Life In 19x19

I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

Bill Spight wrote:I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

My opinion? No, its unreasonable to think that he has to do that.

Anyways, as i said in the last post, agree to disagree.

Aram wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:I agree that with the tournament setup, with no authorization to stop the clock in case of a problem, the clock should not have been stopped. Now, I do not play on KGS, but I have seen a lot of KGS game records, which include communication between the players. In fact, I had that in mind when I said to tell your opponent. So in the case of the loss of a byoyomi period, could Surma not have sent a message to his opponent, saying Netlag, which would have then become part of the official record?

My opinion? No, its unreasonable to think that he has to do that.

But he could have done that quickly, right? We can agree on that.

And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

Bill Spight wrote:No, immediate reporting is the player's job. So stop the clock if yu must. Or notify the proctor and report the problem to the organizers after the game.

You said Mateusz should have behaved like a true professional. But in this tournament he was never in a situation of true professionals. The tournament had no rules, the referee was sleeping, and later he found out the only official present (proctor) was not allowed to do any other job except to check AI cheating.

Why do you think Mateusz didnt complain to the proctor about the short lags? It is quite likely he did it.
Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

The referee decision is ok, its not fair to Mateus, but when there is insufficient rules, fairness of the tournament is based on player's sportmanship.
At moment american decided not only to not resign to avoid a win by disconnection, but to contest referee first's statement, (some of them publish their arguments and we can see they are stupid) , unfair decision was the only issue according to the rules.

yakcyll wrote:because for me it's damn clear that if something out of the scope of the tournament rules can prevent me from winning, I should figure out what to do about it and let the officials know about it, not hide it thinking it will just magically go away.

Kirby wrote:He explains an incident where he lost a byoyomi period. Did he think it was unlikely to happen again? Seems he wasn’t too concerned about it when the game result wasn’t on the line.
I don’t know if he should be required to initiate a discussion, but not doing so certainly seems risky, doesn’t it?

Could you look at the similar situation which I described in italic here
viewtopic.php?p=244896#p244896
and could you explain whether you would repeat your argument in that situation too?
If not, what is the difference between these two situations?

Bill Spight wrote:And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

Mateusz probably complained to the proctor during the game, or the proctor noticed the lag himself (he noticed a 10-s lag, he probably noticed a 3-s lag too).
And Mateusz probably didn't see a reason to do it. He could expect another behaviour of organizers, read above.

k0n0 wrote:Why do you think Mateusz didnt complain to the proctor about the short lags? It is quite likely he did it.

I never said that he didn't.

Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

We do not know that.

What we do know is that this tournament was poorly organized. It should have been possible to get in touch with an official on a moment's notice. And netlag in particular should have been provided for. But the organizers are working on new, and hopefully better rules and provisions.

k0n0 wrote:Imagine a classic real tournament. The organizers chose a small playing area, and so there is not enough room for tables and alleys between them. Alleys are extremely narrow. in order to walk in alleys, people must touch tables.

At this point you talk to the TD, referee, or other official.

I am in byo-yomi, someone walks around and shoves to the table slightly. Stones shake themselves, but they stay at their intersections and I can play and press the clock in time.

At this point you call the TD or referee.

Later someone walks again and shoves to the table more swiftly, all stones are moved, they must be rearranged and I cannot play within my byoyomi limit.

At this point you call the TD or referee in a loud voice. Stand up, jump up and down, whatever it takes.

k0n0 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:And he certainly had time after the game to report the netlag problem. We can agree on that, right?

Mateusz probably complained to the proctor during the game, or the proctor noticed the lag himself (he noticed a 10-s lag, he probably noticed a 3-s lag too).

Maybe so. The referee should have asked the proctor what he saw. First, ascertain what happened.

And Mateusz probably didn't see a reason to do it. He could expect another behaviour of organizers, read above.

He could expect incompetence from the organizers.

Edit: Later thought. Maybe he did. Why else impose a 10 second penalty on each byoyomi period if you expect the organizers to take care of netlag situations? Why keep silent about the problem if you expect a helpful response?

