Scoring procedure

[RyanW]

A suggestion about scoring procedure. If one player rejects the automatic computer scoring, the computer scoring should stand unless the other player agrees. As it is, anyone can cheat on the scoring by making ridiculous adjustments until the other player finally accepts it out of exasperation. It really favours cheaters over honest players.

I find that the automatic scoring system is really good, so (at least) 99 times out of 100, if one player refuses to accept it and the other player disagrees, it’s the player refusing to accept the score that’s cheating. So why does the system favour that player by requiring both players to agree to end the game? It would make more sense to have the computer scoring stand, then the reporting mechanism is there for the once in a blue moon occasion when the computer scoring is wrong and one player won’t admit it.

[UrbanSpirit]

I think if the game is resumed more than once, then you could still fall back on your solution. I wouldn’t like it if the game is scored by the computer immediately.

[Groin]

@RyanW

scoring system is really good, so (at least) 99 times out of 100

Not so sure. Consider games with unfinished boundaries for a common example.

[benjito]

I think players should always have the option of scoring the traditional way (no bot), but I’m not opposed to a flow where AI helps resolve disputes

[RyanW]

In a case like that, the computer isn’t wrong (with the unfinished borders, you actually don’t own the territory yet). But a situation where a player notices they don’t yet control territory they thought they controlled, and restart the game to try to capture the territory, isn’t what I was thinking of. I was thinking of a situation where a player just in blatant bad faith adjusts the computer scoring tally to make themselves win, then when the other player rejects the amendment and restarts the game, they just pass. Rinse and repeat until the other player accepts the fake scoring out of exasperation. Right now OGS has no mechanism to prevent this.

[RyanW]

I like this solution. There’s absolutely no good faith reason why a player would try to adjust the computer scoring multiple times (if it’s good faith, after the game restarts, they’ll actually play to try to demonstrate the advantage they’re claiming the computer is missing. I would support a rule that yhe game can only be restarted once, and after that the computer scoring stands the second time.

[Groin]

Well what if the second time some part of the borders are still unfinished?

[Conrad_Melville]

The autoscore is not nearly as good as you think. See these threads:

A compendium of OGS's terrible scoring system confusing beginners

I’ve participated in several threads here recently about scoring and how the current design is deficient and should be improved. Here’s yet another example of the problems caused.

Autoscore is still overriding players’ skill level

After the long discussion that occurred in another thread when the new autoscore was introduced, I thought it was agreed that the algorithm would be fixed to prevent the kind of thing seen in the game cited above. It is obvious that neither player saw the tesuji in this game, due to their skill level. This is not like the common case of groups that have false eyes and are counted as dead because one doesn’t have to capture dead stones. This is a two-move tactic, i.e., a variation. Where does i…

[Feijoa]

In my experience the 99% is about right when the game is properly finished. For example, in the 100 games I played for WSC last year autoscore failed me exactly once.

It also doesn’t know some details of Japanese rules, like territory in seki, but that comes up even less often.