Payback: this time the anti-stalling feature didn't steal my win

[Samraku]

Other Good Posts

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

It was mentioned here before: using Chinese rules passing loses points before all dames are filled. This could be used to judge whether the passing happens prematurely or not. Win by server decision after three passes that didn’t lose points under Chinese rules.

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

The reason given by Anoek is that it is safe for the winner to pass three times in a row and the winning rate is still greater than 99%. However, the current situation is that the loser’s three consecutive passes will trigger a server decision. This should be inconsistent with the original design of the system, and I think the mechanism of the loser passing three times to cause the opponent to win feels very strange. If the winner thinks the game can still continue, then why not?

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Recently my opponent and I had that message when I was simply closing all remaining Dame points while he (many many stones stronger than me, and obviously winning) resigned three times in succession … that didn’t feel good … especially as I have learned that it is “good style” to close all neutral points before passing.

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I agree that all of these are bad. But shouldn’t filling neutral points be excluded from this feature? These are NOT “useless moves”—yes, some neutral points are plain Dame, but others are Teire and can thus force the opponent to play inside their territory (—> -1 pt). I was taught that at the end of a game all neutral points should be filled, and I’ve not yet been convinced that I was taught to play useless moves. Now, some of my opponents are (IMNVHO) sloppy and pass instead, repeatedly,…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Nobody disputes that. Several people, including me, have pointed out that one needed way to tweak the new feature is to allow the filling of dame before the feature is triggered.

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I am glad it took me several days to read this thread, as it allowed me time to mediate my positions and consider more positive aspects of the anti-stalling feature which I had not initially thought of in my reactionary first impression. tldr, I am, contrary to my initial impressions, okay with the anti-stalling feature, some caveats notwithstanding, and am glad the anti-escaping feature was increased to 60 seconds, but wish it was reverted to the full 5 minutes. Anti-Stalling Feature If I und…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I still agree with what I posted here, but I would like to add one more caveat to my comments on the Anti-Stalling Feature: only the player who passes x times in a row (I believe it’s 3, currently) ought have the option to end the game by server decision, the player who is still playing stones ought not be given that option If this is already the case, then great! but I have not been able to ascertain whether or not it is In the situation in which my opponent is trolling by refusing to pass ev…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Hmm, so it seems there are more potential issues which can arise than just the case @Samraku and I previously discussed about this (bolding mine) : I just came across another case in which this seems to have backfired and helped a player who was continuing to stall, to somehow win the game without having to play out any sequences. (They were behind and all of the borders had been sealed, continuing to play inside opponent territory (including moves like the 1-1 point), whilst the opponent who…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Frankly, I think a unilateral pause will be much easier to abuse in live games. The solution to the game @fuseki3 shared is simple: only show the “end” button to the player who is passing!!

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

It actually took longer than I exepcted for an opponent to abuse the system to earn a “win” in a game that they were destined to lose on time. This was an absolute timed game. The other player was ahead on points but had managed time poorly, and they just started passing with three seconds left on their clock before the board was fully closed up. I kept playing with many minutes left on my clock and half of the end-game ahead. The server intervened and awarded them the win on points. As I spec…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Some months ago there were many people, including myself, suggesting improvements to the so-called anti-stalling feature to make it actually an only anti-stalling feature and not an anti-not-resigning-when-you-are-losing feature, but these seem to have been forgotten and no action taken, perhaps with the recent development focus on the automatch changes. Addressing these, rather than telling people off via moderation channels for using the current feature with its problems, would be a good idea. …

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

Only activating the Antistalling feature if passing doesn’t change the expected score by more than 0.49 would account for 90+% of this, right?

