The argument that it improves your reading to disable analysis is not valid in this discussion: enough players here are not obsessed with becoming the strongest they could possibly be. So why force your own goals onto others? Especially since anyone can already choose not to use analysis as a basis. We even have a special option in the site’s main settings for this.
That it would be unfair is equally not a valid argument. For one everybody has the same tools at their disposal, and secondly you can’t even know if your opponent uses analysis or not, so why would you care? The only reason I can think where this is a problem, is when you run a (semi-)official tournament on this platform, but in that case you would use custom games with analysis disabled anyway.
Just let people decide for themselves how they want to enjoy their go playing pastimes.
I agree entirely. However, which option we present as default informs the culture we establish on this platform. If we set analysis enabled as the default, people who have just started playing Go may be lead to believe that this is a normal thing to do - and I don’t want that. I will speak plainly and selfishly, I want a culture where using analysis is not considered the norm. At the same time, I don’t wish to belittle and bully those who do use analysis - I simply don’t wish it to be presented as the preferred way of playing.
So, instead of presenting either as the default, why not leave analysis unselected, and make the player choose which option they want. Make it clear that either choice is acceptable, and that as a server we don’t have a particular view about whether you use analysis or not.
Well, no, it quite clearly is not. Currently, analysis is enabled as default. You have to tick a box to disable it. I am suggesting that there be a drop-down box, where the player can choose to either enable or disable analysis, rather than presenting the biased option of “disable analysis”.
First of all, I just want to say that I really love this discussion. It is clearly an issue that people both feel quite passionate about and have a lot of diverse perspectives on. Despite significant disagreements and incompatible preferences, everyone has expressed their views with civility and appreciation for nuance and compromise. I think it is quite remarkable to see such conversation in an online forum (a lot of places on the web would have reinforced Godwin’s Law by now), and it’s an inspiring example of what makes this community great.
A lot of people have already made arguments that I would have made, so I will just try to clarify my opinion and defer the rest to what has already been said.
Ultimately, I could live with whatever is decided. If a lot of people wish to have something different than what I want, why should my preference stand in the way of how they wish to play a game on the internet?
I have a preference toward disabling analysis for these reasons:
As @Legault and others have stated, I like how it reinforces the concept that it is not the norm.
It also has the effect of disabling score estimation, which I think is detrimental (as I discuss in previous posts linked above).
However, the usage/availability of score estimation is quite a different issue altogether, which I think should not be directly linked to whether analysis is enabled. I guess I’m of the mindset that the former issue is less likely to be addressed than the latter, so I see disabling analysis as a stop-gap to disable score estimation.
I’m actually supportive of having analysis enabled for correspondence and disabled for live/blitz. However, since I would also like to see score estimation disabled by default for all games (except for maybe in unranked games without mutual agreement), I’m willing to sacrifice analysis in correspondence for the sake of seeing score estimation go as well.
I like analysis in correspondence since I do think it is reasonable and within the spirit of classic correspondence games from the age of paper and post. I dislike analysis in live/blitz, since I think the power of this tool becomes amplified when there is time pressure.
A long time ago, I raised the question of analysis on these forums:
The old Chinese guys at my old go club would often flip their yunzi stones over in a live game and play out sequences they were curious about, then go back to the regular game and then they tried to play the sequence that worked for them, only for the other to have withheld a move or variation knowing that the other might have seen it. That is literally just analysis mode in real life.
And since we know people use it in games on OGS, with a fair amount of frequency, it is the norm to be able to use it.
I should clarify, I am speaking specifically about OGS.
I am not by any means, saying that we should remove the analysis feature. I am simply saying we should design it in such a fashion as to not incline people towards using it over not using it.
I agree with being inclusive, I should think I made that evident. And if we are being as inclusive as possible, then shouldn’t we take steps to avoid assuming whether the player wants analysis enabled or not?
If analysis is disabled by default, so is conditional moves. Does anybody really enjoy logging in just to play the next move in a boring 3-3 invasion joseki? Or do you want to log in and actually advance the game, take sente for that reduction you have been planning?
Taking a week to play the 10 or so moves both players know will be played sucks the life out of a correspondence game.
For players who do not personally want to use analysis, it does not make any difference at all whether it’s enabled or disabled. They can always disable it entirely from their settings, create/join challenges and tournaments where it is disabled, or just simply not use it even if it’s available. I feel like this is personal choice, but should not be forced into everyone else.
It is lot easier to simply not use something that is enabled, than it is to try use something that is disabled.
For correspondence games, analysing games has been the norm ever since the invention of postal service. Trying to change that would ultimately just scare off many of the ogs’s well-established corr community.
This is actually what is and has been the way of how its handled currently. There is unchecked checkbox for disabling analysis, conditional moves and score estimator, it just requires one extra click to check that box.
The problem of something being a default isnt that it would be so hard to change it with one click when creating an open challenge, but the big issue is that those default settings are forced into every “automatically” created games, like for ladders and sitewide tournaments. I personally do not want other ppl just suddenly starting year-long ladder games with me if i can’t even analyse those games before they are over.
TBH, as a smoker i feel like arguments for disabling the analysis sound exactly the same what i hear from anti-smoking people.
Yes, i understand that many ppl disgust the smell of cigarettes, some ppl are very passionate about lecturing the negative health issues, someone might even be honestly concerned about my lungs, and pretty much everyone thinks that smoking is waste of money. But, for the sake of god, do no come to my house and demand that i stop smoking on my property. I can respect other ppl’s choice of not smoking, and i wish they could also respect my choices of smoking cigs and analysing go games.
Okay? So? They get to play it out and learn, but i dont have to. If they play a move i wasnt anticipating, then when i log back I have something to consider. If they play the anticipated move, the game moves on
I mentioned in an earlier post that we should draw further distinction between certain types of games. For general open challenges and custom games, it’s only a matter of what’s checked by default, and players would be free to change that.
However, there is also the question of the site-wide ladders and automatic tournaments (and I imagine group ladders would follow suit since they don’t have custom settings). In those, it would be a question of whether or not to actually disable analysis.