Forum.Gomoku.pl
Forum Polskiego Stowarzyszenia Gomoku, Renju i Pente

Turnieje - MP 2019

zukole - 2019-09-13, 13:12
Temat postu: MP 2019
W dniach 9-11 listopada odbędą się w Krakowie mistrzostwa Polski w Gomoku oraz mistrzostwa Polski w Renju.

Szczegóły wkrótce na ogłoszeniu turniejowym.

zukole - 2019-09-15, 19:16

Harmonogram.

Zapraszamy :-)

Muchal - 2019-09-17, 10:45

Hej,

kto sie wybiera?

Pozdrawiam,
Muchal

angst - 2019-09-17, 18:47

Według mojej wiedzy na pewno Zarząd (Alice, Maestro, Usiek, Zukole i ja) oraz prawdopodobnie Adifek i Puholek, a także najpewniej tradycyjnie Pan Andrzej :)

Oczywiście liczymy, że dołączą jeszcze kolejne osoby, szczególnie uwzględniając organizowane po kilku latach przerwy MP w renju.

Być może, jak już ostatnio bywało, skuszą się także jacyś gracze zagraniczni.

Pozdrawiam

Angst

roy_ - 2019-09-18, 16:49

gdzie teraz grają jacyś dobrzy gracze ? bo na kurniku jest strasznie słabo ?nie ma gdzie potrenować ?
angst - 2019-09-19, 18:04

Poza regularnymi rozgrywkami (np. turnieje piątkowe "gomokuworld" o 20:15) faktycznie ja też widzę problem ze znalezieniem graczy na Kurniku, z którymi można sensownie pograć.

Jest oczywiście nowy serwer Piskvorky.net, ale frekwencja chyba nadal dużo gorsza niż na Kurniku.

Reasumując, polecam powrót do grania na żywo, gdzie emocje i rozgrywka na wyższym poziomie są w zasadzie gwarantowane! :)

Najbliższa okazja to Mistrzostwa Polski. I tu uwaga - swój udział zapowiedział aktualny Mistrz Świata, czyli Martez! :)

Pozdrawiam

Angst

Muchal - 2019-09-22, 14:51

Roy wbijasz do Krakowa?
Arczi? Devotion?

amber_gold - 2019-09-27, 11:10

roy_ napisał/a:
gdzie teraz grają jacyś dobrzy gracze ? bo na kurniku jest strasznie słabo ?nie ma gdzie potrenować ?


...powiedział Roy, który na ostatnim turnieju przegrał wszystkie partie a z reszty uciekł :D
Jak widzisz roy jest z kim pograc skoro nawet średniacy cię włoili :)
https://www.kurnik.pl/turn.phtml?tid=8557303

Muszę Cię zmartwić Marcin, ale na tym niby słabym dzis kurniku taki uczciwy 1800 już Ci włoi, czasy kiedy byłes redem, zdobywałes IMP, a reszta raczkowała w tej grze minęły bezpowrotnie :)

roy_ - 2019-09-28, 19:18

AMBER GOLD kurczę czemu mi tak źle życzysz :) bezpowrotnie minęły ? brzmi jak wyzwanie :)

sorry ale w turnieju przegrałem jedną partię a nie wszystkie....

tak Muchal myślę nad przyjazdem bo termin wydaje się idealny i turniej to idealne oderwanie od codzienności.

amber_gold - 2019-09-29, 15:08

roy_ napisał/a:
AMBER GOLD kurczę czemu mi tak źle życzysz :) bezpowrotnie minęły ? brzmi jak wyzwanie :)

sorry ale w turnieju przegrałem jedną partię a nie wszystkie....

tak Muchal myślę nad przyjazdem bo termin wydaje się idealny i turniej to idealne oderwanie od codzienności.



Roy nie łam się, pare dni temu widzialem jak devotion (chyba tez na MP dobrze wypadal) spadl na zoltk ai przegrywal z 1700 srogo. czasy waszego panowani aminely i ten niby denny teraz kurnik wychowal graczy ktorzy majac 1800 sa na pozioie takim jak kiedys red...:)
wiec uwazam ze podniosl sie poziom a nie spadl tyle ze ludzi mniej. Kiedys taki zoltek nabijał ranking na graczu 1400 do zera a dzis? co drugi zielak ma w statach wygrane z 1500-1600....ot taki poziom.
Wiec trenuj ale uwazam ze zaprzepasciles swoj talent, bo grales dobrze, ale tak dlugo Cie nie bylo ze ten pociag juz odjechal....:)

maestro - 2019-11-10, 13:46

Wyniki MP gomoku 2019:

1. Marek Gorzecki 6,5 pkt
2. Oleg Bulatovsky 6,5 pkt
3. Kamil Pawela 5,5 pkt
4. Mikhail Lomakin 5 pkt
5. Piotr Małowiejski 5 pkt
6. Piotr Bieniek 4,5 pkt
7. Łukasz Majksner 4,5 pkt
8. Lukas Soucek 4,5 pkt
9. Szczepan Łukasik 4 pkt
10. Adam Wacławik 4 pkt
11. Pavlina Brdkova 4 pkt
12. Jan Sekułowicz 3 pkt
13. Jerzy Łękowski 3 pkt
14. Vojtech Linhart 3 pkt
15. Andrzej Kosztyła 1 pkt

Chaosu - 2019-11-10, 18:05

. . .Gratulacje Alice!
sandra113 - 2019-11-10, 23:38

Guys, could you explain me something?

You gave Alice the gold despite that Oleg earned the same number of points and a higher coefficient. Apparently, you used the direct encounter between Alice and Oleg as the primary tie-breaking criterion. But in the Polish Championship 2018 you did not use the direct encounter as the primary criterion to break the tie between Zoli and Zukole. They earned the same number of points, and Zoli won against Zukole in the direct encounter, but you gave the silver to Zukole and the bronze to Zoli.

I just read the PSGRiP's rules of tournaments and saw this:

Cytat:
2. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch graczy takiej samej ilości punktów o przyznaniu miejsc decyduje (o ile to możliwe) rezultat ich meczu w turnieju

3. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch lub więcej graczy takiej samej ilości punktów w systemie szwajcarskim, o przyznaniu miejsc decydują kolejno:
a) punktacja średnia Buchholza - suma punktów osiągniętych przez przeciwników z odrzuceniem skrajnych wartości,
b) punktacja Buchholza - bez odrzucenia skrajnych wartości,
c) progress - suma punktów po poszczególnych rundach,
d) wynik bezpośredniego pojedynku (w przypadku dotyczącym więcej niż dwóch zawodników sporządzana jest pomocnicza tabela),
e) liczba zwycięstw,
f) losowanie.

Clauses 2 and 3 contradict to each other. Clause 2 says that the direct encounter is the primary tie-breaking criterion, while Clause 3 says that the direct encounter is only the fourth tie-breaking criterion.

What the hell is going on?

