Is it truly the proposal that
“players should be able to annul a game where they agreed the result, and then discover that Kata predicts that if it were playing the result would be different” ?
How is that not
Obviously nonsense… how is Kata’s prediction of what it would achieve relevant to these players’ result?
Changing the rules, which say that during scoring the result is what the players agree that it is, whatever they agreed, during scoring
?
Couldn’t have put it better myself - this feels like an absurd suggestion.
I feel the urge to re-emphasise an important point about “The AI result”:
the AI “result” is a prediction of what it would achieve given this position.
Just because it says “99% white” doesn’t mean you have a hope in hades of winning from that position even if you are white. That depends entirely on your skill. If you agreed black wins on this board at that position that just goes to show that you are not as skilled as Kata. Which is clearly the case for everyone reading this. So “Oh, Kata says white wins” doesn’t mean either player should annul, it only means that Kata thinks it would have won if it were white.
If it says 100 points white though, I have good chances of winning in most cases.
Op talks about resignations mostly. When you were losing but opponent got bored or something and resigned. So you have opportunity to refuse a win. This is generally what you want to do anyway if opponent gave up a won game for some reason.
Right - and you are unlikely to have resigned then?
Or is it right to understand that this proposal is really saying “I want a way to end the game when I am clearly (IMO) ahead but it’s too early for scoring, so my only option currently is to resign” ?
And then having resigned and Kata shows that it would have won from my position… I pester my opponent to annull?
Resign-then-annull doesn’t feel like the right answer here.
Proposal as I understand is the following:
Player A is behind in the game. Player B however resigns (presumably for outside reasons). Player A doesn’t feel it’s right to keep this win where they were losing.
Current solution: A calls moderator for annulment.
Proposed solution: If Kata agrees that A was losing and thus got underserved win. A has an option to annul the game with a button thus refusing undeserved win.
Thus we could rephrase it as “ability to refuse undeserved win”.
I see. In that case I agree with the argument that says “this is what call moderator is for”, so that we don’t provide tools to sandbaggers.
Well, yes. It was completely separate joke. Did it sound like an accusation in English? Sorry.
But that’s true after all that users of my button will have lower rank than others. Same as users of analysis have higher rank.
3rd attempt:
player with SDK power plays against 14k. And SanDbaggerKyu still behind when 14k resigns. Sounds like a rare situation. So existence of that button will not make any significant difference.
You deleted your second attempt. I read it before your deletion. So I think that makes this your second attempt, at least in public view.
The sandbagger is behind only in the sense that a 1d player could beat him in a variation neither actual player is strong enough to discover. Not rare, I think, but let’s move on. I posited a wide difference in strength so the sandbagging would be clear. However, it is also possible that a 14k is playing an even game but is planning to lose because he wants to start sandbagging, so he can get the “pleasure” of clobbering TPKs. His opponent resigns unexpectedly and the previous scenario continues from there. DDKs do in fact sandbag, although less often than SDKs and dans, I think. Another scenario would be sandbagger versus sandbagger, in which one or the other sandbagger would get to use the button. This is a more common occurrence than one might imagine, and it is always hilarious because one sandbagger typically goes into high dudgeon accusing the other of sandbagging.
even more rare, not just behind. behind only in sense only Kata able to see.
If the game result is disputed, the game should continue until the result can not be disputed. Regards, Ed
opponent left, its impossible
Last person to not-play is the loser of the game, the other is the winner, if the game is ended by a time constraint.
If no time constraint, the game continues, Regards, Ed