Loss by disconnection when opponent hasn't played

It’s not a big deal, but why should this be marked as a loss for me (white)? My opponent never played a move.

I was on OGS the whole time, but I left the game page to play another game. I would have played both if my opponent had returned and played a move.

Suggestion: the disconnection timer shouldn’t run if it isn’t the disconnected players move.

In addition, Feature Request: The first move should have a shorter time setting than “all of main time”. If you are familiar with lichess, they usually give 30s to play the first move in live games. I feel like this would be a major improvement in the experience for live and blitz auto-pair games.


It wouldn’t be without precedent in go either. The U.S. Open is 90 minutes main time per player, but if I recall correctly you had to make your first move within 15 minutes or forfeit.


First, let me reassure you, you did not lose the game. Games of 1 or 0 moves are automatically annulled by the system. Due to the system design, the annulment does not appear in the result headline on the game page. But if you go to your game history, you will see that the result for this game says “annulled.” The initial recording of the result, the bogus “win,” seems to be because the system follows the game algorithm—i.e., you disconnected and timed out so you “lose.” It would probably take a lot of work to create a separate algorithm for this specialized, trivial circumstance, and it would serve no good purpose. BTW, most players wait just a couple minutes before leaving, and the proper way to leave a game before moving is to click the “Cancel” button.


I’m not seeing that:

While that is true, I am still averse to canceling as that shows up as a loss as well. Plus there is the question of “how long should I wait?” Whereas an official “first move” timer would offload that decision and also encourage players to stay at their screens!

Maybe? I imagine you’d just have to update the existing algorithm to check whose move it is. Obviously I don’t have access to the source, but I can’t imagine a scenario where this is a difficult fix.

The source code is available and your Pull Request will be welcomed.

You need to scroll the pane to the right to see all the information that is being shown to you in the “Result” column.

1 Like

It is annulled, and it says so in your history. You failed to scroll to the right on your page.

That doesn’t explain a preference for disconnecting rather than cancelling. In any case, let me be more clear. You are expected to cancel. It didn’t matter in this instance because your opponent was not present and was unlikely to come after the long time you waited. But if your opponent is present, then you will be cited for escaping if the opponent complains.

I wasn’t offering my comment as a debate on your wish list. Only giving information. There is a long, long list of higher priorities for development. The community has been waiting for years for Rengo, for example.

1 Like

Please excuse me, I can be a bit of an idiot at times :sweat_smile:

At the risk of sounding like even more of an idiot, I believe only the frontend is open, and timeouts are handled server side. Please correct me if I am wrong- I would be happy to try and contribute.

I didn’t expect to disconnect. Since I was still on OGS, I was planning to get notified by the black circle in the top right had my opponent played a move.

One important thing to be aware of: in a live game you must have a tab open in your browser at all times.

You can’t just close the game and expect to come back to it and find it there later.

If you close the tab, the disconnect timer kicks in, because it appears you have abandoned…

It’s true that only the front end is open, but I can’t imagine it would be too hard to come up with a front-end solution to help resolve the issues you’re experiencing. It may not be that you can do the perfect solution you envisage, but possibily you can find an alternative within front end scope?

OGS has a bit of buggy behavior these days, this could help:

Move indicator

1 Like

Took a bit for me to get to this, but I just submitted a PR to make annulled games more clear in the UI. I still think it would be a good feature to have Auto-match games time out in about a minute on the first move because:

(a) I don’t believe the development effort would be extensive
(b) Most users would benefit from this

1 Like

Don’t blame yourself! This is the fault of a bad user interface.
I’m not an expert on that topic, but I can think of multiple things to enhance:

  • Scroll hint: there is an UI element that extends along the right side of the box, adds a fade effect to indicate “more” and on click, it scrolls right. I don’t know the name but it would fit well here.
  • Name information: this takes up a lot of space when most of the time, it’s just an auto-generated “Friendly Match” or tournament or ladder game. It could be replaced by an icon with hover text.
  • Date could probably be shortened to mm-dd with hover text.
  • Size could be replaced by an icon with hover text.
  • If the person’s games are predominantly rated, any games which do not end up influencing rating could be displayed in lighter grey text to deemphasize them.

Would that work on mobile, can you tap and hold say to see the text? I agree that most of the time seeing ‘Friendly match’ isn’t that useful, but if you’re looking through a pro players game history for a certain tournament game say, it’s quite handy to see the different game names :slight_smile: [quote=“Animiral, post:12, topic:30818”]
Size could be replaced by an icon with hover text.

Again wondering if it works for mobile.

Interesting list of suggestions though :slight_smile:

1 Like

I appreciate that, and those are some good ideas! I feel like of those, shortening the date would be simplest. And also a quick and dirty alternative to the logo suggestion would be to limit the size of certain columns, and use tooltips get full details.

2020-09-24 13x13 RiversideTree vs. jonesbe RiversideTree [11k] jonesbe [9k] B+Resignation, ranked

would become

9-24 13x13 RiversideTree... RiversideTree[11k] jonesbe[9k] B+Resign, ranked

That way, all fields are still mostly visible (even on mobile) in the event someone is actually naming their games thoughtfully.

1 Like

Found a case where this is less trivial: Bugs in Automatic Sitewide tournament? Tournaments don’t seem to care if a game was annulled. Please reconsider making the timer for the first move shorter!

Edit: attempt to not rip out of context :yum:


You have misrepresented the quote from me (about the “trivial circumstance”) by ripping it out of context. First, it was addressing the status of things six months ago and was not talking about the universe of future bugs. More important, however, is that I was speaking in that quote only about the idea of fixing the treatment of cancellations so it would say in the game tab something like “White cancelled the game,” rather than saying “Black won,” which we all recognize is not true. The result would still be an annulment, presumably subject to the cited bug. So your use of the quote is inappropriate because it is not talking about annulment, but about the presentation of the cancellation in the game tab.

Not sure why this is addressed to me. I can’t reconsider it because I never spoke of it in the first place. All I said was that most players wait about two minutes. Moreover, I am not a coder anyway.

“Ripping out of context” unintentional. My apologies.

The reason I assumed you were discussing the timer is that those are the two fixes I proposed in the OP. There was no discussion of the display of annulment before your comment.

If I could respectfully offer some feedback. I’d ask you to realize that when you have the words “OGS Team” under your name, and you speculate on the priority and complexity of algorithms, your words come with a certain amount of weight. To regular user, it appears that you are involved in the development team/development decisions. As you’ve stated, this is not the case. But I hope you can see why I would address my request to reconsider to you.


Yes, you did discuss the display in your very first sentence, when you said “why should this be marked as a loss for me (white)?” The bulk of my original reply was to address that. Also I was careful to say “seems to be because…” and offered a speculation as to why it is done this way. I concluded with information about what most players do to save time and about how to cancel. Nothing in that reply addressed your suggestions or said anything about timers.