Fill stones in the opponent's territory which was clearly 100% not going to work

At the end of the game, I knew that continuing to fill stones in the opponent’s territory which was clearly 100% not going to work was not illegal. Have you ever faced an opponent like that? how do you react to it? For me, playing like that is a little inappropriate. In contrast to chess which ends with a checkmate, in the game IGO allows to continue to fill the empty space (as long as it’s not an act of suicide) Is my opinion wrong? please give me advice

:grin: Thank You!!!

You conveninetly forgot to mention in this post that your opponent was a DDK ranked bot… of course they’re going to play pointless moves.

its legal. it just count against the one who is doing it under japanese rule. so if your opponent is doing that, you should be thankful.

1 Like

If a human player were doing this, they would be advised that this is poor etiqutte, and in fact can be regarded in some cases as stalling, which if repeat behaviour after multiple warnings can be grounds for a site ban.

In the case of playing a bot, there is no way to program them such that they are weak enough to play at the DDK level but strong enough to not play pointless moves within territory.


that’s not what I meant. I ask in general. If these conditions occur in human matches :slight_smile:

See my latest comment :slight_smile:

yuup thanks

I read about this topic when I first started playing. I had the exact same question and curiosity on the subject. I then read this article at Sensei’s Library: When To Resign.

Here is an excerpt:

In BadHabits, we have already mentioned that you should not wait to resign until the game is about to end. But one should not resign too early either. When suffering a big loss, it is wise not to resign immediately. Continue for several moves until your anger or disappointment has cooled down, and you are able to make a positional judgment. Only if this judgment shows that the game is really lost, is resignation appropriate.

Apparently, professional players apply the latter issue with utmost sincerity. We should not be so hard on each other as demanding our opponent to master the professional’s art of resigning.

Way back when I wanted to fill in all the points, because in the beginning it was just fun. Not to annoy my opponent, but when I lost I enjoyed playing as many stones as I could. I had a bad experience with someone berating me over it and I stopped. But I went in the opposite direction, resigning the second I thought I had lost the game. As my knowledge grew, I realized I often still had a chance of still winning games when I had resigned.

So these days I tend to follow the advice in the excerpt above. I play the game and when the point comes where I think I should resign, I play for a handful more moves. If it still seems pointless, then I resign out of respect of my opponents time AND so that I can move onto the next game. I do play study games as well, and I always play these to completion. It is ultra rare in a study game that after the point where I would have resigned in a live game, that I find I go on to win the game.

So I’ve hit this balanced point on the topic now and am very happy with it. It works well for me and ensures I am always playing in a match where there is potential to win. Simultaneously it ensures that I get more experience playing the opening and middle parts of the game, which is where losses tend to happen =P. Yes the end game matters, but I don’t personally suffer many losses with end game mistakes :hugs:


I imagine that this is judged differently according to rank. (Please correct me if I’m wrong @BHydden).

A 25k player may not be able to see the futility of a particular move and indeed a poor response by their 25k opponent (eg. accidental self-atari) may even encourage hopeless moves.

Whereas a SDK or Dan player may reasonably be expected to not make moves where the obvious response nullifies it (except when making ko threats).


Most certainly! Bans for this are exceedingly rare. Especially with beginners, we always approach the situation with an educational mindset :slight_smile: as you say, with SDK and Dan, perhaps we are a little less tolerant :wink: though thankfully it’s not that big of a problem here.


Fuego used to do this as well, as a mid-range sdk bot. I played a game or two against it, and this was quite annoying indeed… The bot got taken down though.

The reason would be that estimating score is very difficult for a low ranking bot, so knowing when to stop is quite tough.

I think humans usually don’t do this once they reach sdk, but I certainly have played people who display this behaviour. Sometimes it helps to ask in chat if they really think it’s going to work, sometimes it doesn’t, in which case I would ask for moderator assistance if the game is otherwise finished.

1 Like

This is only the case if they play gote moves inside your territory, since then you can pass as a response (giving you a point for the territory and for the played dead stone) . If they play a sente move you have to respond, but the score stays equal under both territory and area scoring.


In both Chess and Go, either player can unilaterally choose to end the game by resigning. His/her opponent cannot stop the game from ending if one player accepts the loss.

In Chess, the stronger player can dictate the game end by putting his/her opponent in checkmate. In this case the looser cannot force a continuance.

The game of Go is quite different. The stronger player cannot force a game end short of putting 180 stones on the board (making every possible move for the looser a suicide move.) This means that at some point before that happens, the weaker player will voluntarily decide (s)he has lost. Effectively, every game ends in one player resigning, either by saying “I resign” or by choosing to pass while knowing that the score is not in his/her favor.

