onubense vs Arka50

An update to anyone hoping to watch the resumption of the onubense vs. Arka50 match:

The previous session ended with a 6-6 score when Arka left to attend a lesson. This was against the wishes of onubense and would usually result in a direct forfeit. In this case I allowed it as onubense was temporarily unresponsive, although he did state his desire to play on before Arka's departure. I later discovered the period of inactivity was due to Arka requesting a break.

Due to the nature of the ending of that previous session I will award onubense the victory, unless the players can agree a time to continue. That said a resumption seems unlikely due to onubense's busy schedule.

This is an unfortunate situation. I will make sure similar situations are better covered in the rules if running the event again.

Given that the tiebreaker rounds can last indefinitely, perhaps the future rules should contain a provision that after each set of two tiebreaker games any player may ask to adjourn for the day so the match can be resumed at a later date, subject to the same negotiation rules (three offers) as the initial match itself?

for the good of the atomic tourney they must agree and ending the match......the fanatics wanna see one of they to win.....
but playing

It's certainly unfortunate that this happened, but the miscommunication was ultimately on arka. I also hope that it can be finished, but even if it can't, at least we got to see some really good games in that set.

Copied from the final thread:

GM Arka5010
tipau how could you forfeit me without even writing to me. I wote to you until the 25th, and you didn't respond to me. What is this?

tipau
@Arka50 my message to you on Thursday:

"I've spoken more with onubense and he has no time to play in his current schedule and is not prepared to change it again (which he did in order to play on Sunday).

Under the circumstance I don't really see a way to continue the match. If you can come to an arrangement to play before next week that is fine. If not (which seems likely) then I will have to award onubense the win by forfeit."

Your reply:

"OK, I suppose that's a fair decision. I am playing a tournament right now and will be back before before next Thursday. I would hope that we could play on one of those days."

GM Arka50
Yes but you didn't write to me afterwards

GM Arka50
By the way, It's Monday. I said Thursday in the message

tipau
I also posted to the same effect in the forum - see the semi final thread. I thought it was quite clear and that your messages showed an understanding.

In addition Gannet mentioned that he'd discussed it with you and that you understood. I'm not sure how else I could have communicated the situation to you to be honest. If you're still not happy with it feel free to pm me further. I don't want to de-rail this thread with it any further.

EDIT: I meant the thread 'onubense vs Arka50'. The deadline for the semi finals was Sunday 20th, this has now passed.

sakkozik
I feel disturbance in the force. I sense obstruction of justice.

It is my fear that in the end of this championship we will not be able to say "Habemus Papam!" rather "We have a disputed champion!".

tipau
@sakkozik There's no obstruction of justice and I don't appreciate the accusation. Kindly post in the onubense vs Arka thread if you want to discuss it.

I may clean up this thread/paste them to the relevant topic later as these posts are related to Arka's forfeit, not the final.

DanDan2016
While it may not be the best option for spectators or the tournament, I believe the fairest option to the players is to postpone the final until the completion of the Onubense-Arka match.

ijh
I agree, @DanDan2016, but if @onubense can't play, then what?

I would like to see the final a little later to get that match finished too to be honest... My feeling is that its a little unfair for Arka to be forfeit since tipau told him he would not do it before he left. So maybe the final should took place a week or two late to get that match finished, since otherwise we will never know if the winner is just a winner cause Arka had a lesson, and that would feel a little less nice... For the future there should be new rules for tie-breaks and the Break-Rule should be modified in some way, since the breaks made the match last that long, and I felt like there were too many breaks (some over 10 Minutes too iirc). But in the end its tipaus decision...

I agree that the forfeit was unfortunate. I've put time and effort into the tournament and believe me that I wanted to avoid such a situation. However there were no better alternatives.

@Iubar
You make some valid points. It's true that I told Arka he could leave, that was perhaps a mistake. However I'd like to make 2 points.

1) I firstly asked Arka if onubense was OK for him to leave. Onubense responded to Arka before he left, saying that he did not want to stop. That very important fact was not relayed to me.

2) The reason onubense was not responding was because Arka requested a break, right before stating he had to leave. Arka denied this to me and only admitted to it after onubense sent me a screen shot of it. Doing that and then putting pressure on me to allow him to go does not help his case.

I agree that the rules should be reviewed if the event is run again.

@DanDan2016
I do not agree that it is fairer to force a resumption. Onubense has treated the tournament seriously and was upset by Arka's behaviour, as I would have been in his place. I am quite sure that if I now bent the rules and schedule to force a resumption of their match that he would forfeit instead in protest.

Despite my best efforts to avoid it I'm afraid this situation was unavoidable once Arka left against onubense's wishes.

The only way I see how they can continue is to give onubense some advantage in the match, as well as the choice of time, and some time for preparation. But this is unlikely, as it requires too much time and cooperation.

So the facts are as follows:

1. Tipau said the following: “I think it should be OK to continue it later, considering it's gone nearly 3 hours” and “hopefully onubense isn't upset by that, but I won't forfeit you for going Arka”.
2. Arka has not relayed to tipau the fact that onubense did not want the match to stop.
3. Arka denied “[t]he reason onubense was not responding was because Arka requested a break” and later admitted it.

I would suggest the following interpretations:

a) By saying “I won’t forfeit”, tipau clearly indicated that he was communicating in the capacity of the TD.
b) Arka was permitted to pause the match for an indeterminate time by the TD.
c) The tournament rules have nothing to say about relaying facts and denying reasons.
d) Therefore, Arka followed TD’s instructions and broke no tournament rules.
e) Arka’s behavior might or might not be unsportsmanlike. It might or might not be influenced by having played 12 challenging games.

I would also note the following conflicts of interest:

1. Onubense had incentive not to be available because a win by forfeit was likely for him.
2. Tipau is playing against the winner of this match and might prefer one opponent over the other.

I would prefer the ruling to be at least substantiated by references to the rules, or better, reconsidered by a person with no conflicts of interest (the natural choice would be the second match arbiter, Gannet).

I think Tipau is impartial, and that onubense should continue the match in case onubense wins the tourney,the people will bring out the impasse with arka