I can see this. I think my trouble is that there are various winning conditions:
Game ends with two passes - whoever has most points is the winner;
Game ends with a resignation - whoever didn’t resign is the winner;
Game ends with one player running out of time - whoever didn’t run out of time is the winner.
In each case there is a clear winner
However, we overlay this with a further test in the last two cases where it is felt that the loss was not justified.
This differs from IRL tournaments where a loss is a loss, I think. E.g. taking a nap during dinner of a long game and accidentally sleeping through the rest of your clock running down…
And it by implication makes the win unjustified, even though the winner has complied with all rules.
Now maybe sandbagging is a purely online phenomenon. So real life is maybe not a comparable case. And people clearly complain about it a lot so maybe we should do something and what we do is the best we can do. But I hope that what we do has been fully thought through and proper consideration given to other options, even if they seem unimaginable at first.
I agree on those points, but I see these as having an effect on one’s playing. Someone could lose a game because they lost concentration, and hence got themself in a bad position. When someone loses concentration, while the game itself is not decided, and then resigns, I don’t see it as a game with a clear winner.
It’s not a game of chance and prospection, there’s a very clear and accurate way to see who is winning. When somebody resigns because they feel they are probably not concentrated enough, or lack perseverance, while the actual game is undecided, then that’s just that: an undecided game.
For the same reason that the resigned player might lose if the game were to be continued, the opponent might lose as well. There is no winner, and no loser, in this scenario.
Then only count games that go to scoring. And also annul all games with misclicks. No?
If I resign because I misread but I was actually winning, then the mods will say “hm, 50 points ahead, obviously a decided game, Gia gets the win?”
Nope, if I say “I don’t think I can win this” it’s my decision. I am the one playing and I consider this game lost. This is how it’s done everywhere, I don’t know why this anomaly is considered so normal in this instance. Mods deciding when a game is lost overriding players is not OK and you can’t convince me otherwise, so let’s agree to disagree.
And also I don’t feel like playing in a server where mods override players just based on personal perception, I think I have the right to feel this way.
Go is a game between two opponents, it’s not a means to design a rank system and I think this is a fundamental difference in opinions.
I thought we had already agreed to disagree
But I still feel you’re conflating winning the game with predicting who is better.
Annulling a game is not necessarily to show who should have won the game, it’s to use it to predict which player is better at Go. A game where you resigned in a position while 50 points ahead is your loss, and it’s your right to resign (if it’s not sandbagging against better knowledge).
But simultaneously such a game is not suitable to judge how well you could play (again, in my opinion).
It is not necessarily an incorrect interpretation, as I described above.
But anyways, I believe several of us are thoroughly done with this discussion, and I feel I’m repeating my opinions. So unless I there’s something new to say, I’ll leave this topic for now.
There were players “sandbagging” in real life, especially playing for bets. And they would be smarter than just resign while ahead, but deliberately play bad moves to lose a few games, and occasionally win just a little, and then when the odds were against them, and the bet money is huge, suddenly add conditions like capture certain amount of stones would gain extra bets, etc. and then just kill all the opponent’s big groups.
The head of Hoensha - Murase Shūho(Honinbō Shūho) did just that when he was forced out of Honinbo House when he was young and had to play for bets to survive.
I think this is the issue that is troubling me about this whole thing. I suspect that the sandbaggers that are complained about and those whose games are annulled are in the main not really trying to sandbag especially. While those who are actually sandbagging are not so easily caught if at all.
I have no data of course but if my hypothesis is along the right lines then I wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. Or if there should be as much effort directed to it as other sources of inaccuracies in the ranking system (misclick, drunk players etc)
At the risk of getting too philosophical or legal about this, isn’t another interpretation than annulment means the thing is treated as never having happened. In that case how can you win something that didn’t happen? And if something is changed from having happened (that you won) to not having happened (that by definition you cannot win since there was nothing to win) then your win has been “taken away”.
I’m not arguing for one interpretation of another. I just think that if we get to this level of analysis it can be argued either way and will not help us move forward.
I just want to point out that luck is a skill but also that could be argued as an opinion since not everyone thinks luck is a skill.
I actually believe BIBA use to run a school and had an account where they would have all of there students use it at the same time and they would collectively come up with the next move together and they all ranged from kyu to high dan. Not positive on that but I am almost certain. Was really interesting stuff but that is another topic in itself.
After Steve manages to reach 15k undetected, he could just play unranked games against 15k (he doesn’t care about his rating anyway).
The “sandbagger game annullment policy” does not protect his opponents from having a bad experience of getting sandbagged, because the games are already unranked. Or will their opponents not be bothered, because those games are unranked?
Will this type of sandbagger stay under the radar? Or is his behaviour not even violating any OGS rules?
It’s not even sandbagging, really. If I don’t ever play a ranked game on OGS again (as I plan to do) but keep getting stronger by playing unranked games, am I forced to play ranked games here and there so that my rank adjusts?
It’s not my fault if I get stronger and my rank doesn’t show it, if I don’t want to play ranked games.