Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

I would confirm that it’s not very polite to ask the opponent to resign. We might message a player if they’re doing it very regularly and it’s annoying their opponents (the main reason we’d find out really).

I think the logic is that

a) it does annoy people, and not everyone can judge the game equally well. Some players never count the game during the game to know they’re 40, 70 points etc behind.

b) you kind of have signed up to play a game to a reasonable end. If it’s unranked and you really need to go somewhere or want to start a new game you can resign. If it’s ranked, you don’t want to quit yourself because you lose points since you’re winning, it’s not going to be that much longer to close a few borders and score the game. If you’re worried the opponent might overturn the result by you making a blunder, well then the game isn’t really as over as you might think :slight_smile:

c) if the opponent is stalling, stopped playing seriously, filling in territory, refuse to score, reporting the opponent is probably better than engaging with the opponent. Maybe they don’t speak English, maybe they don’t see or use the chat (zen mode) or maybe some mobile app etc, maybe they’ll just be rude or annoying even more.

5 Likes

Thank you for pointing out the facts.

Indeed, we have identified special cases where this feature could be used to force-decide a game before every last-ditch “dirty trick” on the board has been attempted.

Still, I am generally for this feature because it works well when it is needed. :slight_smile:

I’m not aware about asking for resignation being against OGS policy. On the other hand, I wonder if there is a warning for the super -passive-aggressive triple pass, if it’s not genuine anti -stalling. I guess it is rare.

3 Likes

Do you have an alternative solution that does not require human involvement or some complex checks which would need to be implemented?

I acknowledge that the feature has corner cases but I find it much more dirty to stall so an anti-stalling feature is very welcomed. I want to point out that people attempting to stall and reverse a game by count cheating happened to me way more often than this feature being misused.

3 Likes

Yes, may not be perfect, but significant improvement would be only triggering if the passes don’t change expected score by more than half point in Chinese rules.

4 Likes

I would find this way more confusing because that would introduce a different rule set to my game where Dame is important all of a sudden. But I can aggree that this would be a fine check. Now only somebody is missing to create a pull request.

And I will also admit that my value judgement is different from the cited thread. We are not in a court of law. I rather say sorry to one human than letting 100 trolls making the experience for everyone worse.

3 Likes

Dame is important, no matter the ruleset. Teire: As all the dames are filled, lack of liberties forces players to add stones in their own territory. Sometimes this is game deciding. (But it’s a judgment call again: limiting the anti-stalling feature in this way allows for more stalling, but less games ending before they should.)

OGS’s backend is closed source.

3 Likes

Under Japanese rules even in offline-tournaments, I will defend what I have to defend and then ask if we may stop the clock and proceed to counting and filling Dame outside of the regular game. Maybe not strictly the same thing but it is a mild (sic!) inconvenience to have to do it.

2 Likes

When I first learned to play go, I was told that Japanese tradition is to leave the dame unfilled because it’s more elegant that way. The tradition goes back a few hundred years, and works because of three factors:

  • It predates clocks. Games could take a whole day, or even months with adjournments. People weren’t going to make mistakes under time pressure.
  • It comes from a group of people who consistently filled the teire before passing.
  • We’re talking elite level pros here.

Traditions change slowly, and it took much longer than it should have to acknowledge that we’re not all top pros, and that the clock is part of the game. And not everyone you meet in a go club in a Western country is steeped in 19th century Japanese culture. Some time in the 2000s, what I was hearing gradually switched over to “don’t mess about, just fill the dame, it only takes a minute.” Nowadays even the pros are doing it.

3 Likes

I’m available to create a pull request, probably anoek is too. But while you “can agree”, the proposal and topic ion general both seem far from consensus…

“don’t mess about, just fill the dame, it only takes a minute.”

If one player is stalling, they can make it take as much time as their clock allows…

Do you mean “apply this variation for games using Chinese rules”, or “if the game were scored under Chinese rules and the score doesn’t change”?

Latter, even if game is Japanese rules, use Chinese in the KataGo anti-stalling detection so works with dame.

1 Like

There was a case in Japanese pro play where one of them missed an atari teire as they were filling dame off the clock, outside the normal “game of skill” phase of the game. A dispute arose, should the pro who missed the atari accept he loses all those stones, or because they aren’t in the game proper can he undo. It changed the result of the game. Playing the dame as part of the normal game avoids these troubles.

2 Likes

I would add that doing the anti stalling detection with Chinese rules doesn’t mean people playing Japanese rules need to fill dame (ignoring the strict Japanese rules issue of adjacent dame implying seki). You can still pass with dame open, and your opponent can then also pass if they don’t want to fill dame either because there’s no teire, and you then score as normal. It’s just you can’t triple pass to force an adjudicated win until all dame filled.

5 Likes

I meant … only takes a minute between experienced players behaving reasonably. I was responding to the implication that filling the dame is undesirable.

But hang on, I thought this whole discussion was about people wasting time by playing late invasions that are so futile the opponent can just pass? Are people also stalling by waiting for the last second before playing a dame move?

1 Like

People do anything they can dream up to piss-off the other player when that is their objective.

These measures aren’t here because we have “experienced players behaving reasonably”. While that is the vast majority, this conversation only exists because we also have troublesome users participating to make trouble, or vent their emotions.

4 Likes

Exactly! This is the internet. The reasonable person is not the standard.

1 Like

I have no idea, to be honest.

But I have experienced (albeit only once so far) that the system threatened to decide for me (or did it actually decide? It’s been a while, and my memory is cloudy) because my opponent was passing while I was diligently walking along our borders and filling neutral points :smile:
(Note: I’m ~7k so not totally clueless although it def. feels so in many of my games :wink: )

Uhm. I’m afraid you can just as well leave away the first statement :unamused:

1 Like

I didn’t read the complete thread, but I am wondering who has right of way in a mixed game?

A mixed game is in this context is a game where one player doesn’t want AI to interrupt but where the other player wants the opposite (that is creating a server decision when needed).

And if a player is able to turn off this option does that automatically apply to other player as well?

I don’t think this option can be turned off, and even if it could it should certainly not apply to the other player.

It’s a protection against stalling; if the staller can just disable it that becomes meaningless.

4 Likes