Life In 19x19

I hope they give soon a statement, if it´s not the decision, then an overview of the problems and a direction the thing goes. Normaly we should already know, who play the next game. And I´m for an camera for both players, placed in a way, that it can defintely be said if there a move or not, that we don´t have that problem anymore.

i believe Mateusz wholeheartedly, but i think the opposite.

if there is no specific rule about lag or disconnection in place, i think the cleanest solution is to accept the loss (unless Eric wants to decline his victory). and afterwards to put in place quite any rule concerning future similar scenarios. and as much as i like KGS, to consider if it is the best venue for this event. because according to KGS, Mateusz just lost on time, like any other player any other time. as far as i am aware, there are not even means to easily resume the game there if the referees decide to do so.

I suppose I can see this perspective, too: the only thing the rules seem to say regarding time and venue is that the game is played on KGS, with the given time settings. Lag, distractions, house fires, earthquakes, etc., are not mentioned in the rules. From that perspective, the result given by KGS may be considered authoritative, since KGS (the venue) indicated a loss on time (per the rule-specified time settings).

Man, this is a weird situation

Kirby and Laman both make very good points. Accepting that we believe Surma, Laman's position does seem pretty harsh. Fitting the facts as we know them now, particularly the board position viewed when not in the final moment of byo yomi, Kirby's position seems fair.

However, I would argue that it is bad precedent for how to handle the situation. In the law we call this "bad facts make bad law". Here, it seems clear - perhaps very close to 100% that Surma could not lose this position. So continuing from the position seems fair. Clearly, any chance Lui had of Surma making a mistake is gone, restarting the game after a thoughtful break, but there was not much of a chance anyway.

But the next time this happens, perhaps Surma's lock on the game is more fluid, the lead smaller, the game more complex - then the thoughtful break could reduce the a real chance of an upset to nothing.

For this reason, I think rematch is the best ruling as a precedent for future matches. Again, given the board position, this is harsh for Surma, but certainly not as harsh as losing a game because of lag.

Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

(I'm not saying that this is the resolution that I would advocate myself, but it should probably be in the mix.)

Anyway, any decision will make some people unhappy. The referees should make their decision, the most important being that the rules for future matches are clear.

Regarding precedent, future matches should be explicit on what happens in the case of lag, in the match rules/agreement beforehand. It is very hard to come to a resolution that pleases everybody after the fact

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

(I'm not saying that this is the resolution that I would advocate myself, but it should probably be in the mix.)

I think this is actually quite an elegant solution (and without the damage of Solomon's judgement ). Normally I don't think the board state should have much effect on rule decisions, but with the game so near the end and everything settled and a big lead for Mateusz I feel Eric winning on time thanks to lag is unsatisfactory. Mateusz being declared winner is outright wrong, it's a better result for him than if he didn't lag, whereas play continuing from the lag position would be more reasonable and is practically the same as he will almost certainly win. But even if Mateusz did lag this time he was often playing close to the end of the byo-yomi which is asking for trouble so suffering some consequences would be fair. A rematch has the problem of "What ifs?" and redundancy/boring: we've already seen these 2 play and if Mateusz wins again it feels like a bit of a duff match and Eric fans will say he really won the first game, and if Eric wins Mateusz fans say he really won the first game (were it not for lag). And in terms of interest in the event we get to see new players from both teams, whilst Mateusz can retire with 3 real wins and a 4th kind-of-win, in that he won on the board sans lag and eliminated the opposing player. It's probably the decision that minimises gross resentment on both sides, rather than maximising gross happiness.

Uberdude wrote:

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

(I'm not saying that this is the resolution that I would advocate myself, but it should probably be in the mix.)

I think this is actually quite an elegant solution (and without the damage of Solomon's judgement ). Normally I don't think the board state should have much effect on rule decisions, but with the game so near the end and everything settled and a big lead for Mateusz I feel Eric winning on time thanks to lag is unsatisfactory. Mateusz being declared winner is outright wrong, it's a better result for him than if he didn't lag, whereas play continuing from the lag position would be more reasonable and is practically the same as he will almost certainly win. But even if Mateusz did lag this time he was often playing close to the end of the byo-yomi which is asking for trouble so suffering some consequences would be fair. A rematch has the problem of "What ifs?" and redundancy/boring: we've already seen these 2 play and if Mateusz wins again it feels like a bit of a duff match and Eric fans will say he really won the first game, and if Eric wins Mateusz fans say he really won the first game (were it not for lag). And in terms of interest in the event we get to see new players from both teams, whilst Mateusz can retire with 3 real wins and a 4th kind-of-win, in that he won on the board sans lag and eliminated the opposing player. It's probably the decision that minimises gross resentment on both sides, rather than maximising gross happiness.

