It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:47 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #1 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:45 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4842
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 659
DISPUTE JUDGEMENT


*********************************************************************************************

GENERAL

The dispute affects the round 9 game of the European Championship 2010 played between Alexander Dinerstein and Rob van Zeijst and asks whether a silent volume button overrides a loss on time.

*********************************************************************************************

THIRD INSTANCE ARBITRATION BODY DECISION

The decision, which is made with 2:1 votes, is:

Van Zeijst lost the game on time (Dinerstein won).

*********************************************************************************************

THIRD INSTANCE ARBITRATION BODY MAJORITY REASONING

The majority reasoning is supported by Robert Jasiek and Luc Vannier.

According to the EGF General Tournament Rules, §5.3: "[...] Where Japanese Byoyomi is used together with a digital clock, a move must be completed within the byoyomi time period. [...]" and §5.4: "[...] If there is overtime, the player loses on time if not all of the given number of overtime stones are played in the prescribed overtime period. [...]", van Zeijst loses on time.

It is the player's responsibility to avoid losing on time by also looking at the clock's display: Playing the game with clocks next to the board operated when making moves by the players themselves includes the player's responsibility to avoid losing on time by also looking at the clock's display because a) this is also what the display is for, b) this responsibility has been the common sense practice in EGF tournaments and c) this responsibility is implied by the EGF General Tournament Rules' loss on time rules (loss on time is to be noticed mainly by what the clock display shows, so the players must also from time to time as necessary watch the display before and after a loss on time).

According to the EGF General Tournament Rules, §7.1: "[...] Decisions are made impartially. In particular, no attempt should be made to use positional judgement in reaching a decision, although also the scoring rules are to be applied correctly. [...]", positional judgement of in particular the board position at the moment when van Zeijst ran out of time does not play a role and the provisionally continued game due to the Chief Referee's decision is to be ignored for the result determination. As a positive side effect, the judgement reduces rather than increases numbers of future disputes.

A clock being silent does not override a loss on time because the EGF General Tournament Rules, §§5.3+4, specify a loss on time independently of whether a clock is silent. Since being or not being silent is not a restriction for a loss on time, a loss on time is allowed in both variants: a) while the clock is silent, b) while the clock is not silent.

Subject to the players finding an agreement not disturbing third players, the EGF General Tournament Rules and the Particular Tournament Rules of the European Go Championship say nothing about digital clocks with beeps or voice and whether the players may enable, disable or set the degree of the volume as they like. Since in principle basically it is not restricted by the rules, the players may choose whether to enable, disable or alter the degree of volume of the clock as they like. The players may do so even if the organizers have set a different volume because a) the rules do not restrict that, so they allow it and b) in the practice of EGF tournaments, many players have done it and in general organizers did not object.

Subject to the players finding an agreement not disturbing third players, although the players might have altered the volume setting, neither player attempted to do so until van Zeijst ran out of time. Therefore the players' implicitly expressed agreement until including that moment was to let the volume be unchanged as it had been from the game start - silent. As soon as van Zeijst ran out of time, the game was over and afterwards any possible change to the volume setting and new agreement between the players about it was too late.

Such digital clocks that allow and have gotten a silent setting are designed like that with the expectation of then being silent. Therefore they also then work correctly, i.e., do not malfunction.

In EGF tournaments the responsibility to set and / or check the clock settings including the volume is as follows. The rules do not specify it. In practice it has been a) the players' responsibility, b) the players' and the organizers' responsibility or c) scarcely the organizers' responsibility to set the clocks and both their and the players' to check the correct setting subject to how well the used clocks might allow that after their setting. So in general in tournaments (like the European Championship 2010) in that mainly organizers do the setting, the responsibility for checking the clock setting is shared between both the organizers and the players. I.e., also the players are responsible; they cannot reject all their responsibility by mentioning its shared part of the organizers. The players (each player for himself) always have a responsibility but not a duty to check the clock settings, especially just before the game start. Subject to what the clocks allow technically, not checking the setting of the clock is at the players' risk (except that proven wrong setting by the organizers or malfunctioning should be beyond that players' risk). This is derived from common practice in EGF tournaments. The responsibility to check settings basically applies to all types of clocks, but specific types of clocks might cause restrictions, e.g., by not having an option to check byoyomi settings after the clock has already been set. However, the relevant aspect of clock setting in this dispute, the volume button, could have been checked by each player easily.