Usiek - 2019-11-12, 14:05

W załączniku gry z MP Renju 2019.
zukole - 2019-11-12, 21:50

Gry są też dostępne na renju.net

@Sandra, nabrałem wody w usta :lol:

maestro - 2019-11-12, 22:58

W załączniku gry z Mistrzostw Polski Gomoku 2019. Wszystkie 56 partii, choć 3 z nich nie zostały przepisane do końca ze względu na wyraźne nieścisłości na kartkach. Jutro odezwę się do ich autorów ze skanami i prośbami o uzupełnienie ;)

Przepisywanie to jak zwykle była syzyfowa praca, bo pomyłek i nieczytelnych zapisów trafiło się bardzo dużo, ale z większością jakoś sobie poradziłem. Niekiedy miałem wątpliwości co do tego czy był swap albo swap2, a często - odnośnie czasu, który odnotowałem w taki sposób, jak autorzy kartek.

alicecooper - 2019-11-13, 13:51

@sandr
Najwyraźniej ludzie już cię olewają i ignorują, przyzwyczajaj się.

sandra113 - 2019-11-14, 12:03

Zukole's response is actually to a VK post of mine, wherein I used a standard Russian idiom, "как будто воды в рот набрал," which translates as "as if he were keeping water in his mouth" and means "he keeps silence."

Oleg Bulatovsky has publicly responded on VK to my post about the issue with the medals of this Polish championship as follows (I quote his original English text): "Sandra, yes, the final decision wasn't entirely transparent to me, but it wasn't the kind of tournament where I cared to object or dig into any regulations. It was about fun in this case, and my only logic here was as usual: "not lose any games or be prepared for any penalty", be it fair, unfair, or just mistaken. But I won't object if you try bringing clarity to this situation." As you see, you guys failed to make your decision transparent even to the victim. And, clearly, he does not take your tournaments seriously. Face a simple fact: the runner-up of the world championship finds the Polish championship to be just about fun. This is what the Polish championship is worth, at least from his perspective. Think about that.

The PSGRiP chairman, Usiek, promised me that an official response to my post would be published on this forum in the coming days, so my question is not ignored at all.

Note that Adam was placed below Madli in the Polish championship 2017 despite earning the same number of points and beating her in the direct encounter, so in 2017 the direct encounter was not used as the primary tie-breaking criterion, just like in 2018.

I will possibly write and widely disseminate an article about the whole issue, depending on the official answer I receive. As a gomoku fan, I cannot stand highly ambiguous, carelessly worded rules and self-contradictory practice of their implementation, especially if it affects the fate of medals.

maestro - 2019-11-14, 17:45

In this topic we write about last Polish Championship, not about cheating online. I've edited inappropriate statements. Please, don't do this again - you may be punished.
Usiek - 2019-11-16, 17:17

To Whom It May Concern,


With reference to the doubts that have arisen in the Gomoku community regarding the Polish Gomoku Championship held last week, we would like to confirm that the final table of that tournament was determined in accordance with the current Polish Gomoku, Renju and Pente Association ("PSGRiP") Tournament Rules.

Bearing in mind that the two highest-ranked players achieved the same number of points, the final table was determined by the result of a direct encounter between the players concerned as the primary tie-breaking criterion. In order to make sure the solution was right, before the publication of the final results of the competition, it had been additionally discussed by the members of the Management Board and the Audit Committee of PSGRiP present at the tournament. During that discussion it was decided that the Tournament Rules would be updated to avoid future interpretation doubts, i.e. the Tournament Rules, that had been in force for several years, would be described more clearly, in particular regarding tie-break criteria.

At the same time, we would like to confirm that all tournaments organized by PSGRiP were subject to the Tournament Rules, as long as no exceptions made on the occasion of a given tournament were provided. An example of such an exception is Polish Gomoku Championship played in 2018 in Płock, when due to special circumstances (tournament accompanying the World Team Gomoku Championship 2018) the PSGRiP Management Board decided to apply standard RIF rules (including in particular Buchholz as the primary criterion determining the order of standings if players get the same number of points), taking into consideration the expected exceptionally high number of foreign participants. This is the fact, that due to the standard regarding the electronic method of pairing and publication of the the table with final results and standings (i.e. using the Swiss Perfect program), the final results noted the Median-Buchholz parameter as the primary tie-breaking criterion (not used in the RIF rules). However, that did not impact the final table of the competition.

Referring to the comments submitted to tournaments played before the competitions described above, and bearing in mind:
(1) objective difficulty in reconstructing the rules and decisions regarding final tables being in force at that time,
(2) the time elapsed since the competitions were played and their results were published,
(3) to the best of our knowledge, there are no incorrect decisions regarding top 3 places or any places awarded with prizes,
(4) no complaints from participants of those competitions,
the PSGRiP Management Board does not plan to make any adjustments retrospectively in this respect, allowing that potential errors could have occurred, in particular due to misinterpretation of the tournament regulations at that time. We would like to apologize all the interested players for any inconvenience it could cause.

At the same time, we assure you that in no case the errors described above were made on purpose and certainly were not intended to manipulate the results to meet any specific expectations, in particular favouring Poles over foreign players. We believe that similar insinuations are not fair to Polish tournament organizers. Each and every time we invite foreign players to our competitions, we try to conduct them in friendly and open atmosphere, as well as, whenever possible, we also participate in tournaments held in foreign countries.

We believe that foreign players appear at our tournaments hoping to meet strong and/or nice players from Poland, as well as due to the friendly atmosphere of these tournaments, not because of our perfect regulations. We also hope that negative statements about us will not affect the future decisions of players who have had the opportunity to attend our competitions, as well as those who are just planning to appear at them.

Finally, we would like to thank you for all the comments regarding our tournaments and regulations - they became the inspiration for this message. We are glad that our tournaments meet such interest, even among people who do not participate in live competitions. Thanks to such interesting insights we have a chance for continuous development, and we can continue to aim for organizational perfection.

At the same time, please respect the fact that we, as the organizers of the discussed competitions, have the right to shape their regulations in accordance with standards that seem optimal to us.

We invite everyone to our next tournaments!


Yours Faithfully,

PSGRiP Management Board


“The man who does things makes many mistakes, but he never makes the biggest mistake of all – doing nothing.”

Benjamin Franklin

angst - 2019-11-17, 22:10

Kolejny nasz zakończony turniej pozostawia mieszane uczucia, a tym razem dodatkowo pojawiły się niepotrzebne emocje związane z rozstrzygnięciami, czego pokłosiem jest powyższa wiadomość.

Pokonując ponownie przeszkody organizacyjno-logistyczne do samego nieomal końca wahałem się, czy tym razem wybrać się na Mistrzostwa Polski. Kwestie domowe i zawodowe nie pozwalały mi na beztroskie podejście do tematu i chyba pierwszy raz w historii pojawiły się u mnie wątpliwości, czy w ogóle chcę poświęcić te 3 dni na nasze zawody.

