I really wish we had the option to turn off the annoying AI decision. It is our right and good practice to finish filling dame, and sometimes that leads to opponents making mistakes. It is so damn annoying seeing that AI which I did not invite into my game interrupting it. I do not like it if I am winning or losing. It is like a rude kibbitzer.
This makes me angry enough to go play on a lousy platform like PANDA.
100% agreed. The fix I currently support is to not activate the antistalling feature unless passing would not shift the score by more than 0.49 points (as well as the existing restrictions on when it activates). A related fix I support is to only give the option to the player who is passing, as they may be wishing to allow a new player to try an invasion to see why it doesn’t work, and it wastes their time they invested helping a new player if the new player activates the antistalling feature
Do you mean the function that there is an option to autoscore a game if you pass three times in a row? Personally, I like that feature since when you are playing many games and especially if you are playing a tournament that is simultaneous it is quite annoying to have to waste time on a game that is clearly decided because someone is too rude to resign, or refuses to pass despite no sensible moves being left.
As I have learned it, a proper game ending (if it is not resigned) requires closing all neutral points (see Dame, Teire) – i.e. all points between my and my opponent’s borders.
Any algorithm that interferes with this should be met with salt water and iron fillings.
The requirement as you say is not that obvious in the head of many players. Which can be understood as being a bit superfluous even stupid to do it (not talking about those endless debates about 1 point difference in some cases)
it would fix more egregious cases of the op’s problem. Under territory scoring, I think it unfortunately wouldn’t catch skipping dame/teire, but it would catch that under area scoring
Could use both Chinese and Japanese rules to analyse it via AI and whether it doesn’t shift the score by more than 0,49 points if both players pass – maybe it would fix this ?
Or would it not affect cases with an even number of dame left, even in area scoring ? (how about the score not changing after a metric that this would be measured by too…? Or is there some other way to reliably detect dame and teire remaining ?)
I am in favor of the anti-stalling feature using Kata Go. Maintainers should know that people who dislike it are just a loud minority. Among such a minority, most are beginners that have yet to learn to identify when the game is already over. There is no such thing as interrupting an already-finished game.
Moreover, in territory rules, this acts an arbiter in some simple cases. We all know that in territory rules an arbiter is needed when there is scoring disagreement because capturing dead stones changes the score.
If you want to teach your opponent something, it should be on such an opponent whether to accept the lesson or reject and play as normal. If you think your opponent may mistakenly think there is an obligation to click the button, then make clear that is not the case. It is a teaching game after all.
I am in favour of an anti-stalling feature using Kata Go.
I am not in favour of an anti-not-resigning-when-you-are-losing-by-a-lot-with-negligible-chance-of-a-superhuman-AI-winning-vs-another-superhuman-AI-but-still-some-decent-chance-of-winning-vs-your-fallible-human-opponent feature using Kata Go, which is what we’ve got now.
An odd characterisation, I’ve noticed a lot of dan players pointing out problems with it, such as myself, frolag and Animiral to name a few.
It is what the text says, but rarely followed in practice, including in professional games.
For East Asians, which wrote these rules, the rules themselves are an afterthought to established precedent. They were not designed to be taken literally, unlike Western rules.
Japanese and Korean rules are very dirty. You should use area rules given the current state of software support. Button rules and clean territory rules are valid too, but not implemented in OGS.
Remember you have to pass 3 times in a row for the Kata Go ruling and already be in endgame or very late midgame. We have 2 elements here:
The losing player’s desire to steal a win through dirty trick plays, relying on the opponent making a blunder.
The winning player’s desire to move on after a game won cleanly.
You are in effect (even if those are not your words) arguing (1) is more important than (2).
Look at frolag’s example, there is no dirty trick play. It was his opponent who was winning and prolonging the game by not filling a teire preemptively, so frolag filled the dame to either make him defend (and frolag still loses, but by 1 point less), or miss that he needed to defend and reverse the game, but the opp kept passing and got the AI adjudicated win. OGS should not use AI to absolve people of the need to spot teire to convert their winning position to a scored win.
I have used the 3 pass tactic in a game I was winning a lot in middlegame (may have been before move limit changed from 120 to 180) to force my opponent to lose. It is crazy that it is considered rude (and OGS mods will warn you) for asking your opponent to resign in such a situation, but instead I can do a super-passive-aggressive triple pass and force them to effectively resign. I felt dirty to use this feature.
As was pointed in that thread, this is a game that was already won decisively by one side. I would be fine if the anti-stalling feature was modified to only be enabled after dame are filled, but this is not required.
Do you have a source that asking the opponent to resign is forbidden?
Then do not use it. It was your choice to use this feature in this case and you got the result that you knew you would get.
In the case you mention, that player did in effect resign. For the losing side, pressing the “Accept server result” button is equivalent to resigning.
It is fine to offer teaching. I do it. It is not “good culture” to pretend to teach people without even asking whether they want it.
No, if they had resigned, it would have indicated they’d understood why their invasions didn’t work. Activating the Antistalling feature just confirms they have no idea when/how to end a game
Was this a teaching game (i.e.: a game where both parties agreed it was a lesson)? If it was and playing-out failed invasions was part of your teaching plan, you must have instructed your pupil in advance about this feature.
It is analogous to explaining to a pupil what handicaps are and why they are a good idea before starting a teaching game. I have done so several times. Some wanted an even game and that was fine by me.
It becomes a teaching game once I realize I’m playing someone literally 30 stones weaker than me. Helping those who are learning what you once had to is a good thing. Don’t call good evil and evil good
“teaching game” is not equivalent to “playing somebody much weaker”. This ought to be obvious: In any setting, you can not unilaterally teach people. There has to be some agreement (even implicit in a conversation) that (1) you are providing guidance and (2) the other person is aware and interested in such guidance being provided. You may have done (1) but if you have no evidence of (2), then it is not a teaching game, it is just you being condescending. If you want to be condescending, that is your choice but I do not buy into calling it “teaching”.