Thank you! And Have a Nice Game! :-)

In tournament I play and wait for next round there is a player that stubbornly or just stupidly play and play and play and play. I messaged to him with request for ending his game, but after weeks he still play and did nothing. His game is obviously ended and he can do nothing fair(waiting for his opponent death is undoubtedly not) to win this game.
This man have "3 kyu" and game is here: "http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=5457769".
Are there some possibilities to end this game(maybe sending message to admin) or cases like this are hopeless. This game can take many many months before finish.

troydaniels: Normally the game was over after move 32. b9. Black would not need to capture the three white stones, as they are dead. By capturing at a4, black places a stone inside own territory, reducing it by 1. This could make the difference between win and loss, though not in this case, where white wins anyway.

It is necessary to mark the dead stones after passing, so that the score is calculated right.

troydaniels: I understood what you had said.

Displaying your points are calculated including green ( A5, B5 and B4 ) squares.
Your points：
A9, A7, A5, A3, A3, A1, B5, B4, B2, B1, C6, C1, D3, D2, E2, E1 => 16 points
the opponent's captured pieces: 7
komi: minus 3.5
hence your score: 16 - 7 - 3.5 = 5.5

Will you understand my explanation?

TAROU: Where you answering my question, or someone else? My question is not about the komi. It is about whether the three squares that I mention are squares that I am getting points for. They show up as green, not black, when I view the board, so I am assuming that the are not counting as points for me.

Your question's answer is written in Go rules : Since the black player starts the game, he has a significant advantage. In order to balance it, a value called komi is subtracted from the black player score. It is 5.5 for a 19x19 board, 4.5 for a 13x13 board and 3.5 for a 9x9 board.

In this game, I think my opponent is scoring the board wrong. Go 9x9 (troydaniels vs. Honor.j)

I think that a5, b5 and b4 should also be mine, giving me an additional 3 points and changing a 1.5 point loss (as currently scored) into a 1.5 point win. Am I misunderstanding the rules, misreading how the board is shown, or is it scored correctly?

I am new to playing Go, so I could easily be mistaken.

joshi tm: Yes, I think so. Try it out :)

Thom27: Is it fun?

joshi tm: Go on a torus: can be played at www.littlegolem.net, with a fixed board size of 11*11.

... playing Go on a board like the board from Sphere Froglet? (thus combining the A and T-files and the 1-19 ranks)There are no borders so there are lots of more ways to escape.

jurek: it's not true the final score has any effect on rating on real-time sites such as KGS, IGS etc.

Hello go players,
I would be honored if any or all players from top 10 - http://brainking.com/en/Ratings?tp=79 would like to play unrated game of go with me. If you are feeling generous and would play with me, please do all settings as it suits you, only please make game unrated.

Thanks in advance for any kind response or challenge to me.

Yours Motylek1978 ;-)

motylek1978: It looks like you are right. You should add this to the Bug Tracker, if it is not already there.

Hello, I have a suggestion about go game here and I would like to hear opinions from others.

If game ended without marking and approving dead stones on board, no score estimation should be attempted - especialy if game ended by resign. Resign is resign, no need to count.

I got this idea when my first game here ended - Go (Dragonindio vs. motylek1978) - and to my suprise game engine half attempted to count score. It counted points "e1" and "a3" as points for opponent, which looks like kind of bug.

I play Go with Chrome.
The board is strange.....not correct......

aaru: Yes, it's nice.
But the ranking is much too high compared with any other Go rankings out there.
In the current system the relation between BKR seems to be 100 BKR points for 1 grade:
0000 = 20k
1000 = 11k
1500 = 6k
2000 = 1k
2100 = 1d
I would find it much more suitable to have only 50 BKR point for 1 grade:
1100 = 20k
1500 = 12k
2000 = 2k
2100 = 1d (the same value as in the current system).
What do you think?

I see that we have dan & kyu in Go.
Nice.

For looking at pro games at go news:

http://gobase.org/


Enjoy.

Please sign up -> 1500 ;), 10000 :D, 1600 ;) (single elimination for 8, Fisher's clock 3/0.8/15 with autopass & immediately start)
More informations about Fischer's clock on BrainKing & BrainRook

Go - I need 4 players more
Go 9x9 - 5
Go 13x13 - 5

& other games

jurek: I agree the second reason, too.
I read it by google translate......:p

Rainbow Road:

I assume you're talking about your recent game with vacgo.

There could be a couple different reasons why.

One reason may be that vacgo is a relatively high-rated player and may be under the impression that the game score affects the ratings of the two players. On most go sites (e.g. cGoban has a mostly real-time system), final score greatly affects the two players ratings, not just who won and lost. I'm not sure whether or not BrainKing's rating system uses the score, but my guess would be that it doesn't.