Ostatecznie wszystko udało się mniej lub bardziej wyjaśnić i pomimo braku urlopu zadziałałem zgodnie z ustalonym w ostatnich godzinach przed turniejem planem, odbierając w Warszawie Marka i Łukasza oraz cały sprzęt, aby wspólnie udać się do Krakowa.

Podróż przebiegła bez większych komplikacji (może poza lekkim błądzeniem po stolicy, związanym z próbą zrozumienia Uśkowej nawigacji, jak i niestabilnym działaniem testowej aplikacji, która już od lat umila nam wspólne podróże na turnieje). Gorszy był sam przekaz, który otrzymałem po spotkaniu z kolegami, dotyczący kolejnych rezygnacji poszczególnych graczy z udziału w zawodach, w tym dodatkowo informacja, iż Zukole rezygnuje z funkcji członka Zarządu! Trudno było w takiej sytuacji o optymizm. Próbowaliśmy oszacować liczbę uczestników, ale nie wyglądało to w żadnym razie obiecująco.

Na miejsce zajechaliśmy dość późno, chyba już północy, a ja jeszcze musiałem przemieścić się do zarezerwowanego hotelu, który zabezpieczyłem wcześniej w celu uregulowania kwestii noclegowych w związku z uprzednimi ustaleniami z hostelem. Zmęczony po krótkich poszukiwaniach hotelu, który znajduje się na peryferiach miasta, w zasadzie w jakimś lesie, udałem się na zasłużony odpoczynek, nadal nieco martwiąc się o czekające nas zawody.

Rano musiałem szybko się zebrać, bo dodatkowo po drodze musiałem skombinować jeszcze długopisy do zapisów gry, ale na szczęście nie przysporzyło to większych kłopotów i dotarłem na miejsce prawie na czas! :) Tu z kolei okazało się, że nie jest tak źle, jak się spodziewaliśmy. Ostatecznie, dzięki gościom z zagranicy (5 osób z 3 krajów), jak i relatywnie licznej reprezentacji mieszkańców Krakowa i okolic, do Mistrzostw Polski w Gomoku przystąpiło 15 osób.

Mając na względzie fakt, że zrezygnowali z udziału naprawdę silni gracze (m.in. Martez, Zoli, Zukole), wydawało się, że nieomal wszystko jest możliwe i prawie każdy może włączyć się do walki o czołowe miejsca. Nawet ja, oryginalnie licząc na uzyskanie miejsca w top10, po cichu zacząłem marzyć o czymś więcej, pomimo braku racjonalnego uzasadnienia, patrząc na to z perspektywy tradycyjnie czasochłonnych przygotowań i ostatnio pokazywanej formy ;) Miałem jednocześnie poczucie, że dyspozycja dnia może istotnie wpłynąć na finalne wyniki.

Zgodnie z planem pierwszego dnia Mistrzostw rozegrano 5 rund zawodów. Od samego początku formą imponował Alicecooper, który odprawiał z kwitkiem kolejnych rywali, a jedynie Usiek był w stanie wywalczyć remis. Za Markiem było w tabeli dość ciasno i wszystko mogło się w zasadzie wydarzyć. Ja niestety nie miałem zbyt dobrego dnia i grając w kratkę, pomimo 2 punktów, zajmowałem przedostatnie miejsce w tabeli :roll: W trakcie dnia była chwila na przerwę obiadową i wraz z Johnsem i Gaculem odwiedziliśmy studencką stołówkę, która udowadnia, że jeszcze w dzisiejszych czasach można dość dobrze zjeść za rozsądną cenę :)

Na zakończenie dnia nie było miejsca na odpoczynek, jako że mieliśmy do przeprowadzenia Walne Zgromadzenie Członków PSGRiP. I tu pojawiły się pierwsze widoczne problemy frekwencyjne, jako że na miejscu zameldowało się tylko 6 osób (dodatkowo Filip przekazał swoje pełnomocnictwo Prezesowi Maestro), w tym S3v3n, który dotarł na miejsce specjalnie w tym celu (należy tu jeszcze podkreślić, że Jurek przyjechał na turniej z Irlandii!).

Samo Walne było nieco zdominowane przez kwestie personalne (co nie dziwiło ze względu na sprawozdawczo-wyborczy charakter), ale wynikało również z nieoczekiwanej informacji od Zukole, który nie pojawił się osobiście i nie był zbyt wylewny także on-line w podaniu przyczyn, która spowodowały taką decyzję. Ostatecznie zadecydowaliśmy, że będziemy działać dalej w 4-osobowym składzie (bez dodatkowych zmian personalnych), z pewnymi roszadami "stanowiskowymi", a mianowicie nowym Prezesem został wybrany Łukasz, a Wiceprezesem Paweł. Marek pozostał Skarbnikiem, a ja jedynym "nikim" w Zarządzie :) Gratulacje i powodzenia dla nowych-starych władz Stowarzyszenia oraz podziękowania dla Michała za dotychczasowe zaangażowanie i istotny wkład w działalność PSGRiP! :)

Po zakończeniu obrad wraz z Maestro i Uśkiem udaliśmy się na kolację (po drodze wysadziliśmy Jurka w centrum, gdzie nijak nie dało się zaparkować) - po dłuższych poszukiwaniach znaleźliśmy akceptowalny dla chłopaków lokal, gdzie po zaspokojeniu głodu w miłym towarzystwie pewnym wyzwaniem okazało się odnalezienie zaparkowane praktycznie nie tak daleko auta :)

Pierwsza część niedzieli poświęcona była na finalizację Mistrzostw Polski w Gomoku. Trzy pozostałe do rozegrania rundy miały zadecydować o ostatecznych rozstrzygnięciach. Praktycznie już przed ostatnią kolejką tytuł zapewnił sobie Marek, który dopiero w ostatniej rundzie znalazł pogromcę (Mikhail Lomakin, który zaczął od trzech porażek, a ostatecznie uplasował się na 4. pozycji). Skład podium uzupełnili Oleg (2. miejsce ze względu na porażkę z Markiem) i Kamil (3. miejsce w turnieju) - serdeczne gratulacje, w szczególności dla Marka, który naprawdę imponował formą, nawiązując do swojej dyspozycji znanej już z Euroligi! :)

Ja po nieudanym pierwszym dniu grałem sobie spokojnie, wygrywając po ciekawej grze z Jurkiem. Następnie, po zapoznaniu z parowaniem przedostatniej rundy znalazłem się w lekkim szoku, widząc się na 4. pozycji (oczywiście już po dopisaniu punktu za BYE) - mimo wszystko awans o 10 pozycji mocno mnie zaskoczył :) Świadomy, że mogę powalczyć jeszcze o coś więcej walczyłem do samego końca z Adamem, nie wiedząc, jaki może być końcowy efekt tych starań. W końcówce zanosiło się już powoli na remis, ale znalazłem ostatecznie sposób na wygraną, co nieoczekiwanie dało mi 5. miejsce w zawodach, co przy 2 obcokrajowcach przede mną oznaczało brązowy medal Mistrzostw Polski! :wow:

Przed opublikowaniem ostatecznej tabeli odbyliśmy jeszcze krótką dyskusję, upewniając się co do reguły mającej zastosowanie przy równej liczbie punktów uzyskanych przez 2 graczy, przy okazji podejmując decyzję o konieczności zmodyfikowania zasad, aby nie pozostawić ewentualnych wątpliwości na przyszłość w tym zakresie.

