They see it, so they are on notice.

No need to notify them.
They see people touch tables when walking around, and it is likely that sometimes stones will shake, or in an extreme situations, will be moved.
They know that TCP/IP doesn't assure packets will be always delivered.

I agree with your point "better safe than sorry". I see that once you participate in a tournamennt, you probably read Fire Prevention Directives of the building where you play, and check whether organizers follow them.
But personally, if I followed your council then I would feel a bit like an extremist and impolite towards organizers ("you are so stupid that I must warn you that ...").

But although I agree "better safe than sorry" is a valid idea, I don't think it would affect the fact that
organizers made serious mistakes and subsequently they were blaming Mateusz for their own mistakes. And that it is unfair.

Meh - I think the ruling was fair. You don't. Let's repeat our opinions for another 30 posts or so

_________________
be immersed

Could you post your source?

Many people confirmed there was only one verdict of the referee. That verdict did not include a rematch as an option. So how could Surma refuse something that was not an option?


I agree that so far I found only lawyer-like-win-by-all-means arguments why the game could not be resumed.

On the other hand I believe both the sportsmanship and the will to win are equally legal.
Imagine there is an abscissa with two extremes:
a) an absolute sportsmanship (imagine a player who plays a bad move deliberately, anytime he sees a heavy opponent's mistake)
b) an absolute will to win (imagine a player who is able to topple a table "accidentally" in order to win)
Any player keeps its own position on some point of the abscissa, between these two extremes.
A player usually considers all players who are closer to a) than him, to be silly players. And he usually considers all players who are closer to b) than him, to be unfair players.
In other words, morale is relative, every man has its own definition of "be silly", "be moral", "be unfair".

So I somewhat agree with Ryan Li who advocated AGA players this way:


edit: a typo and wording details

No. As R. D. Laing pointed out, the assumption that you know that I know that you know that I know that . . . , is not in general true. You are putting the organizers on notice that there is a problem, and also that you know there is a problem. By alerting them to the perceived problem, you are helping them to run a better tournament.



Probably so. But you don't know that they perceive the problem unless they say so. OC, they may make an announcement about it, but maybe not. And if you wait until the tournament has started, they may not make an announcement or otherwise address the problem until something bad happens. The important thing is to share knowledge, so that everybody knows the same important things, and everybody knows that everybody knows those things.

My longterm girlfriend in my 20s and 30s thought that a good relationship was based upon knowing and being known. She had a good point.



In this case, we don't even know if the organizers know what a packet is. We do know that they discussed a loss of internet connection, and thought, naively, that that was not a problem because the player could simply reconnect. I am amazed at their ignorance. Surely they had experienced netlag themselves. But they were clueless. The kind thing to do would have been to alert them to the problem they were clueless about.



A lack of mutual trust and respect between tournament officials and players is a recipe for trouble. If a player has a concern and expresses it to the TD, referee, or organizer, and the official dismisses it out of hand, then, as my wife used to say, We are doomed. Speaking as a TD, I want to know about the players' concerns, so that I can run a better tournament. Give me some credit, please.



I did not see where they were blaming Mateusz for their mistakes. If so, We are doomed. In fact, if the latest about the appeal process is accurate, that Mateusz declined a rematch, then offering a rematch was not blaming him for anything.

This incident underscores Laing's and my girlfriend's point. Sharing knowledge makes for good relationships.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It is fair for players to play under conditions of contest that they have accepted, unless the conditions are set up ahead of time to favor one side or the other. In this case, the KGS clock kept the official time, and that was known to all, and so losing on time by the KGS clock was fair.

However, as was his right, the player who lost on time asked, with good cause, for the loss on time to be overruled. Once that happened, and the appeals process became muddled, the question of fairness switched from the conditions of contest to the appeals process, and became unclear.

Out of this mess I hope that new conditions of contest and appeals procedures will result that will be satisfactory to all. It would be a shame for this tournament to disappear.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

So Surma lost by forfeit?

Got a link to this?

I know its post-truth and fake news era, but please lying like this is disgusting.
Hard to read so much lies.
Nobody say we have to resume just for this game or don't require referee to have plans in place.
We say "resume the game is better in general" and decision "rematch or resume the game" is independant of the choice to adopt new rules.

Let's be careful about what we admit into evidence here in our kangaroo court.
Totally agree, it is a horrible situation. But is it publicly stated that he categorically refused a rematch? I understood that he submitted a protest to the rematch decision. It appears somebody else also protested against the rematch decision. If MS really lodged an appeal with the explicit statement that he does not accept a rematch written in it, that would really put matters in a very different light. I think the rematch was the best worst option, and so does George.

To return to another point. The AGA guidelines do not suggest that you should be punished for what you did in earlier games in a competition. They only talk about the current game [the round] and they also talk about notifying the TD at once. I understand that the TD wasn't there to be notified. I also, from experience, don't find netlag to be a constant thing. The AGA guidelines were not in force of course.

