Okay, just finished a game in a very unsatisfying manner.
The very TLDR version is that I passed once, then the opponent made an unnecesary defensive move (i think). Anyway, I thought he wanted to clarify the situation that we (“debated” last), and play once or twice more there (which wouldn’t matter). Anyway, he then played a completely off-the-wall forcing move.
Would have been obvious to defend against (just capture his ‘attacking’ stones, they were in atari). Instead, I passed because the game was ‘supposed to be’ over. Anyway, he followed up … Did a rough count just to calm my annoyance, then resigned.
I don’t think players in my club would ever try to sneak in such a blatantly not winning forcing move in the attempt to capitalize on an inattentive pass. (Late attacks hoping for non-optimal defensive moves are considered fair game though, actually thats what my last half a dozen moves were. Optimal defense meant no gain. And beyond a certain level, I could see those being somewhat insulting too. But i wasn’t praying for him to literally and miraculously not notice where Id played, as he had to.)
So, i assume this still isn’t a case for moderators though? Just my bad for not paying attention?
How is this considered online in terms of politeness/rudeness, etc? Is it just, try anything and see what sticks? Play forever in losing luve games, because tje opponent might disconnect, etc?
assume good intent: your opponent is 19k. perhaps the futility of this move was not blatant to them.
I mean, really this is on you. Would you lose attention so easily in a club game?
Yeah, I’d say etiquette is much less of a thing online. Or at least, you’re going to meet people with very different versions of what’s proper. Some say “hi, have fun” others say “gg”. Some will play too long, some will resign too early. Some open in the upper right corner.
As a community, OGS does have standards. If your opponent is stalling, you can report them. However, I don’t think that’s the case in this game, especially at this level.
@S.L FWIW, I happen to be playing two (correspondence) end games at the moment with a similar vibe.
My lead in each is quite overwhelming and we could just be cleaning up a few seams. Instead, both opponents are playing silly dead-end moves in the hope that I screw up pretty badly in my responses.
Nonetheless, these players are well within their rights to do so.
I don’t have the right to not be annoyed. Nor do I have the right to deprive them of their hopes that I screw up.
And if I do mess up my response, then that’s on me… another free learning experience.
[Edit: As for the etiquette involved, I guess I wouldn’t mind as much if either of these players were at all communicative, but they’ve both been radio silent in response to my friendly overtures. Also not required, but it’d be a more enjoyable experience.]
@OP I would consider it fine for a single move, especially as you said that late attacks hoping for a non-optimal response are fair game and you just played a failed attack in their territory which they defended correctly. Why shouldn’t they try you with something similar?
But if they played 10 moves in a row, all hoping for a mistake on your part with the game being in a scorable state, I would consider that stalling.
Given the nature of rights, I come to the opposite conclusion to you.
You have every right to be annoyed. It is your right to feel however you like about the game or your opponent. It is also your right to block them simply out of pettiness or even for no reason at all.
However your annoyance has no impact on the rules of the game or the server.
Edit: also no right to be free from annoyance might mean you must necessarily be annoyed whether you like it or not .
I think we are in agreement in spirit bit not in logic.
If you have no right to be free from annoyance, then you must therefore be its opposite if it is a binary choice. The state of being “free from annoyance” has only one other alternative - that is being annoyed. And if you have no right to the one, you are therefore railroaded to the other - which in this case is being annoyed.
But we are in agreement in the conclusion pertaining to OGS and its rules. Whether or not annoyance or the right to it exists, this does not change OGS rules or terms of service.
By insisting on a binary set problem, I think you are applying an “excluded middle” fallacy of logic. See here. And perhaps here.
If all chickens come from chicken eggs, and all chicken eggs come from chickens, logic might suggest there must have always been chickens and chicken eggs since the beginning of time… even before the Earth was formed.
What’s missing is a third possibility (i.e., the “excluded middle”). In this case: Evolution.
Taken together, having no right to be free from annoyance, while also having the right to feel annoyed does not preclude a range of possibilities in between. Unclear to me why it must be binary?
We are not talking about chicken or eggs. What is the specific middle state being excluded here between free from annoyance and annoyed?
If there is one I have overlooked, I will concede the logic point and retreat to double negatives being unnecessarily confusing - an admittedly much weaker point, and not the one I was making in the first place, though one in the back of my mind.
First, I think the close score justifies White’s continuation of the game. Second, the borders needed to be closed. Third, and most important, the fight at the bottom is real, not a cheap shot. White may not have fully understood this, since White digressed with a pointless move in the upper left. Played correctly, I think Black loses anyway (unless I am misreading it).
The remedy for borderline cases (which I don’t think this is) is for the aggrieved party to block the opponent if the game is ruled “Not stalling.”
Yes, perhaps the double negative made it unnecessarily confusing. If so, my apologies.
I’ll take one more whack at it (after which we should probably continue elsewhere to spare others from this side exchange) …
The excluded middle state: I’m entitled to my feelings about what others are allowed to do.
Although I can’t stop others from annoying me ( = “I have no right to be free from annoyance”), others can’t stop me from feeling annoyed (= “I have every right to be annoyed”).
To me, this two-part statement is internally consistent and coherent.
Happy to continue this interesting side topic in private message mode - or if you prefer we can start a separate public thread in General Chat or Lounge if you wish.
Stalling definition. Stalling usually takes three forms:
repeatedly playing moves (whether dead stones or passes) that serve no purpose, infilling one’s own territory for no reason,
repeatedly rejecting the correct score, or
clicking the autoscore repeatedly when no change has occurred.
Generally, a useless move elicits a pass from the opponent; if the opponent responds to a move, then the move should be presumed legitimate in most cases. A notable exception is that beginners tend to capture dead stones when they don’t need to.
One of the best ways to learn things is to lose games because of it. It sears into the memory much more effectively than reading it in a book or forum, or watching a video. Thank your opponent for teaching you a valuable lesson to pay attention at the end of the game, however much it stings to lose like that.
Bots would certainly play useless but forcing moves when they are behind. Would you not respond and tell them the game is over? I mean you can but at the end you would still respond.
S.L., until you are strong enough that you never make endgame mistakes, you’re going to be making speculative moves inside your opponent’s territory at the end of the game, trying to exploit weaknesses you think you see there. Often you’ll be totally wrong, and your opponent is likely rolling his eyes at you as you play out the hopeless sequence. But sometimes it turns out you were right, and you capture some stones; and sometimes it turns out something of yours gets captured too. You shouldn’t play stupid moves on purpose hoping for a timeout or a misclick from your opponent, but if you genuinely think it’s a good move, you shouldn’t care what other people think; but conversely, when other people are playing dubious and obviously wrong moves inside your territory, you should try to be magnanimous about it and play along to the end without resenting it.
In the game you shared, Urin did play a self-atari, but whereas he didn’t notice it was self-atari, you didn’t notice his move put you into atari yourself, so I think you can give him the benefit of the doubt: for a 19k, there’s no reason to assume a move is intentionally disrespectful when it’s probably simply bad.
