Please, keep this discussion on topic and topic only. We are discussing an idea, not other members. For personal disputes there is the personal message option.
I agree. Having an option sounds great. Are there downsides? Maybe increased waiting time for a match?
How on earth is it cheating and bad sportsmanship to use a tool that is explicitly provided by the site you play on? I don’t know why this accusatory tone is necessary for the actually very reasonable suggestion: Add this option to the automatic matchmaking, so similar to the other options found there, if you really care about one of those options you can choose to enable it at the cost of possibly longer waiting times to yourself.
And seeing how there are a few people who really want analysis disabled, I feel like adding this option would be a good move.
I would like to point out that you can already open custom ranked games with analysis disabled - that doesn’t solve the problem with ladders and tournaments, but it’s an alternative to using the automatic matchmaker.
It was @orbitaleccentric who brought the idea of cheating into it, and then only in reference to another thread.
I wish he hadn’t.
This isn’t about cheating or not at all.
It’s about:
For me it’s totally easy:
Maybe it’s clearer this way?
I would prefer correspondence games also to have it disabled by default.
Of course that’s only my opinion, but I have given reasons for it.
Can you persuade me, in the light of the three bullets above, why it should be otherwise?
I don’t really buy the idea that just because it is easier to use other crutches in correspondence games, that means we should make this one easier to use as well…
I for one tend to analyze in correspondence games, while I strictly do not in live even given the chance. As with everything I think balance is a good thing.
I play correspondence mostly for the purpose of having a lot of time to think about moves and test things and ideas I would not normally dare to play. And have we played correspondence irl I too would have all the time in the world to test out the sequences on the board. They both help in different aspects of the game I think… Not that I mind either way, but I slightly prefer Tom’s way.
Yeah that makes sense for the class of person that plays a fair amount of live.
I play next-to-none, due to time constraints, so correspondence is the main thing that applies.
Hence why I’d like my opponents to be coerced into ^H^H^H^H^H happily agree to a level playing field without it 
But agreeing that it should be an option is a substantial step forwards
Creating custom games is quicker than automatch anyway so I’d just do it like that if that was my preference. That said there is no reason to oppose it as an option for automatch. I’m just not sure it’s worth the effort of implementing.
@GreenAsJade, I mean no criticism by this but it sounds like you effectively want to play correspondence games as if they were live.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that and I’m sure you’re not the only one but I don’t see the sense in changing the correspondence defaults to suit people who wish to treat it as pseudo-life.
I guess if correspondence is truly different to live, then we should have a separate rating for it - one that acknowledges that you can use analysis etc.
I would not be against that.
Actually, to be a pedant, the word cheat crops up before my comment… 
For the purests, who wish to play Go as it has for thousands of years, wouldn’t this be the most reasonable facsimile of that on OGS. Being able to cancel these, either singularly or as a “real board” package, would eliminate the crutches for those that wish to do so. Thoughts?
#1
Do you remember how corr. games were played before the Internet? 
Usually on a board which allowed to play out variations.
Your “crutch” interpretation is just that, an interpretation. For others it is a legitimate tool.
#2
What about “forcing” people to play with handicap who prefer playing without handi? Or vice versa? “Uneven playing field” also?
Nobody is “forced” to play games with settings they don’t like.
And as said, I’d think it’s okay to have analysis enabled per default for correspondence and disabled for live games, and tournament or ladder directors as well as people creating direct or open challenges can adjust the settings to their taste, and nobody is forced to join if they don’t like the settings.
#3
Nope, both sides can use the same tools.
@GreenAsJade: I totally agree with a setting that could level the ground, as you ask.
If you need a vote, you have mine!
I’m not convinced though that analysis causes all the problems that you listed.
As an example: a friend of mine recently subscribed on KGS and tells me that his rank on KGS is a lot higher than on OGS. He doesn’t use a lot of analysis, but his experience is the opposite of your fears.
Maybe the “Go server rank survey” will give us more data than one single person does.
