EGC Drama

[topazg]

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one, but mostly through sympathy as being in his position here would suck. The fact the first declaration was an incorrect application of the rules I see as irrelevant once the declaration has been made. If I was in an intense, important game, being told "Ok, game over, you've won" and then shortly later "Oh, actually, no you haven't, play back a couple of moves and carry on" I wouldn't be able to re-focus regardless of how the board looked. I think the original declaration, once made, should be binding, and if it is an incorrect application of the rules then it is up to Ondrej to launch a successful appeal against the decision.

Technically of course, playing back a move and continuing would have been the correct judgement, and if that had been made to begin with, then I would side against Alex regarding any appeal, but as it stands, I think the original referee's decision should stand.

[p2501]

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one, but mostly through sympathy as being in his position here would suck. The fact the first declaration was an incorrect application of the rules I see as irrelevant once the declaration has been made. If I was in an intense, important game, being told "Ok, game over, you've won" and then shortly later "Oh, actually, no you haven't, play back a couple of moves and carry on" I wouldn't be able to re-focus regardless of how the board looked.I think the original declaration, once made, should be binding, and if it is an incorrect application of the rules then it is up to Ondrej to launch a successful appeal against the decision.

I think it is unfortunate, but in case of an incorrect ruling it is logical for it to be overruled. Our sympathy in this situation may be with Alex, but the decision is correct and in my opinion Ondrej should get the win.

edit: As the result of this match affects the pairings (iirc), I hope it will get solved soon, so the main matches will continue.

[Laman]

But neither of them was initiated by him? It wasn't him who ran overtime, neither was him who played an illegal move? I'd say he's rather hapless.

well, maybe he is rather lucky, as in both cases the game was already clearly decided on the board and in both cases he was losing

[breakfast]

Hi, friends
Just to tell my point of view.
I know that by EGF rules illegal moves are allowed (strange rule, IMHO).
There are 2 things to consider
1. We are using Ing rules on EGC-2011. http://www.usgo.org/resources/Ing%20Rules%202006.pdf
page 29
Penalized mistakes: Making two consecutive moves is against the rule of black and
white making alternate moves; recapturing a ko stone without an intervening play
violates the ko rule. In either case, the game is forfeited.

2. Ondrej Silt was on last byoyomi period. He was counting territory (it seems) and made his move almost on last second of the boyomi.
It can be proved by KGS chat. Spectators were able to write lot of comments before Ondrej made his illegal move (during this 1 minute):
--- chat window after my last move ---
nocturne19 [2d]: j10 a ko threat for w
Opa [2d?]: yep
just9x9 [-]: but then b has g9 as threat
Korf [1k]: o12 is such a nice threat
need4speed [-]: 6d ama beating a korean pro¡
nocturne19 [2d]: yes
Windtalker [-]: yes indeed
nocturne19 [2d]: so j10 not really ako threat
DanielTom [-]: B was an insei for 3 years
idontca1 [2d]: b wins the ko
Windtalker [-]: not really
EGC2011B4 [?]: Ondrej just recaptured the ko without making a threat

By EGF rules "a player loses on time if the current move is not completed before the basic time expires" I am not sure that Ondrej had enough time to realize his mistake and undo his move. So, I feel it's possible to claim that Ondrej lost his game on time.
If it's allowed to make such illegal moves under big time pressure, such situation can be used as a time-tesuji. If the decision of the referee is correct, it means that Ondrej profited by making illegal move - he got 1 more minute to think about his next move

[lorill]

I'm glad to see your point of view.

We can't take the kgs chat for proof or anything, as :
1. 1mn is long enough to type all this, and there's no timestamps.
2. We can't know if the scribe typed the message as soon as it happened.

[tapir]

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one...

Have you seen the board?

To me it is meta-gaming. Despicable stuff.

[topazg]

I'm siding somewhat with Dinerchtein on this one...

Have you seen the board?

To me it is meta-gaming. Despicable stuff.

No, I haven't seem the game at all - is there any chance of an .sgf post?

[lorill]

[sgf-full]http://files.gokgs.com/games/2011/7/26/EGC2011B4.sgf[/sgf-full]

(a link was already in the first post)

[Psychee]

---

[p2501]

The round 3 results were updated.
http://www.egc2011.eu/index.php/en/results-pairing
According to the table Silt Ondrej was awarded the win.

[iazzi]

Its possible that Alexander was unaware of how illegal moves are handled according to EGF Tournamentrules. As he stated on gosensations.com in asia an illegal move equals a forfeit.