Although good organization would inform the players of a tournament how the used clocks work, such is not exactly a duty for the organization though. If it does not provide explanation by its own incentive for all players, then each player has a right to contact organizers or referees, who then must explain the clocks to the interested players. Otherwise, by practice from EGF tournaments, it is implicitly assumed that not asking players are already sufficiently familiar with the used clocks. In case of new kinds of clocks never used in EGF tournaments before, this assumption is not useful but then the organizers do have a great responsibility for explaining the clocks to all players. "New Ing Clocks" were not a new type for EGF tournaments during the European Championship 2010 though. Players seeing them for the first time should ask before the tournament start, if necessary. Since the dispute occurred in round 9, van Zeijst had had more than enough time to let somebody explain the clocks to him; only in round 1 one might have serious doubts.

Japanese boyoymi in EGF tournaments does not require aloud byoyomi reading, allows either option of silent or aloud byoyomi reading, allows silent or speaking clocks even in the same tournament, allows (besides analogue) especially silent or speaking digital clocks even in the same tournament, and is called "Japanese" to be distinguished from "Canadian" so that the former uses 1 stone while the latter uses more than 1 stone per byoyomi period.

Sportsmanship is not relevant for this dispute: At the game start or during the game, a player may alter the setting of the volume while the opponent is not present. He may do so because a) the rules do not prohibit it and b) to let it be allowed has been practice in EGF tournaments. For the latter reason, a player is not in general required to inform the opponent about a changed volume setting. A player may inform the opponent though. It is also good practice not to change the volume unreasonably often. If the opponent can expect a particular setting (e.g., because the players previously agreed on some setting), then a player should inform the opponent rather than catch him in unexpected surprise later. In line with sportsmanlike behaviour, a player should not reset the volume for the major purpose of tricking the opponent into a time loss due to unexpected silent volume. Therefore a resetting to then silent shortly before byoyomi should involve information of the opponent, unless he declared earlier that he would not mind such a volume change. A volume setting to silent at the game start or during the middle of the basic time proceeding should normally not be interpreted as having unsportsmanlike behaviour as its (major) intention because such can hardly be inferred from the new position of the volume button itself. From these guidelines, van Zeijst's opinion that Dinerstein's letting the volume silent at the game start was unsportsmanlike has to be rejected clearly; Dinerstein did not even come close to possibly setting or altering the volume button in a way that could be considered unsportsmanlike.

*********************************************************************************************

THIRD INSTANCE ARBITRATION BODY MINORITY REASONING

The minority reasoning is supported by Matti Siivola.

Responsibilities about the clock and managing time

The responsibilities about the clock and managing time are shared between the players and the tournament organisers (represented here as referee). These include operating the clock, configuring the clock and functioning of the clock. How the responsibility is shared varies from tournament to tournament. The organizers may define the responsibilities (this is subject to EGF supervision) as they see appropriate as far as rules for the tournament are
obeyed.

In the main tournament organizers took the responsibility of setting the clocks and providing audible byoyomi to players. I consider it as a legitimate method when organizing a tournament. The current EGF General Tournament Rules from 2007 do not say anything about byoyomi being audible. In 2007 the rules were restructured, leaving only the most essential poinst in the General tournament rules, while other rules were to be codified in additional rule texts. This process is still incomplete. The audible byoyomi is mentioned in EGF tournament rules 1997-2007 and I still consider it as legitimate method.

The instruction of the clock setting team said the volume control should be set at the middle. However, players had not been informed by any restrictions to adjust the volume by themselves. In the case both players deny having touched the volume control. When white run out of time, the referee decided that it was the organizations mistake that the volume was off and ordered the game to be continued and black will get extra 10 minutes as compensation. The game was continued and white won by counting.

I judge responsibility of the clock in this case to be shared equally between the players and the organization, because the organizers intended to provide audible byoyomi, but had not properly communicated it to the players. As a consequence I judge that white's failure by running out of time disables him to win the game. When the game was continued black’s failure to win on board deprives him the win. The result is therefore a tie.

*********************************************************************************************

PROCEDURE

- The players played in their round 9 game.
- The referee was called to settle the case.
- The Chief Referee decided in first instance. Then Dinerstein appealed.
- The original Appeals Committee was formed by the Finnish organisers. When the Romanian member declared himself unable to attend an 8:30 am meeting, the Chief Referee asked Francis Roads to replace him.
- The Appeals Committee decided in second instance. Then van Zeijst appealed.
- The Rules Commission let Luc Vannier join the third instance arbitration body.
- Dinerstein's objection to Vannier was decided.
- Now the third instance arbitration body decides.

