EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Bill Spight]

So, yes, when everybody is a noob, it is going to take time to resolve the matter. It could have taken longer. Give people some slack.

Even I am not a noob in dealing with lag. Yesterday my opponent ran out of time on KGS, or so it seemed, to return later and continue with the clock suddenly going up again. I'm quite used to this. I asked my opponent "lag?" and was prepared to give more time.

Yes, I am shocked at the naiveté of the organizers. Had none of them played on KGS before? But that is, as Albee put it, blood under the bridge.

[Renter]

The players were not at fault. They did nothing wrong. No need to give them slack.

I meant the organizers chose not to give Surma slack in the judgement, but they are now demanding slack for themselves.

Earlier I laid the most blame on the organizers. This mess is the result of their incompetence. Netlag was predictable, and they even talked about losing connection, but assumed that that would be no problem, since the player could simply reconnect to KGS. So they let KGS be the official timekeeper for the event. The referee consulted people who ran professional online go tournaments before making his final ruling. The organizers should have consulted such people while planning the event. They should have known that they did not know what they were doing.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, etc.

But we have a ruling, and the organizers are working on new rules for the event, sadder but wiser, now. It is time to move
on and support the event. It would be sad for this event to disappear because of recriminations and ill will.

I'll be happy to move on when the organizers take action, admit they made a bad call but are sticking to it, and detail how they will work to eliminate lag as a game-decider in the future. So far they've just blamed everyone else except themselves on all accounts.

[Bill Spight]

the time it took for the referee to make the initial decision to continue the game (due to not being available at the time of the game) disrupted the natural course of the game

This is the first confirmation I've seen of what I suspected. The argument that resuming the game allows players to consult a friend/AI/calm down after the stress of byo-yomi would be much weaker if the referee was present as he/she should be. Or at the very least there should be a deputy referee present with the authority to make an interim ruling and instruct the players to continue the game there and then so that the result of "resume play immediately without a pause to ask AI" is available. The chief referee can then wake up 5 hours later and the players may appeal that the interim decision of the deputy referee was incorrect, at which point the chief referee can either accept the resumed game result or make another ruling*. The absence of a referee to make this call clearly disadvantaged Mateusz.

Yes. If there can be a proctor present there can be an assistant referee present, who could have made the initial ruling. OC, that may have involved some expense, as the assistant referee needs to have had some training.

Indeed one of the main motivations for AGA / BGA rules is that referees in the West are often not strong players so we prefer the "players play it out on the board to resolve disputes" philosophy to "ask your 9p3k referee".

Actually, resolving disputes by playing it out is the philosophy behind the Ing, Japanese, and AGA rules. (The Japanese rules may use hypothetical play, but it is still based upon that philosophy.) It may be the philosophy behind the Chinese and Korean rules as well, but I am not as familiar with them. It is true that Japanese hypothetical play is difficult for amateurs to apply, but the Japanese rules were not written for amateurs, who, IMHO, should not use them.

[Bill Spight]

The organization dropped the ball, pure and simple. This was something absolutely trivial that should have been handled in 20 minutes or less.

Yes, and it could have been with an assistant referee on site, as Uberdude suggests.

What we got, however, was a double standard -- the organizers are saying Surma should have figured out that a single prior lag spike must be reported or he would be punished, but on the other hand they are also saying that they should not be criticized because there was no way they could have seen lag being a serious problem.

I have not been following all that. IMO, it is improper of the organizers to engage in public debate about this. In Hajin Lee's post, quoted here by Uberdude (Many thanks, sir. ), she admits that they did not anticipate network problems with time controls, an astonishing admission(!), but did not say that they could not have anticipated that.

It's perfectly valid to call this out, especially since it effectively ended a winning streak in a major international tournament because of a rule that was invented on the spot.

As a TD, I know that there was no rule invented on the spot. The ruling, though harsh, is in line with standard practice. It was not made to punish Surma.

[dfan]

What we got, however, was a double standard -- the organizers are saying [...], but on the other hand they are also saying that they should not be criticized because [...].

I have not been following all that. IMO, it is improper of the organizers to engage in public debate about this.