It does not seem actually true. According to what I read on SL at least in China the illegal move would have been considered a pass and Ondrej would have won anyway (the same would be true in AGA rules as I understand it). And the japanese rules of 1997 are reported by Jasiek as "Moves that violate these rules cannot be made. The game is not lost by forfeit through such moves.". I interpret it as saying that the illegal move attempt is either refused or accepted but the game continues.

So the EGF rules are far from exceptional, apart maybe for allowing three moves to spot the illegal move, which is irrelevant in this case.

1. We are using Ing rules on EGC-2011. http://www.usgo.org/resources/Ing%20Rules%202006.pdf

No, the EGC is under the Simplified Ing Rules. There is no such provision in the Simplified Ing Rules EGF text, so the quote is irrelevant. Please don't post false information: it may mislead someone. It is rather unambiguous that the correct thing was to continue the game.

The biggest problem is that the judge wrongly announced the loss of black instead of double-checking first. That would be my strongest complaint. It is not nice to either player, especially white that is given a false hope. A judge should think twice before playing these jokes on the already stressed players.

[daniel_the_smith]

Actually what breakfast just said makes a lot of sense-- you shouldn't be able to gain time by making an illegal move. I doubt Ondrej was doing that purposely, of course, as playing a legal move would have been much easier. If a move is redone, is the clock supposed to be rewound in EGF rules?

[topazg]

I think it's clear that the verdict should have been to carry on, and I think it's clear that the argument of the move being a deliberate time-suji is not particularly warranted, as the game's victor is already apparent. It's one thing if the game was really tight and resting on a half point, but If Ondrej was given 10 seconds per move and Alex was given 30 minutes per move, Black would still win this game.

I do still sympathise with Alex for being given false hope, and I do take his point that, if the clock was that tight, that taking back the move may have resulted in a loss by time. I also sympathise for Ondrej being caught in yet another pedantic rules dispute where he seems to be on the morally justified side.

The correct result stands in my opinion.

[daniel_the_smith]

Yeah, I agree with that (what topazg just said): I think it's Ondrej's game; but, in my opinion, Alexandre has a legitimate case and isn't just making stuff up in hopes of a win on a technicality, nor would his appeal be based on sheer pedantry. It kinda sounded like that at first, I'm glad he shared his side here. Even though it's none of our business.

[Horibe]

6. Unintentional illegal moves are retracted without penalty. The spirit of this rule is that no one will forfeit because of a technicality, as when Go Sei Gen was forced to forfeit because he answered a move on a neutral point with a move on another neutral point, when the Japanese rules at the time prohibited playing a neutral point while the game was not yet over. Note that an unintentional and illegal move is extremely rare, and players should be advised that it implies unfamiliarity with the situation. The move must be illegal, not simply unintended or unfavorable, to be considered a candidate for retraction, and the player of an illegal move must present some compelling evidence that the move was unintended, for example, the move in the Honinbo game which resulted in forfeiture because the monitor implied that it was the wrong person's turn to take a ko.

I think this makes it quite clear.

First of all, I am not sure it does make it clear. The ko take in the example was when the player asked the monitor if it was his turn and was misled. Clearly he did not intend to make an illegal move in that instance.

Still, one has to admit, there are not that many illegal moves out there, and taking a ko without threat is certainly one of the two major ones. In fact, in ING rules, with suicide being legal, perhaps the only other one would be two moves in a row. So if taking a ko without threat was not comtemplated as an unintentional retractable move, then more explanation might be nice.

So, maybe it does make it clear, if it was unintentional.

People seem to say the game was clearly Mr. Silt's and so any claim of timesuji is suspect. Well, first of all, the ability to timesuji does, in my view, make the rule, which has no penalty, suspect. I believe the AGA rules provide for a 3 pt penalty. The game seems to me to be within ten points, and close enough for Mr. Silt to be down to his last byo yomi - indeed, down to his last second according to Mr. Dinershteyn. We cannot know what was in Mr. Silt's mind at that moment - did he know he was ahead?, did he want some time for a careful count? We cannot know.

I certainly can understand Dinershteyn's resignation. I would find it impossible to continue the game at that point. In a tense match like this, even a weak player like me experiences a massive decompression of tension when the game ends, getting the game face back on is not easy. Second, no doubt, whether intentionally or not, Mr. Silt would have had time to completly comprehend the position making his chances of making a mistake under time pressure extremely remote.

I think this was a very tense situation. I am sure Mr. Silt said it was an accident - and none of us here can truly cast any doubt on his word. Similarly, I think commenting harshly on Mr. Dinershteyn, who did nothing wrong in this game, is extremely harsh.