Also I’m not convinced by your hurdles metaphor: there is a big difference between race and training.
In a race you want to win (or have a good placement).
In a training you want to become stronger.
You can become stronger also in a handicap system, running high hurdles against weaker players running low hurdles.
I think that tournaments are races and I agree if they’re without analysis.
But I think that the global ranking system of a server is a gym, for training.
Let’s suppose that a player had a “holy rank” of 2k below yours and was able to achieve a “cheated rank” of 2k above yours using analisys, what will be the consequencies for you?
If he always plays with analysys, you’ll lose against stronger opponent.
If he always plays without it, you’ll win against weaker opponent.
Sounds legit.
Things can mess up a little if he plays sometimes with and sometimes without analysis. So, as an average, he’ll be the same rank as yours and you’ll win sometimes and lose sometimes.
Sounds legit too.
Well, there could be a strange case: you always beat him in live games (where is almost impo-po-possible using analysis in 5mins) and always lose in correspondence games (with a lot of analysis).
Until now it’s never happened to me to play against the same opponent both live and correspondence, but it’s possible,
I can really see troubles only with a player with which you play a lot of games. But in that case it’s easy to arrange about settings.
I can’t proof, but I suspect that the analysis doesn’t affect at all global ranking.
Also I suspect that stronger players doesn’t use it at all.
And I’m pretty sure that hurdles training starts with low hurdles and that experienced runners don’t complain about it. 
But hurdles racers are not ranked on their low hurdle training runs… if it were just training (unranked) then no complaints at all.
I’ve been arguing for no low hurdles in ranked matches (to mix the metaphor )
I guess they aren’t ranked at all: they get medals when they win, and we do the same in tournaments. Whoever wins gets a golden badge, even if he’s 25k.
I fear that many discussions start because of different interpretations on rank meaning.
You convinced me.
Correspondence is different things for different people.
I’ll just keep playing in the correspondence arenas where Analysis is turned off, and be happy that there are some
What about live? Is there any reason why Analysis should be turned on ever for ranked live games?
I just want to chip in and say that I would be glad if analysis for live games was disabled by default when automatching. I’ve been avoiding automatch for that reason alone. I don’t think it’s about cheating or even the “integrity” of the game but I feel like most people don’t use analysis so the default settings should reflect that.
In correspondence games the opposite is true I suppose. It’s customary to analyse variations in a correspondence match so the tool should be enabled by default.
I don’t really play correspondence go, but I used to play a decent amount of correspondence chess, and analysis was kind of the point. Live games were for finding the best move you can make just by looking at the board and thinking. Correspondence was for finding the best move using all available resources other than computer analysis or other people. Looking up pro games, studying the theory of the opening, and playing out variations were what made playing correspondence attractive for me: I could study the game in real time and try to make sure I understood the ramifications of everything I was doing. It doesn’t build reading skill the same way as playing without analysis, but it’s good for building a deeper understanding of what the effects of certain moves are going to be.
Correspondence, historically, worked the same way. Good correspondence players were good, patient, studiers. The goal was to play as perfect of a game as possible, finding the best move after careful analysis at each step, and then writing it down and sending it to the other player.
I’d definitely be in favor of disabling analysis for players on live games, though. I don’t think opening an analysis board in a live game makes any more sense than playing out a variation in an over the board game, just to see how it looks, before going back and making a different move.
Sounds unhealthy, we should stop that…
Quoted for truth. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words so well
I don’t use analysis, and I don’t mind if my opponent does.
Let me add just one thing: if your reading is weak and you start to put down variations, the variations will also be weak and unrealistic.
If your opponent cannot read a variation without seeing it visually, that is not an advantage, it is a handicap. Consider it an impairment that your opponent must work around. Analysis is like a prosthetic. Don’t be jealous.
So true!
So often happened to me to use analysis, check variations, choose a move and… find out that the opponent plays something I didn’t expect. 
I really should stop doin’it just like I stopped using score estimator.