Server ending game by its own decision

[Uberdude]

@IDe

If the situation is so lopsided that one player can afford to pass multiple times without a change in the win% there is very little for anyone to learn from the game at that point.

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.

[Animiral]

True, the player who feels so comfortably ahead that they pass three times always has a chance to miss atari in the future, maybe due to a sudden brain aneurysm. However, such chances are pretty flimsy even before we elevate them as a “learning experience”.

If the opponent really has some ace trick in reserve, they have three moves to make their case against 99% odds. Isn’t that fair enough?

[Uberdude]

@Animiral

If the opponent really has some ace trick in reserve, they have three moves to make their case against 99% odds. Isn’t that fair enough?

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.

[Uberdude]

And this is the example I mentioned:

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I’m not sure I understand your second paragraph, Animiral. Take this game for example. After move 289, White passed, but White still owes me a move around G15. I was filling liberties to force White to defend, but White passed 3 times instead and the anti-stalling feature triggered. Without the feature, maybe there was 20% chance of a reversal but now it’s 0%. In some sense, OGS gets it backwards in this game: the “staller” is the player who repeatedly refuses to defend, not the one filling dame…

[Samraku]

@IDe

If the situation is so lopsided that one player can afford to pass multiple times without a change in the win% there is very little for anyone to learn from the game at that point. Passing itself is like saying “I want to end the game”, getting upset that the game actually ends as a result of that doesn’t make any sense.

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…

Here I explain why there is still something for someone to learn from the game in some cases

[Samraku]

@Uberdude

Nice catch, I really failed to consider teire moves.
So the anti-stalling opens up the possibility to skimp on teire by passing prematurely.

@Samraku

If I understand the discussion in this thread correctly, attempting to use this feature before the game is effectively over and all dame and teire are filled, is an abuse of the feature and a reportable offense. If this is correct, I am very glad indeed that it is, and it is a huge part of why I am now okay with this feature.

Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

I would also like clear rules on when it’s reportable to repeatedly pass. I would suggest whenever there are any dame left, which also includes any time before dame-filling. One pass to see if your opponent passes back to go to scoring is okay, of course, but if they play, then if there are still dame left one would need to play in order to avoid being reported

Here I propose a rules clarification which would make it a reportable offense to skimp on Teire in this way

[ArsenLapin1]

Sure. Make it an offense to pass at the end of the game!

[Samraku]

Note “repeatedly pass”, “attempt to use this feature”, “one pass is okay”, &c.. I make it abundantly clear that trying to end the game without filling dame is fine so long as your opponent is also okay with this

[Animiral]

@Uberdude

No, because you might need to fill 4 dames to make the move inside work. Quoting yourself:

@Animiral

Nice catch, I really failed to consider teire moves.
So the anti-stalling opens up the possibility to skimp on teire by passing prematurely.

You almost make it look like I contradicted myself. I owe a clarification.

In that thread, I initially wrote:

@Animiral

If you think there is a weakness left to exploit, you should be able to do it with one move. If you cannot do it with 3 moves, you are just stalling.

The statement behind this rigid stance is that OGS offers the “end game” button only if the opponent is actually stalling, not if they are playing in good faith.
In reality, finishing endgame is playing in good faith, yet there are situations where one can elicit the offer from OGS.
Since I had not thought of this initially and it was a nice catch by @frolag, I have acknowledged that, as I should.

That is the extent of what I said.

Let’s say that I am hopelessly behind, with only dame and teire left. My only chance is that my opponent watches as I fill in more than 3 dame and then blunders on aji. But they start passing. In this situation I could

• politely ask them to finish the board with me,
• play a ko threat to force them out of the pass sequence,
• just admit that the player who just mopped the floor with me probably sees what I see and will not let it happen,
• not assume that they will push that button just because they can, when I am not really stalling,
• if they do it, talk it out afterwards to see if they have maybe misunderstood the feature,
• not get hung up on it forever and move on to the next game.

I think that is fair enough after all.

[GreenAsJade]

It was pretty much at the top of my list to see if I could implement Samraku’s recommendation.

However, this follow on discussion brings that into question. I feel sympathetic with the argument that says “I need to play these dame even if you are passing, because I have tricky move to make when I’ve removed all your liberties”.

[Samraku]

On the other hand, one may just want to finish the game completely now that they’ve gotten all the way there anyway. I generally play NZD (area), and fill dame until there are 2-4 left, because that’s usually how many are left by the time I’m 100% confident that there are an even number and I can thus pass

[GreenAsJade]

@crankydragon

Are u saying it could be changed?

We’re certainly not having all this discussion for the fun of it

Well … hmmm … forget I said that

… but yes, there’s some hard-to-quantify level of “solid rationale and partial concensus” needed, then it could be changed.

However, in this instance, we just went backwards on that front

[benjito]

@GreenAsJade

It was pretty much at the top of my list to see if I could implement Samraku’s recommendation.

However, this follow on discussion brings that into question.

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:

@Anti-escaping and Anti-stalling features

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

[einkleinerfalke]

I must say that I am against loosening anti-stalling and anti-escaping features, because this may have unintended effects. I already avoid playing new accounts because I got so often stalled, score cheated etc. It really is my one big problem with OGS while enjoying the site. If this gets even worse, I will be even more selective with my opponent. Yes, it is true that it opens the possibility for super-human judgement of an AI in an unfair manner, but I think this is unavoidable on a server, since compared to an offline tournament there is no way to get a referee in there in time to resolve the dispute manually according to the actual Go rules. Why do I have to suffer as a player from cheaters (where the game result can’t be ever changed but only annulled) rather than allowing some inconvenience in very special situations? The only argument I see would be for beginners which just started learning the game but here it would be more useful to offer them reviews explaining them what happened instead, imho.

[Samraku]

Could you address how you feel my “only the player who passes gets the option to activate the anti-stalling feature” proposal fails to address your concerns? because I think it does not loosen the anti-stalling whatsoever in your case

As far as I can tell, this proposal has no downside from any angle

[einkleinerfalke]

This particular proposal would be ok since it doesn’t loosen the criteria at all. I was only critical of the argument that we should avoid all features that get the bot involved. Actually I would be in favour to getting more such features if it prevents common cheating schemes. Like the force scoring feature if someone marks groups continuely wrong that was tested but sadly, finally not included.

[Samraku]

Ah, okay

[Uberdude]

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 suffer”, so even if this new system stops 10 stallers annoying someone, if there is one case like frolag’s of an innocent getting incorrectly affected by the new rule, I focus on the unfairness of the latter (where the unfairness is committed by OGS rather than a random user, and is therefore worse) and see the whole thing as a net negative. But maybe others think that’s a fine ratio, and would even be happy with a 5 to 1. And what is the actual ratio across all of OGS, who knows?

[Samraku]

My anecdotal experience is that I run into more new players than clear stallers, but I do agree that we should err on the side of protecting innocent parties

[GreenAsJade]

@benjito

To be fair, @Samraku’s suggestion* is uncontroversial and moves us in the same direction (be more conservative about Server Decisions).

Good point, actually.

@Uberdude

stopping non-stallers from finishing their games and playing a game of skill to the end

This what made me pause in enthusiasm, but as Benito points out, Samraku’s proposal doesn’t do that.

(Right?)

---

Parenthetically…

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

we’re not talking about guilt or innocence, we’re talking about how to reduce suffering. So there’s an element of “for the greater good, less suffering stallers overall, some folk may occasionally suffer missing out on dame play”.

BUT Samraku’s proposal doesn’t change this, it just reduces the suffering of a person who wanted to pass but keep playing if their opponent does being currently unable to do that.