Epic Komi Wins

What would YOU do if your opponent is white, and they win by 7.5, 6.5, 5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, or 0.5?
I know in my experience that in the two opponwnts tie, including komi for white, black wins the game!
So I’m always curious, Would people feel better or worse if they are black, and their opponent won by 7.5, or 0.5? Which one would do prefer to get? :laughing:

I think losing by 0.5 will always be more annoying. There’s probably plenty of places where putting a certain move one spot over could save a point, or there was some other ko threat to win that last ko (like you could’ve squeezed out two threats but only made one) etc.

Losing by 7.5 could be that you just got some stones captured early on and not even katago could salvage the game :stuck_out_tongue:


Yeah, totally, loosing by 0.5 is truly a bummer, lol. I can’t deny that what so ever, but losing by 7.5 is painful as well, because if you lose by 7.5, you’ll probably think: “If there was no komi, I would win!” Because in this situation we’re talking about black. It the two players tied, including komi, black wins. It’s confusing, Ik, and there are many perspectives in this case. I like your’s! @shinuito

1 Like

Now this wasn’t a one point game ( I lost by a good bit) but still for example, just because it’s on topic :slight_smile:

The endgame for white is one point better. with the tiger’s mouth than the at the blue. Will white always get this endgame? Possibly not, but I’d like to interpret the one point loss as that :stuck_out_tongue:


I consider a game close if it goes to scoring and the difference is less than or equal to Komi.

I am not upset if I win (obv!) or lose by less than Komi. If anything, I am happy because it has been a fun and exciting game right to the end.

However, I hate to win or lose by 0.5. I much prefer integer Komi so such a close game can be called a draw. (See related discussion.) In a tournament game where a decisive winner is required, then maybe 0.5 is OK; although, I would prefer a rematch as a tie-breaker if time permits, especially if it’s, say, the grand final.


Imagine how exhausting that might be. Just finished a 3 hour game and got a draw and have to do a rematch because you need a winner :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m with you I think with the ~komi being a close game though :slight_smile:


The point about “tournament game where a decisive winner is required” really only applies to knockout tournaments - which suck anyway. A knockout tournament can identify a winner but not a #2 or #3, because the second-best player in the tournament might have lost to the eventual winner in round 1.
Swiss or McMahon tournaments are much better.
And in Swiss or McMahon tournaments, the possibility of scoring half a point for a drawn game separates the players better because there are more possible final scores.
I’ve never understood the modern obsession with finding a unique “winner”. In chess, where the proportion of draws is at least 10 times the proportion of draws in Go, most tournaments still tended to have a unique winner; for example, the annual Capablanca Memorial Elite chess tournament had a unique winner 19 times in the last 20 years (the most recent tie was in 2011). But I don’t see any problem with 2 players sharing the title, and the 1st and 2nd prize money. There doesn’t have to be a unique winner of the Nobel Prize, why would there have to be a unique winner of a Go tournament?


Thank you @Nickj. A well made argument to abandon half integer komi altogether. I would certainly support such an idea :wink:


I mean there are no draws in Go so it being a factor more doesn’t make sense :stuck_out_tongue: (unless you’re counting 0.5 point wins as draws)

The draws in Chess are just painful though, stalemate, repetition (incl perpetual check), no capture for 50 moves, and just plain agreed draws. It kills the excitement of the game for me :stuck_out_tongue: The history the World Championship is also plagued with draws. One can either have an endless number of games until one player comes out on top or the modern way which is switch to Blitz to resolve endless ties, and I don’t think either is really a great way to go.

I mean people share the prize because they all make significant contributions to the discovery. It’s like saying “Yeah both players made the game what it was, they both deserve to win regardless of the outcome”. Everybody’s a winner really.

I like the 0.5 point in komi even if it’s annoying to lose by it :slight_smile:

1 Like

The history the World Championship is also plagued with draws. One can either have an endless number of games until one player comes out on top or the modern way which is switch to Blitz to resolve endless ties

Magnus Carlsen’s 12-game matches have been the shortest the Championship has ever seen, obviously for marketing reasons – historically, 18- or even 24-game matches have been ordinary.

IIRC, the fact 12 games is too short to prevent ties has been recognised and the next match is to rise in length back up to 16 games. It’s not fair to take that point of extreme match brevity as one’s yardstick.

1 Like

That wasn’t my point, my point was every game was a draw and it was awful to watch. Then it had to go to speed chess to decide things. Nothing about it being 12 instead of 16 matches :slight_smile:

So yeah, technically both of them are reallyyyyy rough to face! I mean, if that game ties, including white’s komi, black wins. So komi can help you OR hurt you the same way. :thinking:

I feel hurt when I lose by a big margin, and ready to resign if I can see the result coming in the future.
Losing by small margin (at best 0.5) means we had a well balanced game, how can I be hurt by that?