*********************************************************************************************

THIRD INSTANCE ARBITRATION BODY JUDGES

The judges are Robert Jasiek, Matti Siivola, Luc Vannier.

Since, in tradition of European jurisdiction, multi-person arbitration bodies must consist of at least three judges, the EGF Rules Commission invited Luc Vannier who joined the third instance arbitration body for this dispute.

Dinerstein filed an objection of prejudice against Luc Vannier, arguing that Vannier's country France would be too close to the Netherlands, which is van Zeijst's country of nationality. The third instance arbitration body rejected the objection: "a) Alexander's prejudice objection against Luc Vannier is rejected. b) A particular personal prejudice of Luc concerning either player does not exist. c) Judges can be expected to be impartial with respect to the country in principle, even if one of the judges is from either player's country."

*********************************************************************************************

ESTABLISHED FACTS ABOUT TIME

- The used clock was a "New Ing Clock".
- Except for the time limits, there were no particular announcements on time or clocks to the players.
- The organizers' clock setting team had had their own instructions to set the clocks' volume (about) half-way.
- At the game start, the clocks of both players were started by Dinerstein.
- At the game start, van Zeijst arrived late.
- Apparently the volume of the clock was set to minimal, i.e. silent. (The principle alternative possibility of accidental movement of the volume button during the game could not be established as a fact.)
- Subject to considering the setting of the volume separately, the clock did not malfunction.
- At the game start and during the game until the dispute, apparently neither player checked or verified the volume of the clock, although each player could have done so.
- This might mean that the clock setting team could have set the volume to minimal.
- The players together made ca. 12 to 14 plays during byoyomi.
- Van Zeijst ran out of byoyomi time, as was evident from the clock's behaviour of not responding to the move buttons any longer.

*********************************************************************************************

EARLIER DECISIONS AND CONSEQUENCES

- Chief Referee: The game was to be continued and Dinerstein to get 10 minutes extra time as compensation.
- With one or both players playing under protest, the game was finished, counted and van Zeijst won by counting (27.5 points).
- The Appeals Committee decided in second instance that Dinerstein wins.

*********************************************************************************************

REASONS BY CHIEF REFEREE

- Van Zeijst has not made a mistake, except to assume that the clock would behave in the same manner as it always does when it is functioning properly.
- Reading byoyomi includes the idea of the sound of reading the second aloud.
- It is wrong that the clock was silent in the boyoymi.
- Since the players had not touched the volume control, the clock was defective, and was to be replaced.
- Normally keeping track of the time is part of the playing skills in tournaments, a player is responsible for keeping track of his time, and a loss on time is the fault of the player whose time has run out.
- It would be unfair to require that the players be familiar with all kinds of clocks, so there should be a limit on how much clock operating knowledge is allowed to affect the results of the game. The player is responsible for knowing that he must press a button after playing his move, and the rest is somebody else's problem.
- Normally, van Zeijst would have had these possibilities to avoid running out of time: a) Listening to the clock speaking when it is started. b) Checking the volume control when he arrived. c) Noticing that the clock did not speak at the specific times it usually does, when the basic time is approaching byoyomi. d) Following the clock's readings and noticing that he is short on time. e) Noticing that the display of the clock was counting down seconds. Each of these reasons expects too much of the player or see the following point.
- In this case, the players' responsibility to be aware of their thinking time is overridden by a) usage of Japanese byoyomi, b) the organizers' implied promise of providing byoyomi read aloud, c) the thereby shifted responsibility of monitoring the playing time from the players to the byoyomi reader (here: the clock itself), d) the byoyomi reader's failure to give the promised warning, e) the byoyomi reader's (the clock's, i.e. not the player's own) responsibility of running out of time. This shifted responsibility presumes that van Zeijst did not touch or know about the volume button's setting.
- It is a mistake by the manufacturer that the clock can be set to silent so easily.
- Unless both players agree to do so (or are at least made aware of it), it is a mistake to set the clock to silent. In this case, the clock must have been set to silent by the organizers, so the mistake is theirs.
- In general, it is a mistake by tournament organizers to use clocks that can be made silent even by accident, such as accidentally touching the volume control.
- A clock is malfunctioning when it does not do something it is supposed to do (or does something it is not supposed to do). So an always silent electronic clock can be ok for the same uses as an analog one, but no tournament organizer should try to use such a clock for byoyomi.

