Javaness2 wrote:As I recall it, there was a UK player in the Pandanet Team event who was losing over 10 seconds per move just due to lag.
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.
mhlepore wrote:This thread seems to be going nowhere in terms of generating a consensus.
Not sure if anyone here has read the nice fiction blog post on "scissor statements"...
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.
mhlepore wrote:This thread seems to be going nowhere in terms of generating a consensus.
Not sure if anyone here has read the nice fiction blog post on "scissor statements"...
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.
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.
hyperpape wrote:
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.
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.
hyperpape wrote:
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.
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.
mhlepore wrote: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.
The distribution of probability between the choices is not random but a value-judgement of the die-roller.
mhlepore wrote: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.
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
mhlepore wrote: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.
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.
mhlepore wrote: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.
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.
This is what I’m using:
Match Format:
– Each team has five players.
– A player gets eliminated by a single defeat.
– Once a player has played a game, the same player must continue to play until he/she is eliminated.
– The match is over when one team loses all five players.
Game rules: Japanese (komi 6.5 points)
Playing venue: KGS
Time limit: 1 hour / 60 seconds / 5 times
Players will be with a proctor during their matches
mhlepore wrote: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.
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.
This is what I’m using:
Match Format:
– Each team has five players.
– A player gets eliminated by a single defeat.
– Once a player has played a game, the same player must continue to play until he/she is eliminated.
– The match is over when one team loses all five players.
Game rules: Japanese (komi 6.5 points)
Playing venue: KGS
Time limit: 1 hour / 60 seconds / 5 times
Players will be with a proctor during their matches
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
As a TD, I would not consider those to be actual tournament rules.
*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:
A player who suspects a clock has malfunctioned must notify the TD or ATD at once,
and not continue play until the TD or ATD directs. A player may not escape the
consequences of running out of time by claiming a clock malfunction earlier in the round
which he/she never brought to the TD's attention.
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.
Timing error Players may agree to reset an incorrectly set clock before the game has started. They may not, however, restart a correctly running clock started by an official.
Once the game has started, any apparent non-trivial mistakes in the recorded elapsed time can only be corrected by the referee.
A clock found to be malfunctioning is replaced and set by the referee. If an analogue clock does not show a time excess immediately, then this is replaced by interpreting what should have been the clock's correct indication.
Anyway, none of it matters unless the rules were agreed upon beforehand.
