The conversation has been had a few times in other threads. For myself, I like the contrast of the default: being able to use it if I wish in correspondence and then not in live. I learn things from using it in C. and then I remember some of it in L.
Incentives to cheat are rankings, ratings, prices and the mere existence of a winner. The mere possibility to play out some variations on a virtual board isn’t an incentive.
Cheaters cheat to get the first place at a tournament, being on top of a ladder, have a high rating, or even just to win games. The most common cheats are changing the live/death status of groups at the end of a game and trying to trick the opponent to accept the wrong score, and sandbagging/ballooning. Both don’t need an analysis enabled.
Using anal. tool is not cheating, despite what she has told you!
Its a tool meant to help players and allow everyone to investigate potential variations, not just those players who own a physical goban and stones. Remember that disabling those tools will not prevent anyone using real board for analysing ongoing games nor there will ever be any way of knowing if someone does that (unless we demand everyone setting a live video stream of themselves playing, which feels a bit overkill for year-long correspondence games and somewhat questionable for those who like play naked.)
Just keep it enabled by default, no-one is forcing anal. tools onto you if you dont like them, but at least it levels the playing ground for those who have no better options available.
I think that people play go online because it is difficult to find players at the desired level and the desired time by meeting “physically”. Physically, you don’t investigate variations on the board but in your head. If the aim of on online go server is to provide an experience that is close to physical go, it should not give an “analyse” possibility during the game.
In terms of correspondence games, I think that people play correspondence games due to time constraints that makes it difficult to play live games with enough time to think. People can easily investigates on a real goban or a digital goban but it is not the aim in my opinion.
I don’t want to force the players to improve but I think that an online site providing an experience that is closer to physical go is desirable
It really only matters on the extremes of the rankings though. I might be “5-kyu with analysis” and you might be “5-kyu using only your mental powers”. We still have a fair match, even though on a physical board you’d dominate.
I think a distinction might also need to be drawn across some other categories (in combination with the live+blitz vs correspondence distinction already drawn):
Auto-match games (or should this be a preference option to select?).
Site-wide and group ladders (if group ladders cannot be further configured).
Site-wide automatic tournaments (if not a mix of both).
Custom open/direct challenge matches (although a play can override the default, should they be able to for ranked games?)
In all, there are a lot of combinations to consider. For some of these categories, this decision could not be overridden. For simplicity and consistency, I prefer disabling analysis by default across the board.
To all those who have voted for ‘analysis-off default for all’, please reconsider your opinion and here’s why:
Whether or not your opponent is using analysis should be irrelevant (except to your ego). OGS has ranked that person according to how they usually play.
If you’re concerned about others ‘Go education’ being adversely impacted by use of analysis, forget it. Yes it can become a crutch but how others choose to learn is a matter for them. Personally, I have little interest in study or reviews. I just want to play and have fun. I let the learning happen as it will and if I feel like studying something interesting after the game, well and good. For someone like me, the combination of correspondence with analysis available and live without analysis, compensates nicely for my lack of study. In fact it makes study FUN by making it part of the game.
The biggest request for improving OGS is ‘more opponents’. If people who like to use analysis have to set up separate tournaments or have separate ladders then this is contrary to the idea of bringing as many players together as possible.
To anyone who plays correspondence without analysis, I freely admit that my rank is inflated by about 2kyu from using it (and 9x9), compared to what it would be without using it. If we are similarly ranked on OGS then I concede without reservation that you are probably a better player than me IRL. Now let’s just have a fun game.
For those that aren’t interested in studying pro games, using analysis in-game allows us to perceive a higher level of play. That experience is of more value because it is ‘experienced’ not simply ‘observed’.
Full size games can be a big investment. They certainly feel that way to me. With analysis for correspondence there is a much lower probability of an otherwise good game being spoiled by one stupid misread.
In conclusion, if you voted for ‘analysis-off default for all’ please don’t fall prey to parochialism. Adopt a more inclusive position and embrace your fellow Go players with a generosity of spirit that allows them to be different.
For weaker players, SE and analysis are why they decide to play on OGS
I got 0 to 1.5 ranks by disabling analysis. Live factors had much more impact on my rank than OGS’s analysis features.
And for SDK and Dan live games, opponents wasting their time by clicking on the Goban shouldn’t be a big concern. You are faster if you don’t have to click and navigate the variation tree.
@Eugene I’m missing the option: leave it enabled by default, I’ve it disabled for me and all my games anyway.
I disabled analysis because I wanted to improve my direction of play and not depend on the SEs heat map. I don’t care about my opponents and until 15k the heat map was a big help in keep me playing this game.
I was really surprised how many people want to disable analysis for correspondence. Would be interested in your reasons I always thought it is closer to “real” correspondence games and offers the perfect complement to no-analysis live games and id kind of the point. You have all the time, so you can focus on the direction of play aspect and not lose games because of simple misreads…
With no analysis, it is just a cut up live game with pauses, but I do not think that is the point or benefit.
I use analysis to estimate score in most games and check for “free” territory because my reading skills are not-good, I use analysis in teaching/ declared friendly games to explore options.
My reason for having it off by default is that, in case my opponent doesn’t know it exists/ doesn’t want it used, I have to ask their consent to turn it on. If we both agree, we turn it on, if they’d rather I don’t use it, it stays off. So, I voted as a courtesy to those who might object, although I like and use the tool.