Handicap stones

General Go Discussion
1

So - I noticed an unfortunate consequence of entering tournaments recently. I was feeling pretty happy about my rank reaching 20k - A minor jump I know, but I can still remember when it seemed an unreachable goal. Anyway I was feeling pretty pleased about this, then a couple of bad things happened. First off I got wiped off the board by a 25k player who was probably quite a bit stronger, and then I entered a tournament and found that I was the weakest player in it. Since very few players on here seem to give handicap stones, it meant, in effect that I was spared the trouble of actually playing. I did play, and I got to watch my stones get surrounded, blocked and ultimately eaten, in ways that I will no doubt learn a lot from once I get around to studying the games, but the net result was that I got trashed and was back down to 23k faster than you can say “sandbag”

I was fortunate enough to run into a group of players near me, back when I still had a home made of bricks, and I played a game with a guy who gave me nine stones. When I said I was happy to play him without them, he made the point that those stones were for his benefit too. “I want an interesting game as well” were his exact words. I have to say I took those words to heart and when I put a challenge out I always enable handicaps. Which makes for a hilarious time when I inadvertently give a sandbagger three or four stones…

Anyway, my point is this. Why are handicap stones shunned so much on this site? After all they exist for a reason. I can’t believe it’s because people are so in love with winning that they’ll take an easy win against a weaker opponent over a slightly more challenging game. One game I played recently against a player who was four stones stronger than me started with an exclamation of dismay when they saw the handicap stones, but they still won by a comfortable margin, and because they had to think harder about their play, I had to think harder too. When your stones are just being hoovered off the board, it’s hard to play your best game :smile:

So yeah - what’s the deal with handicaps on here? Why are they so uncommon? I will say though that it’s taught me not to get too precious about my ranking. Since about 90% of the people on this site are stronger than me I just have to accept that it’s going to go down more than it goes up until I start making major improvement. Roll on that day…

3 Likes
2

Hello @SgtSunshine

[quote=“SgtSunshine, post:1, topic:2274”]
[…] Why are handicap stones shunned so much on this site? […] [/quote]I don’t get the impression that HC stones are “shunned” here, it’s just that some tournaments just don’t allow HC, like Real Life tournaments. Hard when playing against stronger players but satisfying if I only lose by a few points, and often too easy when playing against weaker players, but this can carry the risk of losing because of too risky daredevil play (as I have experienced more often than I’d like to admit). And then there’s this running tournament where I lose to one stronger player after the other … never mind, I need to learn fighting (tactics) and I need to learn seeing the big picture, the whole board (strategy). I don’t think I learn by being pampered.

Also, I think that losing an even game against a stronger player does NOT demote one’s rank, and, likewise, winning an even game against a weaker player doesn’t promote one’s rank — would anybody knowledgeable please confirm or disclaim this?

And in my other games we usually use the OGS system’s automatic HC (except for the occasional player who stubbornly refuses to take HC, presumably because it hurts their pride … you know who you are :sunglasses:)

On OGS I have never received a challenge with disabled HC from a stronger player. So … I think you shouldn’t generalize your experiences in tournaments, they shouldn’t apply to “friendly” ranked games.

So … let the sun shine in, don’t let anything discourage you, keep on playing :smile:

Cordial greetings, Tom

2 Likes
3

I realise it might sound like I’m whining, but I’m not really - I mean I hate that feeling of being completely ineffectual that you get when playing someone stronger, but the flip side of that coin is that I don’t much like the puppy-kicking feeling I get on the rare occasions that I play someone weaker than me. I honestly think that both players get a better quality game by giving / taking the appropriate handicap, but that seems to be the exception here and I’m curious to hear the case for not playing handicaps. I did just read Pempu’s point in another thread, to wit: Since the ranking system is not all it should be, giving stones away runs the risk of giving a capable opponent an unfair advantage, which seems to me to be a fair point to make, as long as one accepts that by not playing the handicap one risks taking the same [unfair] advantage.

Anyway, the site is what it is, and I have to say I like it here. I’m not trying to change the way things are done here, only to understand why they’re that way.

4

Hello! First, rank is really not the most important thing. If you enjoy playing and play a lot you even won’t notice when you actually improve and your rank jumps up… So far, you are doing very well.

About handicap stones, i usually play handicap for fun or practice. If you play with 9 stones handicap as black, you actually improve your tactics: fighting skills (check Sensei’s Library for more info about strategy and tactics). Players usually first learn how to fight. 9x9 board is great for that. Then, to start improving your strategy, play some games on 13x13 board. It is less complicated then 19x19, and you should learn how to combine your strategy and tactics. This should help you to improve.

I believe people prefer non-handicap games not because they enjoy winning against weaker players, but because it is much different game then even game, especially for 3 or more stones. In even game you try to balance influence-play and aggression, but with handicap it is much harder. Although some people say that when you play with handicap it is like you are playing with opponent with the same level as you, in my opinion it is not the same. Play a game with and without handicap with same opponent, and you will understand how much. Playing with handicap is always good and useful, but to be a good player you need to know what to do in any situation.

