What happens if there is a timeout in the stone removal phase when I’ve accepted but my opponent hasn’t? Does it make my opponent lose due to timeout? Does it auto-accept the removed stones? Does it go back to gameplay?
I have a correspondence game in the stone removal phase, and my opponent seems to have forgotten about the game. So far, I’ve been resetting the timer every day so he has a chance to accept, because I don’t want him to lose on timeout.
Next I’ll try to direct message my opponent and ask him to accept, but I’d still like to know what would happen if the timer runs out.
I’m not sure about this specific situation but I would say if he loses on timeout he loses on timeout, whether it’s in the stone removal phase or otherwise. It’s very generous of you to reset the timer but if your opponent doesn’t give a s**t about the outcome you shouldn’t care about him timing out and taking a loss because of it.
The last time my opponent timed out in stone removal, it automatically accepted my score as truth (which means you can manipulate this if your opponent leaves), and that was it.
@mekriff, if this is the case, then maybe my opponent is ignoring the game on purpose, having seen and accepted my stone removal choices, but for some unknown reason, wants to accept by timeout rather than by clicking the acceptance button.
Shouldn’t the clocks stop when both players pass? As far as I’ve ever known, that’s the end of play, the end of the game. Suggest looking at common rulesets. For example:
AGA Tournament Regulations
D. Completion of play.
Both players should continue to alternate play until all neutral points have been filled and all repairing moves made. A game is over when both players pass in succession. The last to play should stop both clocks. http://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/AGATREGS2005.pdf
EGF General Tournament Rules
Loss on time
The timing procedure for two successive passes at the end of a game is as follows:
A player passes and completes the move by pressing the clock. It is possible for the player to lose on time if the clock is not pressed.
The opponent passes and completes the move by pressing the clock. Again it is possible for the opponent to lose on time if the clock is not pressed.
The clock is now neutralised. http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/egfgtr.html
In real life, yes. In online play it might not be practical because mods might then have to solve a large numbers of unfinished games, where the sore loser just walked off, or it might provide more ways for such people to be annoying…
But note that after both players pass, they are both give enough time - depending on the nature of the game (live x correspondence) to mark their groups. They are not forced to do it in the time remaining on their clock. So if someone fails to do so it is usually the case being unable to cope with defeat, very rarely is it some other problem I think. The time margin is more than generous IMHO and it is marked as pending move on the status bar.
There is a Scoring Clock separate from the game clock?
KGS solves the problem of abandoned games by awarding the loss to the escaper after 6 months. OGS could take a similar approach, perhaps with a much shorter resolve-by deadline.
How many unfinished games are moderators now having to resolve?
P.S. I’ve completed a few games and never noticed an alert/notice about a limited time period to complete scoring. Is this departure from rulesets pointed out in game setup?
Yes, both players have certain ammount of time to accept or change the score. This time resets for your opponent if you change the status of some groups (to not let bad mannered players wait until the last second before changing something).
I can’t read that. I see something that says Paused so it wouldn’t make sense for that to be the scoring timer. How much time is allowed initially and how much is added each time a change causes a reset? As I said, I’ve never noticed this so it’s not clear exactly what you have.
Right click the image and chose view image. Then follow the arrows. (not sure why the image is not zoomable and too lazy to fix, sorry )
Dunno, depends on the game. In correspondence it’s usually like several days I think, this was live and it’s 5 mins.
Well there is a ticking clock , but honestly I donť think it needs to be that visible. Point is that it’s more than enough for any reasonable circumstances for both players to oblige.
I think it resets to the original time for the other player, but not sure and too lazy to find out. (Yeah, I am very lazy today :D)
With MacOS it’s Control-click and Open Image in a New Tab. It says Stone Removal Phase Accept Removed Stones(4:55). Didn’t think to zoom, figured it was a low quality image.
Why would one want to allow more than a few minutes? Hmmm…
User can get disconnected through no fault of his own - auto accident, electrical or winter storm takes out a transformer or power/cable/fiber line. User’s computer or router or connection craps out. Unexpected distractions or interruptions of various kinds that demand immediate attention - children, elderly, phone calls, post/deliveryman at the door - can arise. Users who are unlucky or not sufficiently committed to Go to ignore these things should be punished? (Calvinists might like that arrangement but there are other schools of thought).
Yes, which can happen any time and is not connected with the scoring phase in any way. In the case that something does happen during a scoring phase and the user times-out of the scoring he does not lose the game, merely the scoring is accepted as is (which is usually correct) and everything is still hunky dory.
Only in the event that the aforementioned hurricane strikes during the scoring of a game the player is losing and he is playing an opponent who is a cheater and is quick-thinking enough to notice and change the result, only then will the player be “punished” as you call it. But I would argue that when a hurricane is tearing apart your house one lost game is really not that big of a problem.
There is always some obscure and unlikely situation argument against anything. We do not live in a perfect world and the system we are trying to build is operating on sort of “likely scenarios” basis. With your attitude you could argue against having a clock at all.
You are out of line saying “With your attitude”. I have an opinion grounded in reasons and have stated them and they are valid, not “an attitude”. You seem to have a problem accepting the validity of other opinions than your own without denigrating their proponent. That is having “an attitude”.
)