*********************************************************************************************

REASONS BY APPEALS COMMITTEE

- The players are responsible for managing the clock and their time.
- The clock visually shows whether the game is in basic time or byoyomi.
- There is nothing in the EGF General Tournament Rules to suggest that the referees must set the clocks [prior to the games' start].
- There is no rule for whether Ing clocks have to be silent. Therefore they may be silent or not.
- Setting the volume button to minimal (silent) did not constitute an irregularity that would justify varying the general principle that a player whose time runs out loses, regardless of the position on the board.

*********************************************************************************************

EGF GENERAL TOURNAMENT RULES CITATIONS

- The current rules say nothing explicit about volume of speaking clocks.
- §4.6: "[...] A clock found to be malfunctioning is replaced and set by the referee. [...]"
- §5.3: "[...] Where Japanese Byoyomi is used together with a digital clock, a move must be completed within the byoyomi time period. [...]"
- §5.4: "[...] If there is overtime, the player loses on time if not all of the given number of overtime stones are played in the prescribed overtime period. [...]"
- §7.1: "[...] Decisions are made impartially. In particular, no attempt should be made to use positional judgement in reaching a decision, although also the scoring rules are to be applied correctly. [...]"
- §8: "[...] referees are required to carefully consider whether the fault lies in a weakness of the tournament organisation, obscurity in the rules, or in the player or spectator concerned. [...]"
- §8.4: "[...] Sanctions of varying severity include: modification of time limits [...]"

*********************************************************************************************

OPINIONS

- Chief Referee: The organizers had considered but rejected as impractical mechanical means to prevent the clocks from possibly being set to silent.
- Chief Referee: Byoyomi comes from the Japanese words "byoo" (seconds) and "yomi" (reading), so it involves the notion of reading something aloud.
- Chief Referee: All electronic clocks that claim to do byoyomi will produce a sound to indicate that the byoyomi is in progress. Beeping (preferably in a tone different from the normal operation of the clock) can be used in place of spoken voice.
- Chief Referee: It was not forbidden to adjust the volume.
- Chief Referee, Appeals Committee: [New] Ing Clocks should not be used in EGF tournaments because they are difficult to use and create (too many) disputes. (Appeals Committee: Especially on top boards.)
- Van Zeijst: He was unaware of being in byoyomi.
- Van Zeijst: Clocks must read byoyomi aloud. He was unaware of possibly silent [digital] clocks.
- Van Zeijst: Dinerstein's setting the volume of the clock to minimum at the game start was cheating.
- Van Zeijst: Roads of the Appeals Committee formed an opinion before establishing all the facts.
- Dinerstein: The dispute topic is unrelated to the aspect of sportsmanship.

*********************************************************************************************

ADDITIONAL REMARKS BY EGF RULES COMMISSION

The difference between minority and majority reasonings boils down to a matter of priority: Which is of greater importance - volume setting (as the minority reasoning suggests) or missing current EGF rules about volume setting implying silent or loud volume being both possible (as the majority's and the Appeals Committee's reasonings suggest)? It is not obvious from a priori principles which of these two should have a higher priority. Therefore the dispute judgement has to decide and decides in favour of the majority reasoning.

If the players disagree about the volume, how is it set? There is no rule. Since there is only one possible volume at any time, both players' interests must be respected. I.e., basically it amounts to a reasonable compromise between the two players. If they cannot reach it, then a referee will declare the appropriate compromise.

May a player on a board always claim to be disturbed by clocks on different boards and therefore demand their silence? Practice in EGF tournaments suggests that players are not supposed to demand silence of other clocks (although they can demand avoiding too loud clocks). The referee may refuse the demand to silence other clocks.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: deja
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #2 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:01 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4842
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 659
For the EGC 2010's results, the decision means that they remain unchanged.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #3 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:19 am 
Beginner

Posts: 18
Location: Germany
Liked others: 5
Was liked: 2
KGS: GoIngo
Many thanks to Robert Jasiek, Matti Siivola, Luc Vannier
for putting such an amount of energy in this case.