Seems like a pretty rational argument - effectively, it's like voiding the game, since a good solution cannot be achieved.

My only question in this scenario would be if the same policy is in effect for the remainder of the tournament - if someone else lags out, would that game be voided, too? E.g. it'd be pretty cheap, but if someone were behind on the board, maybe they opt to allow themselves to "lag out" in order to void the game.

Kirby, no I wouldn't suggest lag => both lose for future situations, this is a decision that only works here because:
1) game was so near the end with one player clearly leading by a big (at pro level) margin
2) The lagging player was winning on the board (if lagger is losing then there's little problem in saying they lost)
3) rules weren't clear beforehand.

For future I think the rules should be clarified, my feeling is either a simple lag means you lose and tough luck to people with bad connections, or a rule to suspend the game or rematch in case of lag over a certain severity. How to measure that? Perhaps the proctors should run a looping ping command to the KGS server on a laptop on the same connection as the player, and if it drops below some threshold the match is adjourned and either resumes or rematches depending on referee judgement of how long/disruptive/unfair the pause is.

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

Even better: declare the game won for both sides

Kirby wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

(I'm not saying that this is the resolution that I would advocate myself, but it should probably be in the mix.)

I think this is actually quite an elegant solution (and without the damage of Solomon's judgement ). Normally I don't think the board state should have much effect on rule decisions, but with the game so near the end and everything settled and a big lead for Mateusz I feel Eric winning on time thanks to lag is unsatisfactory. Mateusz being declared winner is outright wrong, it's a better result for him than if he didn't lag, whereas play continuing from the lag position would be more reasonable and is practically the same as he will almost certainly win. But even if Mateusz did lag this time he was often playing close to the end of the byo-yomi which is asking for trouble so suffering some consequences would be fair. A rematch has the problem of "What ifs?" and redundancy/boring: we've already seen these 2 play and if Mateusz wins again it feels like a bit of a duff match and Eric fans will say he really won the first game, and if Eric wins Mateusz fans say he really won the first game (were it not for lag). And in terms of interest in the event we get to see new players from both teams, whilst Mateusz can retire with 3 real wins and a 4th kind-of-win, in that he won on the board sans lag and eliminated the opposing player. It's probably the decision that minimises gross resentment on both sides, rather than maximising gross happiness.

Seems like a pretty rational argument - effectively, it's like voiding the game, since a good solution cannot be achieved.

My only question in this scenario would be if the same policy is in effect for the remainder of the tournament - if someone else lags out, would that game be voided, too? E.g. it'd be pretty cheap, but if someone were behind on the board, maybe they opt to allow themselves to "lag out" in order to void the game.

This is one the reasons I think, there should be an space for estimation. A referee or a jury could use this solution, but also different ones. With estimation, there can every time made an decision on the single situation. Here is it possible to look overall, what can be done.

The estimation can have these options:

Loss

Rematch

play from the point, where the game was at least

loss for both or at the end

or at least an deciding lightning game (an option if loss both is no solution, maybe if that occurs in the final, both teams got just one pplayer left).

A referee or a jury could estimate, on facts, how it occured, the position on board, the current stage of the competion, what the players say and prefer and maybe what would be the fastest solution.
There always will individuel problems in competitions, which need a single case solution.

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

(I'm not saying that this is the resolution that I would advocate myself, but it should probably be in the mix.)

this sounds quite elegant if both players agree. but i can't see it as a defendable ruling to be imposed on Eric. we might see his win as shameful but that's just to him and the general opinion. this was not a sudden death game when he would aim for a win on time. and i think his play was sound, no playing inside territory to luck out on the opponent's blunder. just the mildest breach of sportsmanship by playing to the end a lost game.

sorin wrote:

dfan wrote:Another possible resolution that I don't think I've seen here is to declare the game a loss for both sides, and move on to the next player in line for both the AGA and EGF in the next match.

Even better: declare the game won for both sides

Yes, both can play more games, wait who is gonna step out? Maybe we now let play 2 from each team.

I´m curious, if the referees reading here too. They could get an idea here.

- Eliminating both is equivalent to throwing your hands up and saying “We have no idea what to do, so on to the next players.”

- If you want to have a panel of experts (or AI) estimate the score and determine a winner, then why even have endgame at all in any of these games?

- If you want to have Eric step down because he was losing, then we are effectively shaming someone for trying to turn the game around in the end.

- If you want to have Mateusz take the L, then more likely than not he loses for something that was beyond his control.

- If you want to resume play from the last move, that removes the time pressures both were under. Maybe Mateusz wasn't sure of the exact margin and was not sure he could take his foot off the gas.

A rematch won't resolve the problems from Sunday, but it will provide another clean chance for both players to get a win.

And how about video recording both players from now on?