Hi, there used to be a feature in OGS when it was still a turn-based site exclusively, in which you could give your opponent more time if necessary. You can’t do that now, and only have “pauses” which can be undone by either player and are finite in number. I’d like to see the only feature restored, not necessarily in replacement of the “pause” feature.
4 Likes
I like the idea … please consider creating an entry on UserVoice — http://ogs.uservoice.com/forums/277766-online-go-com-suggestions-and-feature-requests — the place where users can vote for wishes and suggestions. Also, post a link in this thread once you’ve done so 
4 Likes
You can always pause the game. This is what I have done in the last
1 Like
Yup, I’m in a corr game now that I paused. We both get to keep playing while it’s paused, but don’t have to worry about my opponent timing out.
I would agree with this proposal. However, I would also suggest that setting up a better time system would avoid the need for giving your opponent more time. For example, you could use 1.5 hours of Simple time for certain levels of 19x19, if you find that most of your games take 1 hour. Byo-yomi is a fun twist to timing, but it isn’t really needed if your focus is the game of go itself. Just my opinions.
But Simple Time forces you to be hyper-aware of how many moves your game will take and how long you should be spending on each move. Byo-yomi allows one to more or less use their time as they come across situations which warrant it. I think it’s the other way around.
1 Like
You are correct, depending on the situation. However, this thread deals with the situation where the opponent is about to run out of time. The best answer, probably, is to have an untimed game (or set the time to a very large value). This is the idea behind correspondence games, but it applies to “regular” games, too. If you never want yourself or your oppenent to run out of time, then don’t use timing. If you don’t like this, because you like the additional dimension that timing gives, then you have to accept the possibility that someone may run out of time. These are all trivial observations, of course.
1 Like
Running out of time means you (inadvertently or intentionally) used more time than you agreed to spend on the game. Ergo you should lose the game because you broke the rules of engagement, so to speak. Have I timed out games that I was winning? Of course. But that’s part of go, or any other game for that matter.
But in the absence of time controls, there is no agreement as to the appropriate amount of time to spend on moves. So one or both players are likely to grow increasingly disenchanted with the game as it goes on and their opponent either keeps them waiting, or doesn’t try hard enough, depending on their perspective. It’s why I stopped going to my local go club: they don’t just not use clocks, they prefer not to use clocks.
Simple time does solve this problem, it’s just more annoying to deal with than it needs to be, in my opinion. I do think it works rather well for chess, but chess has fewer moves than go.
Cool, thanks for mentioning that! It is done.
By the way, how do I change from being “Anonymous”?
The problem with Pausing is your opponent can unpause the game, for any reason.
Yeah, but by that logic, they can also resign. In the spirit of the post, I, being the one pausing, am giving my opponent more time. If they unpause it, and burn up their time to lose by timeout, then they could have also just resigned.
1 Like
My line of thinking was, if they want more time, they can grant it themselves by pausing, but then either player can unpause it.
I was speaking only to the original post about giving an opponent extra time. In other scenarios, you’re correct.
Time-giving is a feature on Lichess.
Personally, I find it rude to use that feature. By unilaterally gifting my opponent time, aren’t I implying that he’s weaker than me and that, therefore, I can give him a time handicap?
On Lichess, at least, there’s not even an option to refuse these time gifts. I don’t think players should be able to influence their opponents’ clocks.
2 Likes
I agree, and this feature has been requested several times. So far, anoek is of the opinion that pausing is sufficient and has yet to be swayed.
I believe this feature is almost always requested as a teaching tool, where some time pressure is still desirable but the game ending due to time out is not. If this turns out to be a serious concern, the tool could simply be disabled for ranked game? 
3 Likes
I want to emphasize this.
1 Like
Maybe a bit of topic, but could a special teaching game challenge mode be useful?
(Below private also a teaching game option).
- ranked=off (default)
- disable analysis=off (default)
- both players can pause and unpause can only be done by the player who paused.
- optional: allowing other players to join the game chat during the game (so that a “group evaluation” is possible)
- game speed: no blitz option
- automatically linking chat posts to game position
- etc.
1 Like
1 Like