Ingo Althofer.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #4 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:20 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 8745
Liked others: 1492
Was liked: 1487
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Quote:
Sportsmanship is not relevant for this dispute: At the game start or during the game, a player may alter the setting of the volume while the opponent is not present. He may do so because a) the rules do not prohibit it and b) to let it be allowed has been practice in EGF tournaments. For the latter reason, a player is not in general required to inform the opponent about a changed volume setting. A player may inform the opponent though. It is also good practice not to change the volume unreasonably often. If the opponent can expect a particular setting (e.g., because the players previously agreed on some setting), then a player should inform the opponent rather than catch him in unexpected surprise later.


In the last sentence quoted here, is "should" interpreted as a requirement? That is, it may be unsportsmanlike, but if someone covertly adjusted time settings without letting their opponent know - as a strategy, would a similar ruling be made?

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #5 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:42 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4842
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 659
(What I write now is my personal opinion.)

A player may not have the major / only intention of tricking the opponent by means of adjusting the volume. An arbitration body needs to see evidence for this though: By the player's explicit statement (Hypothetical example case: Player: "I have done it only to trick my opponent into a time loss because I knew he would expect a speaking volume.") or by a strong circumstantial context (for whicht the judgement text gives good hints). Since there is no clearcut line between allowed usage and unportsmanlike clock tricking, "should not" is more appropriate than "may not" until we will have another dispute with a then possible more specific judgement on that aspect. The current decision says a lot but by far cannot answer all time questions in general.

EDIT: And no, it would not be considered "strategy". Strategy reaches as far as good management of one's used time, of posing board problems for the opponent's greater required consumed thinking time, of one's own psychology, of "reading" the opposing psychology but never of manipulating the latter clearly intentionally.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #6 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:56 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 386
Location: Riverside CA
Liked others: 244
Was liked: 79
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
Why not simply institute a requirement that a player who changes the clock volume when their opponent is not present must notify their opponent of the change?

EDIT: To cover a broader range of cases and reduce necessary manpower, one could just print out a little consent form where both players must sign stating the agreed upon clock settings (or any other potential causes for dispute).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #7 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:48 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 305
Liked others: 1
Was liked: 16
Rank: hopeless
Had Van Zeijst played any moves in byo-yomi prior to the expiration of his last period? If so how many?

_________________
Main Entry: zing·er Pronunciation: \ˈziŋ-ər\
1 : something causing or meant to cause interest, surprise, or shock
2 : a pointed witty remark or retort

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #8 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:57 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8745
Liked others: 1492
Was liked: 1487
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
zinger wrote:
Had Van Zeijst played any moves in byo-yomi prior to the expiration of his last period? If so how many?



In the text, above:

Quote:
- The players together made ca. 12 to 14 plays during byoyomi.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #9 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 3:56 pm 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 129
Location: Turku, Finland
Liked others: 12
Was liked: 21
Rank: EGF 1989 KGS 2d
Vote was 2-1. Who did vote against the time loss? The case was clear enough that there cannot be different interpretations of rules. Or the EGF tournament rules must be rewritten.

In general, this case is just wasting of people's time and this kind of cases must be prevented.

Actually I think that it is more relevant issue to ask, who voted for the time loss. That is because I cannot consider a tournament that uses Ing timers as well organized. Therefore organizers must bear the consequences of any alleged problems with the clocks.

I do not see any good reasons how tournament can be "well organised tournament recognised by EGF member" and thus meet the EGF standards for class A tournament, if Ing clocks are used. Ing clocks are direct violation of the spirit of EGF qualified tournament classes. In practice, this issue is much worse with EGC Weekend tournament, because with the main tournament there is more than 75 minutes time to play on main time. And therefore it may meet more readily the quality standards for class A.

We should not use that as an excuse that Ing foundation donated lots of completely useless clocks for EGF, to justify the usage of them in class A tournaments. At least in top 50 boards should be used non-ing clocks. And certainly that is not even an argument to say that since Ing timers have been used in the past, they can be used in Bordeaux 2011.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #10 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:07 pm 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 193
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Liked others: 74
Was liked: 29
Rank: 2d EGF and KGS
GD Posts: 1005
Universal go server handle: sverre
Liisa wrote:
Vote was 2-1. Who did vote against the time loss?


From my reading of Robert's post Matti Siivola voted against the time loss, while Robert Jasiek and Luc Vannier voted for the time loss. The reasoning is provided in the ruling.