Another possible reason is that he wants you, and anyone else who might look at the game, to understand how to score it properly. Playing a game by the wrong rules can get make for some bad play or frustration. I'm not saying you don't know how to score, but maybe he was under the impression that you didn't from not marking those stones as dead. I've seen some people playing on this site with a very bad understanding of the rules, which are a bit unorthodox compared to games like chess or reversi, and he may deal with it regularly.

I doubt it was an ego thing for him, but I've certainly seen worse things from people.

Why do people have to be so picky... I choose one dead less than my opponent wants... He wins but yet makes me complete all the dead spots... Does he want to brag and say that I was slaughtered...
Go Figure.... No wonder fencer put this game on here... Some people will not quit even if they have lost....

Marfitalu: What's the question?

emmett: it looks like the img.brainking.com site is down... not a whole lot we can do until it's back up

I can't see the pieces on my Go games anymore. There is a failure to download the complete page when I try to access a go game. Is anyone else having a problem viewing go games?

jurek: Erm, I guess I should write something before hitting send...

fakar10: Yes, very good post, and much-needed.

fakar10:

A note about Go in the blog today.

kaluza: I don't have a big problem with the rules the way they work now. The playing of Go requires a certain amount of courtesy. And the current rules force players to learn courtesy and sportsmanship.

Occasionally, this means asking Fencer to end a game. I'm sure this annoys Fencer, but he's been doing it for a while, so it can't be that bad. Previously on this board, it has been suggested that some members be appointed to adjudicate disputed games. I still think this is the best solution.
OK. I rest my case.
After all it is Fencers work to do, both, to implement new rules or to end games of unsportsmanlike players. I think this discussion did help him and I'm sure he'll know what to do (or don't do) with it. Thanks to all who contributed.

emmett: And experience enhances patience :)

kaluza: Kaluza. I'm having blue martinis and you sound like you are understanding the mature esthetic of go. Patience enhances experience.

heyo: I agree that the system is flawed, and the unsportsmanlike players who refuse to admit that they've lost are very annoying. But I would oppose any change in the rules that turns the game into something that is not traditional Go. I don't want to play something like Go. I want to play Go.

I don't have a big problem with the rules the way they work now. The playing of Go requires a certain amount of courtesy. And the current rules force players to learn courtesy and sportsmanship.

Occasionally, this means asking Fencer to end a game. I'm sure this annoys Fencer, but he's been doing it for a while, so it can't be that bad. Previously on this board, it has been suggested that some members be appointed to adjudicate disputed games. I still think this is the best solution.

kaluza: Also, there are tricky positions that are difficult to figure out. These would require some discussion between the players and possibly multiple attempts to mark the stones.

There is a message system build into BrainKing, so players can discuss the status of the groups. If it is dificult to decide the best way would be to play it out. As for beginners who need multiple attempts to mark dead stones: I haven't thought of that an I guess that isn't such a big problem. If all dead stones are removed in the (after-)game it just vanishes, since there are no dead stones to mark.

And I think that any set of rules that leads to an end is better than the current ruleset. If you pull a stubborn opponent who just doesn't want to loose, even with no more stones on the board you can do nothing - except calling Fencer to end that game or resign.

kaluza: A good way for Westerners to learn go scoring is to play more. Through trial and error, we learn.

There is very good advice posted on the go fellowship's main page. It states to beginners to "lose your first 100 games quickly." I love that simple statement, because it says so much.

I think most competitors in go play with Japanese scoring. We should learn that because it is most widely used. It might be a little difficult for beginners to grasp, but hindsight will prove to any beginner that the scoring is so obvious, so simple to grasp. Experience is what is required. I doubt if using a different method of scoring will help begiinners. That is just my opinion. Check out the sensei's library if you haven't already.

heyo: If both players pass again consecutive all stones are treated as alive and the score is computed.

No idea can be posted without it being shot down. :-)
One problem with this rule is that novice players often mark dead stones incorrectly because they don't understand how to do it. The first time this rule was used against them, a lot of them would just give up.

Also, there are tricky positions that are difficult to figure out. These would require some discussion between the players and possibly multiple attempts to mark the stones.

jurek:

another vote for Chinese scoring!

heyo: This "pass stone" is essentially the Chinese scoring system, which others have suggested in this DB before.
Chinese scoring actually fixes several nagging issues encountered on this site with the Japanese scoring, mainly dealing with people who don't understand scoring completely.

What obout this set of rules?

If after the end of the game (two consecutive passes) the players don't agree on dead stones, the game continues. A player may place a stone or may pass but if he passes it costs one point. If both players pass again consecutive all stones are treated as alive and the score is computed.

