I agree that you can continue playing, but I think it is also fair to say that in some situations it would be more polite to resign (or finish up your endgame moves quickly and go to scoring, if you prefer).
IIUIC, currently if you are N moves into the game, and M points behind with L% certainty, then we allow for server to decide the winner. IDK if the N, M and L values we currently have are actually good (I also don’t know that they are bad), but if we instead (or additionally) let the player know that their opponent might be getting impatient at this point, then perhaps more games would be ended gracefully, without anyone getting too frustrated.
Just recently had another game ended by AI for “stalling prevention” because I – legitimately! – closed Dame points while my opponent was passing … this is very annoying.
Well, it actually was even more complicated … I was warned by the system, and, IIRC, told to accept something (can’t remember what it was), and I clicked probably a second too late, and then the system decided (rightly) that my opponent had won.
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned you need to play the dame for Japanese scoring.
Curiously I was under the impression it’s the opposite - that you need to play them for Chinese, but that dame make no difference for Japanese.
I’d love to know what is really the case, so I could form an opinion on trohde’s complaint
IMO, if dame don’t affect scoring and your opponent wants to end the game now, it is rude to force them to keep playing, by playing the dame while they are passing.
Go is a pain in the butt in this respect, because of couse you may have a cunning shortage of liberties that you are working towards with dame, or you may just be bloodymindedly hoping they’ll make a stupid mistake. Or you might just like the feeling of completion.
I wonder if we could establish that we allow dame play during passing in one rule set, and not in the other? That way those of us who are impatient to end on pass can chose one, and those who like the zen of dame can choose the other?
In fact rules transferred from OTB to internet is still not identical and prone to generate some debates. In the spirit of the Japanese rules, there is agreement between players. When there is disagreement there is a solution: study by playing. Get an agreement then from the study and go back to where we stopped the game with this agreement in mind. Unless you call for moderation, that’s not how it works on internet. Simply resuming playing (the usual way on internet) is very different, it’s a shortcut on how it should be according to OTB rules.
Fox approach is maybe more in the original spirit. Propose and if no agreement then call for study. But it’s still not exactly the same. It goes through moderation (not necessary OTB) and I doubt (I may be wrong) that sequences are played further and then rewind on the goboard.
Online gaming requirements are different with OTB. Moderation availability is limited. Players have different expectations as someone in a Tokyo club too. Internet may offer new means not available OTB like some automated regulations and use of AI in decisions making.
Online generates its own problems like cheating, stalling etc… The hope is to solve them with its own toolbox, like this anti stalling feature.
So I understand a new feature which nonetheless will unplease some players in some situation being confronted with an unusual way of winning a game. It’s a compromise to solve a chaotic situation created by a lack of moderation and an abundance of bad behaviors (cheating, stalling…)
For the dame question, I found that automated scoring is not always perfect (this includes other servers too) so it’s already something I’m used: I like to play them to the bitter end. In my own eyes a point is a point and a rule who don’t consider who is playing last to fix the score but wants to spare playing a few neutral points at the end is not that interesting. Well let’s just say it’s an unfinished attempt for aesthetic.
Do you think that despite the complexity, we might fing a way to allow for both preferences?
I guess worst case it could be Yet Another Option, but honestly it’d be better to be “tied to” an existing choice because Yet Another Option just dilutes the pool of available games for your choice.
I was a bit surprised when the measure was implemented without any debates, just something like let’s try it. Anyway it’s done, and I don’t have myself the full perspective of the bad behaviors, it may be very concerning I guess.
Myself I find that playing dame should be done online as default for any rules in the state of the art. Not playing them is still too much in the “agreement field” of OTB and not easily implemented online.
It seems from reports here that this creates some interference with the anti stalling feature, not sure that could be minimized but I ‘ll keep still myself with finishing the dame.
With Chinese rules, you can pass when there are an even number of dame left, since it won’t change how many each player gets. Then your opponent can pass (since there are still an even number) and the game is scored. If you do this in Japanese rules it technically results in a seki (and none of the groups touching the dame makes territory), but ogs doesn’t score this way, and in practice many players leave dame.
In my brief experience with a real go club, with more experienced players, they indicated that filling dame was the polite and correct way to play. I vividly remember the oldest player at the end of our game asking, “please join me in filling the dame.”
I was confused in a recent OGS game when my opponent, who created the game with Chinese rules, passed with dame still left to fill. After a discussion in the chat we mutually agreed to end the game, which seems fine.
For the computer to intervene and end a game, which would not be ended in real life, does seem to grate against the goal of the online server to reproduce the experience of a real-life game.
Unfortunately, the internet setting too often brings out poor sportsmanship which would rarely been seen in a face-to-face game.
