Right now, if black makes a move, it seems like the only option is to resign, if your opponent never makes a move, or else to let their timer run out. (This is at least the case with computer opponents, and seems to be why Fuego is now a 6d: https://online-go.com/player/58542/). The problem with this is that it can lead to unjustified wins for white, where white never shows up, and black resigns in order to find a game elsewhere. If white never moves, and black wins on time, the game is annulled, so the best black can do is wait out the timer and have everything cancelled. However, black has to either not play until the time runs out, or risk white showing back up and playing a move when black’s already got another game started.
Instead, black should retain the ability to cancel a game until white makes a move, at which point both players must resign if they wish to end the game early (as is the case right now). This would let black get out of rated games in which white appears to be afk, without losing rating points or wasting time.
Maybe this is just a bot issue, then? It looks like if I start a game against Fuego right now, as black, I make a move and the the “cancel” button switches to “resign,” and there’s no annotation that the game was annulled when I look at my game record after resigning. I tested this on an unrated game, since I can’t do a ranked game because Fuego’s rating is too high, but from what I can tell, it’s an issue.
It’s possible, I do not know if there is any possible reason, why bot games would be programmed that way, but can imagine it is annoying We can ask anoek about it once he has the time, but I am afraid to bother him too much since he still has those pesky notifications to fix
Either side can face an opponent who does not play their first move. At some stage either can have an opponent who stops playing and whose clock starts running down. Sadly, if you agree to 30 days, the opponent can wait 30 days to make first move and then play the rest of the game in overtime. It’s a pain but why should you be allowed to cancel?
Either side can face an opponent who does not play their first move. At some stage either can have an opponent who stops playing and whose clock starts running down. Sadly, if you agree to 30 days, the opponent can wait 30 days to make first move and then play the rest of the game in overtime. It’s a pain but why should you be allowed to cancel?
Because it’s a pain?
I don’t see any reason to force people to deal with something that’s a pain if it doesn’t have some other convincing justification. Keeping the clock running on an opponent who’s taking most of their time on one move, even if it’s annoying, makes sense in the middle of the game, since there’s a possibility they want to use that much time. Locking someone into a game before it’s actually even started doesn’t accomplish anything.
Well then, there should be some waiting period after which a player can annul or cancel a game. Since a pain as that can occur at any point in the game, it would be sensible to allow this power to be executed at any time in the game: 150 moves have been played, opponent has not played in a month, isn’t on vacation, is playing other games, has 3 weeks left but it’s a pain waiting any more - cancelled!
Maybe some new parameters in game setup, like, if a player goes 10 days without playing, the game can be cancelled by the waiting player?
There is already a default ending of “inactive” games, but it is not clear exactly what it is. In an unranked, no-time-limit game, my opponent didn’t make a move in about 7 weeks (not on vacation) and was charged with a loss when the system spontaneously ended the game. In another case reported by someone else, however, the default time was much shorter (this was discussed in another thread, but the details are fading from my memory). It is also unclear whether or not other factors are involved (ranked vs. unranked, or whether this applies only to no-time-limit games).
There’s a convincing justification for not letting a player cancel mid-game, though. If a game is in progress, allowing the (presumably) losing player to cancel the game lets them game the system for rating points. Cancelling the game would hurt your opponent’s enjoyment of the game. A game in which one player hasn’t played yet, I’d argue, hasn’t really begun. If there’s nothing on the line, and your opponent appears to be absent, you should be able to cancel. Your opponent doesn’t lose anything, they’ve got nothing invested in the game, and they can easily start a new one if they want.
The argument made related to the “pain” endured by the player who had to wait; by extension, considering relief of pain for anyone at any time seemed humane; more a philosophical point than something to be taken with great seriousness.
We can ask anoek about it once he has the time, but I am afraid to bother him too much since he still has those pesky notifications to fix 
