I wonder if there is a middle ground to limit the number of correspondence games that counts toward the challenge (maybe something like 150-200 games?).
1 Like
if the goal of the challenge is to have people play more on western servers then including correspondence players will do nothing. They play on OGS with or without this challenge because it’s the only server with decent correspondence support.
live players cannot reach the same number of games as correspondence players who spend the same amount of total time on their games. if you purely maximise for number of games then you play 1s/move (typical correspondence kyu). after 1 second you switch to the next game/move. in live games your opponents will probably use at least some of their time, this is time spent without progressing any games, while a correspondence player uses the same time to progress multiple other games.
This is why I am on OGS 
I feel welcome to walk with the best, even when my Go is …uh…
6 Likes
DGS: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?
6 Likes
Thank you for taking the time to answer and I do want to emphasize that I do think the WSC is a great initiative. I meant to throw no shade at it or it’s organizers in any way, shape or form. Massive props for the initiative. I do hope it succeeds
I am sticking by my decision
As you point out later, the goal has changed for the event (hence the name change) amongst other things. So yeah, since the event has a different target entirely, I think it makes perfect sense to count every single game. 100% respect your decision.
Everything about prize issues and other things
I’m sad to hear about the medical bills and everything. I will be more than happy to pitch in and contribute to a further iteration of the event. I don’t know if you accept people pitching in at any point, but I’ll be more than happy to help further go events in any way I can.
Shut up, BS and stop arguing online! -Clossius 2022 (yeah, that’s an exact quote)
You’re right, I should 
2 Likes
As for the point about the math, I’m fully aware that it is not worth someone’s time to get the prize.
That’s not the point. The point is that once you smack a “prize tag” for the highest number of games on an event, you suggest players interpret the event (quite rightly) in terms of a transaction: “my time for his money”, considering that the only requirement - and limiting factor - is free time.
It’s a matter of framing. To be crystal clear: You introduce the ‘oh! it’s a transaction!’ connotation, that is the problem.
The problem with starting a game of “war of attrition” is that players will incur huge debts in the attempt to win said game. In this case, the debt is a substantial time investment.
- If you don’t mind, what was last year’s ratio of challenge completers to sign-ups?
I’m asking because you said the number of games that month was about 10k compared to the usual 3k. If that is the case, the top 8 players from that challenge alone account for about 50% of those additional 7k games.
2 Likes
Here is how I classify feedback: “Some improvement that will make the end result better for most people”
Here is how I classify a complaint: “Some change that will make things better for me”
So, no, it is not about “do not critique”. It is about proposing something to improve and banning correspondence games altogether is not an improvement.
The organiser saw and replied to that request (what else would someone want?) and yet the “discussion” kept going and going devolving to pure complaints.
And they provided great strategic thinking in terms of the OGS brand
I do not think that Clossius has the power to steer the brand, let alone one event, so at best they were barking at the wrong tree.
I do not even play 100 games in a year.
That’s why I am not doing it and I am rooting for those that can play that much.
I do not understand it when you both make the point “OGS is great for correspondence” and at the same time ask this, practically wanting to exclude most of the server. As you put it perfectly it is a “contradictory message”
If I remember correctly, last year, the same event went great in terms of games played and a lot of people had fun.
I didn’t tell them to do the event themselves.
I said to write down their OWN ideas themselves and propose it to the OGS team.
The people responsible for steering the brand 
Well, I do not know. You mentioned that Fox is so great and fast to find a game for streaming purposes and that you’d go there. I am just taking what you said into account.
I pretty sure you mean February and I honestly do not understand this paragraph. You might want to have another look at it and possibly rephrase/explain it?
I agree with that. As I said it is the best that can be done, if the organiser thinks it is good.
He saw it, he responded and all’s well. The rest was not productive.
GOOD GOD! 
I hope you volunteered to HELP with that. At the very least.
A pain? That’s way more than that.
You’d have to got through each game manually and try to find which move was played. Is this even recorded in OGS?
Create your own thing if you don’t like it
I actually pressed ctrl+f to find if there is such a quote and I cannot find it 
If a Marathon says “doesn’t matter when you start, as long as you happen to cross the finish line on the day means you ran the whole thing”, expect low participation and no impact with this race.
Funny you should say that because a marathon starting is so crowded that they LITERALLY do not start from the same place.
yup. Same line indeed.
Funny that all those people still participate. Hmm…
I am VERY keen on that and I would agree that it is reasonable, every day of the week.
Allowing only live games, as proposed earlier and tossing out most of the server, is not good though.
Maybe that is part of the misunderstanding since “The goal of this event is to promote more activity on western servers”
If new players and poaching from other servers was indeed an issue/goal, I’d say that promoting it on this server would indeed be a weird idea, eh?
