Life In 19x19

Posted: **Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:52 pm**

Having the TUR file would save me and others, who study pairings and standings after earlier rounds, many hours of work for the reverse engineering (or reentering into the pairing program of all game results in all rounds) and manual SOS calculations for every round! E.g., for designing better details of the new EC system I want to see the standings and SOS after in particular round 7.

Posted: **Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:51 pm**

Hello,

I would like to get sgf of the game
Dinershteyn vs van Zeijst.

Can someone help me with this?

Especially, I am interested in the position where
the accident with the clock happened, and also in
the final position (where W+27.5 was counted).

If sgf is not available, perhaps someone has at least
photos where the positions on the board can be seen
(and reproduced).

Thx in advance for all feedback.

Ingo.

Posted: **Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:14 am**

Peter Hansmeier wrote:What else is there to consider in a further appeal?

1. The clock was working and set correctly (according to the original post).
2. Both players knew the time limits and were aware of the penalty of exceeding the time limit.
3. A player ran out of time and therefore lost.
(...)
Is there something I am missing?
(...)

This is indeed food for thought!

Whether or not the clock was set correctly is one pivotal, important question (who? responsibility?),
whether this ING clock is a correct, suitable clock for this purpose is another.

Tournament Organizers should provide a course on using the ING clocks (including the verification of settings).
It is a safe educated guess that a large number of players have not learned the usage nor seen/read a manual on the ING clock.

The relative importance on the outcome of the game can be for DDK, SDK, low-dans, high-dans + pros alike.

The biggest dissappointment among the players involved (even the winner perhaps) will be the uncertainty of the decision.
One had to ask a referee, then an appeal board which involves the human factor.

Wishlist
1) Hence, some choice of clocks (at least for the top boards) should be possible (players should agree).
This kind of voting by walking away would eliminate the trouble-some ING clocks.

2) Rules so clear that a referee/appeal-board would be estimated superfluous in given case.

Predictability excludes much unfairness.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My own experience: unclarity of choice of Rule Set, Difference of 1-referee decision with board of 3 referees, equalizing justice in one and the same tournament

I had my experience in a Dutch tournament where my opponent had an impenetratable 'won' position (IMO)
and because of that I tried to lure him into a complicated ko because I realized that he was in byoyomi.
In my evaluation he could even have lost the ko and still would have won.
Nevertheless I won the ko-position and he got an substantial exchange.
However this took him too much time and he 'lost' on time.

Now he claimed to 'only having PASSed' (= Dutch Rules), hence factually he would have won.
I asked for the referee, who confirmed that view and decided against me (inofficially?),
yet also asked whether I would like to have all referees together and get a formal decision.
After confirming that wish the referee board stated that International Rules would apply (not pressing clock within byoyomi = loss on time) -> hence I won on time with a lost position on the board.

Compensatory Justice
One or two games later I lost another (really won) game by time, pondering which of the last 1-pointers would be better .... :-)

( pic: there is something bigger than a 1-pointer, perhaps I thought about that as well)

Anyway, I could not possibly to argue now - as on-the-spot-dogmatician - that I wanted to claim the PASS option here,
so I accepted my fate.

Posted: **Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:00 am**

Some facts:

Rob van Zeijst did not know he was in byoyomi.
An eye-witness claims that van Zeijst had been in byoyomi for only around 6 moves.

My opinions:

Clock should make sound in (Japanese) byoyomi.
Correct clock setting is an organizer responsibility (as are all matter regarding equipment).

If the clock was set to make no sound (possible with the v2 Ing clocks, not with the v1 Ing clocks), then that is an organizer error, and players should not be punished for it. Hence the referee decision was correct, and the appeals committee was in error, putting undue responsibility on the players. The responsibility of the players should be to manage their time, but not to have to verify that the provided equipment is functioning.