The organizers have not been engaging in public debate (and I agree that this is the correct course of action). There was one brief Facebook post with the decision. Hajin Lee made one separate Facebook post with some additional background. All other statements of the form "the organizers have been saying" are interpretations of their statements. (I am not arguing here whether those interpretations are valid or not and am not going to get into "but what else could they possibly have meant??" debates.)

[AloneAgainstAll]

As a TD, I know that there was no rule invented on the spot. The ruling, though harsh, is in line with standard practice. It was not made to punish Surma.

Ruling is absolutely outside of line with standard practice as was pointed out by EGC main refree from the past (see Roman Pszonka post on FB, and i think at least one more main ref supports that view although i dont remember name). Also ruling was not made to punish Surma you say, yet it effectively punished Surma.

Basically, the only thing EGF pros can do now is quit this competition which became utterly stupid by bad ruling and bad organisation.And AFTER that move on.

[Javaness2]

Basically, the only thing EGF pros can do now is quit this competition which became utterly stupid by bad ruling and bad organisation.And AFTER that move on.

I think you're getting a bit carried away there. Sure the decision sucked, but the EGF pros have already decided not to quit, to 'take the bad decision on the chin', and to carry on.

[Bill Spight]

As a TD, I know that there was no rule invented on the spot. The ruling, though harsh, is in line with standard practice. It was not made to punish Surma.

Let me expand on that. The organizers made the decision to let KGS be the official timekeeper of the event. (A lousy decision, IMO, but there you have it.) Whether that was explicitly stated, it was a condition of the contest. After playing a number of games, Surma was aware of that. Not only had that caused a problem, he was attempting to compensate for the netlag by making his plays 10 seconds early. Certainly that is excusable, if not normal for an amateur on KGS, who can ask his opponent for time if need be. But it means that Surma accepted the fact that KGS kept the time, despite netlag. If he had reported his netlag problem when he became aware of it, he could have obtained relief. But, having accepted the KGS time with netlag, he could not later go back on his decision when it mattered. He could, OC, have reported the problem, even during the game he lost, and gotten relief, until the point where KGS did not receive his intended move before his byoyomi period was up. But he did not, and paid the consequences.

[Fenring]

Yes, and this decision of Mateus is based of the existing conditions of the Tournament:a server based on New-York and owned by the AGA so no effort to have fair network conditions because,as with proctors, this tournament is based on trust.
Surma accepted unfair conditions because he believed on his opponent sportmanship.
The decision of the referee is the good one. But after unsportmanship from American team,Europeans pros cannot accept unfair conditions like this anymore

[AloneAgainstAll]

Let me expand on that. The organizers made the decision to let KGS be the official timekeeper of the event. (A lousy decision, IMO, but there you have it.) Whether that was explicitly stated, it was a condition of the contest. After playing a number of games, Surma was aware of that. Not only had that caused a problem, he was attempting to compensate for the netlag by making his plays 10 seconds early. Certainly that is excusable, if not normal for an amateur on KGS, who can ask his opponent for time if need be. But it means that Surma accepted the fact that KGS kept the time, despite netlag. If he had reported his netlag problem when he became aware of it, he could have obtained relief. But, having accepted the KGS time with netlag, he could not later go back on his decision when it mattered. He could, OC, have reported the problem, even during the game he lost, and gotten relief, until the point where KGS did not receive his intended move before his byoyomi period was up. But he did not, and paid the consequences.

All you says, can be boiled down to "Surma was obliged to report lag, did not - so paid consequences". Actually he was not , so all your argumenation, although logically correct step by step (well, one point is wrong, lack of report by Surma does not means acceptation, exactly same as lack of report of crime does not means crime didnt occured, but as you asked for, i will cut some slack), fails because of wrong principle.

Btw, if we consider in previous game when he lagged too, he didnt reported it - he was already punished for that by system - he lost one period of byo.I know that in US, law is different, but i think even there you cannot be punished more than once for a thing.In your "ruling" you want to make it a base for possible endless punishment for Surma.

@Java
I know that 10k USD is too much to quit, also EGF team will in most probability still win this, so its very easy for me to say they should quit, and its extremely hard for them to make such a decision. Still, spirit of game was harmed. Saying "we should accept harsh ruling and move on" will not change that.