But at the end of the day it is hard to accept that OGS could disallow play that would be acceptable and even encouraged at a refereed tournament.
I think we need to remember that the Server is not acting unilaterally here. The Server says “You’ve passed an awful lot, and are ahead.. do you want to end the game”. Then one of the players clicks “Accept”. It may not feel great for one player, but it’s also providing an out for the other player who may have other things to do.
I don’t feel that all games should be held to the standard of a refereed tournament. Tournament games maybe, but many online games are casual and should be treated that way.
Anyway, I can sympathize with the feeling that auto-end may be jarring. But I also don’t think tradition needs to be upheld in all cases. And in fact hope that more people would embrace the differences in online play (for example, I believe there are other popular servers who have gone much further in allowing the AI to end the game)
For me the relationship to a traditional activity is important, it’s not just zeroes and ones, so the idea that other servers have gone down this path doesn’t sway me—if anything it makes me want to dig in my heels.
This argument makes a little more sense to me. Possibly my game settings and opponents are different, and pointless moves are a bigger problem for other players than they have been for me so far. As I wrote above, I understand that the standards of conduct on the internet are generally lower.
Just for the sake of constructive argument, though: if it’s a casual game that one player wants to end before it’s formally done, there is still the option to resign and leave at any time.
Another thought: Would you want to see basketball games ended early by computer decision because it is considered too improbable that one team can score, for example, 13 points in 7 seconds? To me it mars the beauty of the game for the sake of a little convenience.
This is disallowed if you are ahead (since it will have a sandbagging effect on rank)
I think it’s not a great analogy since basketball games are on a form of absolute time. The only way to prolong a basketball game is to keep the score very close.
I think a closer comparison can be drawn for sports which have a tendency to go long, and in these there is the concept of a mercy rule (which is basically what this is)
If it’s not very high, merely over 50% is not good enough, I consider this feature a failure and better removed. Because if I play random_user123 and they stall then random_user123 is a dick and bad luck for me but you have to accept a few bad apples exist. But if OGS anti-not-resigning-when-you-are-losing feature kicks in and makes me lose when I wasn’t stalling then OGS is a dick and OGS is not just one random user but the server in a position of trust and authority as the referee and means by which the rules of go are enforced and it has violated that trust. When the other team cheats the referee can give them a red card, and you can play someone else next time. When the referees cheats there’s nothing you can do*, and they are there every game.
Maybe I’m overdoing this and a computer will step in to nullify my third rambling gratuitous contribution to the debate, but I want to throw in another way of looking at it.
Like some others here, I grew up playing ch*ss, only to discover the superior game later in life. In the course of playing the former game I learned that one should rarely, if ever, point out another player’s blunder and offer the opportunity to undo the move, even when you believe the other player is less skilled and the offer is motivated by generosity.
Why? Because never know if that player has made a mistake or has actually seen something you haven’t, is making a sacrifice, or something along those lines. So to point out a mistake and offer an undo in a way insults your opponent and in another way might unfairly force her to tip her hand.
(My feelings about this are a little different in a game/setting where ‘trash talking’ is the norm, as in fact this kind of banter can be a great way to educate younger players without belittling them—but I think the point stands. Even in this setting I don’t offer an undo, though I readily grant it on request. I think these norms apply to Go as well, in which context incidentally banter seems to be less the norm.)
Point being, when your opponent makes moves at the end of the game which you consider pointless, it might be considered improper, by the same reasoning, to assert your own or a computer’s judgment on the issue. You don’t know what she’s thinking. The right thing to do is play it out by the rules.
He is acting unilaterally when he gives the option. It’s a good point that you can discard his offer but the fact is we accept that AI makes his own judgement and interfere in the game process.
To me any automated process has to be perfect. 1% of failures is already too much. Because I ‘m not that lazy to not play a few dame, to be patient with someone starting to play weirdly or to count manually my game (marking the stones myself) if necessary. For me it’s part of the game and for a main part it’s about respect. I don’t mind if the opponent is getting crazy, I mind to not getting worst myself.
My understanding is that both Tygem and Fox rely on AI to count at the end of the game. Passing is not necessary, and manual selection of dead stones is not even an option.
Player A clicks “count”, a message gets sent to the other player
Player B clicks “accept”, the game is ended
Player B may decline and the game continues
On Fox, there is an anti-stalling feature, where you can invoke the AI Referee. It’s after X moves and possibly some check on whether the borders are closed. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can fill in the details.
I think this is where we disagree. I agree the bar should be high for diverging from normal play, but I don’t think it’s possible for any system to be “perfect”.
It’s honorable you approach games this way. I try to offer my opponents a level of patience myself. However, I don’t think we need to force a self-imposed standard on other users.
