Javaness2 wrote:Just for compare and contrast, an experience of
lag woe in an official competition. Nothing could have been done there, for the server could certainly not have been changed here. Perhaps there were some protests, but they were ignored.
The site states that the player lost anyway, therefore the match had been ruled to continue already, no?
Javaness2 wrote:I think the situation here is rather different. It's not that KGS is better or worse at handling lag, it is that here you have the option to make an intelligent decision. You have 1 game to manage, and referees you are supposed to be trusting, well okay you decided to call them protors. Of course, it depends on your moral compass, so to speak. What would your judgement be in
this dispute?
Which do you respect, the game or the rules?
Moral compass doesn't come into it, really. Technical issues should not call games. As for Jasiek's 'dilemma':
The game was played. Shortly before the end of the game, Robert was estimated to be about 30 points behind. Two successive passes occurred (first by Robert, second by Csaba). Then Robert Jasiek proceeded with board-plays to remove all those stones that Csaba Mero could not save (i.e., from a strategic point of view, dead stones inside his own territory). While he was doing this, Csaba continued to pass every move. When Robert had removed all stones he could, he also passed. Csaba then passed (3rd pass in a row) and Robert also passed again (4th pass in a row). Robert made the claim that under the 1991 Ing rules, all stones still on the board after four consecutive passes are considered alive according to the rules, and the position should thus be scored as such.
This is a well-known and well-researched case where Jasiek tried to abuse the rules and win by "HA! HA!" I would be more sympathetic if he had done it in a game where he was winning just to get the stupidity of the Ing rules out in the open. There are a lot of reasons why EGC uses modified Ing rules, this is just one of them. In addition, the case as quoted in EGF referee training also included the little detail after the first 2 passes, Jasiek disputed the game's status as being ended, then after two more passes he claims the All-Are-Alive rule comes into play.
The stated reason for the rule is, I believe, in the case of disputes it might make sense to have a different set of rules; complex seki or 10,000-year ko or other complex situations arising in the board can lead to a situation where one player will be forced to defend their claim that a group is alive or dead, or accept that EVERY STONE in the board is alive. Just for reference, a 20-point territory with a
single opposing stone would be considered seki as it is technically space touched by both sides' living groups.
Thankfully the judges ruled Jasiek's "dilemma" as "technical bullshit" and told them to get on with the game and count normally. This is, again, equivalent to the situation at hand; don't call matches based on technical bullshit, play go and not "who has better internet connection" or "Who knows the rules of excited ko minus one better."
Disclaimer: I am not actually sure if this rule still exists in the modified Ing ruleset. I do remember on one occasion warning players who had a board state dispute that if they continued the game they would have to remove all opposing stones from the board as they would be accounted alive. If I recall correctly they stared at me for a while and asked if I could please forget that they had both passed once already. Miraculously, they counted points normally after that.
Anyway, in all of the cases above, it was decided that the game should continue normally as if the technical disturbance had not occurred in the first place. As it should be, and as it should be in this situation as well.