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

This is a more complicated one, because certainly there can be threats to play that shift the score by huge margins. But I think if the server is looking at the game score, the availability of huge threats does not impact what it thinks the likely end score of the game is because there are simple answers to those moves. If you and I are playing, and you are 99% to win, and I make “ko threat” kind of move that threatens a huge group, the server does not switch to me being 99% to win until it see…

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I also think this 3 pass feature triggering once incorrectly is a much worse negative than it triggering once correctly: it is much more rude for a go server to stop you playing legitimate go than a human player to play stalling moves, see Server ending game by its own decision - #39 by Uberdude. So if 40% of triggered cases are mid game, and even if of those only 20% are false positives where the player forced to lose was not stalling but just losing, by my value judgement ratio it would be a n…

Absolute time inspired discussions

I think that would for sure. The AI breakdown shows all the moves. +5 here, -7 here. It should be able to tell that no move will change the outcome.

Absolute time inspired discussions

I’d also like that. The evaluation doesn’t have to start running until after the passes, so it shouldn’t be that many calls to katago, particularly since katago is already being called once in that situation to test for gap>10

Amending the Anti-Stalling Feature

Too Long, Didn’t Read Instead of giving both players the option to end the game by server decision if either passes 3 times consecutively, it is proposed that only the player who passes 3 times in a row be given the option to end the game by server decision, the player who is still playing stones be not given that option Reasoning There are two most likely explanations when one player is playing useless moves after all dame and teire are filled: the player is new to the game, or the player is t…

Amending the Anti-Stalling Feature

Two concrete examples where this proposal would have resulted in a better outcome (taken from GH issue 2473) Black had the opportunity to kill a small group and win by 26 points, but neither player saw it The boundaries are filled, white passes Black continues to play in white’s area After three of White’s passes, Black is presented the option to win by Server Decision Black was ahead by ~10 pts. Around move 300, Black started passing, while White kept playing. Then White placed a stone…

Amending the Anti-Stalling Feature

I was thinking on this and how it also helped me very much as a DDK/weaker SDK to be able to learn where I needed to defend/respond or not, and to die or have swings at the end of the game as a result of missing teire. I feel that’s an important part of the game & learning experiences when improving in Go, and I also worried that the anti-stallling features would lead new (or experienced) players to learn much less in that way – simply because the buttons currently read : “Server Decision, P…

Server ending game by its own decision

Is there a way to disable this function? I do not like when it happens in a game I am winning or losing. It feels so intrusive. It also does not give a chance for a lesser player to learn when and not to invade. Today in a correspondence game I passed, a couple of times, the other player was playing and the server asked if I accepted its decision. I did not reply and have never seen a decline button. The server ended the game despite my not accepting it. If I wanted to play the computer I…

Server ending game by its own decision

I have not had many players really play on in impossible situations. And when I have it was with people who really did not understand when the game is really over. It is part of the learning.

Server ending game by its own decision

Wrong, because the win% is based on a superhuman AI which can see weaknesses inside territory which need defending when dame are filled, and so would do so to preserve the win%. The weaker human players may not see that weakness, and not defend, and the winner changes when exploited. There was a good example of this in a previous thread about this feature.

Server ending game by its own decision

No, because you might need to fill 4 dames to make the move inside work. Quoting yourself: Animiral Sep 2023 Nice catch, I really failed to consider teire moves. So the anti-stalling opens up the possibility to skimp on teire by passing prematurely.

Server ending game by its own decision

To be fair, @Samraku’s suggestion* is uncontroversial and moves us in the same direction (be more conservative about Server Decisions). * just to make sure we’re talking about the same recommendation, this is what I’m referring to:

Server ending game by its own decision

I suppose different people have different value judgements on new features like this, that can help deal with problem behaviour in some cases (helping deal with genuine stallers), but introduce their own problem behaviours in others (stopping non-stallers from finishing their games and playing a game of skill to the end). What ratios are people happy with between the two situations? I tend to follow Blackstone’s Formulation “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suff…

Server ending game by its own decision

I would argue that being punished unfairly by the server is a much greater “suffering” than encountering a staller. There is something about “unfairness” that humans simply can’t accept. “My opponent is this game was a dick” is easily accepted, but “I would have won this game if the server hadn’t arbitrarily decided I should lose” is not. Not to mention, there are thousands of users, but only one server. If I encounter one opponent with a bad behaviour, that’s not going to affect my pleasure…

Server ending game by its own decision

The 20 points lead is not a so decent indicator because it’s calculated by an AI not by humans who may have a very different opinion (for example due to a group status) They can really be arbitrary. Once a close game between 2 six dan. Both thought a group was alive but that was kind of hallucination it was dead. Then I can imagine that to make a few things clear one pass a few times while the other add a few stones. Here could come a surprising win for stalling… This may even more happen wi…

Server ending game by its own decision

I agree with this. It goes against the spirit of the game to have any third party (AI or otherwise) decide when a game is over. Go is the only game in the world that ends when both players decide that it’s over. This feature disrupts this aspect of the game.