What rules do people think would be good to put in place for the remainder of the competition?
I think that there should be a referee present during the games. I think that we can handle netlag in byoyomi. A proctor can watch the clock in overtime. If he clearly sees a loss of a byoyomi period, and the player stops the clock to protest [exits the game] then the referee can direct his opponent to return a byoyomi period [Add 1 minute]. I think this is a fair bodge, as far as bodges go.

_________________
North Lecale

I have posted very emotionally about this myself but since the EGF players have decided to move on, so have I.
I can't decide for the rest of you but maybe it's time to put this discussion to rest and return to the more positively enthralling happenings in Go.

With my admin hat half on, I wonder if come this Sunday (when the next game Eric Lui 1p vs Ali Jabrain 2p is due to be played, but still no public announcement about new rules) we should split off the lag/time/referee discussion to a separate thread so this one can focus on the rest of the match, or perhaps just make a new one seeing as I don't fancy selecting 550 checkboxes!

Please close this thread!

A loss on time is always frustrating, especially when you're ahead (as I know from experience). But a decision has been made, life isn't fair sometimes, get over it. The best thing you can do in that situation is just to start a new game.

Mistakes have been made, well that's ok, we can learn from them. When the win is on the line we do strange things, we're human after all. That's ok too, even Hikaru struggled with the same thing

To the people bashing the organizers: Shame on you!

Go is (and probably always will be) a niche in the west and everyone investing his free time (often unpaid) and energy into creating events like this in the first place deserves our full support. They don't owe us anything, on the contrary: we owe them a great deal! If you think you're so much cleverer please organize some events yourself and see for yourself what that entails.

The Go community likes to think of itself as somehow more enlightened than other people but as 30+ pages of petty bickering show, this is clearly not the case.

Would be easier to move on, if some people stop to repeat lies.
Loss by disconnection is not a classic loss by time.
When i see lies like this, i don't feel we are learning from past.

It would help if you don't call a difference of opinion a lie. We're on the same side of the sympathy but I wouldn't call those who differ "liars". When engaging in a discussion, you must think your opponents in the debate are sane people. If you don't, stay out of it (like I won't engage in a flat earth discussion). If you do, then acknowledge their point of view and try to convince them otherwise (or be convinced of their POV(*)). If that doesn't work, time to move on.

(*) This is another key element often missing in (online) debate. The willingness by principle, to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint. Many people engage in a discussion to either prove the others wrong, or move on. The 3rd option should be there, or else by symmetry no discussion would ever resolve in an agreement.

I totally agree, but when a argument,already proven as wrong 3times, is reused, for me it is like a lie.
The alternative is to think he is not lying but too stupid to understand.
I have higher expectations for go players.

In general, it is difficult to change your opinion about something you care strongly about, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. One form of this is known as the “Backfire Effect” - I posted about this earlier.

The basic idea is, when presented with new research or evidence that is contrary to a belief you agree strong with, you are more likely to reinforce your original belief (“eh, that point has these flaws; their research is insufficient”) than to change your original opinion. I am certainly guilty of this.

Perhaps it’s paradoxical, but with more facts and information in the advent of the Internet, in some ways, folks are not more connected but rather more divided.

That is, if you believe in the backfire effect. If you previously had a strong opinion to the contrary, I’m sure this reasoning seems flawed

[1] https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10 ... re-effect/

_________________
be immersed

Many years ago I read a short book about teaching by a man who had been a master at an English boys' boarding school. About fairness, he made the interesting comment that headmasters are never right about fairness, masters are sometimes right about fairness, and boys are always right about fairness.

By analogy we may say that players are always right about fairness. To me that would mean that there is a higher standard of fairness than abiding by impartial conditions of contest. That is, no player should lose a game because of conditions beyond their control. OC, that is an ideal. For instance, a player may have to forfeit because of a traffic accident.

In this case, the organizers, in their naiveté, made KGS the official timekeeper, and the players, in their naiveté, accepted those conditions. Doing so meant that, sooner or later, someone was going to lose a game because of netlag, which would violate that higher standard of fairness.

As we say where I come from, that's a helluva way to run a railroad. But the organizers are drafting new conditions of contest, which I hope will be such that netlag is never an issue.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

A very reasonable behaviour. Normally, strong beliefs are formed on the grounds of strong and wide evidence, so when something new comes to light that contradicts that it is simply more likely that there is something wrong with the new info than with the original theory.

The problem is not that people are too slow to change opinions - the problem is (some) people are too quick to form opinions to begin with!



If this would be true the case would have been very clear from the beginning, without the need for a week before a decision, without changing the decision several times, and without a rematch option ever offered to be refused. And of course, without any meaning of notifying the referee about the earler 1-2s lag.

Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion here to say, “If your belief is strong, the other guy is probably wrong”?

_________________
be immersed

The muddled decision process was, IMHO, a result of their naiveté.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

My two main guides in life:
My mother and my wife.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Or rather "if your belief is strong, you need similarly or not stronger evidence to change it".

Your example sounded like about strong existing theory vs. single new counter evidence or data point - which unsurprisingly meet doubts in science or in general.