Yes, ok, I see what you mean but I do think that odds or probability gives the wrong impression in this context. And actually I’m now seeing the merit in sticking with handicap!
Maybe “strength balancing” if we are looking for something without the negative connotations?
Perhaps “strength compensation”? Or “disparity compensation”?
1 Like
I think the word simply is “handicap”. It’s widely used in sports, and it fits whether or not komi or stones is used as compensation.
10 Likes
When players are focused on levels and strength, they forget about side effects and will not appreciate to take handicap.
In our western culture in which chess is the major strategic game, handicap is not part of it: go find a book on handicap chess, go find a chess club advocating handicap games.
The game of go give us an opportunity to play a handicap game with similar theory as in an even game. Still enough complexity to get some dedicated books. Some aspects like the opening will get reduced but still apply. And what you practice will be of direct translation into an even game. The handicap offers a more reasonable and understandable (“reviewable”) challenge to both players.
But as long as handicap will come with a shameful feeling for many of us (OGS users being a bit famous to discard handicap), we better try another wording emphasizing some positivity in it.
Rethinking about the fairness word, if I ask what is fair, most will answer “no handicap” because of they are not concerned by giving fair chance to win the game but by giving fair chance for showing their strength. Amusing. Same ambiguous choice with “difficulty” It will be (much) more difficult for black but much easier for white. Seems both were wrong wording.
2 Likes
I accept handicap stones requests in real Go club but I always hope that opponent will not start talking about it and would do Nigiri.
When its not clear how our ranks were measured its not possible to be sure that I am the one who needs to give 2 stones handicap to opponent. What if its actually the opponent is the one who needs to give 2 stones to me? Its strange to wish to stick with that tradition in such circumstances. Even by default makes more sense, unless rank difference is too big. If you lost terribly then it makes sense to request handicap in the next game.
I counter your semantic objection with the same: handicaps are not about “fairness”. How is it fair that the stronger player isn’t favored to win?
4 Likes
All the signs are that the right answer is to stick with “handicap”!
I did have a thought that it could be called “evenness maximising” which doubtless people would get upset about with the potential for confusion with “even games” which are often anything but!
3 Likes
He already knew the old hats would get upset. Let’s wait and see what the beginners think.
In Dutch (and German) I think it’s less of an issue, because we commonly use a different term for handicap: “voorgift” (lit. “fore-gift”), that doesn’t seem to have much negative connotations.
If the Germanic form “fore-gift” sounds weird in English, you could Latinise it to something like “prior grant”.
3 Likes
To my English (well, Australian) ears, fore-gift sounds more natural than prior grant.
I think the stronger player might still be favoured to win, because the gap from 0 to 1 stone isn’t the same as from 1 to 2 stones.
From 0 to 1 stone is 6 points, but from 1 stone to 2, if passing is worth about twice Komi = 12 or 13 points.
Anyway, realistically if you always had players available at your level, then maybe there would be no need for handicap.
In real life though, in person and online at least on western servers, you might not always get a game (quickly) at your rank.
If the options are play no game or play a game with a stronger/weaker player, which some people are reluctant to do anyway, then maybe a game with handicap is better than no game.
Some people don’t want to play a game where they’re sure to lose, but equally some people don’t want to play a game where they’re sure to win. It depends on their motivations.
2 Likes
I like the new look - big thanks to everyone who’s been working on this!
Two cents on handicap Vs game balancing, I personally find handicap easier to understand – it’s a universal term across games and sports which means levelling the playing field one way or another.
I only play go casually, and would not have to think about what “handicap” means, and am happy for the more knowledgeable devs to have programmed in whatever the appropriate implementation is.
By contrast, “game balancing” is an unfamiliar term which I’d stop and feel the need to find out exactly what it means… Maybe this is a good thing as I’d learn more about handicapping but there we go!
13 Likes
Alrighty I relent
12 Likes
Looks great to me. Still a lot of words!
4 Likes
Quick question.
Will a “handicap always required” match with a “disabled” if their ranks are the same?
(Side observation that amused me - I love that “disabled” now means “no handicap”)
4 Likes
How about this?
Currently no, I’m going through the matcher now though to see about making an exception for that, and a few other tweaks I want to do.
Edit: I’ve updated the code so now evenly matched players can always match regardless of their handicap settings since it doesn’t matter.
12 Likes
3 lines instead of 5 is at least a 40% improvement!
6 Likes
Just as a minor detail, I think it would be conceptually simpler to talk about the “Handicap” for a game rather than plural “Handicaps”. Similar to how we have “Clock” and “Opponent” above.
10 Likes
I find it interesting that much of the discussion here is about the wording rather than the UI itself. I didn’t know that Go players are so particular about semantics!
6 Likes
Go players, I don’t know, but OGF users are notoriously particular about semantics and other details.
13 Likes