I respectfully disagree. Well, depends on how ‘valid’ is defined of course. But what happens with thrown games / non games in a tournament? Both players getting zero points? It seems entirely obvious to me that in these cases the person disappearing should get zero points and the other one. And that for me indicates a certain level of ‘validity’.
8 Likes
This is also complicated 
since if you run out of time it is a valid win so of course people are going to feel so.
“But, its not valid we don’t know who would have won” Of course you know who won one player ran out of time and in the rules when a player runs out of time they are the losing party regardless of who won at the end of the game. I have won plenty of games on time even when I am down in end game and vice versa.
Also I assume people have there games completed by moderators to speed up the process instead of waiting the entire timer out? I think this encourages people not to ask for help from the moderators.
Basically this statement invalidates any blitz go which honestly I would support since I hate blitz but if this is the case I would just disable ranked blitz. But that is an argument for another time.
Obviously I get that the real discussion is about the sandbaggers and integrity and not really about blitz. But if we are talking about a clear win. Regardless of opinion it is 100% a fact that if a player runs out of time (again providing they have played an efficient amount of moves) then a winner and a loser has been decided.
Ah also I get that again in some peoples eyes this is a solution to handling sandbaggers just my opinion that I think it ends up hurting the (non escapee) “winning user” more then it fixes the sandbagging issue. I believe there was a statement above sometime ago “this rarely happens” so if it rarely happens then I would rather have the happy winning user.
5 Likes
None of this discussion applies to blitz games, and I have already acknowledged the distinction in my first post. Also, legitimate timeouts can occur in non-blitz games, and the moderators are careful to distinguish this. However, I doubt that anyone would care to argue that the 29 minutes here was honest thinking time. Thrown contests are universally, or almost universally, regarded as phony wins. If a prize fighter takes a dive, no one regards the win as legitimate (although there may be some difficulty proving it—but the principle is clear). It is in fact a form of cheating–albeit cheating in reverse (i.e., to lose rather than to win). No stigma attaches to the illegitimate winner. They are a victim of the cheater, who is, in most cases like this, a sandbagger.
3 Likes
Right it does not apply to blitz but it was a good example when talking about time controls.
Also, that goes back to opinion since these are both DDK players it is insulting to say that they didn’t think? I am not saying they did think or that it was honest thinking. But, I think it is unfair to tell them they weren’t thinking especially the one who “should have or could have won”.
29 minutes for some people is a lot of time maybe not for you or someone else but maybe for this specific person.
Also I think this part goes back to opinion not the “no one regards the win as legitimate” I do agree that if it is clearly thrown it can’t be regarded as legitimate. But, I think the expectations and how it is handled stays the same. The expectation of the winner is still that they won (even if you think they threw it). The way they think it would be handled is that they are rewarded with points (even if you think they shouldn’t be).You may not think they should feel this way but they will because that is what is intended when setting down a ranked game.
3 Likes
A. A bad sport is almost universally considered a loser. They lose on integrity and character, and most competitions consider those on the line as well. If someone can’t keep their composure and throw a ball at the opponent while 10 points ahead, they lose. Part of the game, not a phony win for the opponent.
B. It is entirely possible the opponent in the game, although they were winning (based on what’s said here, idk), actually misread and thought they were losing. Legitimate probability, happens to the best and can lead to someone ahead to actually lose. Too many leaps taken to make a decision that isn’t there, IMHO.
2 Likes
Last thing on this topic for me but regardless of everyone’s opinion here. It is a fact that if you run out of time there is a winner decided and a loser decided.
Anulling the game because of possibility of someone sandbagging is intruding on the match with an opinion that “this is how it should be handled”.
It harms the “should be winner” this is a fact even if said person doesn’t care. Allowing the game to go through harms the ranking system yes it does this is also a fact. Which do I think should happen? I would just ban the sandbagger tell them to get a proper account with a proper rank. Let the winner be the winner and call it a day.
Popular belief is that if you are truly a 9dan you will be able to get 9dan. If you are a 30kyu regardless of how you won your game you will fall back to 30kyu. If it happens as rarely as said it doesn’t sound worth harming the happy winning player.
Mods just have to make a choice when and I am not saying this choice is easy as someone who has managed large player bases making a decision about integrity or player happyness is basically one of the hardest things ever and the decision is basically down to where you want to cut corners more. But, at the end of the day you will be cutting a corner.
Happy discussions and good luck
3 Likes
Wow, this thread blew up. I haven’t read everything, so sorry if I rehash some points already made.
