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

FAQFAQ  SzukajSzukaj  UżytkownicyUżytkownicy  GrupyGrupy  StatystykiStatystyki
RejestracjaRejestracja  ZalogujZaloguj

Poprzedni temat «» Następny temat
MP 2019
Autor Wiadomość
alicecooper 
Skarbnik

Dołączył: 06 Maj 2004
Posty: 2209
Skąd: Warszawa
Wysłany: 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 

Dołączyła: 23 Kwi 2016
Posty: 278
Skąd: Australia
Wysłany: 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

Dołączył: 26 Lis 2019
Posty: 3
Skąd: Budapest
Wysłany: 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 

Dołączyła: 23 Kwi 2016
Posty: 278
Skąd: Australia
Wysłany: 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 

Dołączył: 28 Sty 2005
Posty: 64
Skąd: svk
Wysłany: 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 
Viceprezes


Dołączył: 27 Lis 2005
Posty: 1725
Skąd: Kraków
Wysłany: 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 
Członek Zarządu
Kapitan IRP

Dołączył: 28 Kwi 2004
Posty: 4912
Skąd: Płock
Wysłany: 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 

Dołączyła: 23 Kwi 2016
Posty: 278
Skąd: Australia
Wysłany: 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 
Prezes



Dołączył: 25 Sie 2011
Posty: 440
Skąd: Radziejowice
Wysłany: 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
 
 
Wyświetl posty z ostatnich:   
Odpowiedz do tematu
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów
Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach
Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów
Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów
Nie możesz głosować w ankietach
Nie możesz załączać plików na tym forum
Możesz ściągać załączniki na tym forum
Dodaj temat do Ulubionych
Wersja do druku

Skocz do:  

Powered by phpBB modified by Przemo © 2003 phpBB Group