might just be a difference in perspective that's hard to overcome.

_________________
be immersed

off-topic:

Hi Kirby,

_________________
be immersed

From the options presented I'd give half a vote to 1 (Eric win), nothing to 2 (Mateusz win by fiat, thought option 3 is effectively the same and Eric may resign immediately to be sporting), and a whole vote to all of options 3-6. But having to pick at most 2 went for 3 and 5. Most important is picking one both sides can accept and continue in good spirits. This event is supposed to be a celebration of the AGA and EGF pro systems and something I've been looking forward to for years, and hope continues for years. I wouldn't want this unfortunate incident to jeopardise that.

The question is unclear and may be interpreted in may ways:

Who should win considering the Transatlantic tournament rules/agreements (which we don't know, seemingly)?
Who should win from my personal point of view and in a general situation? Is it a question how any sensible rules of a (general) tournament shall be formulated?
Who should win from my personal point of view and in this concrete situation, supposing organizers forgot to set up clear rules about internet lags?

Hear, hear!

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I would give Eric Lui the win and let him play the next European player. But, since there is this a highly unusual and controversial situation, I would not eliminate Matheusz Surma and push him to the end of the list. It might be the other 4 European players would defeat the two remaining Americans and then it won't matter that Matheusz wasn't eliminated

I still believe the most honest response would be to resume the game, which is basically the same as giving the win to Surma, but that's not my favourite outcome. If it were up to me, i would prefer Surma to win on paper, but Eric be able to continue with the next EGF pro. That way, we accept the superiority of Surma and we get an extra game.

Sorry I haven't been unable to resist any more

_________________
When you play Weiqi you are joining millions of people across four thousand years of time.
Jonathan Hop - So You Want to Play Go?