The problem is not if there is a way or not anyway.
The problem is to deny you to try.
1 Like
The problem is deny me to try IF there is a way to win.
Otherwise, there is not problem I think.
I said playing the teire would not change the outcome (which is true as long as it’s not a 1-point game). I agree there is a possible change if they do not play the teire after watching you fill all the dame.
My point was simply that the AI made no mistake in evaluating the game. The potential issue is with the design of the anti-stalling function.
Is the AI consider the level, or the ability of the players ?
“I mean, feel free to suggest an algorithm that could reliable detect that”
Do any of the passes lose points in Chinese rules?
(as suggested several times in the original thread on this feature)
2 Likes
AI is Katago, it never considers the level of the players.
You lose points if your area (stones+emptyness) is not maximized and consequently, let your opponent grow its areas. Like if there are still dame points to take.
About reinforcement you don’t lose a point in itself (a stone or an empty intersection have the same value) but now that i think of it, maybe because you lose a tempo and let your opponent play twice you lose a point?
“Like if there are still dame points to take.”
, which is why this was suggested several times in the original thread on
the anti-stalling feature, and why I brought it up again in reply to Samraku.
2 Likes
I don’t really like the current implementation of this “server decicion” system, precisely because games like this >___>
In that game, white absolutely needs to play at least 1 stone because the teire-aji, or else white will lose that game. But instead playing that game-deciding move, white decided to pass multiple times and simply declared the win instead properly finishing the game. Does not feel right :<
4 Likes
To be pedantic, even if white missed it, it would not turn the game for black. The score difference is too great.
1 Like
Depends on how white plays it.
At worst, if it goes N15-O14-M16-M17, then N16 kills that entire white group and black wins by almost 60 points. White could also choose to sacrifice the N14 stones after black ataris at N15, but if it goes O15-O14-N16-N14 then black wins by half a point!
So what white should do* is to sacrifice the stones on M19 after black playes that M16 throw-in, so if it then goes N15-O14-M16-N16-M17-O15 then white will indeed win by about 10 points.
But the thing is, whatever white chooses to do, they will need to add a stone there in gote before the game is finished. If white doesn’t, they will lose by a huge margin.
*white should have just played a move in that area instead passing multiple times, thats the most reasonable thing to do
2 Likes
Yep. So black is hoping not just for white to miss the initial aji, but follow it up with another blunder for the whole group. It really is a lot of luck to ask for. 
Of course it is necessary to play to the very end, including teire, if the losing player insists, no matter how far behind. But I think everyone who has been in this situation can also feel the opponent here when he laments the waste of time.
I see that the game is annulled, which strikes me as a bit harsh. After all, it was decisive and could have been left at a warning for the guy. But I’m not a mod. 
6 Likes
Yeah, i annulled that game as unfinished, i kinda treated it the same as unfinished border
I think black actually had pretty good chances of winning based on how game was going, i suspect white didnt realise the danger they were in when they started passing
2 Likes
What is so obvious to you is not so obvious to this 5k - still 3 stones stronger than the player involved.
1 Like
The same skill level is on both sides. We have to apply the same level of reserved noncommitment to the idea that black saw the aji, and then the throw-in.
If anything, the game performance indicates that black might be slightly weaker.
1 Like
I dont think its super relevant what the players ranks are in situations like here. The main thing is that its unfinished game that was ended by the server.
There is a move which one player has to play, or else that player will either lose a bunch of stones or the entire game. If white just passes they will lose, but now the server granted them a win for that. It shouldnt go like that >__>
3 Likes
Not sure how I would feel about this decision if I were white.
The borders are closed, and playing the teire is not necessary if the game ends before it becomes useful. If the game had ended in the same position due to both players passing, would you have annuled it for being “unfinished”? I assume not.
While in this case it did not end through both players passing, it nonetheless ended before the teire became a necessary move.
Whether OGS should allow white to end the game in this way is another debate, but fact is this mechanism exists and it seems wrong to punish a player for using it.
5 Likes
I agree, if i were one of the players, i would feel bad about how that game ended before it was finished. I think white honestly thought that game was finished when they started passing, :<
If both players would had passed and agreed on the score, then by all means it would have been a finished game. I don’t annull games just because those happen to end before being finished or the score being wrong, i do annullments when such games are reported ^^
The ‘anti-stalling mechanism’ was creted to prevent games dragging ~forever due one player refusing to pass / accept the score (either because malice or simply not being experienced enough to see the game is over), but it was never meant to be a system that players could just click when they do not feel like playing till the end.
Basically, there was no stalling on that game, the anti-stalling system should not have kicked in as there was still move(s) that needed to be played. Hopefully the devs are able to fix that mechanism at some point, this was a prime example of a game where it should not have been applied ://
3 Likes
Eh, not everyone’s Dwyrin. I for one enjoy crushing my opponent into the ground by bringing a won game all the way to counting 
(I have also found the joy in getting a resignation too, though, so I’m happy either way)
2 Likes
In real life, I mean, on a true goban, the two players have to pass to finish the game.
And they may play dame if they want.
And, look, both players in this case have not the AI level : they could make mistake that AI wouldn’t do.
You can’t compare AI level to the level of the present players level, or AI would be useless, according that no player is abusively stalling the game.
By the way, I think we are often too far rom real ife games when playing internet