EGF vs AGA pros win-and-continue match

[Bill Spight]

Also fact that referee consulted others, does not makes its standard.

They knew what was standard.

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?

If you will note, that is the opposite of what I said.

its general principle not only in law but in other fields too that ppl can cancel their consent.

Surma could have done so, but didn't, in time.

[AloneAgainstAll]

Surma could have done so, but didn't, in time.

He did, obviously.As i said before, he accepted lag in Surma-Sun game, and moved on (you like moving on).But when lag occured also in Lui- Surma game, he had full right to cancel his previous consent and he did.

So if they knew it was standard, and everybody expcet me knows it is standard pls bring on similar cases.

[yakcyll]

Surma could have done so, but didn't, in time.

But when lag occured also in Lui- Surma game, he had full right to cancel his previous consent and he did.

That was not 'in time'.

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.

Same thing as above - he didn't claim his right to have his situation fixed when it was the time to do so.

[jann]

If I may butt in: I also think the argument about not reporting earlier is flawed. Not only because of the extent of the problem is significantly different (1-2 sec earlier, >10s in the last game), but also from a legal viewpoint.

It is obvious that in criminal law, not reporting earlier has no consequences whatsoever - what is crime and what is not does not depend on this.

In civil law there IS a concept of not objecting implies consent. I actually know a legal case of a friend where this mattered. But I believe this only applies to cases where the judging is open in both directions (you may or may not object a minor breach of a contract, a small delay of execution etc. in favor of the peaceful fulfillment of the contract as a whole).

But I don't think this applies here, as there is no ("legal") option to lose on time when the move was made in time. This is not something that depends on the consent/judgeing of involved parties, this is more about actual facts.

And btw: while the board position lost most of its significance when proctor also confirmed this actual fact, it's still there to reject arguments like "days have plassed, players could have consulted bots".

[AloneAgainstAll]

Surma could have done so, but didn't, in time.

But when lag occured also in Lui- Surma game, he had full right to cancel his previous consent and he did.

That was not 'in time'.

It was exactly in time. Previous lag does nothing to the next exactly as in civil law, if you suffered from 2 same incidents, not reporting first before 2nd occured in most cases you can report and bring to court both (well, if you waited 10 years after 1st, it might be too late, but i am speaking on general principle).

If we assume your logic, Surma was put in worse situation because he revealed sth truth (not his fault) about earlier game. Assuming system which punish player doing that is unthinkably bad.

[Bill Spight]

If we assume your logic, Surma was put in worse situation because he revealed sth truth (not his fault) about earlier game. Assuming system which punish player doing that is unthinkably bad.

Surma was not punished. The referee made a mistake by not finding out what had happened before issuing the first ruling.

[AloneAgainstAll]

If we assume your logic, Surma was put in worse situation because he revealed sth truth (not his fault) about earlier game. Assuming system which punish player doing that is unthinkably bad.

Surma was not punished. The referee made a mistake by not finding out what had happened before issuing the first ruling.

No, actually he was punished. Please read Lee's post about what happened between the 2nd and 3rd rulings. That was when Surma was punished.

[Bill Spight]

If we assume your logic, Surma was put in worse situation because he revealed sth truth (not his fault) about earlier game. Assuming system which punish player doing that is unthinkably bad.

Surma was not punished. The referee made a mistake by not finding out what had happened before issuing the first ruling.

No, actually he was punished. Please read Lee's post about what happened between the 2nd and 3rd rulings. That was when Surma was punished.

Surma was not punished. He was not punished for telling the truth. He is supposed to do that. Had there been no referee, he would have lost on time, according to the KGS server. The information he gave, which the referee should have found out earlier, undermined the basis for his appeal to overturn that result. Getting the result that is in accordance with the conditions of competition is not punishment.

Now, you may disagree with the ruling, and you may be right, but the referee gave a principled, reasoned ruling, even if he was mistaken. Nobody was punished.

[yakcyll]

Now, you may disagree with the ruling, and you may be right, but the referee gave a principled, reasoned ruling, even if he was mistaken. Nobody was punished.

I'm starting to believe that the long and nasty arm of the language barrier is meddling things again. Maybe the crux of the issue is that the ruling got worse for Mateusz after his own appeal which is supposedly 'wrong'? It isn't wrong though, no final ruling had been made at that time; besides, if an appeal court found more evidence against the case of the defender than the lower instance did, then it's within their power to make a stronger ruling, is it not?

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
I'm starting to believe that the long and nasty arm of the language barrier is meddling things again. ...

I agree with this.

Not only has it been a problem in understanding what the referee knew and what he meant, it is probably undermining our ability to understand each other in this thread. We should all keep that in mind when reading this thread.

[Kirby]

But I don't think this applies here, as there is no ("legal") option to lose on time when the move was made in time.

