As written earlier, the 75% number I got from a referee for the EGC 2010 top boards, who acted as a referee during all rounds.

Other clocks used regularly in EGF tournaments include DGT and Garde.

In tournaments without Ing clocks, the percentage of clock related disputes is much lower, as I have observed but I cannot give precise figures.

If a clock without volume had been used, then the dispute would not have arisen.

Digital clocks with much better (although not perfect) design include:
- Chronos, http://chronosdealer.com/
- DGT

On the board, the game was extraordinarily interesting. Let us hope that Alexander publishes it!

This is the reason that there is not required any AGM movement, but ING clock's are already in direct violation of EGF tournament rules. Therefore current EGF tournament rules already forbid usage of ING clock in class A and class B tournaments. If rating committee has approved them in the past, that wont justify them to be qualified in class A status in the future. Therefore all tournaments that uses Ing clocks cannot be more than EGF class C tournaments.

I was little inaccurate with saying that Matti's reasoning is correct. Actually referee's interpretation was correct.

So you are saying 75% of the dispute is due to clock problem. That's different emphasis from saying ING clock caused 75% of disputes. I assume you only use ING in EGC? So that's not a comparasion with other clocks. (Correct me if i did not understand you well).

The thing I don't like ING clock is what you said that one could not see opponent's time at a glance. The clock on the link you gave serves in a better way.

However in this specific case, I don't think it's anything to do with the design of the clock used. But honestly I don't know to whom/what to blame (that caused this trouble).

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Liisa, for sure you mean the chief referee and not the referee...

Your view that Ing clocks violate EGF tournament rules is a refreshing thought. How would they violate them? Maybe §§9.2.1+2. But considering that the current decision does not interpret like that, this is too far-fetched.

In the EGC 2010, AFA, only New Ing Clocks were used. The 75% refers to the EGC 2010 only.

Clear violation is that EGF rules require tournament to be well organized. This is not subjective statement, but good organization means that there is proper EGF approved rules used and there is proper referee who has adequate understanding of rules used.

Problem is that Ing clocks deprive from any head referee ability to make correct decisions according to current rules set. That means in practice that referee cannot acquire adequate understanding of rules applied to all relevant situations, if Ing clocks are used. If referee's ability to make justified decisions is deprived, it means that Ing clock violates EGF rules, because with Ing clock there cannot be well organized tournaments.

Indication for this is that there are three conflicting opinions presented. This kind of situation cannot be possible with well organized tournaments.

Rules should be ok, but used clocks were faulty. However rules do contain small miswording, because there is no such thing as Canadian byouyomi, but only Canadian overtime and Japanese byouyomi. But this is just detail. There can be however practical implications, because when EGF rules refer to a silent clock they are referring to analog clock with Canadian overtime used. When using Japanese byouyomi there should not be allowed usage of silent clocks. Situation is even worse, if sound can be easily disabled by (malicious or ignorant) players.

Excalibur Game Time II digital clocks were used for side tournaments, rapid tournament and main tournament boards 101-150. Ing clocks must be reprogrammed every time they are reset. Excalibur can hold up to five user-programmed settings in the clock memory so with preprogrammed Excaliburs it was possible save lots of work and trouble in side events.

The only reason (and really, the only reason) EGC2010 used any Ing clocks was financial. If somehow a very big stock of some better digital clock was donated to EGCC, I'm sure lots of future congress organizers would be happy.

Liisa, I can sympathize with your not well organized argumentation. The rules are better than the actually used playing material here. In practice this is a political problem though. Forbidding Ing clocks would imply declaring useless a stock of hundreds of clocks of the EGF etc. For for me, but to really do that you need to have a political decision. I tried something like that in the Rules Commission but without success (yet). It requires more than one active player on the political scene. Get involved!

Pyoveli, there is an alternative: Players attending the congress might be required to bring their own clock. This would then require great respect of all towards the clocks and reimbursement for stolen clocks.

Some of the EGC 2010 organizers told me that Finland could have organized other clocks in principle; so I don't buy the "only financial" argument.

I do not think that it necessary to wait very big stock of proper clocks to be donated. It is better than nothing that we have around 24 proper clocks for top boards and for the rest inexpensive Ing clocks are possible choice for filling the lack of proper clocks. Gradually when stock accumulates, the less need there is for Ing clocks.