Po zakończeniu turnieju gomoku zaczęliśmy zapisy na renju (a w zasadzie swoistą "łapankę", bo niestety nie było delikatnie rzecz ujmując wielu chętnych na grę). Finalnie swój akces potwierdziły 4 osoby, w tym Lukas, który zastrzegał, że może nie dokończyć gry ze względu wyjazd do domu jeszcze tego samego dnia.

Przy takiej liczbie uczestników do rozegrania były jednak tylko 3 rundy, więc zawody już po kilku godzinach były zakończone. W tzw. międzyczasie pomagałem (niestety bez skutku) Kamilowi szukać zagubionego klucza od jednego z pokojów. W samym turnieju Usiek wygrał wszystkie gry, Lukas dwie, ja tylko jedną (z Panem Andrzejem) - gratulacje dla medalistów! :)

Gracze, którzy uplasowali się na podium udali się na wspólną kolację, po której podwiozłem jeszcze Boneslash'a na dworzec. Już wcześniej zapadła decyzja, że wrócimy w poniedziałek rano, a ja zmęczony po dwudniowych zmaganiach usnąłem bardzo wcześnie, a kolejnego dnia udało się wyruszyć rano do Warszawy (przepraszam Jurek, że się nie pożegnaliśmy, ale chłopaki twierdzili, że jeszcze śpisz ;) ). Piękna jak na tę porę roku pogoda, dość pusta droga, czego chcieć więcej? Niestety, niecałe 100 km od Warszawy przypomniało mi się, że w szafie hotelowej został garnitur... Marek i Łukasz dzielnie zgodzili się nawet na powrót, ale ostatecznie kontynuowaliśmy podróż, a po pewnych kombinacjach hotelowo-kurierskich mam już swoją zgubę w domu :)

Podsumowując turniej chciałbym podziękować wszystkim przybyłym, w tym naszym zagranicznym gościom, którzy jak widać nadal mają ochotę się u nas pojawiać i liczę, że szybko się to nie zmieni, a na pewno nie ze względu na niedociągnięcia regulaminowe ;)

Martwi jednak, że frekwencja nie była imponująca, a pewnie nie zdecydujemy się prędko na kolejne zawody w renju, stawiając potencjalnie na dłuższy turniej w gomoku. Działamy dalej w miarę swoich możliwości, ale niestety można to nazwać pewnym rodzajem niepokojącej stagnacji, na którą na ten moment nie mamy lekarstwa.

Liczę, że na naszych kolejnych zawodach, na które już teraz awansem zapraszam, przebijemy wynik 15 osób z tego roku. No i na zakończenie chciałbym raz jeszcze bardzo przeprosić Pavlinę, że nie miała podczas turnieju BYE'a, na który tak czekała :)

Pozdrawiam

Angst

sandra113 - 2019-11-24, 17:40

Dear President of the PSGRiP, your response raises serious concerns. Let me ask you a few questions.

1. How is your explanation consistent with the fact that the official final positions in the blitz tournament of the Polish gomoku championship 2018 are in conflict with the RIF rules (which you claim to have been chosen for the Polish championship of that year) and also with the then-current rules of the PSGRiP in your interpretation (wherein the primary tie-breaking criterion is the direct encounter), but are in accordance with the then-current rules of the PSGRiP in the interpretation wherein the primary tie-breaking criterion is the median Buchholz coefficient, not the direct encounter?

Let me explain the problem.

As I understand, the blitz tournament of the Polish championship, or MP Gomoku Blitz, is a tournament organized by the PSGRiP and regulated by the PSGRiP rules as long as no special decision is made in advance to make a certain exception.

You claim that expecting a high number of foreign participants, the PSGRiP decided to exceptionally use the RIF tournament rules in the Polish championship 2018. You did not explicitly say whether this decision applied ONLY to the MP Gomoku 2018 (i.e., only to the main tournament of the Polish championship 2018) or BOTH to the MP Gomoku 2018 and to the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018, but it seems highly nonsensical and illogical to use different sets of tie-breaking criteria in those two tournaments, which were organized together and joined by more or less the same squad of foreign players.

And now let us look at the official results of the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018.

We see that Zajk was awarded the silver, and Rizvanov - the bronze, but, as I just checked, the RIF rules say that the opposite should have been done. Zajk and Rizvanov earned the same number of points and also the same Buchholz coefficient, which is the first tie-breaking criterion in the RIF rules. The second tie-breaking criterion in the RIF rules is the Berger coefficient. As I just calculated, Rizvanov earned a higher Berger coefficient than Zajk did. The Berger coefficient earned by Rizvanov is 186.5, while the Berger coefficient earned by Zajk is 186.0.

This is a very serious matter because it is about medals of a championship officially organized by the PSGRiP.

Now let us make the unthinkable assumption that the MP Gomoku 2018 and the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 were regulated by different rules about how to break ties, namely that the MP Gomoku 2018 was regulated by the RIF rules and that the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 was regulated by the then-current rules of the PSGRiP in your interpretation, wherein the first tie-breaking criterion is the direct encounter.

Looking at the results of the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 again, we see that this assumption is in contradiction with those results: Tauri Purk was placed behind Ilya Muratov despite earning the same number of points and beating him 2-0 in the direct encounter.

Looking carefully, we see that all ties in the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 were broken using the median Buchholz coefficient as the first tie-breaking criterion, and this, Mr. President, seems impossible to bring to any sensible agreement with your statement given above. You say that a "misinterpretation" of the PSGRiP rules may have occurred, but I find it very hard to see any sensible reason as to why the PSGRiP would consciously decide to apply the RIF rules only the MP Gomoku 2018, leaving the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 subject to the PSGRiP rules and thereby confusing a large number of foreign players by applying different regulations to two individual tournaments organized together.

I am all ears to hear how you explain all these things.

For your convenience, I have attached the official results of the MP Gomoku Blitz 2018 (mpb2018.pdf) as well as the RIF rules (rif.pdf), wherein you can find the tie-breaking criteria on page 15.

2. How is your explanation consistent with the fact that the distribution of medals in the MP Gomoku Blitz 2017 contradicts the then-current rules of the PSGRiP in your interpretation?

Angst got the silver, and you got the bronze despite earning the same number of points and beating him in the direct encounter. The issue is very serious as it is about medals of an official PSGRiP tournament. For your convenience, I have attached the results (mpb2017.pdf).

3. Why was my friend Adam awarded the very last place in the MP Gomoku 2017 despite earning the same number of points as Madli and beating her in the direct encounter?

