Still puzzled by timeout annulments. Perhaps someone can explain?
In this game my opponent didn’t return after 3 days, and the game was annulled after 11 moves…
This same player had his own opponent timeout after 11 moves in his immediately prior game and it counted as his win…
What might be the reason for different treatment after 11 moves played in both games and then a timeout - one is annulled and one is scored as a win?
The win was in a short timed game, where one might excuse connectivity issues. The annulment was in a correspondence game where that excuse seems a stretch.
Is this annulment algorithm working as intended? Insights?
They lost their previous corr by timeout (Ladder Challenge: Dascha19Omsk(#975) vs mcan(#974)) so game was annulled automatically. IMO i think we should just remove the whole “serial corr-timeout annulment” rule, i feel like the server would be better without it…
This was actually live game, 5min+5x30s, but it was paused for 2 days so it looks like corr. Still, counts as live
Yep in the second one my guess is that weekend pause doesn’t exist for live games, it’s just the standard pause feature that can be removed at any time by one of the players
@_KoBa Thanks for taking time to examine the situation and reply. I must say I’m still puzzled as to why our policy is set up this way.
I can see why a blitz game can get annulled based on a timeout where immediate connectivity can become an issue.
I can’t wrap my head around why a correspondence game gets annulled when a player doesn’t bother to show up after 3 days (and more than 10 moves in).
If you’re playing an online game that you’ve requested and then fail to show up to play online - on a platform called Online Go Server - the annulment policy continues to baffle me.
In this case, the reason we played this 3rd game was the result of the player asking for rematches. Fool me 2x…
Think that if you chose a blitz setting you assume the setting. No way to claim on a disconnection.
The mass time out annulation is to avoid mass timeout in correspondence of numerous games that happen sometimes when an external event occurs. It help to not affect too deeply the player and the rating system too. You’re not the only one to not appreciate it. Myself I think that it is triggered far too soon (from the 2d loss), which may lead to some abuse.
Well take the case of someone who was missing of patience and get involved in 50 or 200 (or more) correspondence games. In the middle of them he suddenly has a change of planning, or whatever event which make him timeout in a lot of these games. That did happen enough time to create this rule.
No one forces anyone to take on 50-200+ games at once, which presumably are correspondence games, not blitz.
Not sure who is being protected by letting such a player off the hook with annulments instead of losses having taken on more correspondence commitments than could be honored.
If accepting the terms of a game is not a regarded as a commitment to actually play the game, the sense of good sportsmanship ( ) is undermined.
It’s quite common practice to play numerous games at the same time. It’s a specific way, which is like a time management (you play when you want and as long as you want but you don’t want to wait too much so you cumulate).
Then it’s not always obvious how many you can handle in the long term. So you can get tricked. And in games lasting weeks or months, it’s hard to be sure that you will be able to always fulfill your engagement.
Anyway the concern was mostly about preserving the rating system .
For me 2 losses is too short to call it a mass timeout. But I think if we would try a larger window like let say 5, a problem kicks in: how to manage the annulations? It can be some large intervals of time between, it would desynchronize the rating, and felt unfair,..
If you suppose that the pairing was fair it’s like 100 wins given for free if the player had 200 timing out.
And for himself he would better restart a new account.
Then you have to see if this happens often.
But it could be that this is no more so problematic, as it could have been when the rule was created years ago.
Whatever the scale, there would be an equal number of wins and losses. Unclear to me how that adversely affects the overall rating system.
Whether the games ended in timeout losses, resignation losses, or scored losses, it all has the same effect on the overall rating system.
There’s nothing “for free” about playing against an opponent who fails to continue playing a game commitment that’s well underway.
In every major competitive activity worldwide, a "no show"counts as a game forfeit.
How does the timeout policy prevent such behavior? I’m assuming the ability to open multiple accounts is neither prevented nor promoted by how timeouts are treated.
Nah there is a difference between losing all and losing only half
This half more is not related to your level of play go. If you judge we should be in the straight way or if we should be more complacent about these is somewhere different but anyway, it does affect the validity of the rating vs levels in go playing
I explained it in the second part. The rating is made to reflect something and it was considered that reflecting a failure in managing your 100 games once would be better to be left aside.
I believe it is meant to protect the ratings in case something happens to someone who has a lot of ongoing corr games, and they lose those by timeout, and then they come back and start playing again.
Unless i’m mistaken, i understood that the cause for this “serial corr-timeout annulment” thingy was caused by the following scenario back when ogs was still a tiny server:
one of the strongest players on the server had lots of ongoing corr games
something happened and they lost lots of games by timeout
their rank plummeted, while their opponents gained ranks
they came back and joined a handicap tournament
everyone else felt it was unfair that the strong player received handicap stones
So it was meant to prevent involuntary sandbagging caused accidental timeouts.
But i think that OGS has grown so much, that any effects of those kinds of rank swings would only be a drop in the bucket, and it probably wouldn’t affect the rating system in any noticeable way.
Still not quite grasping who is being protected from what…
Out of the 200+ games that a player abandons, if these are counted as losses (forfeits) the rating of each opponent is individually affected by only a single win, not by hundreds of wins. How does this undermine the general overall rating system?
(Total system-wide wins still equal total losses. Same as if these games ended through other outcomes. Would you have a different view if this same overcommitted player simply resigned in all 200+games?)