This post by Sverre was liked by: Liisa
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #11 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 5:36 pm 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 129
Location: Turku, Finland
Liked others: 12
Was liked: 21
Rank: EGF 1989 KGS 2d
aa thanks, it was clearly stated there. I read the document in random order, so I somehow missed it altogether. Title was too obvious place to look for. =)

Luc & Robert wrote:
A clock being silent does not override a loss on time because the EGF General Tournament Rules, §§5.3+4, specify a loss on time independently of whether a clock is silent. Since being or not being silent is not a restriction for a loss on time, a loss on time is allowed in both variants: a) while the clock is silent, b) while the clock is not silent.


But to continue argument. This reasoning is false, because Ing timer was intended to be non-silent. This makes huge difference, so Matti's interpretation of rules was correct, and majority interpretation was false. EGF should define explicitly what is counted as clock, because definitely Ing clock does not meet the common sense requirements for game timer.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #12 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:50 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4842
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 659
Monadology, a requirement to inform the opponent of a volume change is a principle possibility for a ruleset but it does not agree to current EGF tournament practice, where in particular at the round start players tend to arrive at different times and a first arriving player's setting of the clock is pretty frequent while the second arriving player would simply look shortly if the clock is set correctly. The EGF General Tournament Rules were written to not cover each and every detail (tournament rules never can do that anyway) so that they do not become unreasonably long (nobody could recall all the rules then).

The EGC is already special in that it requires (for at least the top players) to sign a tournament agreement and getting that done is already difficult enough. Adding more check boxes or hints in such a form is unrealistic - players amd organizers would not want such.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #13 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:23 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 412
Location: Xi'an
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 23
Rank: 7k
Liisa : what's wrong with ING clock?

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #14 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:36 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 386
Location: Riverside CA
Liked others: 244
Was liked: 79
Rank: KGS 7 kyu
KGS: Krill
OGS: Krill
RobertJasiek wrote:
Monadology, a requirement to inform the opponent of a volume change is a principle possibility for a ruleset but it does not agree to current EGF tournament practice, where in particular at the round start players tend to arrive at different times and a first arriving player's setting of the clock is pretty frequent while the second arriving player would simply look shortly if the clock is set correctly. The EGF General Tournament Rules were written to not cover each and every detail (tournament rules never can do that anyway) so that they do not become unreasonably long (nobody could recall all the rules then).


I understand that the rule is not currently in place, and so is not applicable to this decision, but it does help to avoid ambiguity in future situations like this. There's really not going to be any evidence, besides outright testimony, that a player changed a clock to silent without his opponent's knowledge in order to gain an advantage.

And frankly, while I am sympathetic to the view that it's a player's responsibility to be aware of these things, I don't think it's a very consistent position that the tournament organizes are not to be expected to consider every potentiality but the player is. Players are also tired, stressed, or simply do not consider that the opponent may have altered the time setting. It certainly doesn't have to do with the player's ability to play Go.

In this instance I do not think it would add very much complexity or required memorization regarding the rules. Once it becomes a part of the procedure for beginning a game between two players, it will be habitual. Besides, it seems intuitive to me that no player should be messing with mutual used equipment like a clock without informing the other player.

Quote:
The EGC is already special in that it requires (for at least the top players) to sign a tournament agreement and getting that done is already difficult enough. Adding more check boxes or hints in such a form is unrealistic - players amd organizers would not want such.


I just meant like a little slip of paper, distributed with the clocks that has a line where both players can write in the volume setting they agree to, and sign it themselves. The players can take care of it, and it wouldn't take more than five seconds.

I'm sure things look simpler to an outsider like me, but I thought I'd make the suggestion anyway.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #15 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:21 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 702
Liked others: 165
Was liked: 104
Rank: German 2 dan
It is certainly possible to find a judgement either way here, but I must say that I am more with Matti's reasoning.

On an almost unrelated note, I would love to see a photo of the board at the time of the timeout. I know that the board state should not influence the ruling, but it certainly influences my opinion about the players.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #16 Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:47 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4842
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 659
Liisa, if you want to get rid of Ing clocks, then please initiate a motion for the EGF Annual General Meeting! Players do not need to be convinced - still quite some politicians with their so far different opinion need.

Since there have been three different interpretation approaches (majority reasinong, minority reasoning, chief referee), your statement that there could not be different interpretations is somewhat doubtful.

