Yes @Lys I see that. And I wrote from the beginning that you can disable it of course.
I’m surprised how players can’t be honest and keep thinking it’s the same as analysis tools.
You can have fun with some cheating after all no need to cover the tool by it’s weaknesses…
OGS don’t do it yet but a score estimator with AI quality is not fantasy, so a bit of debate won’t harm afterall
So now you outright call people who use score estimator cheaters.
Anyone even slightly stronger than me who thinks SE is of any significant help should return their DDK/SDK status (I don’t expect a Dan to blurt out something like that) and put on back their training wheels, because obviously they don’t have basic reading skills.
If we could avoid playing with words I know that SE is part of OGS tools ofc and that’s not the sense as I said I put in “external”.
In my interpretation of the TOS, OGS don’t want users to get information to use in their own game which is computed outside their brain, especially adapted information, and that’s in some way, with it’s yet low quality, what SE may provide.
When an area is grey out, and even more if SE was better, I could change my mind, follow it’s external advice and find that I had a wrong assessment on that area
So, in your interpretation, OGS implemented a tool that goes against what they want.
@yebellz I agree about the parts during the game, but I strongly suggest a good, reliable SE would be useful for the scoring phase. Yes, reading is good etcetcetcetcetc, but please keep in mind the beginners and the people who just want to enjoy Go. A good score estimate in a finished game helps people check their skills and avoids conflict.
@Gia yes. They can have good reason for that, like that many users like it.
Now being sizing the low quality of SE to minimize the cheating is a no way to me, or how will you explain then why so many want to keep it? For wallpaper on their screen?
We should call a horse a horse. For a intermediate player, he will refute many times the assessment of the SE of today but sometimes SE may point out something wrong. And that’s what I call cheating, using something else to assess and then play.
Then it’s even obvious there is a problem as said in other posts: do we really want a better SE?
“Cheating” is a strong word but I don’t use it for the sake of hurting, no offense, but in the idea to start by some reality to get somewhere.
Here is my (grossly over-generalized) take on reading this thread:
MORE EXPERIENCED PLAYERS: All of these tools that players now have make it too easy to do things. Everyone should learn those things in the slowest and most mentally challenging way, because (1) the honor of the game demands it, (2) it forces you to do everything in your own head so you actually become a better player, and (3) that’s the way I learned it, so it’s the only valid way.
LESS EXPERIENCED PLAYERS: But we’re just using these tools to help us achieve the same goals. We are trying to learn to do all this complex stuff in our heads, but these tools actually help. Just because we’re not learning it the same way doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
MORE EXPERIENCED PLAYERS: Nope - unless you do everything 100% by yourself then you’re not measuring up to some arbitrary metric of what a Real Go Player Should Be - which are suspiciously close to what I am familiar with, and should therefore be the rule for everyone. Anything less than that, and you are [cheaters, slackers, not putting in enough effort, take your pick]
I agree that it would be useful to have a good score estimator for the scoring phase as well.
However, having AI help during scoring is much narrower than allowing players to query a strong AI during the game. Of course, players could potentially resume a game to exploit some knowledge gained from the AI during scoring, but I think that’s a much lower risk, since it requires both players to first pass, in belief that the game is already settled.
Key to these issues is striking a balance between user convenience and competition purity. I think using a scoring estimator during the game is essentially a form of AI assistance, but it’s accepted on OGS only because it has long been the norm and the estimator is very poor. Note that the score estimator will even provide an estimate after playing out one or more moves in a variation. If the score estimator wasn’t terrible, one could essentially use the tool to provide advice on what one’s next move should be.
I pedantically concede this point, and hence one could argue that the SE violates no rules. In fact, as a feature built-in to the site, I think it is implicitly accepted by the rules, since otherwise it shouldn’t be presented as a feature.
However, I think the crux of this debate is not how it is classified, but whether it should be available as a form of assistance at all.
With the score estimator available, one could put down hypothetical moves (using the explore variations feature) and then query the estimator to judge which may be better paths (by comparing the relative value of the scores). Essentially, one could base the choice of their next move on the judgments provided the score estimator after putting down hypothetical moves. Taken to the extreme (although maybe impractical for live, this could certainly be done in correspondence), one could evaluate all (or nearly all, focusing on only the reasonable) potential moves using the score estimator and pick what the SE judges to be best.
That is great that that is what you mean. I agree hands should not be allowed.
However, the rules were not written wrt your interpretation of external, and any semantics you want to play is immaterial.
The rule’s use of externality references the site’s inbuilt capabilities.
You are the one “playing with words” here.
Honestly it is not even that.
Its not even a discussion of if SE is good at this point. It is litterally the OP arguing the the TOS bans it and that it is cheating and the same as running a copy of lizzie in the background.