The v2 Ing clocks have the option to easily turn the sound off any time during play, which is a design error in my opinion. Organizers should make the correct settings, and it should not be possible to change them easily. If changing any clock settings is required, a referee should always be called.

Posted: **Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:10 am**

I may be biased in that discussion because I won one of my games for the same reason but even if I try to think as objectively as possible, I come to the same conclusion, which is the following:

Alone the fact that the eye-witness could understand that Rob was in byo-yomi clearly means that the clock was fulfilling (at least) the minimum functionality requirements. Maybe only visually maybe also audibly, but the required functionality was there. Therefore one cannot say that the clock was malfunctioning. Meaning that the organizers cannot be made responsible for that (unless there is a clear rule saying that the clock must make sound in byoyomi - which is not the case as fas as I know).

I fully understand the disappointment and frustration of losing game for that reason and I agree that such things should be avoided as much as possible. But once it has happened, the only responsible for this outcome is the player himself.

Posted: **Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:32 am**

To prevent any "misuse" or "misbehaviour" of the clock, I stick to my previous suggestion:

Tournament rules should make an explicit common understanding of both players mandatory that Byoyomi (for one of the players) has begun.

If we compare the situation with Canadian Byoyomi, the player will not start to count stones for the first period of Byoyomi before his opponent has asked him do to so. If the player himself does not realise the end of the main thinking time, there is no kibitz who has the right to give a signal to the opponent.

Even in "classical" Japanese Byoyomi (if I do not misremember) the very last minute of Byoyomi is counted in another way by the timekeeper than all the Byoyomi minutes before.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:31 am**

entropi wrote:I may be biased in that discussion because I won one of my games for the same reason but even if I try to think as objectively as possible, I come to the same conclusion, which is the following:

Alone the fact that the eye-witness could understand that Rob was in byo-yomi clearly means that the clock was fulfilling (at least) the minimum functionality requirements. Maybe only visually maybe also audibly, but the required functionality was there. Therefore one cannot say that the clock was malfunctioning. Meaning that the organizers cannot be made responsible for that (unless there is a clear rule saying that the clock must make sound in byoyomi - which is not the case as fas as I know).

The rules do not mention the sound of clocks at all. In such a case, where there are no rules, we should look at what players can reasonably expect.

In my opinion, players can reasonably expect the clock to make a sound in byoyomi, because that is what clocks usually do. Also, the word byoyomi ("seconds reading") implies sound. If organizers deviate from usual practice, they should make this clear to the players. If it was intentional that the clock sound was turned off, then organizers should have, at the start of the tournament, warned players that clocks will not make a sound. If it was unintentional, and the intention of the organizers was that clocks should make a sound, then this is clearly an organizer mistake, for which a player should not be punished.

The appeals committee ruled that it is the players own responsibility to check if their clock will make a sound. That is a terrible ruling, because it requires that the players known how to check sound settings on all sorts of clocks. On some clocks, such as the DGT 2000+ we used on some boards in Groningen, it is not even possible to verify it without entering the clock settings and resetting the clock. And there is the possibility of confusion. On the Ing v1 timer, if the sound slider is set to its lowest setting, the clock still makes a sound, you cannot turn sound off. On the v2, which looks quite similar to the v1, if the slider is set lowest then byoyomi sound is completely off, but the clock will still produce a beep every time a player's button is pressed, giving the impression that sound is on.

I've encountered similar situations in other tournaments, where the sound on the clock was unintentionally turned off, and players did not notice they entered byoyomi. I have always ruled that this is organizer error, not player error, and that play should continue. If it was possible to turn sound on, then that was done, otherwise I warned the player that it was now his own responsibility to keep track of his time, since he was now aware of being in byoyomi and was aware of the lack of sound. Only if the player is aware of these two facts is it IMO reasonable to expect of him to keep track of his own byoyomi.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:05 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:

In my opinion, players can reasonably expect the clock to make a sound in byoyomi, because that is what clocks usually do. Also, the word byoyomi ("seconds reading") implies sound. If organizers deviate from usual practice, they should make this clear to the players. If it was intentional that the clock sound was turned off, then organizers should have, at the start of the tournament, warned players that clocks will not make a sound. If it was unintentional, and the intention of the organizers was that clocks should make a sound, then this is clearly an organizer mistake, for which a player should not be punished.