Your statement says that "the PSGRiP Management Board does not plan to make any adjustments retrospectively in this respect, allowing that potential errors could have occurred, in particular due to misinterpretation of the tournament regulations at that time." However, I would like to see a response directly addressing this particular case, not a vague statement like "errors could have occurred." I want to hear a clear answer from you, Mr. President, as to whether the PSGRiP made a mistake by putting my dear friend Adam at the very bottom of the final table in that particular tournament. For your convenience, I have attached the results (mp2017.pdf).

4. If mistakes were indeed made, then why is the PSGRiP unwilling to explicitly admit at least identifiable mistakes and publicly issue a personal apology to each player who can now be clearly identified as someone who has been wronged by the PSGRiP?

You wrote that the PSGRiP "would like to apologize all the interested players for any inconvenience it could cause," but your statement does not admit any error made by the PSGRiP. Your statement only admits a possibility that errors were made. Nor does your statement personally address any of the players wronged by the PSGRiP.

You refer to "objective difficulty in reconstructing the rules and decisions regarding final tables being in force at that time," but I just gave you a few very recent examples dating back to very recent years, namely 2018 and 2017, and you yourself stated that by the MP Gomoku 2019, the then-current PSGRiP rules had already been being "in force for several years," so there seems to be nothing to reconstruct in those particular cases.

You refer to "the time elapsed since the competitions were played and their results were published," but, again, the examples given by me are very recent. In sports, results can be changed within time periods like 6 years. Even if you do not want to change results, you guys still could issue a personal apology to anyone who can be clearly identified as one who has been wronged by the PSGRiP.

You stated that to the best of your knowledge, "there are no incorrect decisions regarding top 3 places or any places awarded with prizes," but some of my examples are about medals, and I believe that a personal apology should be issued regardless of whether the matter is about medals.

Finally, you refer to the absence of complaints, but I strongly dismiss the idea that apologies should in general be issued only in response to complaints. Many players simply trust organizers and do not really verify what organizers do. Such players won't complain, because they simply won't know they are wronged. Letting people down just because they trust you is a terrible thing.

5. What examples evidencing the use of the PSGRiP rules in your interpretation, i.e., the use of the direct encounter rather than the median Buchholz coefficient as the first tie-breaking criterion, can you give for PSGRiP tournaments held in the last three years, namely 2017-2019, before the MP Gomoku 2019?

I gave you quite a few examples evidencing the contrary, all for the last three years, and I want to know whether you agree that the common practice of breaking ties in the PSGRiP tournaments held in the last three years is in contradiction with how you interpreted the PSGRiP rules during the MP Gomoku 2019.

6. In general, do you, Mr. President, consider it right to enforce a dead letter, which has been being consistently ignored for years, without any prior warning?

If you do, Mr. President, then Lord Palmerston had precisely the opposite view and went to war because of it. Likewise, the Euroleague committee did not succumb to Katsev's request to enforce the dead letter about CET in the season 2018-2019.

Let me frankly tell how I see the situation. My impression is that you guys have been thoughtlessly using the most standard settings of Swiss Perfect in the PSGRiP's tournaments for years, not even looking in your own rules. And then, when one of you, namely Alicecooper, was fighting for a gold medal and lost on the tie-breaking criterion that had been being thoughtlessly used for years, you guys started to scrupulously rummage in your long-forgotten rules just as a pack of wild boars will rummage in a heap of garbage left on the outskirts of a village. There you found a carelessly worded dead letter and ruthlessly enforced it to give Alicecooper the gold. Against such proceedings I vehemently protest, and I want to write and widely disseminate a detailed article about what happened, but I would like to first hear from you, Mr. President, whether I am not missing something that changes everything.

7. If the PSGRiP rules that were in force during the MP Gomoku 2019 were intended to make the direct encounter the first tie-breaking criterion even in Swiss-system tournaments, then why was the singular form chosen for nouns in the phrase "wynik bezpośredniego pojedynku" in tie-breaking criterion (d) for Swiss-system tournaments in those rules?

If I get your interpretation of those rules right, your interpretation is that criterion (d) applies ONLY to situations in which the tie has to be broken between MORE THAN TWO players. In this case, however, it is natural to use the plural form, "wyniki bezpośrednich pojedynków," because the singular case NEVER happens. The choice of the singular form looks utterly weird here.

Curious, I did some research in an attempt to find out the truth and got shocked by my findings. Let me show them to you.

First, I found an old post by Alicecooper dated 2008 in which he published the PSGRiP rules current at that time. Here is what those rules say about ties:

Kod:
§4 Ustalenie kolejności w turnieju

1. O kolejności w turnieju decyduje suma uzyskanych przez poszczególnych zawodników punktów, przy czym za zwycięstwo przyznaje się 1 punkt, za remis 0,5 punkta oraz za porażkę 0 punktów.
2. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch lub więcej graczy takiej samej ilości punktów w systemie szwajcarskim, o przyznaniu miejsc decydują kolejno:
a) punktacja średnia Buchholza - suma punktów osiągniętych przez przeciwników z odrzuceniem skrajnych wartości,
b) punktacja Buchholza - bez odrzucenia skrajnych wartości,
c) progress - suma punktów po poszczególnych rundach,
d) wynik bezpośredniego pojedynku (w przypadku dotyczącym więcej niż dwóch zawodników sporządzana jest pomocnicza tabela),
e) liczba zwycięstw,
f) losowanie.

3. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch lub więcej graczy takiej samej ilości punktów w systemie kołowym, o przyznaniu miejsc decydują kolejno:
a) liczba zwycięstw
b) metoda Sonnenborna-Bergera (suma liczby punktów zdobytych przez przeciwników, z którymi zawodnik wygrał i połowy punktów przeciwników, z którymi zremisował)
c) losowanie

And here are the PSGRiP rules that were in force during the MP Gomoku 2019:

Kod:
§4 Ustalenie kolejności w turnieju

1. O kolejności w turnieju decyduje suma uzyskanych przez poszczególnych zawodników punktów, przy czym za zwycięstwo przyznaje się 1 punkt, za remis 0,5 punkta oraz za porażkę 0 punktów.

2. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch graczy takiej samej ilości punktów o przyznaniu miejsc decyduje (o ile to możliwe) rezultat ich meczu w turnieju

3. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch lub więcej graczy takiej samej ilości punktów w systemie szwajcarskim, o przyznaniu miejsc decydują kolejno:
a) punktacja średnia Buchholza - suma punktów osiągniętych przez przeciwników z odrzuceniem skrajnych wartości,
b) punktacja Buchholza - bez odrzucenia skrajnych wartości,
c) progress - suma punktów po poszczególnych rundach,
d) wynik bezpośredniego pojedynku (w przypadku dotyczącym więcej niż dwóch zawodników sporządzana jest pomocnicza tabela),
e) liczba zwycięstw,
f) losowanie.

4. W przypadku uzyskania przez dwóch lub więcej graczy takiej samej ilości punktów w systemie kołowym, o przyznaniu miejsc decydują kolejno:
a) liczba zwycięstw
b) metoda Sonnenborna-Bergera (suma liczby punktów zdobytych przez przeciwników, z którymi zawodnik wygrał i połowy punktów przeciwników, z którymi zremisował)
c) losowanie

This version can still be found in the Internet Archive as a copy saved on 08 May 2019, and it coincides with what I myself saved after the MP Gomoku 2019.

