I’m in favor of #2. I agree there is some value in making it a community norm by having the default be no analysis, and emphasize the importance of reading as not only a core skill in the game but to keep the experience closer to the traditional over the board game.
I’m not sure about #3 however. I was thinking this way for a while until I read (probably on these forums, unfortunately I can’t remember who) that if you play ranked with analysis but never use it, against someone who does use it, and you’re the same rank, that’s a fair game. Presumably their rank reflects their use of it, and your rank reflects your reading ability. I can’t help but think, if there is a player who finds reading challenging, and so uses analysis, but wants to get a rank to find good matches, why not let them?
Its not serious real tournament, its Online Go Server where people have fun. If analysis will be allowed only in unranked games, it will only lead to a lot of simple-stupid loses by ladder misread. Many people will stop play ranked games because settings are uncomfortable, rank will become often outdated and when they will (sometimes), they will automatically be like a sandbaggers. Some even will just leave OGS and go to other server.
from threads of the past, its a hot topic with both camps and never any compromise.
Before it gets hot I would just point out that it’s not of an extreme importance as using analysis tool in a live game settings is quite inconvenient (not to mention in blitz). Not sure that the one using the tool has the advantage, considering the stress and loss of time. Consider as an example mental calculation and pocket calculators.
As far as I know, OGS is the only server that allows analysis in non-correspondence ranked games, so I don’t know where people people would go if they are upset by this change.
Bugcat is not suggesting that analysis be disabled for ranked correspondence games, as far as I can tell. In a live game, reading ladders is part of the game. You might even say that reading the board without playing out the stones is most of the game. In correspondence games, it’s useless to disallow analysis because there would always be time for either player to recreate the board locally. That’s not the case for live games.
I also want to point out that the seriousness of online play is a personal and subjective thing. You may not take online games seriously, but for many players, it’s their primary way of experiencing Go. They take their ranked games seriously, both as fun competition and as the best way to measure their progress.
I dunno. maybe.
years ago (meaning before OGS) I tried to lie my games simultaneously on a real board but I never really reach to do it. need a lot of keeping focus found it finally disturbing more as anything else.
Ok, still not so attractive to me. Now the problem comes if someone is rated like me and just decide to use analysis. Because if He used it before I am not going to see any difference. Ok. How many levels you think one might win like this?
The most recent thing I’ve heard someone criticise was KGS for being able to analyse and download sgf during the game etc. I didn’t think that was a thing, but maybe it’s one of the clients like shin or one of the browser ones.
But anyway, as long as it’s not for correspondence I don’t mind
TL;DR - analysis should be default off but usually allowed IMO (unless tournament rules etc) and, if possible, conditional moves should be separated from analysis so we can have conditional moves default on
Long version
Back when I was a beginner, I found analysis really useful. This was because I was so new to the game I couldn’t read more than about 2 or 3 moves ahead. I used analysis as a learning tool to try out lots of different variations and lots of them quite long. This was not to gain an advantage over my opponent but rather as a way of interactively exploring the possibilities of the Go board that were so mysterious at that time so that I could learn the basics of what moves do / don’t work and why. Once I had gotten to grips with the basics of the game and I could do some basic reading, I made a conscious decision to ditch analysis to develop my in-head reading. Now, I never use analysis even if it’s available unless there are exceptional circumstances:
Teaching game or otherwise sharing variations with opponent for discussion (usually only with friends from my IRL Go club and always after the moment has passed)
Very slow correspondence games (1 move per week) where I share variation with myself in Malkovitch chat so I remember what the hell I was thinking when I come back to the game later
So I think analysis should be usually allowed so people can use it as a learning tool if that’s what works for them. But default off to encourage in-head reading.
On a related but IMO separate note, I do like to use conditional moves to keep correspondence games moving. I do not use them to work out what moves to play - I still read in my head - but if it’s a forced or otherwise minimally branched sequence, then I decide in my head and then set the conditionals so the sequence is done when I come back later. If possible, it would be nice to separate conditional moves from analysis so you can have analysis off but still have conditional moves on. I find it really annoying and slow when I play correspondence with analysis off and such sequences take days to play out when they need not.
Finally, I have a friend who I’m guessing (with a very strong hunch) uses analysis all the time. I can just tell by the way he refers to it in chat, how he shares variations, uses conditional moves, etc Anyway, doesn’t help him - I still win a 2 stone game as white I think this further supports the idea that there no harm in terms of advantage gained to have analysis usually allowed but default off to encourage in-head reading.
hanayeol does mid-game move analysis on his streams all the time… i think he maybe plays on fox? not sure… but it’s definitely possible on other servers
I’m not that familiar with Fox, so I can’t say it’s not possible. I do think that most servers disallow analysis during live games, at least enough servers that we wouldn’t really be alienating players by following the general consensus. In fact, I didn’t even know analysis for live games was possible on OGS until very recently because it never even occurred to me that it would be allowed let alone enabled by default.
Are there any live players who use the analysis feature regularly and can comment on this issue?
Trying to do what everyone else does is the surest way to death. If we are not unique, we are pointless.
I personally think the advantages and disadvantages of using analyse mode during live games balances out, so there doesn’t appear to me to be any strong case for removing the feature. I think most features should be on by default, allowing the people that don’t like them to turn them off. (It is much easier to find a setting to turn off a feature you don’t like, than to find features you’ve never tried and experiment with turning them on)
Having analysis on during a Go game isn’t really a feature in the way many things are OGS are a feature. It fundamentally changes the game. Would you be okay if an opponent in a over-the-board game started trying out their candidate moves one by one before they decided on their move? Would the game be the exact same sort of thing if both sides could try their moves out before committing to a single response?
I don’t think many Go players would answer yes to both those questions.
Actually this is bad for the opposite reason to what you think. In chess a move is not official until you release the piece (probably the same in Go, I haven’t actually checked) but it is advised not to pick up a piece until you have finished reading because it gives away what you’re thinking about to your opponent…
So, yeah actually I’d be totally fine with an IRL person visually reading on the board because it gives me more of an advantage than them.
You’ve answered the first question, but not the second. Do you think the game is fundamentally the same if both players can spend their time checking variations manually?
For me, it’s not the same game at that point. It’s more like a variant of Go which should be ranked separately and be clearly marked. Live, ranked games should recreate, as far as possible, the traditional experience of playing a serious game of Go. That includes reading with your mind instead of with your mouse.
What about professionals discussing their game overnight with their students? Is that the same game
The game is about surrounding territory… I don’t think the minutia of whether or not you visualise or have displayed your own personal reading is all that relevant. Compared to getting external help from AI or other players, this is all still your reading… even putting stones on the board you are limited to your own reading and shape knowledge and vision of where the game could lead later on…
I think this further supports the idea that there no harm in terms of advantage gained to have analysis usually allowed but default off to encourage in-head reading.