OGS invents new Go variant!

OGS has, perhaps unwittingly, invented a new Go variant “Can you afford to pass 3 times? Go” or “- - - Go”*, and we are all playing it. If you are ahead and past move 120, rather than playing moves to try to win, you can take a gamble and pass: if your opponent doesn’t have a ko threat type move big enough to drop your lead below a KataGo estimate of 99% after you pass following the ko threat, they follow up on the threat and you pass again, then you win. But be warned, if you are still winning …

OGS invents new Go variant!

In endgame winning by 10 points can be 99% according to KataGo. And if the temperature of the board is low, with just 1 or 2 point moves available, then you be 15 points ahead and 99.8% winning, pass 3 times and let them grab a couple 1-2 point moves, and then be 10 points ahead and 99.0% winning and get the win awarded to you. So opponent needs to find some big (>15 is plenty, even 10 points could be enough if reduces you to 80% winrate) ko threats you need to answer rather than pass to break y…

OGS invents new Go variant!

If the game was not ended by the new 3 pass rule, white would have had the opportunity to make a mistake once all dame were filled to not play a defensive move inside their territory at e.g. g15, and if white did so then black could have won the game.

OGS invents new Go variant!

This system does stop you learning about when teire are necessary.

OGS invents new Go variant!

The opponent also needs to be aware of the 3-pass rule, and I think the vast majority of players on OGS will not be aware of it. So in most cases the opponent will just be wondering “Why is my opponent passing early?” and won’t look for ko threats.

OGS invents new Go variant!

This is true only IF KataGo is correct in its evaluation (usually, but not always, it can get complicated semeais etc wrong, particularly with the low playouts OGS presumably uses because doing 100,000 playouts for this feature would cost too much compute resource) AND IF both players play don’t make mistakes according to KataGo’s optimal line (much more likely with the fallible humans playing on OGS). To take frolag’s example from the other post in this new variant passing 3 times made frolag…

OGS invents new Go variant!

The 2 nonzeros here are quite different. 10% is a lot more than 0.0001%. Even dan players missing tiere actually happens. I’ve won and lost games because of it. Filling in your own eyes doesn’t beyond trolls and super noobs. The idea this system cannot be improved is also wrong. Anoek had already made adjustments, and there are suggestions in other threads for further improvements like only applying when there are no valuable moves left to play to ensure it is only an anti stalling feature and …

OGS invents new Go variant!

Yeah, i think teires and determining whats actually going on pose the biggest problems with the current, or any, implementation of this thing. The main focus of that anti-stall feature are the situations where game is done, player A passes but player B plays a random stone which has neutral or negative effect on their score, A passes again and B plays another random some, and so on. That unfortunately happens quite a lot, most often in beginner-level games where players might be unsure whether …

OGS invents new Go variant!

So I just (ab)used the anti-stalling feature for the first time by passing 3 times when I was almost 100 points ahead in endgame (and had been 50 points ahead since midddlegame) and didn’t want to keep playing (there was a bent-four-in-corner and Chinese rules so could foresee opponent not agreeing it was dead, no unremovable ko threats), but boy did it feel dirty. It seems ruder than asking the opponent if they’d like to resign (which might not have worked as I think they were Chinese), but it’…

OGS invents new Go variant!

Yesterday I had an opponent do this to me toward the end of a tournament game. They passed twice while I closed a couple of open boundaries. I knew that I was losing badly, but the game was almost over and I had been playing quickly (more or less live in a correspondence game) with reasonable although not outcome-altering moves for the second half. I stopped looking for open boundaries and responded to one of their passes with a pass, and the game got scored with a large chunk of both of our ter…

OGS invents new Go variant!

