Ah but asking a new account if they are begginers or not could also be useful for the humble rank problem.
1 Like
It absolutely could be. I agree. Iâm just saying itâs not something we currently have. 
1 Like
It is recognition, yes. But I think it can be more than that. It can also be a subtle cultural nudge towards that behaviour, which is my interpretation of the main purpose of this topic. I mean, the default does more than just acknowledge which option is preferred. It actively pushes users towards using that preferred option.
One could look at it this way. Do we want to foster a culture where use of analysis as a learning tool is encouraged? Then we should have default on. Or do we want to foster a culture where analysis is available if you really want it but itâs use is discouraged since it is sort of cheating? Then we should have default off. In this way, the default can get more users to use the option that the majority have debated and settled on as appropriate.
4 Likes
Please, please fix this already. Using the âautoâ find game button is so much faster than creating a custom game.
my observations are opposite
4 Likes
default is âenabledâ still
1 Like
A ok then,.so yes, why it didnât change yet?
(See the poll)
I know the answer: too busy. Or maybe included in a soon coming tournament system update?
btw, when default in automatch will be âanalysis disabledâ, there still should be option to search âanalysis enabledâ.
Or I will stop to use it to find higher ranked opponents.
1 Like
Also, I think score estimator should be separated from analysis. Many players who are able to play without analysis, are still unable to estimate score. Without any idea who is ahead, they will not resign no matter what. A lot of time will be wasted.
âanalysis disabledâ by default maybe not bad idea
but I think âscore estimator disabledâ by default is certainly bad idea.
unless weâre looking at different polls, I didnât really see a clear consensus that the voters wanted it changed 
anoek wonât be especially motivated to make controversial changes just to have the opposite side start petitioning the change a month later (see the debate that is STILL ongoing between single overall rank vs time and board size individual ranks)
In my experience, the score estimator is completely useless. Its margin of error is over 20 points.
yep. eurgh I hate long threads haha, I must have been looking at a different one⌠hmm, two thirds is not inconsiderable I guess⌠for something so arguably inconsequential in the grand scheme, I guess two thirds might be enough for the switch to be flipped⌠but probably not too soon 
2 Likes
it shows which regions are painted and which are not. Close to endgame it often paints most of the board, so result is mostly correct. And so, its possible to resign without wasting time on endgame.
1 Like
Itâs even more if you put away the i donât care or i donât know
3 Likes
I may be misremembering, but I think there was a decision to keep the rubbish score estimator, because a better one gave too many hints. Even a rubbish score estimator is useful for counting: it counts a lot of the board and you can then add and subtract where itâs made a mistake or where you are more confident. I still would prefer no score estimator and a better informed binary âshould I resign?â button (the answers would be âyesâ or âcanât sayâ).
2 Likes
IF your chances to win are less than 2% and you are more than 10 points behind, you will automatically resign after pressing that button. So you canât use that information to start playing aggressively.
ELSE: you may be 9 points behind or 19 points ahead, you donât know. So again no way to use that information to play differently.
So, time will not be wasted.
Such button would be perfect.
3 Likes
Bumping this thread as once again this issue comes up and creates a very bad reputation for OGS⌠This should have been fixed since a long time.
Edit: Sorry I now see this discussion is also going on elsewhere so perhaps bumping this was not necessary. But eh at least itâs the main thread so I guess itâs relevant.
3 Likes
Apparently Iâd written a reply but never sent it. So⌠hereâs my 2-year-old reply:
Iâm with Uberdude on this one.
Iâm seeing a lot of back and forth, but itâs mostly people disagreeing what the basis for a decision should be:
Normative (based on principle) vs Descriptive (based on what we observe).
âAllow, but disable by defaultâ changes nothing about what people can do in their games, but follows the principle of sane defaults, based on OTB . OTB matches are difficult to analyze separately and
There ya go. No idea where I was going with that. 
4 Likes
Currently situation is bad for analysis haters.
But if we just change default, situation will be bad for analysis likers.
So, I got idea how to make analysis off by default, but donât do situation bad for analysis likers:
no preference is default and it means:
âno preferenceâ player + âno preferenceâ player = no analysis for both
if player1 left it as âno preferenceâ
but player2 chose ârequire Onâ,
then player1 and player2 will be able to play game, but player1 will have analysis
If player1 will hate it, player1 can always change setting to ârequire Offâ and donât have analysis ever again.
That way wait time will not be increased for analysis likers, because most users donât change any settings anyway.
2 Likes