I also suggest you to play more live games, not blitz, but something like ~20-40 sec. per move. If you play only correspondence games, use Malkovich log to store your most important ideas, and keep yourself informed about whole game every time you play next move after long time (read your notes before you play the move!).

I noticed you resigned few games very early, only because you lost some (not even so big (!)) group. That’s when you should continue playing, to learn what to do in hard situations, and win lost game.

I hope i answered you questions. Ask everything you need! :slight_smile:

4 Likes
5

You’ll have to send me a link to the games you mean - I don’t usually resign because I lose a group, but if I think I’ve been sandbagged or if I’m not enjoying the game then I’ll usually resign.

I have to say I’m really not keen on 9x9 games and only slightly more so on 13x13. I pretty much only play 19x19, but I liked your suggestion of keeping a log - I like that idea a lot and I’ll start doing it directly.

6

Totally agree.

9x9 is very important to improve, you learn from little mistakes that you will regret much more than on a 19x19.

ON: I agree that most people don’t like HC games, maybe at low rank like ours happens (I am 17k) but on higher ranks like trohde’s doesn’t. Personally, I don’t like having HC cause I like to learn in the hard way. I don’t care if weaker people have HC against me; and if they are sandbagging, I don’t really care either, after all, life is never fair.
Don’t worry about losing your rank, if you really worked hard till now, you’ll get it back soon :wink:

2 Likes
7

I’m not so sure that using handicap would really “fix this feeling” (I’ll explain below what I mean by this). As @ST000MA already discussed, a large-handicap game (even with the handicap appropriately set) is quite different than an even game between two players at the same level. The philosophy behind handicap is to attempt to give both players an equal chance of winning, however this is accomplished by giving the weaker player a large head start, which the stronger player is challenged to overcome with stronger fighting and likely some overplay. For a handicap game to be close in the final score, white still needs to significantly outplay a relatively ineffectual black. Thus, despite the outcome being closer, handicap does not necessarily make black’s play more effective or easier, and perhaps skews the game toward more aggressive play from white.

Note: I’m not at all discouraging handicap play, just making some observations to elaborate upon what @ST000MA said. I agree that playing all sorts of games are useful to improve skill for handling a variety of situations.

1 Like
8

I believe that’s roughly the case. The rating system is based on Elo, which takes into account the relative strength of the players. An even game won by the much stronger player results in both players’ ratings changing by very little, since the highly expected outcome occured. In principle, these highly likely small adjustments are balanced a potential, but perhaps highly unlikely, large adjustment that would occur in the opposite direction should the weaker player win.

1 Like
9

[quote=“SgtSunshine, post:3, topic:2274”]
I honestly think that both players get a better quality game by giving / taking the appropriate handicap,[/quote]I agree wholeheartedly.

[quote]but that seems to be the exception here[/quote]This is the second time you allege this, and I agree for the second time. Yes there are people who don’t like HC, but I think:

  1. the are not the majority, and
  2. they are not the more experienced players, because these—at least in my experience—encourage taking HC because this way we weaker players learn how to utiliize stones that already are in place, which is easier that playing with moves in mind which we want to play at some time, because usually the stronger players will have played there already when we finally get to it :wink:

[quote] and I’m curious to hear the case for not playing handicaps.[/quote]As said, one assumption I make here is … pride. Some people seem to have an (IMNSHO) odd opinion about what is “fair”, and they believe they have no reason to be happy about a game they won with HC. And if W doesn’t like HC, well, they should perhaps better accept that their rank isn’t as stable as they’d like it to be :smiley:

I tell you, I am always in sheer terror when I face five or more HC stones, yet I play against nine stones here simply because I think it is right. IRL I even play against 13 or more stones. I remember two games I played against 21 or 23 stones :smiley: and when I teach children or other total noobs … hey, why not give them nine stones on 9x9 so they have an enjoyable experience and a sense of achievement?

[quote=“SgtSunshine, post:5, topic:2274”]
I don’t usually resign because I lose a group, but if I think I’ve been sandbagged[/quote]Uhm … just be aware of the fact that we may be tempted to think of any lesser rank as a sandbagger if we lose a game against them.

IMHO everybody wins/loses ~50% of even games against peers, but this doesn’t mean we never lose even games against somebody two or three ranks below us or never win even games against somebody stronger.

[quote] or if I’m not enjoying the game then I’ll usually resign.[/quote]Uhm, define “enjoying”.

One thing I had to learn is not to be too selective about what I enjoy. Meanwhile I don’t enjoy pampering myself any more because I realized it’s like playing video games in god mode … I may be able to cheat others, but I can’t cheat myself. No real satisfaction in there.

