All i wanted was to let the mobs and other players know that this can and does happen rarely on this site. Some people may not like what I did and that is okay. This is something i feel strong that after going to counting and all groups are decidedly dead or alive, and if any player is losing or lost depending on what position they are in. They want to go back and keep playing after they had said that they can not play anymore legal moves, is cheating. It’s like what i said before. [quote=“13Patches17, post:8, topic:16807”]
! it’s like saying here is my test I turn into my teacher then two minutes later hey can I have my test back so I can finish it.
[/quote]
They could have played a legal move before going to counting. You can’t going and then said that I had a legal move that I can still play. That is sad news for any player that does not see that before hand. I do not care if it is counted as a lose, nor do I want it changed in my favor. I just wanted to let people know this does happen however rarely. And just maybe for the site to re-think about as cheating.
Look at the game record before move 87. I am talking about when we going to counting, and there is not a place for disagreement, cause all group at that point are alive or dead.
It’d be hard to argue that his play was against the rules of the game (as least to the degree they are enforceable here). For practical reasons online Go stretches the Japanese rules to accept such playout, given that normally it does not affect the end-result. As in… I’m not sure if someone pointed to you that, you could have still killed his group to maintain the 0.5 lead?
To play like your opponent did, is definitely against the spirit of the game. It might be seen as slightly offensive. It steps over the boundary of ‘being polite’, but just a little. Not enough to call it rude or call the mods You can see it as in-game trolling attempt, where you overreacted, and your opponent like every troll in the world followed suit.
Next time try to keep your calm and not feed the trolls
First, I withdrew my first reply right away, as I realized it was sidetracking the discussion. The point I wanted to make is that rules separate the agreement part from the scoring part, but usually software doesn’t. For future reference, keep in mind that you should not assume that your opponent has agreed on the status just because the software starts showing numbers.
An extra step coul be added in the code, I personally think it’s not worth the effort.
This is incorrect as others have pointed out. Also, you have quoted the AGA rules, but your game is based on the Japanese rules. According to those rules, “If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his opponent must oblige”.
If we are stricktly talking rules, I believe your opponent didn’t cheat. The main issue is that OGS doesn’t offer a full implementation of the rules and mixes up the agrrement step and counting.
If we are talking about the spirit of the game, what your opponent did is definitely wrong. So was your chat, no matter what happened before. Just like we have referees in real life, we have moderators on OGS. The “call moderator” button is right there in the game menu.
My honest advice is to just get over it, report the player and avoid him/her in the future.
Sockpuppetry and drama aside, I don’t see the issue. Why is it an advantage for one player to reopen play after consecutive passes? It’s not as if he gains additional information, like the score of the game – which would already be available from the score estimator at the time of scoring. Why should we treat the double-pass as more than a formality if the scoring agreement marks the practical end of the game online?
Then the rules are break because in the link 3. If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his opponent must oblige and has the right to play first. Them i get to move play for cause I was the opponent.
That is only assuming that they did use the SE at the end of the game. But in the cause they did not it’s a big advantage. They now know the score.
About the sock puppet, my email i was using for my account got hacked and i deleted everything connected to it, that include my ogs account. Plus i made this account so that I could stream on twitch and not have some personal data that there for twitch viewers
The major difference is that the estimate is based on the player’s own assessment, while the final score is based on the status agreed on by both players. I could for example estimate that I have a comfortable lead, and then have my opponent make me realize at scoring time that his/her group I thought dead is actually alive.
It is an advantage when both players misread the status and the first to play can fix the issue.
I am not sure what you mean by “scoring agreement”. According to the rules, there’s first an agreement on the status of the groups and territories, and then scoring. And both are separate from the double pass itself.
