POLL: Lui vs Surma clock dispute

[dsatkas]

It’s not a case that he “clearly lost”. If you take the time settings literally, he “clearly won” on time

Sure, you're right, but 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? That's one argument, that of, what are we doing here anyway. Another argument could be, that of satisfaction. How satisfying is a victory in a clearly lost position? Then, we could think about if Surma did that on purpose, which he clearly didn't, since he was comfortably ahead many moves before the incident. Also, it was confirmed that there was a lag issue. I think the most honest outcome, would be to continue from where they left, but it's kinda pointless, since the game is already over.

What annoys me, is that Europe and USA have to resort to an online tournament instead of a live one. If the cost is too much for travelling, just make it a 1-day thing, where 5 pairs play simultaneously, with proper time settings for such a serious tournament; at least 2 hours main time etc. It might also be more interesting to see the tactics of who goes board one, what openings they use and so much more. Change the venue every year alternating between Europe and USA. With proper marketing, it shouldn't be impossible to cover the costs.

[dfan]

Also, it was confirmed that there was a lag issue.

Can you tell me where you got the info that it was confirmed? I've seen it claimed a couple of times in these threads but it's all second-hand. I have not seen any actual statements by a proctor.

[Kirby]

It’s not a case that he “clearly lost”. If you take the time settings literally, he “clearly won” on time

Sure, you're right, but 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? That's one argument, that of, what are we doing here anyway. Another argument could be, that of satisfaction. How satisfying is a victory in a clearly lost position?

You bring up good points, and it's very unsatisfying in any case where the game is decided by time. It leaves a feeling of incompleteness. My earlier point was simply that it is not necessarily "clear" that Eric lost, due to the ambiguity as to what should happen in the case of lag.

For example, I see this blurb on some poker sites:

By participating in a tournament, a player accepts the risk of Internet disconnection, due to problems with the connection between their computer and the servers, lag or freeze or some other problem in the player's computer or the Internet

It's not the only way to hold a tournament, and there doesn't seem to be anything outlined in the rules for the transatlantic go tournament. There are just many ways to interpret the situation of internet lag.

[Javaness2]

Not that a Poker server would be profitable if they had to investigate every disappearance from a table.

[Kirby]

Not that a Poker server would be profitable if they had to investigate every disappearance from a table.

There are many different ways to decide how to address lag. I'm just saying here, that the winner is not clear, as was seemed to be implied by an earlier comment.

[Javaness2]

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

[yakcyll]

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

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.

[Kirby]

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

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

Provides the result of the game. It is MANDATORY to use the
following format:
"0" (zero) or "Draw" for a draw (jigo),
"B+" ["score"] for a black win and
"W+" ["score"] for a white win
Score is optional (some games don't have a score e.g. chess).
If the score is given it has to be given as a real value,
e.g. "B+0.5", "W+64", "B+12.5"
Use "B+R" or "B+Resign" and "W+R" or "W+Resign" for a win by
resignation. Applications must not write "Black resigns".
Use "B+T" or "B+Time" and "W+T" or "W+Time" for a win on time,
"B+F" or "B+Forfeit" and "W+F" or "W+Forfeit" for a win by
forfeit,
"Void" for no result or suspended play and
"?" for an unknown result.

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.

[mhlepore]

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.”

[Javaness2]

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

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

Provides the result of the game. It is MANDATORY to use the
following format:
"0" (zero) or "Draw" for a draw (jigo),
"B+" ["score"] for a black win and
"W+" ["score"] for a white win
Score is optional (some games don't have a score e.g. chess).
If the score is given it has to be given as a real value,
e.g. "B+0.5", "W+64", "B+12.5"
Use "B+R" or "B+Resign" and "W+R" or "W+Resign" for a win by
resignation. Applications must not write "Black resigns".
Use "B+T" or "B+Time" and "W+T" or "W+Time" for a win on time,
"B+F" or "B+Forfeit" and "W+F" or "W+Forfeit" for a win by
forfeit,
"Void" for no result or suspended play and
"?" for an unknown result.

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.

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.

[dfan]

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.

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.)

[Kirby]

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.

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

giving Eric the win in a clearly lost game

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.

[Javaness2]

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

giving Eric the win in a clearly lost game

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”.

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.

[Bojanic]

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

[Kirby]

Yes, the brush is at that height because his expression means that Eric is lost on the board. ... You would take into account time pressure, but not crazy stuff.

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.