The only difference between this version and the 2008 version is that a new clause about the direct encounter (Clause 2) was added; the clause about Swiss-system tournaments remained untouched.

Thus, it appears that the following happened:
1. The rules of 2008 were written with a clear intent to make the direct encounter the fourth tie-breaking criterion in Swiss-system tournaments, even in cases where the tie has to be broken between two players.
2. At some point after 2008 the rules were modified by adding a clause to make the direct encounter the first tie-breaking criterion regardless of the tournament system, but the people who made this change FORGOT to amend the clause about Swiss-system tournaments, thereby creating a formal collision of two clauses. In particular, these people left the singular form in "wynik bezpośredniego pojedynku" in the fourth tie-breaking criterion for Swiss-system tournaments.
3. The new clause may have been used for a while, but was consistently ignored in 2017 and 2018, as I explained above.
4. In the MP Gomoku 2019, you guys decided to suddenly enforce that clause without any prior warning, precisely at the moment when Alicecooper desperately needed it in order to win the gold. A part of the context is that Alicecooper is your friend, captain, and ex-roommate, Mr. President.

Tell me, Mr. President, whether I am not missing anything important. I want to write an objective article informing the international gomoku community about how you guys do things.

8. In his post above, Angst used the expression "niepokojąca stagnacja" to characterize the Polish annual gomoku championship or the whole situation about gomoku in Poland. Will you, Mr. President, drain the swamp and make gomoku in Poland great again? What measures are you going to take in order to reach that end, and, in particular, how are you going to attract more players to the Polish annual gomoku championship?

Zoli - 2019-11-26, 22:37

Hi!

I feel like this story is escalating too far and this is the reason why I decided to share my thoughts on the case.

First of all, I would not go as far as to suspect cheating like Sandra implied (Gorzecki could only overtake Bulatowsky like that), however, I must say that the inconsistency of rules applied to tournaments caused a huge mess. I personally do not care about the argued topic, if somebody wants to win a tournament, then he/she should be better than everyone else clearly, so that nothing has to be done with coeffs, I would say.

Next, I'd like to stress one thing: Sandra, as I've already told you privately, you have no right to demand corrections, on the other hand, all involved players shall be free to express their opinions and/or complain and then the Polish Board shall decide upon each case. Obviously mistakes been made and one shall not ignore the truth, that would be silly.

My firm belief is that no further posts are really needed in this case between PSGRiP and Sandra, PSGRiP shall just be consistent or at least tell players about such significant information prior to the tournaments in the future and this case should be closed, as I guess it's overtalked.

maestro - 2019-11-26, 23:34

Thank you zoli for the voice of reason in this discussion. We try to organize the regulations and simplify our tournaments rules as much as it possible. They may be a bit more specific, but for that clear and easily understood for everyone. Usiek published last update 8 days ago and this is not the end of PSGRiP board's work in this area.

I agree there is no reason to continue unnecessary dispute with sandra, especially responding to unsubstantiated demands or allegations. Of course, your recipe for winning ("be better than everyone else") is absolutely obvious, however coeffs are indispensable, so we (I mean organizers) should take care of proper communication about them. I'm convinced that we will avoid such mistakes in future.

Next official PSGRiP board's statement will be released soon.

sandra113 - 2019-11-28, 00:11

Zoli napisał/a:
Sandra, as I've already told you privately, you have no right to demand corrections

You are absolutely right that I should not demand correcting the results. And I believe I made no such demands in my posts. My posts were merely to ask factual questions.

You see, I am going to write and widely disseminate an article about what happened in the MP Gomoku 2019 and previous Polish tournaments. In my article, I will write hard undeniable facts and let the international community judge the Polish organizers for their decisions about breaking ties. To ensure that I am not missing any important facts, I asked questions on this forum, because I believe that it wouldn't be good to write such an article without hearing the Polish guys first.

I see nothing wrong in what I am doing. I have the right to tell the international community any true facts in my articles, don't I?

maestro napisał/a:
I agree there is no reason to continue unnecessary dispute with sandra

You are absolutely right, if you have no significant new facts to tell me. Unless the upcoming official response will contain significant new facts worthy of mentioning in my future article, you guys can as well just not even bother writing your response.

It is not my intention to argue with you Poles on this forum. My intention is to write and widely disseminate an article in order to let the gomoku and renju players from Russia, Czechia, Hungary, Estonia, and Taiwan know how you Poles do things. I will disseminate my article by posting it on Facebook, the Russian gomoku discussion forum, Google Sites, and perhaps Renjunews, as well as by sending out private messages with the links to my article.

I'll now briefly explain you guys why I am resolved to invest my time and effort to writing such an article.

To make things easier for you to understand, I will talk in soccer terms. Imagine you are watching a soccer match between Poland and Germany. The referee is rather liberal and, in particular, allows pulling shirts. Both Poles and Germans pull shirts of opponents from time to time, and, seeing this, the referee doesn't blow a whistle. And then, all of a sudden, the referee awards a penalty kick to Germany because a Polish defender pulled the shirt of a German player inside the Polish penalty box. It was not a last man foul. It was just an ordinary shirt pulling in a pretty harmless situation right after a corner kick, when the ball was still very high. German defenders did exactly the same many times in this match before, and the referee didn't blow a whistle then.

Is the referee's decision to award a penalty kick to Germany in accordance with the rules? It is.

Is this decision fair? It is not. Nothing can be further from fairness.

And this is why I find your decision to move Oleg to the second place utterly unfair. The decision well may be in accordance with the then-current rules, but I believe it is an unfair decision, because you suddenly enforced a previously ignored clause when one of you, namely Alicecooper, needed it.

Besides that, it is really unthinkable how you guys could so utterly and consistently fail to follow your own rules in previous years. I find the degree of your carelessness monstrous. You kept carelessly written rules for years and systematically failed to use them. You awarded wrong medals.

I know who was in charge as the PSGRiP president and hence as the chief referee in 2017 and 2018, and I will write about that guy in my article, mentioning his full real name so that people who google his name can objectively see how responsibly he performs his duties when given an important role. It is my right to do so as long as I stay factual and tell the truth.

You guys had already created a mess by mindlessly copying a renju rule about skipping moves, and that resulted in a conflict situation involving Epifanov and Karasev in the last world team gomoku championship. You clearly failed to learn that lesson.