The appeals committee ruled that it is the players own responsibility to check if their clock will make a sound. That is a terrible ruling, because it requires that the players known how to check sound settings on all sorts of clocks. On some clocks, such as the DGT 2000+ we used on some boards in Groningen, it is not even possible to verify it without entering the clock settings and resetting the clock. And there is the possibility of confusion. On the Ing v1 timer, if the sound slider is set to its lowest setting, the clock still makes a sound, you cannot turn sound off. On the v2, which looks quite similar to the v1, if the slider is set lowest then byoyomi sound is completely off, but the clock will still produce a beep every time a player's button is pressed, giving the impression that sound is on.

I've encountered similar situations in other tournaments, where the sound on the clock was unintentionally turned off, and players did not notice they entered byoyomi. I have always ruled that this is organizer error, not player error, and that play should continue. If it was possible to turn sound on, then that was done, otherwise I warned the player that it was now his own responsibility to keep track of his time, since he was now aware of being in byoyomi and was aware of the lack of sound. Only if the player is aware of these two facts is it IMO reasonable to expect of him to keep track of his own byoyomi.

I agree, you cannot expect the players to be able to do the settings of the clock (did the players set the clock in the first place?)

I think the players should be made aware that he is in byoyomi or overtime. (in other words the extra time cannot start if the player is not aware that it started)

I think the proper way is

Code: Select all

Suppose 
It is white's move
White is under time pressure

- White flag falls

- question who needs to notice.
(ACF) Black most notify White
(FIDE) referee may notify white
- White is notified
- Extra time starts

- White plays within time  -> Black moves next ect
- white plays to late  -> penalty for time out

This will mean that white has much more time on his last move within the normal time.

(the remainder of the main time, the time it takes to notice the flagfall, the time it takes to notify ect) but i think it is fair.

In the old days we only had anol;og clocks then it was always clear when the main time ended, because there needed to be a timekeeper for counting down the seconds, no way the player was not aware of it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:50 am**

If this were two 20 kyus playing in their first tournament, one might sympathise with this loss on time.

But the game was between two 7 dans who, one imagines, would be well aware of the idiosyncrasies of various clocks - or, at least, one would expect, would take the time to become familiar with such.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:00 am**

richardamullens wrote:If this were two 20 kyus playing in their first tournament, one might sympathise with this loss on time.

But the game was between two 7 dans who, one imagines, would be well aware of the idiosyncrasies of various clocks - or, at least, one would expect, would take the time to become familiar with such.

How?

1) you cannot buy them for yourself (so play with it in your own time)

2) the full instructions are only in chinese. (so they cannot read them)

3) modern digital clocks are quite complicated and need a study of their own.

So how can you become familiar with them?

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:45 am**

richardamullens wrote:If this were two 20 kyus playing in their first tournament, one might sympathise with this loss on time.

But the game was between two 7 dans who, one imagines, would be well aware of the idiosyncrasies of various clocks - or, at least, one would expect, would take the time to become familiar with such.

I think it is unreasonable to expect players to study the various clocks in use. They are there to play go and decide the championship. Matters of equipment should be dealt with by the organizers as much as possible, and I think it is reasonable for players to expect that such matters are taken care of.

I think that for Rob van Zeijst, this may have been the first tournament he ever played with the new Ing v2 clocks. They were present at the EGC 2009, where he played, but there we specifically chose to use DGT2000+ clocks on the top boards, because of the fact that Ing timers often have problems (another semi-regular occurrence is that a player mistakenly presses his clock when he wants to check his opponent's remaining time).

