Is is a thing it Go tournaments to count by how much someone lost to determine ranking? For example, we have 4 finalists, A B C D. A loses to B by 6 points, C loses to D by 15 points, so A gets third place, bronze medal. If so, I can absolutely see a reason to minimize loses.
Also, if a dan player challenges me on a ladder, am I supposed to resign asap because it’s 100% sure I will lose? I don’t see the point in that. I would feel like fodder, not a co-player/ opponent. I would find it rude to expect such behavior as a much stronger player.
No this is not a thing. At least in any tournament in the UK. You get a point for winning and none for losing. Ties are decided by looking at your opponents scores - SOS and SOSOS - but thankfully ties are fairly rare (tiebreaking is always controversial I think)
And if it’s a tie for any position less than winning then I don’t think many people really care enough!
Thanks, but what are SOS and SOSOS??
In my example, who would get third place?.. In a game determined by rank, I’d say 3rd or 4th place in a tournament plays a big role.
https://senseis.xmp.net/?SOS
https://senseis.xmp.net/?SOSOS
A tournament is at least three rounds McMahon in my experience and never knockout. So it would depend on the previous rounds results. But if there are ABC and D above the bar then they will all play each other most likely. I can’t at the moment work out all the possible permutations but in terms of ranking what matters is the outcome of each game. Whether you finish 3rd or 4th doesn’t affect your rank.
https://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php
And to the extent that there are prizes for more than the winner then these might be shareable or there could be some other practical solutions tournament directors might use.
The real life tournaments over been involved in are very friendly and good natured. If there is a draw I think it’s usually been the car that those involved are just amused that a draw has happened!
I’m all about learning and Google is my friend but, although I appreciate the details in your reply, I was hoping I wouldn’t have to read two lengthy articles about a thing I don’t truly understand yet, google “McMahon” and “above the bar” in context to participate in the conversation. 
I appreciate teaching moments, you can ask anyone here, but sometimes a simple explanation is all the other person’s heart needs. 
I meant ranking as an integral part of thinking about Go, I can’t imagine people who devised 5 different subratings in a single linear rating system (TPK, DDK, SDK, dan amateur, dan professional and possible others I’m missing) would not be extremely invested in landing 3rd and not 4th place in a tournament.
My apologies, more haste less clarity.
I guess the main point is that in real life tournaments what is important is the number of games you win rather than the exact position you end up in in the ranking. Now winning the tourney overall is I’m sure important but I don’t think the difference between 3rd and 4th matters any where near as much.
McMahon is the tournament system usually used because it can sort participants in few rounds. It is based on the fact that a very strong player will always best a much weaker player. So all participants are sorted by strength at the start. Only those with a realistic chance of winning are “above the bar” and play from the same starting score. Everyone has a score based on rank. So if I’m 10k I might have a score of -10 initially and if I win three rounds will get to -7. I might finish the tournament in 10th, 20th or 30th place but what matters is that I won three games so my rank will likely improve to 9k say. If I lose all three then I’ll likely sink to 11k.
Tournaments typically have prizes for the first place and for winners of three games regardless of where they place.
Anyway, completely OT and also a complete diversion from the point that the actual score of any game is irrelevant!
Apologies again @Gia and everyone!
2 Likes
OT is the spice of life. 
1 Like
I think it would be rude for a much stronger player to offer to play me (or accept a challenge from me) and expect me to immediately resign. However, I think it would be a sign of respect, if you are challenged by a much stronger player in a ladder, to not waste his/her time. Personally I would give it 50 moves or so to make sure their ranking was earned before resigning, but that’s me.
2 Likes
Although I understand what you mean, I believe it is their “fault” if they feel their time wasted when they would be the ones picking on much weaker players. If they would prefer each precious second worthily spend, maybe they should only challenge other strong players.
I don’t want to sound aggressive, if it comes across that way, I hope you get what I mean.
1 Like
No worries about sounding aggressive… I hope I’m not sounding too aggressive either, but let me ask you this… Given that you are in a competition with someone obviously much stronger than your self and you are playing for stakes (like position in a ladder.) Under what circumstances would you pass? Under what circumstances would you resign?
Sorry, I still feel ignorant on those subtle nuances, so I can’t really offer a reply.
1 Like
Your opponent’s rank need have no bearing on when you resign.
Full Stop.
Strong players in a ladder sign up to play the ladder games in good faith just like everyone else.
The games that they get against weaker player serve any number of purposes, including a bit of a laugh for the maybe and also an opportunity to help someone lower ranked experience strong play.
The standard advice is:
“Resign when you have definitely lost, or pass and promptly accept the score when the game is over.”
This is not modified in any way by how you got into the game. It’s not intended to be about your opponent’s rank, it is talking about the game in absolute terms - whether it is lost or over.
3 Likes
…and of course, your opponent may play with all rank details hidden anyway. 
see: Settings/General Settings
1 Like
As may you be, so your opponent could hardly be justified in expecting you to resign out of “Deference to their rank” when you may not even know what their rank is.
So it’s as simple as that: you are not required to consider your opponent’s rank for any purpose in game.
3 Likes
Hmm… You haven’t definitely lost until the game is over and the game isn’t over until after both players have passed or someone resigns so by your quote, you should never resign? 
You should pass when the game is over? But again, the game isn’t over until you pass, so you should never pass?
I’m probably sounding pretty picky here, but I think new players are often confused about when the game is over and I don’t think this quote helps.
Maybe I’m just feeling disagreeable.
@Gia In the last ladder game you finished, I expect you either resigned, your opponent resigned, or you both passed. If you resigned, why? If your opponent did, why do you think (s)he did? If you both passed, why did you pass? Why do you think your opponent passed?
We help beginners through this challenge with individual assistance.
The sentence in question isn’t about “how to understand when the game is (ready to be) over”, it is “what actions you are required to take when you have detected that condition in the the game”.
Generally, as a beginner, if your opponent passes and you’re not sure, then pass as well, the game is probably (ready to be) over.
If you need help understanding when a game is (ready to be) over, give me a ping I’ll help you out.
EuG
1 Like