Liisa, Harleqin, since you think that Matti's reasoning is correct, how do you fill its gaps? It fails to address various EGF Tournament Rules related issues, which the majority reasoning discusses, entirely. E.g., it does not even cite §§5.3+4 to then argue why that must be overridden. IOW, why do you think that not existing rules (about volume setting) must override existing rules (about loss on time)? More generally, when would you allow not existing law to override existing law?

Monadology, organizers cannot foresee each potential problem in all games; there is not enough manpower for that. E.g., they would not notice when a third person would alter another board's volume.

You wish different rules but as long as EGF tournament practice is different from your wish you would actually need a change of the written rules. You call it intuitive that a player must inform the opponent about a volume change but EGF tournament practice is different again. Change all players' behaviour first to agree to your wish, then afterwards you can call it intuitive more easily.

There are already enough papers floating around - introducing yet another per board is thus a very bad idea. Rather I would like to see tournament advertisements prohibited on playing tables; they are like litter and distracting.

kokomi, Ing clocks are so wrong that it is easier to identify what is right with them... Bugs, mechanical / electric malfunctioning, early battery failure, bad electric low power management, ugly, noisy, ugly voice, hard to set, hard to check, hard to press button, impossible to see opposing time at a glance, causing 75% (what an incredibly high number!) of all tournament disputes, not enough time modes etc. It is really hard to design worse clocks.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #17 Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:05 am 
Beginner

Posts: 8
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 1
Rank: KGS 1D EGF 2kyu
GD Posts: 871
One thing that struck as being quite silly is Dinerstein complaint that a French referee cannot judgge impartially about a Dutchman as their countries are "too close together" :scratch: . First of all their is a whole country inbetween(well, if you think of my country as a real country ;-) ), secondly it is not like French and Dutch are always on the same side in every debate.

It almost feels like he insinuates that Western Europeans would stand with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans with Eastern Europeans and so on. If this is is then it shows that Russians still see the world in a very geographical way.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #18 Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:25 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 412
Location: Xi'an
Liked others: 11
Was liked: 23
Rank: 7k
RobertJasiek wrote:

kokomi, Ing clocks are so wrong that it is easier to identify what is right with them... Bugs, mechanical / electric malfunctioning, early battery failure, bad electric low power management, ugly, noisy, ugly voice, hard to set, hard to check, hard to press button, impossible to see opposing time at a glance, causing 75% (what an incredibly high number!) of all tournament disputes, not enough time modes etc. It is really hard to design worse clocks.


I feel a very strong subjective attitude here :twisted: ugly, noisy, ugly voice, hard to press...

how did you get the number 75%. Even though this number does not have much information. Other than ING clock, what other major clocks are used in big tournaments? It would be convincing that you give the number of dispute due to ING clock/number of time ING clock is used and the number of dispute due to a better design/number of time this better design is used. Also you can not dispute your opponent does not give you exactly 5.00 minutes with an analogue clock. So it should really be comparasion of similar products.

Do you consider the dispute between breakfast and his opponent this time is causing by ING clock? is this part of your 75%?

Can you name some other designs that covers its right and doesn't have its worng? Mobile application seems to be the only one I know for the moment.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #19 Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:33 am 
Beginner

Posts: 18
Location: Germany
Liked others: 5
Was liked: 2
KGS: GoIngo
Hicham wrote:
One thing that struck as being quite silly is Dinerstein complaint that a French referee cannot judgge impartially about a Dutchman as their countries are "too close together" ...
It almost feels like he insinuates that Western Europeans would stand with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans with Eastern Europeans and so on. If this is is then it shows that Russians still see the world in a very geographical way.


One more observation that may be somehow related to this:
In Tampere there was a voting on the place for the EGC in 2014
(in Romania or in Russia). "Russia" had installed Russian representives
for Russia (of course) + 4 other federations, to have better chances.
Despite this manouvre (or just because of it ?!) Romania got the majority
of votes.

Ingo.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Final Decision Dinerstein - van Zeijst
Post #20 Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:38 am 
Beginner

Posts: 18
Location: Germany
Liked others: 5
Was liked: 2
KGS: GoIngo
Harleqin wrote:
... I would love to see a photo of the board at the time of the timeout. I know that the board state should not influence the ruling, but it certainly influences my opinion about the players.


I have tried a lot to get sgf of the game or at least a snapshot
of the crucial position. No success. (I even contacted RvZ
via Twitter, but he does not seem to use his account there any longer.)

According to the first level decision the game was played on after
the timeout. At the end of the playout Dinershteyn had a loss by 27.5 points.

Ingo.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group