I guess that this is true - maybe that’s the easy answer: don’t get cross if someone passes then resumes, just improve your position till you are sure you have won, and pass then.
As a Professional Software engineer at work (as I guess a lot of people here may be…) I always try to keep an eye on the law of unintended consequences. One unintended consequence of this might be that ogs would not show the score until dead groups done? In this case players will manually count themselves before declaring dead groups done. Some players will be deliberately and some unavoidably slow. Then they will carry on if they get an answer they might not be happy with.
The question then is which is more annoying? - someone passing to see the score then resuming or someone passing, spending 10 minutes laboriously counting and then re-starting.
If I have missed some auto-process which prevents this then apologies…
If opponent passes on unfinished game then you don’t pass, you play (and opponent resigns). If it’s finished game then it’s whole another story.
This is bad idea because there’re some edge cases where scoring works unintuitively, for example, counting both groups as dead in seki rather than both alive and stuff like that. And you simply might not notice something. Seeing the score before I agree on the status helps me ensure I marked everything correctly. I regularly check the score just before I hit accept. It’s kind of a safe-guard to not accept wrong score. I don’t want to turn off this safe-guard.
There is a countdown timer for scoring where it will auto-score if you don’t click in time, which might lead to more obvious (and easily reportable) trolling by clicking on and off dead groups to make sure.
But yeah Alex has a point about sometimes there are odd situations that just escape your notice, and it seeing score sometimes helps as a reality check.
But the most important bit imo is that this shouldn’t be allowed by moderators except in cases where beginners are unaware of how rude/malicious this is considered to be. If you pass in a game, that is admitting that you don’t think there is a reasonable move that can increase the score. If your opponent also passes then he also agrees that the score is settled. But to do this just to “check the score” is like saying “Idk if I’m winning, but if I’m not, let me invade something I know I shouldn’t be able to invade and see about it then” to me.
Personally I agree with your sentiment @mekriff
As a moderator, I find this hard to enforce without substantial community support, because the rules say you can resume.
If we all agree that the interpretation of this is “only to resolve complex cases” I’d love to enforce that, because it’s my personal opinion.
The point that was made is that OGS is currently deviating from the official rules:
“If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his opponent must oblige and has the right to play first.”
If OGS was applying the official rules, certainly less people would be tempted to pass then resume.
but i don’t understand how this happened in the first place.
assume A passes to “check the score”, but B also had to pass as well for this to happen. if B also passes, it means he too thinks there is not much A could do to change the score.
resume once and it may be a disputed group, but if it repeats many times I think B himself is responsible for 50% of it.
I think that it happens when B thinks that the game is over, but A keeps returning to play after passing.
B experiences this as timewasting and irritating. He has no interest in playing again.
Is this really true? If I were B I wouldn’t want to keep playing and playing while A passes and passes just to remove all weaknesses and aji and dead stones through play. Especially not with Japanese rules. Then A might feel aggrieved that B is wasting time by refusing to pass when the have is over…
I don’t understand how this follows:
premise #1: B is passing because he thinks A can’t play and get a better result
premise #2: A is passing to check the score then resumes as an attempt to improve score
premise #3: the game resumes multiple times
Honestly, unless B has a fatal weakness, the most likely conclusion is that A is doing things that don’t work, passes to let B think the game is over, sees that he’s behind, and then does another thing that doesn’t work.
Fun fact: this is called “stalling” and is a great way to get yourself banned if you ignore moderator warnings to cease.
It is interesting to see, how it is working on other servers. On WBaduk e.g., when both players pass, the game is immediately and automatically scored and finalized (in the former time one had to manually mark dead groups, but they have changed it. It don’t know how it works and whether some AI network is involved or not; however, in my experience it is by >=99% correct even in complicated positions). If you disagree with the scoring there is some kind of complain button, which you have to use afterwards.
Right now our score estimator isn’t accurate enough for that purpose but we are working on improving it and that could possibly be an option we considered in the future.
Lots I could comment on in this thread but I think mekriff has nailed it right here. This is also how I feel about this topic.