EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[xed_over]

I don't understand. How does "being aware of the issue" mean he should lose by timeout? It seems clear that he wanted to make a move on time. And he tried to make a move on time. But the client/server connection prevented him from making a move on time. That shouldn't be his fault.

Anyone who has ever played on KGS is aware of this issue.

I think to continue, or replay -- either one -- would have been the most fair.

[Kirby]

I don't understand. How does "being aware of the issue" mean he should lose by timeout? It seems clear that he wanted to make a move on time. And he tried to make a move on time. But the client/server connection prevented him from making a move on time. That shouldn't be his fault.

My interpretation was that Mateusz understood a risk of timing out more than the average participant, perhaps, since he claims to have experienced similar lag in earlier games from the same tournament. Maybe it's the city he's playing from or his ISP or something similar - who knows?

In this case, he could have brought it up, and maybe they could have arranged for a lag rule or something before the next game, as would have been ideal.

This is actual aligned with the AGA tournament guidelines I posted earlier. See page 75 of this document:

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.

In this scenario, it was initially unclear whether Mateusz was unaware of his "malfunctioning clock". But in his discussion with Myungwan, it became clear that he was having more of a problem with lag than usual. It seems consistent, according to this guideline, that he cannot "escape the consequences of running out of time by claiming a clock malfunction", given that he didn't bring it to the TD's attention as soon as he became aware of it.

Again, I haven't discussed this with Myungwan, but this seems like a possible explanation.

[xed_over]

ok... if that's the guidelines they were playing under...then I can understand.

were the rules/guidelines for this event ever published (publicly)?

[Bill Spight]

When I heard Mateusz's account, I was confused about the change of opinion from rematch to a loss by time. Based on what I read here, I suspect that this is the strongest reason for the change in ruling:

Mateusz was aware of the technical issue for some time, but never reported the issue to the tournament organizers.

Presumably, when Mateusz was contesting the repeal, it became clear that the repeated lag on his end was something that he knew about before it was game deciding - and maybe if it had been brought up prior to game #4, they could have worked together to come to a way to mitigate the lag problem (or maybe clarify what should happen in the case of lag).

Earlier I mentioned that the guiding principle of rulings was to restore equity, if possible. There is a subsidiary principle, which on its face seems to go against that, and that is that players have a duty to protect themselves. Kim's decision is in line with that second principle.

Surma had noticed a problem with lag both in this game and in previous games. From his own account, in a previous game he had accepted the loss of a byoyomi period because of net lag. He could have called on the referee for relief at any time, both during and between games, but failed to do so.

The ruling seems harsh, and I sympathize with Surma. In the contentious arena of tournament bridge, players are aware of their duty to call the director when an irregularity occurs, but there are so few significant irregularities in go (netlag aside) that players are usually happily unaware of the tournament director or referee. The downside is that accepting irregularities can mean that you can't complain about them later. If you accept the loss of a byoyomi period because of netlag, why not accept the loss of a game? Everyone involved is a professional, which means that they are held to higher standards than amateurs.

[Kirby]

ok... if that's the guidelines they were playing under...then I can understand.

were the rules/guidelines for this event ever published (publicly)?

NO - sorry, I did not mean to make things more confusing. What I posted are NOT official rules for this tournament. They are AGA tournament guidelines, which seem to be one possible type of policy you could adopt.

The big problem with all of this is that there were not detailed guidelines or rules for the tournament. I'll repeat: the AGA guidelines that I posted are NOT for this tournament.

The reason I bring them up, is because by understanding existing rules and guidelines that are in effect for tournaments, we may have some insight into decisions a referee may make in the absence of more specific rules.

[k0n0]

If you accept the loss of a byoyomi period because of netlag, why not accept the loss of a game?

Because finally only game results are important
Mateusz wanted to win that game, and he probably thought accepting that loss of one period would be the best way towards his win (no distraction, no possibility the game would be annulled etc.)

But I agree with the rest of your post.

[jlt]

- Mateusz was aware of the technical issue for some time, but never reported the issue to the tournament organizers

Now the organizers are aware of a lag problem in Kazan. What will happen if another player (e.g. Ilya Shikshin) plays from there?

[k0n0]

Now the organizers are aware of a lag problem in Kazan.

Not only in Kazan. I hope now they are aware that a similar problem may arise anywhere and anytime, with lesser or higher probability.

