OGS is and has always been a modern, feature-rich server. A quality score estimator is consistent with the server’s overall concept.
As someone who plays with analysis but never uses it, my take is that whoever trains themselves to rely on AI support only deceives themselves. They will rank up and play against other centaurs or more skilled opponents who do not depend on crutches.
Anyway, the game will be balanced. So why the hate and envy? Just play however you like, with our without SE.
If it can truly reveal good moves, maybe it can also be a good teaching tool. It would be a shame not to make it available (by default).
But one doesn’t know one’s opponent’s ‘true’ ability. You can’t judge fairness without that.
I’m regularly playing the same people every so often and they are the rank they are. I don’t know if they use SE or Analysis never, once in a while, occasionally or all the time. All I know is that they are the rank they are and I’m having a fairly balanced game if they are about my rank.
Yeah, I suppose the danger is that everyone’s going to end up with a dan rank
If someone is using AI to play at dan levels then good luck to them, they’d soon get found out if they played IRL…
Fairness… A bit of “big bag” word to me.
What I don’t like and fear is my opponent who is like my level even a bit weaker and suddenly has “9d” moves or decision beyond our level abilities. That’s more about fun breaking as anything else.
I wonder how the discussion “we shouldn’t play online, only IRL, because you can’t moderate cheating online” went back in the day…
It seems the discussion has come a long way since then… or not.
I opened a thread on using SE is cheating last year, but it closed quickly considering the low quality of SE then, postponing the answer for when needed
Ah yes, the thread where you blatantly called me a cheater. I remember. Fun times.
I think an important distinction that people fail to make is between
-Using score estimate is cheating (I do not agree, and I know there are people who think so, and imho they are consumed by cheat terror and lose focus on what we are doing here, which is playing Go online, nothing more, nothing less)
-Someone can use score estimate to cheat (I agree and there should be a discussion on what could be a balanced way to counter such attempts. anoek has made some good suggestions in the new thread)
It’s not that hard to actually see that correspondence games, because they do not replicate real life circumstances, should be banned or should not be ranked and that the only ranked games should be some form of live game
Please don’t ban correspondence games, that’s the main reason why I migrated to this server!
… because I like playing high quality go, and I dislike when I or my opponent blunder because of time trouble … That’s why I like correspondence games.
I had half jokingly asked in another thread, since correspondence games are so historically accurate and important etcetcetc, what was the equivalent IRL of that so convenient OGS conditional move feature we all know and love. I never got a response… Maybe because IRL equivalent is not always the only way…
ntAh yes true.
Well maybe there are no similar feature simply because it doesn’t make too much sense in a live game IRL, conditional tree being in each brain in a no stop elaboration.
If you want to consider IRL correspondence games (by mail? or phone call?) I guess is the same as online
All those features are still good. We just disagree when they can be used.
So there is a simple solution, make them paid services. OGS gets more fund to develop more wonderful functions. We can choose when we want to take advantage of them. To those of us who choose not to use them during the games, they are free. Win, win. lol
I wonder if realistically there could be 3 “easy sets of settings” for games:
Teaching game: All allowed.
Friendly game: (All allowed?/ Player defined?/) Number score estimator+ analysis enabled+ conditional moves.
Ranked game: All is set at OFF, blood on the goban.
EDIT: Maybe “learning game” instead of “teaching game”? If two opponents decide either for A to teach B or A and B to learn from the experience and allow for all additional help available.