I don’t think it is reasonable to call this a thrown game based on KataGo’s analysis. The 88% win rate estimation is based on KataGo’s judgement of assuming very strong (KataGo-level) play for finishing the game, whereas had the actual human players continued the game the outcome would still be highly uncertain. Looking at a lot of amateur games, we frequently find the AI-analysis win rate fluctuating wildly, not due to any inaccuracy of the AI, but rather reflecting that us mere mortals (especial kyu-levels and weaker) frequently make game-shifting blunders. Further, note that KataGo judges that the score margin is only B+6.4, which makes it quite possible that black could have gone on to make just a few small mistakes to lose the lead. Thus, I don’t think we can say that the player threw away a winning position, and with only 34 moves in, I think the game was very much undecided for two DDK-level players.
I fully understand the arguments about wanting the undo the affects of deliberate sandbaggers who affect many games in a clear effort to distort their rank. However, I think it’s a bit tricky to deal with cases with only a few isolated games, especially when the nature of the issue might be characterized as a form of accidental or inadvertent sandbagging. First, it’s a very tough judgment call to make with only a few (or only one) game to consider (as opposed to a clear pattern over many games). Second, the rating system can handle this small level of noise, and manually correcting (by annulling) the outcome of just a couple of games is unnecessary and unlikely to have a significant impact on ratings system. However, in cases like these, the annulment of a single game seems more likely to produce dissatisfaction (from the player that feels that should have been credited with a win) rather than prevent any dissatisfaction (from whatever ratings impact that was avoided).
17 Likes
Yes, wow and I feel responsible for that.
I was going to have another try and setting it my thoughts and might still do that later but actually @yebellz has it pretty much covered.
Just to add that I think this is the biggest problem with this kind of situation. Is need to think a bit more about possible solutions but again what yebellz said ^
Edit: Hindsight is a marvellous thing but it does seem that in this circumstance leaving the game result to stand but telling OP that their opponent had been spoken to about escaping and is also on a watchlist for sandbagging would seem the way to handle it.
Edit2: how long after the event can a game be annulled? Another option would be to only annul the game later. But much practical difference but maybe less noticeable for the winner? (Not sure if this kind of subterfuge-looking approach would feel any better though if/when noticed!)
5 Likes
To be perfectly honest, I also stopped reading everything as the thread seems to have separated into many semi-related and unlikely scenarios, but to add several general last thoughs.
Maybe it’s just my mentality, but why would one be satisfied with being acredited a win for a game one was not winning?
Consider also the opponent’s view (and please take into account the possibility - or even probability that there were no bad intentions), they were winning a game (at that time) and NOT only did they not get to win, they were acredited with a loss because of some silly technical trouble or whatever.
Leaving such a game ranked is:
- less precise for rating purposes
- extremely dissatisfying for the loser (who probably feels like they were winning AND try to imagine they might actually be a great guy, not just an annonymous scoundrel),
- (at least as far as I see it) should also be dissatisfying for the winner who got points for not actually winning.
How is that better?
Annulling the game:
- is more precise for rating
- IF the person was trying to sandbag it ruins their plans, and players after you (well not you directly, you know what I mean) will not be playing against someone stronger than advertised
I am sorry to me it still feels people automatically view the timeoutee as “the bad guy” and feel the need (and that to me seem to be the only counterargument) to punish them with the ranking which IS NOT MEANT FOR THAT. We talk to timeoutees and ask/warn them not to purposefully timeout and eventually ban them from the community if they cannot adapt, please consider THAT the “punishement” if you feel the need to have some inflicted. But that is NOT what rating is for.
It is funny that the discussion got so heated over what is quite a rare case anyway. So just to repeat: for people who escape (in the sense of leaving a lost game) and for honest timeouts in blitz and such the result of course “stands”!
7 Likes
What does this even mean or have to do with anything?
If I abandon a game I feel I was winning it shouldn’t count as a win for my opponent??
Sorry, you lost me there.
Also, who said anything about punishment.
Punishment and natural, mostly agreed on consequences are two VERY DIFFERENT things.
What I think we are trying to say is to leave games alone to take their natural course (and natural course is the one that requires the least mental backflips from everyone) and not manipulate results to fit that ideal ranking system just because.
5 Likes
I agree but it’s clear to me in this case that it would not be possible for OP to feel that they were losing so I don’t think this applies here.
I don’t think this is what is being suggested. As I’ve understood it we are asking for the warning/ban to be the punishment as you say but that this shouldn’t (at least in this case it seems, recognising there is a spectrum) be added to by the “punishment” of annulling the game which in fact has the effect of “punishing” the innocent party.
I understand about the preservation of the rating system and would like to give it more thought but I feel I’m persuaded by @Gia’s view that this objective shouldn’t necessarily be the prime one in all cases and @yebellz assertion that the system can deal with a level of “noise”.