It was extremely good that EGC 2010 organization could bring proper clocks for side events. Sadly because top boards were in Pyynikki building, it was not practical to give Excaliburs for the top 50 boards, but for boards 100-150. But I would courage other EGC organizers to learn from the good example that Finnish organizers gave, that if EGF clock stockpile is rotten, host organization may do something independently with resources available. E.g. I would think that local Chess clubs could rent their digital game timers for using in Congress. I would not think that is not much more expensive than to cargo Ing clocks all over the Europe.

Also I would think that it is ok to have top boards to use of Fischer time and if only analog clocks are available, Canadian overtime may be used for the rest. Japanse byouyomi may be used with Ing clocks if there is no better choice available, if Ing clock does not handle either Fischer or Canadian overtime. Does Ing clock handle Fischer? If it does, this would solve the clock problem, without further discussion.

At the EGC 2009 in Groningen, we used DGT 2000+ clocks for the top 16 boards specifically because of the dubious reputation of Ing clocks.

I think that for boards using Ing clocks, referees should cut the players some slack with regards to clock issues.

Since Fischer time is OT, I do not state my opinion about it in this thread.

I know this is a bit off-topic, but I still find it bizarre that the tournament organizers are expected to provide clocks. This is the EGC, perhaps the premier Go event in the world outside asia, and players are still showing up in large numbers without equipment?

On topic .. if a dozen or more moves were already played in byo-yomi, it becomes difficult to believe that Rob was not aware he was in byo-yomi. My sympathy for his position is reduced under this circumstance.

_________________
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

This is one of the stupidest suggestions so far, congratulations.

We needed 220-250 clocks. We got 50 Excaliburs from the Finnish go clubs. Do the math.

One more thing: I don't like the constant emphasis that "at least the top boards should have better clocks". Are the top players somehow less capable of handling the go timers than the rest of the pack?

Cheers,
Vesa

Hello Vesa,



Good point. I had also been thinking about it.
Perhaps it would be a better rule to have simpler/safer
clocks for pairings where at least one of the players is
old (above 45 or so) because old people typically have more
problems with techno tricks.

Ingo (49 years)

This suggestion is perhaps the second stupidest suggestion so far. And yes they do, because in order to be top player you need to use every second for thinking that is given for you. You should know that. And there is little money issue that only top players do fight for money. And also there is the issue with Eurogopro, where it presumably matters to perform well in major tournaments such as EGC.

McMahon inherently emphasizes only top group players, so no moral problems there.

It is necessary for the organizers to arrange the material, otherwise there is no way to guarantee that there is enough. Bringing a board and stones is troublesome and heavy for anyone not coming by car, while clocks are not widely owned by players personally.

Asking people to bring equipment and then hoping there is enough is no way to run a professional event.

Additionally, if four hundred players bring a clock, it is absolute hell to keep track of whose clock is where, in what condition it was (in case of claims of damage), etc.

In Groningen, in addition to the material provided by the EGCC, we loaned material from at least five other clubs, and already it was quite a challenge to keep track of all the material, and we had to replace some stuff that was "lost".



Rob says he was not aware he was in byoyomi, and I see no reason to doubt his word on it. With 60 seconds byoyomi, it is very well possible to play a few moves in byoyomi without noticing, especially when the clock is silent now, while in all previous he had experienced that it would talk about the byoyomi at length (When on, the Ing clock announces entering every period, then talks every ten seconds, and every second of the last ten seconds).

Vesa, I prefer players bringing their own clocks to any Ing clock ever having to be used. Ing clocks are stupid - not my proposal to not use them. The maths is easy: One needs some half the number of clocks as participants. For reimbursement, the congress organization needs insurance - at the same time, it saves transport costs.

Those (like the Appeals Committee) thinking that top players were in need of better clocks think so because top players considered winning of greater importance and as a side effect caused more referee involed disputes. I do not know if that is so or not.

I do think though that top players deserve better playing material, if available; they sit longer at the board, they think harder and their thinking can be yet better when the playing material is better. Also top players have, by virtue of their greater playing skill, earned the right to better playing material.

I guess Go just operates under different standards than chess, despite their apparent similarities. When I was playing tournament chess, the organizers never provided equipment in bulk. In larger events they might have a few spares around. But these were rarely used because everyone brought their own, and nobody thought of it as a burden, it was just normal. In fact, in the rare instances when it somehow came to pass that both players in a game lacked a set, board, or clock, and had to borrow from other players or organizers, it was considered very silly of them, and entirely their own fault.

As a result of this "training", I would absolutely never show up to a Go tournament without set and clock (Excalibur for me). To me it sounds like going to a tennis tournament without a raquet, expecting the TD to give me one. Apparently I am the strange one.

_________________
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