After you asked for the manager for the fifth time, you can’t play that card, sorry 
This.
What are you talking about?
What is going on here? This was a few hours ago and you forgot about it??
Well, since you are going back to Fox, let me remind you the quote of a fox in Aesop:
“Όμφακες είσιν”
This is a great idea actually. Congratulations for offering to help with the prize as well
This is how it’s done.
Yeah, but you compared the gains from a FUN COMPETITION to the per hour rate from a JOB.
As if we’d turn pro or something 
Just wow.
You want to know that in the FIRST day of the announcement? Ain’t that reasonable, eh?
By God, good luck.
3 Likes
The extra 3.5k games by top 8 players didn’t just play among themselves. There were extra 3.5k opponents in there.
9 Likes
That’s a funny thing to say.
Because the 50% is a bit of an embellishment and it’s the highest possible percentage if and only if contestants did not play each other at all.
However, that’s unlikely. Suppose the “3k” upper margin holds, that would mean more than twice the usual number of (non-contestants) players played games with contestants.
If contestants played all matches among themselves (also unlikely), the top 8 still account for a whopping 25% of all extra matches.
We could easily analyze this with some help from @PetAccount . ;D
Edit: Preliminary analysis of 8fledermaus8’s 762 ranked non-bot games:
282 unique opponents, at least 13 of which participants (34 games). 100*(1 - 34/763) ~ 95.5% non-participant matches. We seem to have solid evidence that the top 8 contestants indeed account for about 47% of those matches.
Highest number of games with non-contestant: 12 (+1 cancellation) superduper47, a player who in fact only played during the WDC month. I am impressed by the traction the challenge must have had! But let’s assume not everyone was superbly motivated like that guy (540 games as a non-contestant! if only he’d signed up!), how many games did other non-contestants play?
(763-34)/(282-13) = 2.71 games on average with each non-contestant. Assuming our sample and with it our estimates were representative, we could ballpark the number of unique non-contestant players to be (7000*0.95)/2.71 ~ 2454. Of course this is an upper bound, because it is likely that some of those games are non-contestants playing other non-contestants. I can’t possibly check for that.
What this does suggest is that Clossius was correct in (implicitly) assuming that a higher number of game offers would lead to a larger number of games played. Obviously this effect did not last, because the reason for that increased number of offers did nothing to change the playing habits of either contestants or non-contestants. Any ideas on how to change habits?
1 Like
It would be great to see live games statistics by hour and day to figure out the best hour/day to play. After that, it’s possible to recommend it to other players as “OGS rush ours” or something like that. You can either make OGS integrate with people schedules (currently), or make people integrate OGS with their schedules (by pushing information about rush hours).
Additionally, there is part with new players, who constantly report an issue when they simply can’t find a game with human at their low rank, and stuck to play with bots. Would be great to see some statistics on this new players, and what events (number of games player per day? number of games played with human?) lead to them sticking with OGS for longer time than a couple of games.
4 Likes
I am not exactly a new player, but I have some input on this. Organising games is difficult because of the gaps in ability, not so much because of the gaps in scheduling. A more robust “gearing” and pressure to actively participate would bring more games. However, the users’ turnover would be bigger as well. OGS would be livelier, in the way city centers are livelier. I’m not sure that’s a good final outcome.
I stick with OGS because the environment is friendly to people who either need too much time to learn or who like learning in a very relaxed manner. I can find human players if I try, but I don’t want to until I have learned a few basics to be an enjoyable opponent. I can’t do so at the moment and I like the fact that OGS people never made me feel as dead weight during my “low” times.
6 Likes
Ah, but you’re missing out on so much! I suggest taking the challenge opportunity to play more games with humans, it’s really not (that) traumatic.
10 Likes
Isn’t it just to find games with players at the same level at you? No one will complain of a lack of basics of the opponent.
I think you pass aside some good fun you can already have. And playing itself will give you access to better understanding of the basics you aim for.
2 Likes
You can combine all these by joining the ladder and just challenging people that around or a bit above your level. It is the most relaxed pace to get via correspondence games, there are no weird handicaps and you can see a lot of new moves and ideas and situations as played on each new board/game. And all that at your very own pace.
Considering the “I do not want to be a burden” kind of thinking, I was - and still am - of the same idea, but when/if that happens I just resign, no problem, if I deem that the game is no longer winnable and no longer fun for the opponent.
You do not have to take it to the extreme like I did with games were I would resign even around move 30-40:
But even after that, I can tell you that noone ever complained that I was somehow wasting their times, even when I challenged a 3dan player (and subsequently resigned in 30 moves ). We are all here because we like the game, so don’t worry to much about it
2 Likes