This will handel all problems we thought of up 'till now. No one is forced to fill his eyes, no one looses points taking out dead stones (since the pass of his opponet is equaly worth -1 point as his placing a stone in his own territory), winning by just komi will not be touched.
And the existence of the rule makes it less likely that it ever has to be caried out ;-)

kaluza: That's a good point. If players are forced to move, they may be forced to fill in their own eyes, and that would change the status of the game.

That's exacly the point to the other things a mentioned. The player with more points on the board just waits until the player with less points has to fill his his eyes and thus takes the whole bard eventually.
It holds also true if black has just one or two more points (so white would win by komi). Black could wait 'till white has to fill his eyes.

kaluza: 2. If a player has no legal move or if his only legal move is to place a stone inside his own uncontested territory (that is, in territory surrounded by his own stones and which does not contain any stones of the opposite color), then the game is ended and whoever has more points is declared the winner. All stones on the board are counted as alive (this isn't right, but it will make the programming easier for Fencer ;-)

wouldn't work :-( The loosing player will run out of moves very quickly but may still have dead stones in his opponents territory. Since these stone will count for him he'll win. e.g. 5x5 X=black O=white
white wins by 2 points

.o .ox
oooox
xxxxx
o .x. o
ooxoo

I suggest the following:

Keep the first rule:

1. If both players pass consecutively, then they cannot pass again until each player has placed one more stone on the board.

And add this rule:

2. If a player has no legal move or if his only legal move is to place a stone inside his own uncontested territory (that is, in territory surrounded by his own stones and which does not contain any stones of the opposite color), then the game is ended and whoever has more points is declared the winner. All stones on the board are counted as alive (this isn't right, but it will make the programming easier for Fencer ;-)

These rules would force an end to the game. I don't think they would lead to a change in strategy. And players would not be forced to fill in their own eyes. What do you think?

heyo: There may be another way to solve that problem:
If players don't agree on dead stones, they should play until no more dead stones are on the board. Passing is allowed but stones are counted as territory. (So passing gives you no advantage while your opponent fills up his own territory taking away dead stones.)

That's the Chinese method of scoring, also called area scoring. Brainking uses territory scoring, which is the Japanese method. I think it would be interesting if BrainKing added Go with Chinese scoring as a variant. But it would be nice to find a way to make Japanese scoring work.

heyo: I apologize for the lateness of my reply.

The player with more points (on the board) has more opportunities to place stones in his own territory than the player with less points, so he should win the game anyhow.

That may be true, but it changes the strategy of the game. You would have to switch from surrounding territory to trying not to play the last stone, and then you're not really playing Go anymore.

First, as I already mentioned, white may have fewer points on the board but may be leading by komi

That doesn't matter. If white has fewer points on the board but leads by komi, then he wins. Period. That's how the komi rule works.

Second: the player with more groups is in a disadvantage because he has maintain 2 liberties (eyes) for every group.

That's a good point. If players are forced to move, they may be forced to fill in their own eyes, and that would change the status of the game.

kaluza: I don't like the second part: "A player who can't legally place a stone loses the game." If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

There may be another way to solve that problem:
If players don't agree on dead stones, they should play until no more dead stones are on the board. Passing is allowed but stones are counted as territory. (So passing gives you no advantage while your opponent fills up his own territory taking away dead stones.)

kaluza: If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

The player with more points (on the board) has more opportunities to place stones in his own territory than the player with less points, so he should win the game anyhow.
There are other weaknesses that have to be discussed:
First, as I already mentioned, white may have fewer points on the board but may be leading by komi
Second: the player with more groups is in a disadvantage because he has maintain 2 liberties (eyes) for every group.

But then, in games where the outcome is so close it is unlikely players don't agree on dead stones.
The feature request was targeted at games where the (clear) looser could hinder the winner of taking his victory by just not agreeing to the dead stones.

heyo: (copied from Feature requests board) "My suggestion to handle this: after the game has ended and players don't agree about dead stones both are forced to place at least one stone befor they may pass again. A player who can't legaly place a stone looses the game.
This may lead to a new problem if the game's ending is slightly in favor for white (only by komi), but would solve the problem that by the rules as they are now nobody can ever win a game of GO if the opponent doesn't agree."

I like the idea of forcing each player to place a stone before they can pass again. That's consistent with Go etiquette. If the players don't agree on dead stones, they should play it out.

I don't like the second part: "A player who can't legally place a stone loses the game." If the player with fewer points is in a position where he would end up placing the last stone, he can force a win for himself by just continuing to play.

Hi,
first I thought, there isn't a GO discussion group, but Fencer said I should post here too, so I looked again and found it under "variations of line 4" - I never thought of GO as a "variation of x". GO just is - and other games are just variations of GO! ;-)

To the point now: I've postet a suggestion (http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=3&plla=714945) that is relativly easy to implement and would deal with most problems arising in case of disagreement about dead stones. I know that it dosn't care about all problems, but at least it forces an end to the games. Any comments?