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:Imagine a classic real tournament. The organizers chose a small playing area, and so there is not enough room for tables and alleys between them. Alleys are extremely narrow. in order to walk in alleys, people must touch tables.

At this point you talk to the TD, referee, or other official.

The organizers chose this playing area, they see the alleys are narrow. What kind of their reaction would you expect?

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:I am in byo-yomi, someone walks around and shoves to the table slightly. Stones shake themselves, but they stay at their intersections and I can play and press the clock in time.

At this point you call the TD or referee.

Again, what reaction would you expect?

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:Later someone walks again and shoves to the table more swiftly, all stones are moved, they must be rearranged and I cannot play within my byoyomi limit.

At this point you call the TD or referee in a loud voice. Stand up, jump up and down, whatever it takes.

This is what Mateusz did.

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:Anyway, if Mateusz complained to the proctor then his complaints would be nullified, because proctor's job was not to gather complaints.

We do not know that.

We know nothing, all time we are only speculating here.
But it looks that one of proctor's activities was nullified because it "was not included in the proctor's written job description" (quoting a fb post of Hajin Lee). If the referee want to be compact, he should apply this rule in any proctor's activity.

k0n0 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:Imagine a classic real tournament. The organizers chose a small playing area, and so there is not enough room for tables and alleys between them. Alleys are extremely narrow. in order to walk in alleys, people must touch tables.

At this point you talk to the TD, referee, or other official.

The organizers chose this playing area, they see the alleys are narrow. What kind of their reaction would you expect?

They are on notice.

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:I am in byo-yomi, someone walks around and shoves to the table slightly. Stones shake themselves, but they stay at their intersections and I can play and press the clock in time.

At this point you call the TD or referee.

Again, what reaction would you expect?

To take note of the situation. Perhaps to make an announcement. Perhaps to restrict movement between tables during play. But the main thing is that they have been notified of the problem.

Bill Spight wrote:

k0n0 wrote:Later someone walks again and shoves to the table more swiftly, all stones are moved, they must be rearranged and I cannot play within my byoyomi limit.

At this point you call the TD or referee in a loud voice. Stand up, jump up and down, whatever it takes.

This is what Mateusz did.

Apparently not the first time that happened.

----

Presumably the organizers and players are on the same side, in that both want to have a good tournament. If the problem with the organizers is their inexperience and naiveté, then alerting them to a problem they did not anticipate will help them to correct the situation, or at least to improve the conditions of contest. Inaction because you expect a poor response does them a disservice. Also, putting them on notice may give you some protection, as it probably would have in this case.

Fenring wrote: At moment american decided not only to not resign to avoid a win by disconnection, but to contest referee first's statement, (some of them publish their arguments and we can see they are stupid) , unfair decision was the only issue according to the rules.

Let's be clear - referee made no public statement until a final decision had been made. The website also indicated no winner for the game while things were still being discussed. Decisions were considered prior to that, and discussed among the involved parties. First result was the loss indicated by KGS due to a loss on time, which in the end, ended up being the same as the official decision.

Kirby wrote:
Let's be clear - referee made no public statement until a final decision had been made. The website also indicated no winner for the game while things were still being discussed. Decisions were considered prior to that, and discussed among the involved parties. First result was the loss indicated by KGS due to a loss on time, which in the end, ended up being the same as the official decision.

Let's be clear we have now public statements of the americans players where we can see they contested a resume-the-game decision with only stupid sentences.

Come on now. Calling them stupid sentences doesn't add anything to the debate. The next match is this Sunday and time is running out for the new rules to be published. Can you feel the anticipation building?

not much related to the ongoing discussion, do you know who are the proctors and how does their job look like? ie does an international EGF referee have to travel to Kazan for each game? do they sit behind the player and over his shoulder watch the computer screen? do they follow him if he goes to fetch his kotlet schabowy?

banal questions, but i am curious