5 Likes
I would like to know what the effect on the ranking system would be of sandbaggers games standing (some of them anyway, the borderline ones say) and then that account getting banned.
I suppose the net effect would be rank inflation but if anyone can explain in non-maths non-programmer terms that would be great!
[I suppose I’m wondering if it is more or less than the effect of airbagging/bot gaming and any other inaccuracies within the system]
2 Likes
I think it’s clear that the user that started this thread is dissatisfied with the action.
I don’t think that everyone would feel the same way, but I believe that many might feel similarly about it, which seems to be supported by others in this thread expressing similar opinions.
For this game in question, I don’t think either player was in a certain winning position. So while, the OP was not winning, they were not necessarily losing either, but rather they won by default since the other player left.
Some people might even want all of games where they win by timeout to be annulled. Others might feel slighted if their timeout wins were annulled.
I think it is a stretch to call a game so early in one player’s favor, based on just KataGo’s analysis. A 6.4-point margin can still easily swing either way, given DDK-level play.
This comparative analysis is making an assumption about satisfaction that clearly runs contrary to how the player actually felt.
As for whether it is more or less precise for rating, I think that one game probably has a small impact on the rating system anyways.
I’m not assuming anything negative about the other player that timed out. Please don’t imply that I am.
My view is not driven by any desire to punish the timing out player, but rather to address the dissatisfaction faced by their opponent.
So, I think this leads to a difficult judgement call about when one can call something a “lost game”. I guess your implication is that the game would not have been annulled if the KataGo analysis had been reversed and said that the timing out player had only a 12% chance of winning.
In general, I don’t think it’s a good idea to rely on KataGo to call the outcome (and ultimately determine these type of annulment decisions) for incomplete games. KataGo gives a win-rate assuming very strong play that weak amateurs cannot match. I think the hypothetical DDK-level human-play outcome of this game was far less certain.
7 Likes
I believe it just means more noise, meaning the ranks will be less accurate overall… Inflation/deflation hard to say unless more details of the method of sandbagging are given. Having an anchor combats this (which I believe we have- AGA/EGF 1d)
Somehow I doubt the effect would be large, but there are people with more knowledge about this than I.
If you win a game, your rank goes up.
If you lose a game, your rank goes down.
If you ask me to lower someone’s rank even though they did not lose. I see it as you wanting me to punish the player (be it deserved or not), if that was not your intention, I appologize for misunderstanding.
Nothing to do with KataGo’s win estimate, as explained above, this particular case I consider it “obvious” that something else was up apart from the usual lost track of time, got frustrated by losing, as the player was unable to play for 30 minutes while in a clearly NOT lost position. I am not saying they would have won, I am not saying they would have lost. I am saying we clealy cannot know, and that’s why it does not make sense to have the game ranked.
If it is not about rewarding/punishing one of the players this seems to me to be the only logical conclusion.
I agree, that’s why it’s annulled
Yes, for that I offer all the artenative means - talking/warning the player/asking them not to and eventually banning them if the trouble repeats too often AND of course our appology for the bad experience. Don’t take me wrong I ABSOLUTELY get that it was an annoying, bad, saddening, disheartening experience. I simply say that rating is not designed as means of providing satisfaction.
So we agree that OP, whose rank was lowered even though they did not lose is being punished. 
[Sorry, I realise this is completely unhelpful but could not resist]
1 Like
IMHO the part about making a judgement call about when one call something a lost game is where it should be judged by the rules of the game. If the player does not call a mod and lets the game play out it is a win by time. There should be no outside judge beyond that unless the mod wants to speed up the process. By adding in the “outside judge” it opens up so much complications.
(Just adding to what you said).
2 Likes
In this case, I think a mod was called by OP, correct?
That’s the problem right there, if it needs too much interpretation and mental process and what someone thinks/ feels/ imagines/ considers/ wishes/ hopes to explain things, maybe it shouldn’t be a rule. Just sayin’.
Anyway, mods are gonna mod, even if they sometimes let their personal opinions get in the way of things being impersonal and practical and across the board.
You lose by time and you’re not a sandbagger, you lose the game, no hard feelings, life goes on. Simple and fair but I guess we are going for something else here.
Not much more I can add, so I won’t add anything else.
1 Like
And I think it’s timely for me to add that despite my views in this thread, I very much appreciate the work our mods volunteer to do for us.
I don’t mean to diminish their efforts at all and I’m persuaded that the decision in this case was correct from the point of view of established processes and properties.
I hope my comments are contributing to a reassessment of those processes and priorities. Even if the decision is made to continue as before, having this perception considered is enough for me.
5 Likes