I have attached the settings manual we used for the two Ing type clocks at the EGC 2009, which includes pictures of both types and shows how the settings are done.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:11 am**

HermanHiddema wrote:I think it is unreasonable to expect players to study the various clocks in use. They are there to play go and decide the championship. Matters of equipment should be dealt with by the organizers as much as possible, and I think it is reasonable for players to expect that such matters are taken care of.

It appears they were. Elsewhere in this thread eyewitnesses are reported to confirm that they were award that van Zeijst was in byo-yomi. Clearly the clocks were functioning as timepieces.

I would have some sympathy for van Zeijst if this had happened in the first round or two of the tournament. But this incident occurred in the ninth round of the event. van Zeijst had eight prior games to observe and use the clocks. If he wasn't comfortable with those clocks by then, he should have asked for a lesson in their use.

The volume argument seems a bogus to me. van Zeijst would have heard the clocks (either his own or his neighbours) making noise in previous games, so there is no way he could credibly claim ignorance. He should have noted the speaker volume at the beginning of his game and adjusted it to a level that was comfortable for him. If there was no noise, it should have been a tipoff to an incorrectly set clock or a defective speaker.

It should be noted that the congress didn't report an epidemic of malfunctioning clocks. The visiting tourists, who would also be using the clocks for the first time, seemed to have no trouble.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:49 am**

pwaldron wrote:I would have some sympathy for van Zeijst if this had happened in the first round or two of the tournament. But this incident occurred in the ninth round of the event. van Zeijst had eight prior games to observe and use the clocks. If he wasn't comfortable with those clocks by then, he should have asked for a lesson in their use.

The volume argument seems a bogus to me. van Zeijst would have heard the clocks (either his own or his neighbours) making noise in previous games, so there is no way he could credibly claim ignorance. He should have noted the speaker volume at the beginning of his game and adjusted it to a level that was comfortable for him. If there was no noise, it should have been a tipoff to an incorrectly set clock or a defective speaker.

You assume detective work here. One would have to expect trouble to even think about it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:52 pm**

HermanHiddema wrote:
entropi wrote:I may be biased in that discussion because I won one of my games for the same reason but even if I try to think as objectively as possible, I come to the same conclusion, which is the following:

Alone the fact that the eye-witness could understand that Rob was in byo-yomi clearly means that the clock was fulfilling (at least) the minimum functionality requirements. Maybe only visually maybe also audibly, but the required functionality was there. Therefore one cannot say that the clock was malfunctioning. Meaning that the organizers cannot be made responsible for that (unless there is a clear rule saying that the clock must make sound in byoyomi - which is not the case as fas as I know).

The rules do not mention the sound of clocks at all. In such a case, where there are no rules, we should look at what players can reasonably expect.

http://www.eurogofed.org/egf/tourrules.htm, what is this timekeeper mentioned in 5.3. Is it a person or a clock? If this means person, then van Zeist lost since there it is not required that the clock should say anything. If the timekeeper means a clock, then we need to consider the clock also.

A friend of mine told that all clock were set by 1 person and checked by 2 persons and the instructions said to set the sound to half. So if you are saing that the organisers didn't do their job, you are saying 3 persons didn't do their job AND also the players didn't hear any sound from the clock when they started to play.

5.1. from the rules say that "At a time determined by the tournament director, Black's clock is started either by the referee or by the players themselves. In special circumstances, the referee may start clocks on some boards at a different time.".

Who started the clock, referee or both players themself and did it make a sound, was the referee there to start the clock (or at least did the referee see and hear what did happen?).

In the end, it seems that the tournament rules are not as clear as they should be so the rules comission (which decides the whole thing) should adjust the rules so that this kind of situation is not possible.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 1:06 pm**

It was discovered that an Ing clock low on power will cease to speak for one side only.
This might be relevant...

Life In 19x19

Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist

Re: Dinerchtein vs van Zeist