[yakcyll]

All you says, can be boiled down to "Surma was obliged to report lag, did not - so paid consequences". Actually he was not , so all your argumenation, although logically correct step by step (well, one point is wrong, lack of report by Surma does not means acceptation, exactly same as lack of report of crime does not means crime didnt occured, but as you asked for, i will cut some slack), fails because of wrong principle.

By not reporting lag, he had to take the responsiblity of dealing with said lag in the face of the rules as they stood. We already agreed that the rules should've been more complete - but after the tournament game started, there is no room for debate on their matter. Comparing adherence to tournament rules with criminal law is like comparing apples and oranges.

[Uberdude]

a server based on New-York and owned by the AGA

Correction: KGS server is not in New York (last time I tracert-ed it was in Texas, I think it was in the Mid-West at one point) and isn't owned by the AGA (wms made it as a private enterprise, it has since passed to the AGF which is not the same as the AGA, though may be linked and some familiar AGA names, see https://www.gokgs.com/ownership_announcement.html).

[Bill Spight]

Let me expand on that. The organizers made the decision to let KGS be the official timekeeper of the event. (A lousy decision, IMO, but there you have it.) Whether that was explicitly stated, it was a condition of the contest. After playing a number of games, Surma was aware of that. Not only had that caused a problem, he was attempting to compensate for the netlag by making his plays 10 seconds early. Certainly that is excusable, if not normal for an amateur on KGS, who can ask his opponent for time if need be. But it means that Surma accepted the fact that KGS kept the time, despite netlag. If he had reported his netlag problem when he became aware of it, he could have obtained relief. But, having accepted the KGS time with netlag, he could not later go back on his decision when it mattered. He could, OC, have reported the problem, even during the game he lost, and gotten relief, until the point where KGS did not receive his intended move before his byoyomi period was up. But he did not, and paid the consequences.

All you says, can be boiled down to "Surma was obliged to report lag, did not - so paid consequences". Actually he was not , so all your argumenation, although logically correct step by step (well, one point is wrong, lack of report by Surma does not means acceptation, exactly same as lack of report of crime does not means crime didnt occured, but as you asked for, i will cut some slack), fails because of wrong principle.

The analogy is to civil law, not criminal law. Surma was not punished.

My point was that this ruling was standard, as attested to by the fact that the referee consulted other experts before making his final decision. I just spelled things out. As for failure to report meaning acceptance, there is a general principle, not only in law but in other fields, and accepted in a number of different cultures, that silence betokens assent. In general, people are expected to speak up, and people in general do.

[Javaness2]

By not reporting lag, he had to take the responsiblity of dealing with said lag in the face of the rules as they stood. We already agreed that the rules should've been more complete - but after the tournament game started, there is no room for debate on their matter. Comparing adherence to tournament rules with criminal law is like comparing apples and oranges.

Yes. He bears some blame for not explicitly pointing out to the organisers that this can happen, and hoping that they might re-write the rules or clarify what was expected to happen in such instances.
On the other hand, you cannot say "You accepted this once, you have to accept it every time in this tournament."

I played a championship final game. In game 1 my opponent ending up taking back a move after an embarrassing hallucination and getting flustered. He was lost on the board, but I didn't want to stop the clock and claim a win like that and create bad feeling. I kept playing. If he had done that a second time, or had done the same in the next game, I don't see why I wouldn't be within my rights to say that what he had done was illegal and have a penalty applied.

[AloneAgainstAll]

Civil not criminal huh? Ok, not reporting sth, does not means sth didnt occured.

Also fact that referee consulted others, does not makes its standard. Actually it means that he had no idea of standards so he decided to consult. No expert needs another experts consultation dealing with standard case.Btw you say it was standard, can you cit any similar case from past?

Your logic about not reporting means consent is still flawed. In past game Surma did not report thing.Game ended - case closed.In next game Surma report thing - you say because he didnt reported earlier, it means he accpeted it thouroughy.So i assume in any next game, Surma cant report any lag, cuz he didnt reported in some game in past?That is where your logic brings. As i said before - he didnt reported earlier and already paid consequences. Extending this further is beyond critique, and must be rejected. Basically his report on lag in game Lui - Surma cancels his acceptance on this matter, and its general principle not only in law but in other fields too that ppl can cancel their consent (or even testimony!).