Zoli - 2019-11-28, 01:25

Just to be explicitly clear, I don't say the dispute is pointless because of Sandra, I try to state that this just does not help gomoku prosper at all. It's good she pointed to the mistakes, but I see absolutely no reason for such actions like spamming people with an article or trying to underimine somebody like "anyone who Googles the name blabla". Get real guys and make Gomoku great together, without harming anyone unnecessarily.
alicecooper - 2019-11-28, 02:08

First: thank you, zoli, for speaking.
I'm just surprised that: many foreign players have our emails, facebook, after all this forum, and no one but you has contacted us?
Instead, they sent us a well-known troll, and this is to help in the discussion here and in gomoku?
(rather it looks like they are not interested)

alicecooper - 2019-11-28, 02:25

Secondly: we took the tie-break "who won in a duel" from the best designs: FIDE and the Polish Chess Federation recommend this criterion in the first place.
We started using them in 2012 - 2nd and 3rd place: http://www.gomoku.5v.pl/i...nieje/30k_g.pdf

A simple example:
player 1 played with 2, 3, 5,
player 2 played with 1, 3, 7.
So buch1> buch2 (games of 5 and 7 decide)
Does anyone really have any doubts and that a better tie-break in this situation is: who won the game 1 vs 2.

alicecooper - 2019-11-28, 02:41

By the way: everyone who has been to Polish tournaments, for example Ilia, Oleg; knows that the title Polish Champion gets the best Pole.
So for the 2019 tournament (regardless of places 1 or 2), for me.
And everyone who knows me, knows that I don't care about places.
These are and were the rules, and that's it.

And writing that all Polish judges and board members have specifically granted me a place is extremely disgusting, offensive and untrue.

sandra113 - 2019-11-28, 03:03

Alicecooper, I agree that the direct encounter is the best tie-breaking criterion, but I believe it is unfair to suddenly enforce it to your personal advantage after years of consistently using a different criterion and without a prior warning about the altered intention.

Zoli, I find it hard to see how I can make harm by telling true facts.

There is one more thing to clarify. I did mention in private conversations with Zoli and Usiek that I would lose my motivation to write the article if the Poles agreed with me on what is fair and corrected the results of the MP Gomoku 2019 accordingly. But I did not even think about trying to force the Poles to correct the results against their perception of fairness. If the Poles believe their decision taken in Cracow is fair, I want them to stick to it, and may the international community judge us. Furthermore, if the PSGRiP Board members want, I will show them a draft of my article before publication in order to ensure that none of my facts is wrong and that none of the significant facts is missing.

alicecooper - 2019-11-28, 04:08

"suddenly"
Is it suddenly since 2012? Hahaha
Don't mislead people.
Just because we could have made mistakes in the past, does not mean that the regulations do not apply.

"prior warning" ??
The rules have been on the website for years,
At tournaments, most often, printed, they lie on the table.
What do you suggest? read them out loud before the tournament? : D,
and maybe examine the participants? : D

Stop inventing nonsense and trolling.

sandra113 - 2019-11-28, 07:03

alicecooper napisał/a:
Is it suddenly since 2012? Hahaha

No, it is suddenly after many years elapsed since you stopped applying the direct encounter as the first tie-breaking criterion.

alicecooper napisał/a:
The rules have been on the website for years,
At tournaments, most often, printed, they lie on the table.
What do you suggest? read them out loud before the tournament? : D,

No, I suggest just not abandoning using them in your tournaments.

But yeah, it is a good idea to read the rules out loud before each Polish tournament. Experience shows that you, the Polish organizers, often forget about your own rules otherwise.

Zoli - 2019-11-28, 12:40

I doubt anyone sent her, probably she was the only one reading the rules and realizing the inconsistency. Me myself know about this only from the dispute, normally I don't care about coeffs, I try to beat everyone and win :)

Reading rules out loud - at least to remind players and disseminate any doubts about actual rules takes few minutes and I find it useful, I personally do this before each tournament organized by me. So if you take my advice, you spend a couple minutes before each tour reminding players about everything necessary and then no complaints shall arise.

You can do harm because it is in a negative manner. This is not that significant issue to do anything like above mentioned articles. Your aim should have been or should be to have the polish rules clarified and have them consistantly used in each tour. Imo this is already reached :) Furthermore, only Gelo has any more reasons to complain if he feels aggrieved, I'd say.

sandra113 - 2019-11-28, 19:30

Zoli napisał/a:
Your aim should have been or should be to have the polish rules clarified and have them consistantly used in each tour. Imo this is already reached :)

Are your really sure their rules are now fine and dandy? I just had a look at the current version of the rules and instantly spotted a problem:

Cytat:
9. W przypadku przypadkowego przestawienia kamieni (rozsypania pozycji) zawodnicy zobowiązani są do odtworzenia pozycji. Na czas potrzebny na odtworzenie pozycji zegar zostaje zatrzymany. Jeżeli nie można odtworzyć pozycji, partia kończy się remisem. Jeżeli zawodnik umyślnie rozsypie pozycję, przegrywa natychmiast.

Imagine you are winning a game, but your opponent accidentally shatters the position. The above rule says that if the position cannot be restored, the game is declared a draw. You did nothing wrong and played flawlessly, but got a half-point stolen from you.

Also, in the current tournament rules I see nothing about making records. Here is what Ilya Katsev wrote about his experience with making records in the MP Gomoku 2017 (as translated by me from Russian):

Cytat:
I asked Angst as to when one can stop recording moves, and he replied that one should never stop and that this is what the ten Fischer seconds were given for. Obviously, ten Fischer seconds are in fact not enough to keep recording moves, so I firmly decided to never go below one minute. ... Meanwhile, Vince lost to Alicecooper on the first board. They were running out of time, too, and, to my surprise, stopped recording moves! Apparently, they had not asked Angst about the rules.

The Polish rules have to be polished.

iec - 2019-11-28, 20:28

Hi all.
Basically I agree with Zoli.

Regarding Sandra:
For sure nobody has sent her, and a witch hunt is not necessary, but some adjustment from her side would be useful.

First, what is positive:
It's good Sandra is looking for the truth, trying to find loopholes and find out what exactly has happened and who has been potentially wronged. All interested parties should be informed, the target to find the best solution after the rules have been already fixed should be next.
She should be also free to tell her opinion, but it should be always in a role of a suggestion only.
For decisions, there is PSGRIP and their official representatives.

Second, what is negative:
Sandra implies there was an intention, that has not been proven, so this is wrong. She is also biased in advance instead of being independent. We remember the constant attacks on Alice regarding alleged cheating in EL, I can imagine it can be part of the truthseeker mission, but no guilt has been proven in this case and its not needed to repeat it over and over.
Also kind of blackmailing by threatening to publish/not publish something is wrong, she should just publish it independently if she wants to (or include her personal reason in her decision making process) but to threaten with it like this is not optimal, because people take it personally then and resulting atmosphere is not good.

Sandra, really, what if your solution is not the best? Let them decide, may be help other interested players voice their opinion publicly, but no need to overdo this.
Your qualities in finding problems in rules are very useful, just use them in a less conflicting way.

maestro - 2019-11-28, 20:56

Excellent statement, iec! Facts are undeniable, so we'll public our summary soon - with apology and announcement what we want to improve.