You speak of a move as “100% clearly not going to work”, but what I think you aren’t taking into account is your opponent might not agree with your assessment of the move’s chance of working. Until the weaker player is willing to accept the loss, the game will continue.

This is why most new players have trouble figuring out when the game ends, because it doesn’t end until one player gives up. Something Westerners are often loath to do.

When I’m playing a weaker opponent, I often have determined that I have won well before my opponent has. They continue to play as many as 20 moves before finally giving up. And I fully expect that when I’m playing a stronger opponent, they realize they have won long before I do.


I’m not sure this is entirely true.

When both players pass, it may be the case that neither has “given up”. Each has done the best that they can, and can see that they can’t do better (because the territories are sealed) but they may not have counted the actual outcome.

The pass then becomes “well, let’s see who won”.

1 Like

This is essentially true for all close kyu games, as even into the strong end of SDK knowing the exact count for both players (especially in offline play or with SE disabled) is unusual and it’s quite common for close games to be estimated as the wrong result prior to counting.


I’ll accept that in close, live, games and less experienced players, you guys are probably right (I very rarely play live.)

But I think my point still stands. The game ends when the ultimate looser decides (s)he’s done trying to win (even if (s)he doesn’t realize (s)he lost at the time.) There is nothing the ultimate winner can do to force the looser to accept defeat (other than, like I said, fill every other point. Even raw beginners realize they have lost before that happens.)

To put it more bluntly, “you have won when your opponent resigns or X happens”: In chess the explanation of “X” has nothing to do with the other player (you have won when you checkmate the opposing King) it’s all about what you have done. In Go the explanation of “X” requires the other player’s capitulation (you have won when both you and the other player have passed consecutively and you have more points on the board.) Game end requires an intentional act by both players. If your opponent refuses to accept defeat, there’s nothing you can do about it except complain to a neutral arbitrator (if there is one.)


I guess we simply disagree on this point. There is no capitulation involved in passing when you can make no more point scoring plays. In fact, when I’m winning a game I am often the first one to pass: when I can see that I have won, my goal becomes sealing the territories so there are no more point scoring plays to be made, so that I can pass.

That is definitely true.

Edit: actually maybe we are talking about a different sort of capitulation. I am seeing that word as meaning “agreeing that I lost” wheras you may be meaning “capitulating to end the game, no matter who won”… in the sense of “capitulating by agreeing to a demand to finish the game”.

There is capitulation involved if you are the loosing player. The winner can pass all (s)he wants sure, but the looser need not pass. (S)he can continue to play for hundreds of moves.

Maybe an example would help… This game: At the time of this post we are on move 162. it is clear (to me) that I have won and it has been clear for at least the past 40 moves. The fact that my opponent is continuing to play means either (1) he doesn’t realize he has lost or (2) he is refusing to accept the loss. The game will continue until he finally realizes/accepts the loss and there is nothing I can do about that.

Before it comes, the common counter I hear is “well maybe the current winner will do something exceptionally stupid and the tide will turn.” That is exactly what I’m saying is a very Western notion or at least a non-professional notion. A professional Go player will resign when he realizes he has lost (indeed most professional games end in resignation.) This isn’t something that happens in most professional games in the West (although I was recently told that many professional Chess games also end in resignation though the percentage seems lower than it is in Go.)

1 Like

This isn’t true. The game continues until the territories are sealed and the players pass. The person may or may not even realise they have lost at that point.

It has nothing to do with whether the loser knows he has lost << this is really my only point of argumentation.

Your game was a case in point: as soon as the territories were sealed you passed, and so did your opponent. They did so because it was time, not because they lost.

and there is nothing I can do about that .

As you said, you can call on a neutral arbiter if the opponent plays on past the natural end of the game. You do this by pressing the “report game” button.

It is true that you can’t do this before the natural end of the game, which is when the territories are sealed (in Japanese).

However, the argument that the game can go on for ever is a hypothetical one, not a practical one. At OGS there is an arbiter you can call, who will call the game for you if timewasting play is happening.

(footnote: I do agree that it is frustrating that people play to the natural end instead of resigning when they are going to lose. But - there is lots of out there not to resign “too early” whatever that means, and at DDK it seems to make sense to that players err on the side of keeping going. )

I can’t remember a single high level chess game that did not end in resignation or a draw. There surely must be some, but I’d guess below 1%.

1 Like