This rules crisis occurred at the Nihon Kiin in 1928, before official written rules. See https://senseis.xmp.net/?TenThousandYea ... ulesCrisis . The Kansai Kiin was not formed until 1950. See https://senseis.xmp.net/?KansaiKiIn

And the official rules were not written until 1949.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I hear what you are saying, but I think you are going too far to say anything about sportsmanship. Time settings are part of the game, and Mateusz lost on time. The fact that the board position favored Mateusz and that he claims to have misclicked allow for us to consider an exception to the time rules, and in the spirit of the game - as you reference, try to come up with a better solution.

But to say that Eric is in any way being unsportsmanlike is going too far. If we are being strict with the rules, Eric is the winner of the game - not saying that should be the final result, but it's wrong to say that Eric is unsportsmanlike.

I could call Mateusz a bad sport for not accepting the time loss, but that wouldn't be very nice, would it? Neither player is a bad sport - they'll get the result decision, just like the rest of us.

_________________
be immersed

He didn't say it was a missclick, he did say it was a lag. If that's truly the case, then this loss on time is due to circumstances outside his control. Imagine in a game IRL being physically unable to place your stone on the board and losing on time because of that.

Thanks, I meant to say lag - there was some discussion earlier about the possibility of misclicks in tournaments, so I said the wrong phrase here. And yes, it is possible for lag to be out of your control (though, it's possible that negative effects of lag may be mitigated by a player by, e.g., trying not to play close to the end of byo-yomi periods, etc., but that discussion is probably too hypothetical for this discussion).

Note that by KGS rules, such circumstances - even though they may be out of your control - result in a time loss. If I'm playing a rated game, on the verge of getting to 4d from a 3d rank, and then my internet connection lags out and I run out of time... I lose the game and don't get a rank promotion. The ranking system is not forgiving. It's not ideal, but it's still a loss.

AGAIN, I'll say that I am not arguing that it should be ruled in this tournament that Mateusz should lose on time. I AM arguing that it is unkind and unfair to argue that Eric should be trying resign. Besides, as pointed out, a resign should not even be technically possible at this point, because the game is either over or in a state of limbo.

I'll say sarcastically, next time your opponent lags on you and loses the game when you're playing a rated game on KGS, shame on you for not resigning!

_________________
be immersed

I am afraid this incident may have very serious consequences.
Remember WWI, it started for a seemingly absurd reason too.
And four EGF members possess nuclear weapons.

This should be put as first rule for tournament rules that trumps all others.

Creating set of rules with idea to give same playing rights and obligations to players is correct thing to do, but they should never be more important than game itself.

Matti, do you remember case some ten years ago in Holland when Laurent Heiser lost on time when filling dame?

What happened then? Was there any dispute about the result of the game?

IIRC, game was completely over, dame points were played. Heiser has clearly won.
Heiser's opponent played some threat inside his territory, which could be dangerous if not answered correctly (some kyu level).
But before that move was played, someone asked Heiser something, he turned away and got distracted, and he lost on time.

There was argument after the game, and since they argued that game was not over yet due to threat, it was declared that Heiser lost on time.
Out of the protest, he left tournament.

-----

IIRC it was in Amsterdam go Oza 2006.
http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/To ... n=10337085
Game was against Jurij Pljusch 4d.
Oddly, Heiser is not listed, and Pljusch was listed as being free (0+), which is not possible on this tournament.

Matti was there also, he could confirm.

If the game was completely over, the opponent could not have made a play.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Nice one. But wouldn't that be seki?

Take care.

_________________
一碁一会

Thanks Bill. I was wondering how Yuri managed to play a move, but now I understand.

_________________
North Lecale

This topic is obviously turning into argument between those who consider that tournament rules, their application and finding loopholes and failures in them should be above skill shown in tournament game.

Bill, your comment shows that. "Game was not definitely over bcs they did not pass after filling dame". Please.
Playing part was over.
Trying to win by playing stupid moves when your opponent is distracted is far from sportsmanship.
Such attitude should not be approved by any means.

So basically Pljusch won but Heiser did not lose.

I have quite a lot of sympathy for the "there's something wrong with winning a game you are far behind on the board with almost zero chance of winning if normal play continues right near the end due to lag". But by using imprecise / outright false language like "game was completely over", "clearly lost game" you just make an easy target in your argument to disprove and attract contradiction.

Uberdude,
yes, it is good to mess with nitpicking instead of what is important.

Time loss often feels unfortunate. Being ahead on board and losing on time seems wrong in some way: look at the skill I showed here - I performed better than my opponent.

But it’s dangerous to discount, because it’s a factor in the game. The person that did NOT lose on time may have played less than they were capable of at times in the game, because they didn’t want to lose on time.

We can see a near final board state here, which shows a lead by Surma. But would that board state be the same if both players had infinite time to play? Probably not, because the time limits impacted the moves played by both players.

It’s an over-simplification to argue that better board position is independent of time on the clock.

_________________
be immersed

I don't see anyone doing so.

Time loss in a winning position because you thought for too long and didn't press the clock in time is sad/annoying for that player* but yes it's part of the game and I don't think anyone here is claiming that if there were no lag then it wouldn't be Mateusz's fault for playing too slowly and gifting Eric the time win (some people may say it would have been nice/polite/sporting of Eric to resign earlier, but he's totally within his rights to play out a losing game to counting). The questions is what effect does lag have if it causes the time loss, and the answer could well be different in a random KGS online game vs a pro game as part of a serious tournament with €10,000 up for grabs which is being played online for convenience with insufficient rules agree beforehand. The real life counterpart would be some cheeky child stole the real game clock and replaced it with another one with same settings, you press that one within your time limit and then 10 seconds later the real one announces "black lost on time" from across the room.

* I've experienced it many times myself, e.g. https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 14#p220014 because I misread the clock, so I went and bought a better clock. More common though is the player who used more time to get a better board position then has to play quickly near the end, avoids losing on time but plays bad moves and loses the game on the board.

I totally agree. I use KGS as an example, because it shows that there exist systems in which lag can result in a time loss. We do not have to adopt the same system here. The definition for what happens in this case does not appear to be defined for this tournament.

And that's why it's wrong to claim that Eric should be resigning - after all, there exist systems (like the KGS ranked system) for which a loss from lag is indistinguishable from a loss by time.

I also don't think this is a case of "nitpicking". This is a case of "insufficient rules agree beforehand", as you describe.

_________________
be immersed

Sorry, every serious rule set requires filling the dame during play or after the players have agreed which stones are alive or dead. The Japanese 1989 rules have been in effect for 30 years. They technically require filling the dame, but because of custom they allowed the possibility of filling the dame informally. Since then some end of games accidents have occurred, so that, as I understand it, Japanese pros now fill the dame during play. Your attitude is 30 years behind the times.

Edit: Not knowing the circumstances of the particular game, I cannot comment on the question of sportsmanship. But the game was plainly in progress for a loss on time to happen.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The custom at the time was to have Takahashi take and fill the 10,000 year ko, which would unquestionable have left a seki on the board. But Takahashi refused to do so, and there was no way to force him to do so. Also, there were no passes back then, games ended by agreement, and Takahashi did not agree. One question that arose during discussions at that time was whether making a play was a right or an obligation.

Takahashi had the support of his teammates and I think that Nihon Kiin politics played a part in the eventual ruling.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.