My second attempt to play new OGS-triple-pass-Go failed: I passed 3 times, I was still 100% win, but I forgot it needed to be after move 180 but it was move 160 so the game continued (now just 40 points ahead, not 140). Oh noes! I still need to improve my skills at this variant.

What's that "server decision" result?

This seems to be the case, but a bit absurd that the losing party is shown the “server decision” button. That button is meant to prevent stalling, but the losing player has always been free to resign.

What's that "server decision" result?

In this case, they had no reason to resign unless they counted the points very precisely (I’m ahead by a large margin because the bent four is dead, but it would have been a close game if it had been a seki instead). It’s possible that they still thought it was a seki when they got the stalling notification? In this case they would have not understood why I “wasted” three moves removing ko threats from my territory, and when presented with the notification they might have believed that I was th…

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

I really wish we had the option to turn off the annoying AI decision. It is our right and good practice to finish filling dame, and sometimes that leads to opponents making mistakes. It is so damn annoying seeing that AI which I did not invite into my game interrupting it. I do not like it if I am winning or losing. It is like a rude kibbitzer. This makes me angry enough to go play on a lousy platform like PANDA. Thank you.

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

100% agreed. The fix I currently support is to not activate the antistalling feature unless passing would not shift the score by more than 0.49 points (as well as the existing restrictions on when it activates). A related fix I support is to only give the option to the player who is passing, as they may be wishing to allow a new player to try an invasion to see why it doesn’t work, and it wastes their time they invested helping a new player if the new player activates the antistalling feature

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

As I have learned it, a proper game ending (if it is not resigned) requires closing all neutral points (see Dame, Teire) – i.e. all points between my and my opponent’s borders. Any algorithm that interferes with this should be met with salt water and iron fillings.

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

I think the second adjustment (only granting this feature to the passing player) should really be non-controversial indeed. The first one is a bit less obvious, but I think I’d be fine with it as well. However I don’t think this would change anything for OP’s problem? Am I missing something?

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

I am in favour of an anti-stalling feature using Kata Go. I am not in favour of an anti-not-resigning-when-you-are-losing-by-a-lot-with-negligible-chance-of-a-superhuman-AI-winning-vs-another-superhuman-AI-but-still-some-decent-chance-of-winning-vs-your-fallible-human-opponent feature using Kata Go, which is what we’ve got now. An odd characterisation, I’ve noticed a lot of dan players pointing out problems with it, such as myself, frolag and Animiral to name a few.

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

Look at frolag’s example, there is no dirty trick play. It was his opponent who was winning and prolonging the game by not filling a teire preemptively, so frolag filled the dame to either make him defend (and frolag still loses, but by 1 point less), or miss that he needed to defend and reverse the game, but the opp kept passing and got the AI adjudicated win. OGS should not use AI to absolve people of the need to spot teire to convert their winning position to a scored win. I have used the 3…

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

No, if they had resigned, it would have indicated they’d understood why their invasions didn’t work. Activating the Antistalling feature just confirms they have no idea when/how to end a game

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

Yes, may not be perfect, but significant improvement would be only triggering if the passes don’t change expected score by more than half point in Chinese rules.

Can we please get rid of AI interrupting a game and ending it

Dame is important, no matter the ruleset. Teire: As all the dames are filled, lack of liberties forces players to add stones in their own territory. Sometimes this is game deciding. (But it’s a judgment call again: limiting the anti-stalling feature in this way allows for more stalling, but less games ending before they should.) OGS’s backend is closed source.

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/31?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/32?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/33?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/45?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/47?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/55?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/63?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/72?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/78?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/can-we-please-get-rid-of-ai-interrupting-a-game-and-ending-it/55280/80?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/2?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/5?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/12?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/18?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/20?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/25?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/29?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/31?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/36?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/39?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/ai-decision-wrong/52112/42?u=samraku

https://forums.online-go.com/t/passing-stalling/53416/2?u=samraku