What is the definition of a "move" in an Internet go tournament?
(a) For the player to identify a place that s/he would like to play, and click on that spot; or
(b) The selected intersection is received by the server.

Mateusz did not make the move on time, by the definition in (b). So what? It's not in his control, folks say. But many online tournaments don't care - I brought up poker; it can be the same for some online chess tournaments, too. It's not uncommon to adopt the policy of: "you play in this tournament understanding the risks that lag may occur; timeouts may happen. These exceptions to not change the result". This is a perfectly reasonable policy. Lag sucks, but it's a reality of online gaming.

But maybe we don't like that policy. Maybe we'd like to be more forgiving for the (a) scenario, above. Okay, sure. Then let's make a policy for it.

But we have no policy like that, and there is no automatic reason that it has to be that way, if you're trying to argue from a "legal" standpoint.

[Kirby]

* IIRC this is what happened with the Dinerstein vs van Zeijst dispute at Tampere EGC. van Zeijst lost on time because his clock was silent. They resumed play at direction of referee/TD present and he won on the board, various appeals and counter-appeals to senior EGF referees bounced the result between them, can't remember who it ended up with.

According to the EGD, Zeijst lost against Dinerstein in Tampere - his only win against Dinerstein was at the 9th European Fujitsu cup (http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... n=10337382).

[AloneAgainstAll]

Maybe we have different definition of what means "punished", but its clear that his situation got worse after he told truth about lag in earlier game.I call it punishment, you can call it differently, but this is undeniable fact.

Well, you are again assuming sth that is not explicitely written. You wrote " Getting the result that is in accordance with the conditions of competition is not punishment. " .I dont see any condition of competition which are in accordance with ruling. You consitsensly ignoring fact that KGS was nothing more than venue (and that is actually explicitely written) exactly like some mall in center (having game of go in the center we dont follow center rules of playing go if we already accepted different rules). Rules under game was played were japanese rules, and under that ruling referee decision is completely off it (well, i assume it means 1989 rules, but i doubt that 1949 rules says anything about lag or clock, if 1989 dont say a thing).

2nd referee ruling was that it should be rematch (also debatable, but lets go on). But after learning that Surma got lag in earlier game he changed ruling to lost by time. This is point which is completely wrong (and must be because as you pointed lag is not mentioned in tournament policy, so change in ruling must be without accordance to it).If tournament policy would have lag component, then it could be true.

The difference between 1st and 2nd ruling also is very suspicious. How in all reality someone can be sure player is not cheating and not watch moves? Do Lui proctor observed monitor or not? Also assuming that Lui proctor could not corroborate with Lui claim with possible lag, also looks bad. We should assume that Lui was unlucky that hes proctor could not testify, and rule as common sense and spirit of game apply (for everybody it means different things, personally i would probably grant resume with byo period restored and oblige proctor to observe KGS lag).

Yes appeal court in many places can do it, however you seems to not understand that the earlier game was over, and its completely indepedent of next game. Whatever happend in earlier game should not have any impact on next.

Final decision of referee violated article 1 of japanese rules, and its really sad.

@Kirby
There is no definition on move in japanese rules, but considering preambule of japanese rules, we should assume that its when player click his mouse and not when server get it.You assume to get definition "a" by default because game was played on KGS, but as i say again (and i guess again i will be ignored) game was played under japanese rules, and not KGS japanese rules.

[Kirby]

I'm starting to believe that the long and nasty arm of the language barrier is meddling things again.

No, actually he was punished. Please read Lee's post about what happened between the 2nd and 3rd rulings. That was when Surma was punished.

Surma was not punished. He was not punished for telling the truth. He is supposed to do that. Had there been no referee, he would have lost on time, according to the KGS server. The information he gave, which the referee should have found out earlier, undermined the basis for his appeal to overturn that result. Getting the result that is in accordance with the conditions of competition is not punishment.

I'll try to summarize the positions in a simple way. The original authors can correct me if I get it wrong:
- AloneAgainstAll's point is that, by arguing against the first appeal, Surma's ruling became more unfavorable toward him. So it could be viewed as a "punishment".
- Bill's point is that the default ruling is a loss by time, since they were playing on KGS and that's how KGS works when your clock runs out. We can try to make an exception to KGS policy, since we have a referee, but in the end, the referee agreed with the default KGS ruling. From this perspective, Surma was not punished - it's just that the referee didn't make an exception to the default KGS ruling, with the arguments that were given.

[Kirby]

@Kirby
There is no definition on move in japanese rules, but considering preambule of japanese rules, we should assume that its when player click his mouse and not when server get it.You assume to get definition "a" by default because game was played on KGS, but as i say again (and i guess again i will be ignored) game was played under japanese rules, and not KGS japanese rules.

Can you point me to where Japanese rules explain the nuances between server side move selection and client side move selection?