Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

[shinuito]

@Bunburyist

My solution is to turn off the server decision on absolute timed games.

It doesn’t bother me at all if a change is made to absolute time games.

I was more so focusing on other games, but this

@Uberdude

I also think this 3 pass feature triggering once incorrectly is a much worse negative than it triggering once correctly:

is also a fairly reasonable, and as you mentioned in your post also

@Bunburyist

And on that note I will say – any of this stalling happens in fewer than 1% of games I’ve played.

maybe it’s too infrequent relative to players that might end a game early when the opponent is playing on legitimately.

[Samraku]

@Bunburyist

My solution is to turn off the server decision on absolute timed games.

What is the net negative in your mind with that solution?

I think it doesn’t address the same problems in non-absolute time games, while requiring <0.49 point swing from passing would address said problems across the board. Other than that, I agree with you

[qnpnpmqppnp]

requiring <0.49 point swing from passing would address said problems across the board

This is a bit more controversial than @Bunburyist’s proposal though, as it does run into the problem described by Shinuito for other games (i.e. stalling before all dame are filled).

[benjito]

@Bunburyist

My solution is to turn off the server decision on absolute timed games.

Oh never mind, i thought you were referring to (as the recent conversation had veered) the “require pass doesnt lose points” condition.

I think making absolute time a special case seems more reasonable.

@Bunburyist

What’s the process for getting that in front of the people who can actually change it?

Usually the next step is to create a GitHub issue and link to the Forum thread to show concensus.

[shinuito]

I think so far the main counterpoint, is that maybe it’s too infrequent to be important, which could well be true.

It might also be the case that there’s a better way of resolving the midgame cases than passing three times to claim a win:

@shinuito

There are ideas for those sure, pausing games for adjucation say by moderators or maybe community moderation, so then both players can leave the game and move on.

@shinuito

It could also be argued, that if we could just change results after the fact, like turning a loss into a win, rather than only being able to annul it, even more flexible systems could be designed

But I think lots of systems will still involve

@Bunburyist

My goal for changes would be:

1. Don’t create new avenues for cheating (which the change to the server decision did do)
2. Try to prevent cheating that results in a change in the final result of the game (which I’m talking about)
3. Try to prevent other annoying behavior

It depends on if you want to provide for cases where it’s legitimate to cut the game “short”, either in the middlegame, near the end of the game, at the end of the game where you could score, or in the scoring phase itself.

@anoek

The other annoying thing that happens from time to time is “stalling”. This is when an opponent continues to place stones instead of passing to end the game, or passing and then resuming from the scoring phase repeatedly.

Now, if the game is reasonably far along (specifically width * height / 3 width * height / 2 moves into the game, so move 180+ for a 19x19 match), and you have passed 3 times in a row, the server will ask KataGo for who it thinks is the winner of the game.

I guess if it’s really only the case that it involves

an opponent continues to place stones instead of passing to end the game, or passing and then resuming from the scoring phase repeatedly.

that the feature is meant to address, then I don’t see any reason why

@Samraku

while requiring <0.49 point swing from passing would address said problems across the board

wouldn’t be fine, apart from the usual situations where you expect it to trigger and it doesn’t because there’s some weakness in the border both players don’t see that could swing the result if exploited. Again, probably some edge cases.

[GreenAsJade]

@benjito

@Bunburyist

What’s the process for getting that in front of the people who can actually change it?

Usually the next step is to create a GitHub issue and link to the Forum thread to show concensus.

The path will certainly be smoothed if you are able to summarize the arguments for and against and why the arguments for win out.

[BHydden]

@GreenAsJade

The path will certainly be smoothed if you

… do all the coding yourself

FTFY

[benjito]

@BHydden

… do all the coding yourself

While a proper change would belong in the backend (closed-source), one could probably get pretty far by hiding the the button client-side (open-source) for absolute.

Given that there are a lot more pressing issues on “the list”, I agree submitting code would be the most efficient.