Yes, this game is also about fun, but IMO it also is about learning and about developing one’s personality. Patience. Depth of thinking. Visualization. Planning. Courtesy. Once I began to realize what was happening “under the hood”, so to speak, I could accept some of the pains that playing Go gave me; actually, it was not really me that hurt, it was my Ego. Once I realized that, in Go just as in Real Life, I am more than just my Ego, I could let go of suffering and pride and move on. Do I still sometimes suffer? Yes. Do I still have “attacks” of pride? Yes.

[quote=“SgtSunshine, post:5, topic:2274”]
not keen on 9x9 games and only slightly more so on 13x13[/quote]I also prefer 19x19 games under most circumstances but on the smaller boards we learn essential knowledge about life and death, about fighting, about vital points, etc. much faster than on the 19x19 board.

Don’t give up! Send out your challenges to people you know, or create public challenges, using auto-HC :wink:

Cordially, Tom

3 Likes
10

If this happens please let us know and we will both restore your points and fix the person who is sandbagging.

11

I am not knowledgeable, but I am not sure that is always correct. If you want to say that you should not be considered as stronger after winning against someone who is obviously weaker, I totally agree. If a beginner is playing against a professional player, of course their ranks can not change. But if we are talking about 5k and 2k, 5k always can be better in some special situation, although in general 2k is better. You can’t say 2k is absolutely better, maybe the 5k player is good at corner fight. And in such game, both players improve, no matter how small that improvement is. You always can learn some new shape or an interesting move, etc.

12

Yeah - I’ve noticed that the more stones I get, the less good they do me, simply because the person giving them has far superior fighting and reading skills, so I start the game with an advantage that I struggle to hang on to, but on the other hand because I do have something to hang on to I have an incentive to think harder about keeping white at bay - yes I tend to play a very defensive game in that situation, but it’s still a challenging one for me, and black has to work to negate the advantage. Were we to play without the handicap then my hypothetical opponent would have an easy time winning the game and I’d probably resign once the game was obviously lost. So yeah - I agree that the handicap system doesn’t level the playing field, but I still think it’s preferable to a strength mismatch that isn’t compensated for

P.S. re whether or not losing a game against a stronger opponent reduces your rank? I’m currently 21k - I’m the weakest player in the tournament that’s about to start, so we’ll see what my rank is in an hour or two… :slight_smile:

2 Likes
13

Not sure I understand you correctly, @ST000MA … but I totally agree about learning.

What I meant:

  • Let’s assume somebody is 10k.

  • Winning 100% of even games against 11k players should NOT promote this 10k player to 9k.

  • But winning [what percentage?] of [how many?] even games against 9k players should.

  • Winning [what percentage?] of [how many?] even games against same-ranked (i.e. 10k) players could perhaps also promote this player’s rank, I think.

14

I’ll my fingers crossed for you, @SgtSunshine :slight_smile:

1 Like
15

Maybe read up on how ELO works :wink:

16

Yeah, I wasn’t sure either I said that good… :smile:
Yes,that definitely makes sense (I understood it from first message). What i wanted to say, 10k will never win 100% of games against 11k. There is always a situation when weaker player is better. If the people were bots, and always play the best move you can calculate with given memory, time, then a stronger player (bot with better programs) would win. But, our brains are much more complex, so you never can be sure how to change the rank correctly… Still not sure this is understandable… :stuck_out_tongue:

17

In my opinion, ELO is the best possible algorithm for changing ranks. Maybe some of numbers are wrong (with very small mistake level), but the point is definitely achieved there.

18

Now I really feel old - I’m thinking "Out of the Blue :slight_smile:

20

[quote=“matburt, post:15, topic:2274”]
Maybe read up on how ELO works[/quote]Thank you, @matburt. Sadly, the maths there are way over my olden head …

For anybody wanting to learn more about our rating system, please cf. …

Calling @mlopezviedma: Could you pls add the last three links to the first mentioned thread?

21

I was going to reply earlier but I wasn’t sure how to word what I wanted to say. Let’s see…

With Japanese rules, the stones are placed on the hoshi. This can be an advantage to black, but only if black realizes that the 4-4 points are influential rather than territorial. So, while handicap stones can help even out a game between differently ranked players, it can also hinder players from finding their own playing styles.

Of course it can still help weaker players get better, but the handicap stones distort not just black’s play, but also white’s play. White has to be very aggressive and fast. In contrast, black needs to play slow and steady (i.e. solid) to keep white at bay. In other words, players can learn some bad habits by playing only handicap games, e.g. passivity for black, and overplay for white.

Well, it could be that the learning will come full circle when a formerly weak player has to take white and play more aggressively. But it’s certainly a less direct path to finding your own style because handicap stones definitely push you towards a particular style.

In conclusion, I’d imagine that there are some people who dislike any forced deviation from what’s comfortable and fun for them when playing go (even though getting uncomfortable once in a while can help you grow as a player). After all, if it’s not fun, then why would anyone want to play?

Of course there are other rule sets that let you place the handicap stones as you see fit, so that particular issue is not exactly a knock against handicap stones in general…