5 ms·

India just lost to Russia in the final of the firstever online chess olympiad, probably due to connection issues of two of its players. I wonder if it's related

by MLij 6y ago

India just lost to Russia in the final of the firstever online chess olympiad, probably due to connection issues of two of its players. I wonder if it's related to this incident and if the organizers are aware. Edit: the organizers are aware, and Russia and India have now been declared joint winner.

redwood 6y ago
Interesting. How would connection issues cause them to lose? Was it a timed round?
- MLij 6y ago
  Yes, two players lost on time.
- cyphar 6y ago
  All professional chess games have a time limit for each player (if you've ever heard of "chess clocks" -- that's what they're used for). In "slow chess" each player has a 2-hour limit and all of the other time control schemes (such as rapid and blitz) are much shorter.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    There’s an interesting protocol for splitting a Go or chess game over multiple days so that neither party has the entire time to think about their response to the last move: at the end of the day the final move is made by one player but is sealed, not to be revealed until the start of the next session. For this to work on an internet competition, the judges would need a backup, possibly very low bandwidth communication mechanism that survives a network outage. This wouldn’t save any real-time esports, but would be serviceable for turn based systems.
    - FR10 6y ago
      Yes, this is call Adjournment[0] and they used to do it until 20 or so years ago when computer analysis became too good/mainstream. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_(games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_(games)
- colinbartlett 6y ago
  Related: World champion Magnus Carlson recently resigned a match after 4 moves as an act of honor because in his previous match with the same opponent, Magnus won solely due to his opponent having been disconnected.
  - repiret 6y ago
    His opponent, Ding Liren, is from China, and has been especially plagued by unreliable internet since all the high level chess tournaments have moved online. He is currently ranked #3, behind Magnus Carlson and Fabiano Caruana.
aminozuur 6y ago
That's fascinating. But I wonder, why don't they start over, or continue where they left off, once the internet is back?
- Strom 6y ago
  > continue where they left off The games are timed and this pause gives a lot of thinking time. If they're allowed to talk with others during the pause, then also consulting time. > why don't they start over That would be unfair to the player who was ahead. That said, both players might still be fine with a clean rematch, because being the undisputed winner feels better. I wonder if they were asked (anonymously to prevent public hate) whether they would be fine with a rematch.
  - derefr 6y ago
    Seems like one of those cases where solving a “little” issue would actually require rearchitecting the entire system. Namely, in this case, it seems like the “right thing” is for games to not derive their ELO contributions from pure win/loss/draw scorings at all, but rather for games to be converted into ELO contributions by how far ahead one player was over the other at the point when both players stopped playing for whatever reason (where checkmate, forfeit, and game disruption are all valid reasons.) Perhaps with some Best-rank (https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating...) applied, so that games that go on longer are “more proof” of the competitive edge of the player that was ahead at the time. Of course, in most central cases (of chess matches that run to checkmate or a “deep” forfeit), such a scoring method would be irrelevant, and would just reduce to the same data as win/loss/draw inputs to ELO would. So it’d be a bunch of effort only to solve these weird edge cases like “how does a half-game that neither player forfeited contribute to ELO.”
    - retrac 6y ago
      > but rather for games to be converted into ELO contributions by how far ahead one player was over the other at the point when both players stopped playing for whatever reason Except for the obvious positions that no one serious would even play, there is no agreed-upon way of calculating who has an advantage in chess like that. One man's terrible mobility and probable blunder is another's brilliant stratagem.
mark_l_watson 6y ago
I am glad they declared a tie. Seems fair. I had this problem two years ago while I was taking Go lessons online from a South Korean professional Go Master. For my last job we were renting a home well outside city limits in Illinois and our Internet failed often. I lost one game in an internal teaching tournament because of a failed connection, and jumped through hoops to avoid that problem.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Thanks for the update. Wasn't able to access HN from India earlier, but other cloudflare enabled services were accessible. I assume several Network Engineers were woken up from their Sunday morning sleep to fix the issue; if any of them is reading this, I appreciate your effort.

by MLij 6y ago

redwood 6y ago

Interesting. How would connection issues cause them to lose? Was it a timed round?

MLij 6y ago
Yes, two players lost on time.
cyphar 6y ago
All professional chess games have a time limit for each player (if you've ever heard of "chess clocks" -- that's what they're used for). In "slow chess" each player has a 2-hour limit and all of the other time control schemes (such as rapid and blitz) are much shorter.
- hinkley 6y ago
  There’s an interesting protocol for splitting a Go or chess game over multiple days so that neither party has the entire time to think about their response to the last move: at the end of the day the final move is made by one player but is sealed, not to be revealed until the start of the next session. For this to work on an internet competition, the judges would need a backup, possibly very low bandwidth communication mechanism that survives a network outage. This wouldn’t save any real-time esports, but would be serviceable for turn based systems.
  - FR10 6y ago
    Yes, this is call Adjournment[0] and they used to do it until 20 or so years ago when computer analysis became too good/mainstream. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_(games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_(games)
colinbartlett 6y ago
Related: World champion Magnus Carlson recently resigned a match after 4 moves as an act of honor because in his previous match with the same opponent, Magnus won solely due to his opponent having been disconnected.
- repiret 6y ago
  His opponent, Ding Liren, is from China, and has been especially plagued by unreliable internet since all the high level chess tournaments have moved online. He is currently ranked #3, behind Magnus Carlson and Fabiano Caruana.

aminozuur 6y ago

That's fascinating. But I wonder, why don't they start over, or continue where they left off, once the internet is back?

Strom 6y ago
> continue where they left off The games are timed and this pause gives a lot of thinking time. If they're allowed to talk with others during the pause, then also consulting time. > why don't they start over That would be unfair to the player who was ahead. That said, both players might still be fine with a clean rematch, because being the undisputed winner feels better. I wonder if they were asked (anonymously to prevent public hate) whether they would be fine with a rematch.
- derefr 6y ago
  Seems like one of those cases where solving a “little” issue would actually require rearchitecting the entire system. Namely, in this case, it seems like the “right thing” is for games to not derive their ELO contributions from pure win/loss/draw scorings at all, but rather for games to be converted into ELO contributions by how far ahead one player was over the other at the point when both players stopped playing for whatever reason (where checkmate, forfeit, and game disruption are all valid reasons.) Perhaps with some Best-rank (https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating...) applied, so that games that go on longer are “more proof” of the competitive edge of the player that was ahead at the time. Of course, in most central cases (of chess matches that run to checkmate or a “deep” forfeit), such a scoring method would be irrelevant, and would just reduce to the same data as win/loss/draw inputs to ELO would. So it’d be a bunch of effort only to solve these weird edge cases like “how does a half-game that neither player forfeited contribute to ELO.”
  - retrac 6y ago
    > but rather for games to be converted into ELO contributions by how far ahead one player was over the other at the point when both players stopped playing for whatever reason Except for the obvious positions that no one serious would even play, there is no agreed-upon way of calculating who has an advantage in chess like that. One man's terrible mobility and probable blunder is another's brilliant stratagem.

mark_l_watson 6y ago

I am glad they declared a tie. Seems fair. I had this problem two years ago while I was taking Go lessons online from a South Korean professional Go Master. For my last job we were renting a home well outside city limits in Illinois and our Internet failed often. I lost one game in an internal teaching tournament because of a failed connection, and jumped through hoops to avoid that problem.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Thanks for the update. Wasn't able to access HN from India earlier, but other cloudflare enabled services were accessible. I assume several Network Engineers were woken up from their Sunday morning sleep to fix the issue; if any of them is reading this, I appreciate your effort.