I think technically passing only loses points when there’s an odd number of dame, and no kos left and things like that.
It should be fine to pass when there’s an even number of dame (that both can play) because you’re guaranteed half.
So I mean consecutive passing, like passing three times would lose points, but I don’t think Katago should show anyone losing points when there’s an even number left.
Even number: Pass (0 point loss) opponent plays dame,
Odd number: pass (1 point loss) opponent plays dame
Even number: pass (0 point loss) opponent plays dame
It’s quite possible that white wasn’t aware of this new feature and that white wasn’t aware of the teire yet, but it is quite likely that white (4d) would have become aware of the teire if black had filled a couple more dame near it.
It feels like it should be enabled in ranked games as those are the ones where if someone is annoyed they’re losing it’s detrimental to you to just leave the game.
That is if the player wants to stall and waste time, your options are put up with it and wait, call a moderator and wait, or resign and lose rating.
For the anti escaping, your options are wait until your opponents time runs out (if they’ve left the tab open but are not playing to waste your time), wait til the disconnection timer runs out, leave also but if your opponent comes back they could time you out, or resign and lose rating.
If it’s unranked games there’s no real issue, if you don’t want to play the opponent just resign or cancel etc, the win doesn’t count for anything except pride really and having another win marker in the game history. It’s better than being annoyed while the opponent stalls or escapes etc.
The real issues are cheating by stalling and rudeness by escaping (as well as cheating by escaping if they come back). What you are suggesting for unranked games would effectively legalize cheating by stalling and encourage rudeness by escaping. I think it is a bad idea, as a general principle, to accept cheating and rudeness. Whether or not the game is ranked is irrelevant to this principle.
Legalise seems like a strange word. People can do all sorts of things in unranked games as it is, you can play on non square boards (people even play on 1x n boards), or non standard sizes, you fork board positions, you can play go variants like thue morse go or only allowing knights moves and such. You can play games with unrealistic komi
This are all “legal” in unranked games, because there’s no real consequence for playing in silly ways, or playing a game that isn’t go, or resigning early or anything really.
Still there’s no excuse for being rude or insulting and various things like that to the opponent. So it’s not a free for all on site rules.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant, since the real barrier to just resigning a game where the opponent is stalling or trolling or escaping is that you might lose rank/rating.
Maybe to some people there is a notion that they deserve the win, but we can’t force the players to play exactly as every opponent wants.
We can however have stricter rules for ranked games though since the outcomes of the games kind of mean something for people in the sense of trying to find equally skilled opponents to play on average say and I think it’s good to at least strive to obtain that where reasonable.
If you happen to know a player that likes to only play a game with 20 komi for black in unranked games, just don’t accept their games, block them. Why should we force them to not play the game how they want to for instance if it’s unranked?
Can you see that their maybe should be some distinction between ranked and unranked and that it’s not irrelevant?
I was originally responding to ^ to say at least it should stay enabled in ranked games.
Apparently @Conrad_Melville wants to take this without context of
to skew it as though I’m advocating that trolling and annoying opponents should be allowed.
Clearly @stone.defender is also interpreting it this way also. Despite my saying
Feel free to report players cheating, stalling, escaping, but you don’t have to sit there while they’re doing it hoping that you can still score the game properly in some way. If it’s unranked, you can resign the game, leave with no rating penalty, report them, block them, move on with your day.
Hi there,
Thanks for the threat. Exactly what I searched for…
I saw the last described function twice now.
In my opinion it kicks/ kicked in too early.
I m not sure if the auto prediction was right anyway. Because I did not understand what it was and where it came from. To me the game was not set and done ,yet.
The popped up window was a distraction in this fast game.
( In ultra-blitz games it might be disturbing and not more anyway.)
So at the moment I do not see this function as a big help for the quality of the games. Maybe it will be, if it gets adjusted better / finer.
The game I am talking about / saw it there last
Summary on How the game went in endgame and belongs to topic
Fair to say, that I did not play the game clean at the end.
The game was on the edge there.
Move 62 w passing was a mistake.
… fight around H7 …
Cleanest way to end and win would have been…
63 black H7
Other way…
63 b C5 or C6 , would have been a trap (legit/ allowable ?)
64 w resign, pass, or C6/C5
65 b H7
66 w resign or C6/C5
What we did instead was a bit amateurish. Owing to the time settings ( 6 sec. per move, 8 sec. max.) , on my side. And there around move 63 or later the function kicked in. ( Both players not master of situation and away from etiquette, I admit and say.)
So far for my experiences.
Maybe set the function off in games with 10 seconds per move and less.
Thanks for your work, time, support and attention!
The points are:
o The pop up window disturbed me.
o I did not get the reason. > Maybe put a notice like „one of you passed 3 times“ there too.
o it was a blitz game. They are away from etiquette and thinking/ seeing/ understanding, sometimes.
o the game was realy close. And the computer / ai was wrong. The one stone really made the difference who will win.
!! Idea:
Maybe a pop up window like “One of you passed three times. Are you playing the game right? Always (feel) free to contact a moderator if there is trouble around.“ would/ could do the job better.
Not leaving it to any opponent to end the game.
And giving reason for the Information + hint/ advice/ warning and ways for help and dealing with situation.
Such an information would be less cryptic and I would have understood it by first sight.
No need to get ai processing into it that way, too.
Just another thing to mention:
The three discussed features /functions may have needed a threat each ?
If you are fine with all in one topic, it is fine for me too.
why should a game be topped by server decision while both players want to continue the game ?
this is wtf thing happened to me, and it’s really wtfing !!!