I agree both positive and negative conlusions. Pointing out our mistakes is necessary and lapses should be removed in future. Unfortunately, suggesting our biased decisions or any blackmailing (even conditioning of certain activities) arouses embarrassment.

angst - 2019-11-28, 22:52

I regret to comment here, but unfortunately, I feel I need to raise a few questions to Sandra:

1) Why you think you understand/know better than PSGRiP representative (and/or potentially anyone else) what is fair?

2) You suggest that you will mention some names in your article. Are you going to sign this article with your own (real) name? If not, do you think this would be fair?

3) Do you think that giving an ultimatum as mentioned above (not to use a stronger word here) is really fair approach?

I don't expect your answers to be published but really count for fair answers in your mind, prior to making any further steps here.

I really believe that even quite a negative beginning can lead to nice effects. I hope that this is the case and Gomoku will gain in the end!

Kind regards,

Angst

sandra113 - 2019-12-01, 11:48

Cytat:
1) Why you think you understand/know better than PSGRiP representative (and/or potentially anyone else) what is fair?

I judge by reasoning and comparing arguments rather than by personalities. So what are the arguments? Usiek stated that the decision was in accordance with the then-current rules. In response, I asked whether he considers it right to enforce a dead letter without a prior warning. I referred to the case about Katsev's team, who requested to enforce the dead letter about CET in the EL. I also referred to an excellent diplomatic document by Lord Palmerston in which he had explained why it is not right to enforce a dead letter without a prior warning. I also made an analogy to a soccer referee who consistently ignores shirt pulling and then suddenly awards a penalty kick for the same offence. And I have not received any convincing response to my arguments.

And if you really want to talk in terms of personalities, I have a Western PhD in physics and articles in highest-profile physics journals as the first author and speak two languages like a native speaker, having learned one of them as an adult, so I guess my brain is developed enough to make me eligible to talk about matters like fairness, if that's what you are asking about.

Finally, I am a citizen of a country whose law is based on precedents (common law), which is a far better system than the statutory law system used in Poland, Russia, etc. I am used to think in terms of precedents, whilst you Poles seem to see fairness simply as blindly following the letter of statutory law and apparently do not even use such a term as precedent in making your decisions. What you seem to fail to understand is that no statutory law can fairly regulate the multitude of all possible scenarios. Precedents are to ensure that similar situations are decided upon in a similar way, and that is what fairness is about. The WBC 2018 regulations written largely by me explicitly state in Section 12.1:

Cytat:
Our approach will be like in common law legal systems (e.g., the ones in the USA and Australia) rather than in continental legal systems. In particular, we will consider precedents to be of utmost importance, to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment. The precedents from the previous WBC will be taken into account, too. Most important decisions of the previous WBC can be found at: sites.google.com/site/worldblitzcup2017/decisions

Even the EL organizers understand that no statutory law is enough to always make fair decisions:

Cytat:
15.1. The Organizers of EL are allowed to change the EL Rules or make exceptions to the rules, if a situation requires this. This should only be used in exceptional circumstances.

So yeah, if you really want to talk in terms of personalities, I well may be more capable of making better judgement about fairness than you, because I am used to think in terms of the most progressive legal system, while you are citizens of a post-communist country that has a statutory law system.

Cytat:
2) You suggest that you will mention some names in your article. Are you going to sign this article with your own (real) name? If not, do you think this would be fair?

Who said that those who treat others unfairly deserve a fair treatment themselves?

Besides, are you really suggesting that unless I reveal my own real name, I should never write any real names of other people in my articles? This is nonsensical. You guys officially act under your real names, and I consider it an implicit consent to mentioning your real names in articles that truthfully describe your official decisions taken in official tournaments officially organized by you.

I understand you may be concerned that it is unrealistic to bring me to any responsibility if I misrepresent facts in my article, but I am going to do my best and utmost not to misrepresent any facts and, in particular, will be prepared to show my article to the PSGRiP before publication to let you check the facts.

Cytat:
3) Do you think that giving an ultimatum as mentioned above (not to use a stronger word here) is really fair approach?

Yes, I believe that giving an ultimatum is a fair approach unless it contains a threat to do something illegal. For example, if your employer tells you that he will fire you if you keep coming late to work or fail to meet a certain deadline, there is nothing unfair in such an ultimatum. He is free to fire you anyway, even if you do everything right. Likewise, I am free to write a truthful article about PSGRiP tournaments, as they are public events.

Now that I have answered your questions, let me add a remark to help you better understand my view on the whole situation.

You see, you guys have been ignoring the direct encounter rule since years ago, so what made you recall about that long-forgotten rule during the MP Gomoku 2019 after years of ignoring that rule? Probably Alicecooper's own personal need, as there is simply no other obvious factor. What if the situation had been opposite, i.e., what if Alicecooper had earned a higher median Buchholz coefficient, but lost to Oleg in the direct encounter? In that situation, Alicecooper could have simply remained silent and gotten the gold. So he had an opportunity to win either way, and this is clearly unfair. I am not saying anything about what I think he would have done in that hypothetical situation; it is already enough that in that hypothetical situation, he could have gotten the gold by simply remaining silent if he had just wanted. What completes the picture is that it was hard to Oleg to raise any issues, because your rules were written carelessly, in a hard-to-interpret and apparently self-contradicting way. It is clearly unfair to write the rules in such a way that only their authors can confidently interpret them and raise issues.

I believe that such things need to be clearly explained to the community together with the undeniable facts, and I am sure I am capable of writing an excellent article.

Usiek - 2019-12-01, 23:51

To Whom It May Concern,


In regards to the above discussion, we would like to supplement our previous statement.

1. We admit that during the last several years the PSGRiP Board was inconsistent in enforcing the Tournament Rules, and due to this some players took wrong places in the final standings.

2. In our opinion, this is not the case of the results of the Polish Gomoku Championship 2019, which we find correct according to the then-current Tournament Rules, and thus they are indisputably valid. This is also not the case of the blitz tournament held in 2018 in Płock, which was not organised under the RIF rules (it was an unofficial tournament, serving as a friendly addition to the main events held at that time).

3. We confirm that the above-mentioned inconsistency affected the distribution of medals in the Polish Blitz Gomoku Championship 2017. The potentially disadvantaged player, Łukasz Majksner, does not raise any objections in regards to this situation.

4. So far we have not received any complaints from any of the potentially aggrieved participants of the tournaments organized under PSGRiP auspices. Bearing in mind the time elapsed since the competitions were held, we are not going to change results of any of the past tournaments.

5. All players, who wrongly took lower places in the final standings of our past tournaments, are exempt from paying the entry fee in the next tournament organized by PSGRiP, in which they will take part, as a compensation. Every participant, who feels aggrieved due to the described situation, has the right to submit an official complaint. We will revise each of them individually and decide in accordance with common sense.

6. We once again sincerely apologize all potentially disadvantaged players and confirm that none of the mistakes, which we regret to have happened, were a result of intentional actions. We will take measures to avoid similar mistakes in the future.


Yours Faithfully,

PSGRiP Management Board


Powered by phpBB modified by Przemo © 2003 phpBB Group