Hi,
In one of the games I’ve played, I think that IA forget a crucial move.
But mu opponent click on 'server decision" while I thnink the game wasn’t finished.
(Tournament Game: Correspondence Weekly McMahon 19x19 2023-12-02 17:00 (110062) R:2 (Jim Mattson vs döskee))
So, I think that the two players should be ok to finish a game… Or AI should be clever to analyse a game
Can you in this case upvote my suggestion to make it clear that using the Antistalling Feature before all dame and teire are filled is a reportable offense? I still haven’t seen a clear answer on that in the thread, but I think it should be reportable to activate the Antistalling Feature before all dame and teire are filled
Could you please clarify what “crucial move” you are referring to?
On the face of it I’m not sure what you were trying to accomplish by playing further, but maybe I missed it.
White owes a move on the inside when all external liberties are filled, they were hoping this wasn’t noticed.
Rather than making a button which you need to go check the forums and read through masses of forum posts to find out if you are allowed to click it or could get reported and then warned and banned for doing so, OGS should simply not make the button appear if your aren’t supposed to click it.
Indeed.
Apparently I had and still have the same view 
Kind of why I wouldn’t upvote this myself.
I mean, feel free to suggest an algorithm that could reliable detect that, but just the text explaining the Anti-Stalling Feature saying that should be enough, and I think that’s more realistic
Hi could show the sequence, but my opponent didn’t seem to had it.
So, as he wasn’t correct with me, Do I have to show it ??
You don’t “have to” per OGS rules, I was just asking for clarity. @BHydden already clarified that point anyway.
Hard to say whether your opponent saw it or not. It is possible they saw it, but would only have played it when necessary.
And it’s also one’s prerogative to require the opponent to fill teire if they don’t want to resign, regardless of whether or not it’s game deciding
So, I think it would have been correct he played until this move
Do you agree that if necessary, sure this necessity will be before ending the game?
Anyway the discussion is not about if white was fair proceeding this way, but about the AI making a wrong decision. And I agree, the decision was wrong.
Do you agree that if necessary, sure this necessity will be before ending the game?
Unless it ends earlier.
Anyway the discussion is not about if white was fair proceeding this way, but about the AI making a wrong decision. And I agree, the decision was wrong.
The AI did not make a mistake here (playing the teire would not change the outcome, the AI was correct in considering white had won, unless it suddenly blundered).
It’s rather the design of the anti-stalling mechanism itself that is contentious, and I don’t have a solution here - like others I’m very reluctant to showing a button to a player while telling them it’s a bannable offense to press it, but I don’t have a better way to propose.
Why not adopt the opposite as server policy? Like this:
As part of the adaptation of the rules to online play, the game may also end after three one-sided passes with an overwhelming advantage. This rule exists mostly as an anti-stalling measure, but may also apply to some almost-finished boards as a technicality.
That would clear up any ambiguities around the definition of stalling and “reportable offences”.
I suppose @Uberdude suggested this, but more so in a satirical way:
I guess it’s not just dame skipping that might be the problem, but just trying to effectively force a resignation from the opponent once they fall behind enough. I mean they’re not forced to resign but it’s a similar effect where the game is forcibly ended. Hard to say that would generally be enjoyable as a gameplay feature.
I’m not even sure what the best implementation of this kind of suggestion would be. If you wanted it to be only in endgame, you need to define endgame (some move number, some move point value?). If you want the other extreme of only being available after dame, it probably is a bit too late to combat actual stalling. Someone might lose a group, be 20+ points behind, and then start playing along the first line to troll and drag out the game - it might take half an hour to reach the dame stage.
We already have a solid implementation. Now OGS could adapt its policy a little bit to fit the implementation and close the remaining loopholes and grey areas, like the case of OP.
I thought there was not consensus that anti-stalling feature should only kick in once all valuable moves had been played, but that some people liked it being a “didn’t resign yet because far behind even though game not finished and ready to count” feature as it is now.
Actually, both problem exist : AI and imolitbess from the player you clicked on the finishing button.
I think the finishing button is for players who are not correct and take TOO MUCH TIME to finish the game.
I don’t think I’m one of them.
It’s not the first time that this happen in may games.
I found that the use of this finishing button is sometimes extremely rude.
No, you are wrong, there is a way that change the result if player is not careful
Here, I wasn’t stalling for hours and hours, I just wanted to play dame, and something after. No stalling…