[Bill Spight]

If you accept the loss of a byoyomi period because of netlag, why not accept the loss of a game?

Because finally only game results are important
Mateusz wanted to win that game, and he probably thought accepting that loss of one period would be the best way towards his win (no distraction, no possibility the game would be annulled etc.)

Had he lost that game, he would have had no valid appeal, either. He took his chances. After the game, he could have raised the issue, but he did not. He took his chances in subsequent games, as well. Kim made a reasoned, principled judgement. When you are a pro, this is the kind of thing you have to live with.

I may have ruled differently, because I think that netlag is a known problem, and so I doubt if it was up to Surma to point it out.

[jann]

If you accept the loss of a byoyomi period because of netlag, why not accept the loss of a game?

If you accept the loss of 40 cents from rounding, why not accept the loss of 400 dollars?

Maybe he just acted in the spirit of good sportmanship, trying to cope with the awkward conditions while he could. And to play a good game.

[k0n0]

After the game, he could have raised the issue, but he did not. He took his chances in subsequent games, as well. Kim made a reasoned, principled judgement. When you are a pro, this is the kind of thing you have to live with.

(I will continue in speculations of a low value)

I agree.
It looks Mateusz didn't want to complicate things and hoped the lag would be always limited to several seconds and a 10s reserve will solve all lags. I don't know him personally, maybe he is not enough assertive.
Anyway this is a useful and relatively cheap lesson for him.

Justin Teng on reddit:

What Mateusz wrote about the protest by the AGA pros (both their opinions and reasoning for the protest) is mostly untrue.

The official verdict lacks details, and so this statement can be neither confirmed nor disproved. Fortunately. So I am looking forward to the emergency special session of United Nations Security Council.

[Kirby]

If you accept the loss of a byoyomi period because of netlag, why not accept the loss of a game?

If you accept the loss of 40 cents from rounding, why not accept the loss of 400 dollars?

Maybe he just acted in the spirit of good sportmanship, trying to cope with the awkward conditions while he could. And to play a good game.

It’s debatable as to whether it was Mateusz’s responsibility, but it’d be a lot easier to discuss the apparently recurring “awkward conditions” when he realized them. It’d be much easier to come up with a solution that way before we got into this disaster.

Eg, if you keep losing 40 cents from your pocket, it might be wise to get your pocket fixed before you lose 400 dollars.

It may be impossible to fix lag completely, but it’d be easier to bring up beforehand if you know it’s been recurring.

[k0n0]

Maybe he just acted in the spirit of good sportmanship, trying to cope with the awkward conditions while he could. And to play a good game.

I have a similar feeling. I would guess something between sportsmanship and lack of assertion/insolence.
Anyway this is a nature of the sportsmanship: it may be associated with ungrateful losses.

When it comes to a decision of a referee, the referee will probably prefer some formal rules rather than sportsmanship.

[Kirby]

He didn’t say he had connection issues in earlier games because of good sportsmanship. But he said he had connection issues in game 4 when the game result matters.

Okay, cool.

[Javaness2]

- Mateusz's proctor has witnessed Mateusz's efforts to make a move (clicking his mouse several times) starting 10 seconds before the timeout
- Mateusz was aware of the continuing several seconds' delay between his clicking on the client and his move appearing on the screen, during this game, and also in previous games

The options discussed were (a) to continue the game from where it stopped, (b) to have a re-match, and (c) to follow the tournament clock and announce timeout.

Myungwan Kim explains the main reasons for choosing option (c) are:
- The proctor's job did not include checking player's moves (they were only instructed to make sure the players do not use an AI tool during the game).
- Mateusz was aware of the technical issue for some time, but never reported the issue to the tournament organizers.

This decision seems really odd to me. It seems to argue that the witness statements should be disregarded, because they were not having the correct job description. That's very hard to fathom. Then to go beyond that and argue that Mateusz's strategy of playing with less than 50 seconds byo-yomi means he is culpable. It seems to say, yes there is lag, yes the proctors noticed it, but Mateusz is at fault for not complaining earlier. If the clock malfunctions and you know it has malfunctioned then you need to fix it. Mateusz reported the problem here when it occurred, that is all he had to do in my opinion. It is not like he was asking for his byo-yomi period in game 2 back. In any case, it seems just plain ugly that if Mateusz had said nothing then he would have had a rematch, although the official statement does not confirm that sequence of events. Did Mateusz or his team refuse a rematch?