MOC0390 / 13Patches17,
As we all know, there are several rule-sets for WeiQi, Baduk, & Go… When you start a game on OGS (or any Go Server) you agree to play by a certain rule-set and with a certain software running the game. I do agree that if both players passed they agreed the game was over unless they discover they disagree on the living/dead status of a group; which was not the case in your game, so what they did was somewhat dishonorable, but so were your comments after they continued playing… So if anybody wanted to know who was more dishonorable we could all give our opinions (see above for a few) &/or take a vote… I would vote meteor3010 was slightly more dishonorable, but it is close. You lost your cool, but I like that you stayed cool enough to use the cartoon version of bad words (unless that was done by an OGS program/AI).
=+=+=
Re: your game and the software on OGS < https://online-go.com/game/12745412 > I could be wrong, so somebody correct me if needed, but I don’t think what meteor3010 (Black) did changed the game result… 86, 87, & 88 were all passes, game over it seems, but then meteor3010 (Black) continued the game and played 4 moves inside your (White / 13Patches17) territory and you (White) replied by placing 3 stones in your territory, net gain of one point for you (White) under the Japanese rules by which you were playing… but I guess you didn’t undersrtand that and thought he could live so you resigned (because you had to go to work)?.. That is too bad, next time don’t start a rated game if you are not certain you have enough time to finish it unless you are willing to take the loss… Also, I think if you had not resigned a moderator could have awarded you the win if it could be determined (agreed upon by the rule experts) the three passes ended the game. But I would say don’t worry much about one game, just go play more games and any one game will have very little meaning in your life (& rank). Lastly, I agree with @Jokes_Aside that the score should not be displayed (counted) until after the life/death statuses of all stones has been agreed upon. —> but since there is a “Score Estimator” built into the website/game-function I see this as a very minor problem/bug because as bugcat pointed out the score estimator is accurate at the end of the game.
ah… well, in that case, MOC0390 / 13Patches17 has a potty mouth.
Anyways, I agree with @SanDiego and @Jokes_Aside (& @MOC0390 & I think @bugcat) the software/website should end the game like this:
after two passes (or 3 passes in AGA rules if White passes first because White must play/pass last, if I got that right) the software should ask: “Do you want to determine the score (or play another move)?” and if both players indicate they want to count then a method is needed to confirm agreement on what is alive and which are dead; if they agree on living and dead then (and only then) the score should be counted, then both players could (should?) be asked to confirm they agree to the score/count; if they do NOT agree on what is alive and which are dead they should be allowed to continue playing to prove life, death or seki until 2 (or 3) passes are made at which point we are back to the point where the software should ask: “Do you want to determine the score (or play another move)?” — and if the two players can not agree on what is alive/dead/seki or anything else, they can “/!\ Call Moderator.” — and I think that is the only thing of value which can be gained from this conversation.
Just play M12 and you win. Nobody cheated, and your opponent has every right to keep playing if he sees something he thinks will change things. You blundered there and lost, best to just accept it and move on.
It might be poor sportsmanship to start playing again because you score and find out you’ve lost, but insofar as someone can do the exact same thing with the score estimator, I doubt any mod would issue so much as a warning over it. Flaming out your opponent, though? If I were playing against you, I’d have flagged a mod and you’d likely get a chat ban. No need for personally attacking someone like that, regardless of what you think they might have done.
AGA Rules at Sensei's Library —> “White must pass last. This means that the game ends after 2 or 3 passes depending on who passes first.”
I agree… but if something like what @Jokes_Aside (& I) suggest can easily be done, then it would be an improvement… but yes, for only a small percentage of games in which after counting the player with the lower score can find a way to win by continuing the game.
A better source: http://www.usgo.org/aga-concise-rules-go —>
“11. The Last Move: White must make the last move–if necessary, an additional pass, with a stone passed to the opponent as usual. The total number of stones played or passed by the two players during the entire game must be equal.”
No difference if Chinese counting is used, but if Japanese counting, one point (stone captured) can make a difference (if Black can play / fill-in the last dame).
You can see it as in-game trolling attempt, where you overreacted, and your opponent like every troll in the world followed suit.
