There's one thing I don't understand: Why can just one player mark dead stones???
It should of course be like that:

1. One player passes
2. The other player passes too
3. The first player should be asked to mark dead stones
4. The other player should either accept the marked stones (that would finish the game) or give the chance to mark dead stones himself.
6. If the first player doesn't accept the dead stones marked by his opponent the game should continue WIT the possibility to pass again.

Ok, I know this setup could lead to a never ending game with both players not accepting the score but you could limit this sequens to maybe 2 times then the game would automatically send to the Go administrator to say who's the winner.

When BrainKing calculates points in Go, it does not include green areas (areas captured on the last move).

Examples:

Go 9x9 (kaluza vs. milionovej kluk)
In this game, BrainKing says that black has 15.5 points, but it should be 19.5.

Go 13x13 (Serg vs. kaluza)
Here, BrainKing says that black has 47.5 points, but it's really 61.5.

kaluza: You're right. The score is wrongly calculated by the server.

I reported it as bug in the Bug tracker.

hexkid: I already reported it on bugtracker a month ago:

http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=976

kaluza: So I see. Sorry Fencer (but it serves as a reminder ).

kaluza: I've just fixed it. However, it was only a visual bug, the real scores were counted correctly.

Fencer: Thank you.

I have played go for awhile and have not seen automatic handicaps in white's favor like we have here on BK. Is it de rigeur to feature such handicaps? Do tournament players in Japan or Korea play with these handicaps? (By handicaps, I mean the 5.5 points at the end of our 19x19 games in white's favor, etc...)

emmett: This is taken from http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi :
"With the notable exception of the Oteai, almost all tournaments nowadays, both amateur and professional, use komi. But this has not always been so. In fact, komi was rarely used in professional tournaments before 1937, and its gradual introduction into professional play was not without controversy.

The usual komi in Japan was for some time 4.5 points (specified as 4 points with White winning jigo)[4], although even lower values were commonly used early on. In 1955 the Oza became the first tournament to adopt 5.5. Today the standard komi in Japan is 5.5 points, although the Nihon Ki-in decided to change to 6.5 in September 2002.[1] Korea also used to use 5.5, but is already in the process of switching to 6.5.[2]. The usual komi in China was formerly 5.5, but 7.5 is now standard.[3] The Ing rules also have a komi of 7.5, specified as 8 points with Black winning jigo. Western countries often used to follow Japanese practice in using a komi of 5.5 points, but tournaments with komi set at 6 or 6.5 are not uncommon. The New Zealand rules specify a komi of 7. The American Go Association changed komi from 5.5 to 7.5 in August 2004, effective 2005."

emmett: As far as I know, using a komi ("handicaps") is standard, though the values vary.

Sensei's Library has a lot to read about komi among many other Go related articles.

Thank you for your detailed responses. Wow!

Would it be in poor taste to equate some of our go and shogi BK ratings into levels of kyu and dan rankings? Is this at all feasible? I know that only the extremely skilled make it to dan levels in go, yet I've always wondered what kyu level I play at. Is this worth discussing on Brainking?

Hey i'm having trouble in this game here Go 13x13 (joshi tm - faith) . My opponent is losing the game and when we both pass, she makes an offer that i must refuse, because she doesn't mark her own stones dead. What should I do?

joshi tm: Maybe you can *bump* one of these threads of the "Feature Request" board :)

hexkid: Can't Fencer do anything about that?

joshi tm: Yes, he can go directly to the database and set the game finished with a specific winner (if I'm right Black wins by 1.5 points -- that would terminate the tournament and give you 2nd place).

I'm sure he reads this board, but send him a message.

Hi, could someone tell me why I lost this game?
Go 9x9 (Binabik vs. gene)

Binabik: Because your opponent incorrectly marked all your stones as dead, and you accepted it.

Binabik: Send a message to Fencer and he'll make it right (once he returns from vacation).

hexkid: Will he do this to all of the other hundreds of games that were improperly scored, too?

fakarten: Thank you fakarten and Hexkid for the explanation... you're right, it shouldn't be possible for this to happen, am I right?

jurek: Will he do this to all of the other hundreds of games that were improperly scored, too?
If I were him, I'd say no :)
I think that unless he's asked to change a specific game result all the results will be kept as they are now. It's very tough for a computer to determine the correct score in many games; that's why the players need to mark dead stones and let the computer determine the score from there. If the stones are incorrectly marked dead, the score is incorrectly calculated.

Binabik: it shouldn't be possible for this to happen, am I right?
Well ... you accepted the score.
If you had declined the dead stones the game would go on ... your opponent could mark the stones differently on the next move ... or maybe she'd mark them the same and you decline again ... and again ... and again ... and again :)
The end of game needs to be reviewed by Fencer. There have been quite a few threads about that already.

hexkid: Okay, I get it, I didn't realize what I was agreeing to, being a newbie.... Thanks for enlightening me!

It seems that handicap stones are not handled correctly in the .sgf export code...

onigoroshi: lots of things aren't handled correctly in the .sgf's.
See http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=977 for a few of the bugs I've identified.
As well as:
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1067
and:
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1082

Is there any solution for games like this? I've rejected the same set of dead stones 3 times now. Go 9x9 (furbster vs. FrancescoLR)

furbster: What stones are you rejecting?

Have you tried messaging your opponent directly, explaining how it is obvious that it is your game, and explain go etiquette a little?

emmett: I'm rejecting all of the ones he has marked (all mine). I have messaged twice in the game stating none of them are dead. it might be over soon though as i have had the first pass now, hopefully he will do the same and the game might end.

furbster: I know how frustrating that is, but you are lucky because your opponent has proven to be quite reasonable in the past. Perhaps just inexperienced here. I'm sure it will work out.

hello, can anyone enlighten me how this ranking system works exactly?

i find it rather anoying that if i win 3/4 of mine games the change in mine rating is zero.
in the faq it says its based on the chess rating system, but i believe in real life you always gain ranking even against a much lower ranked opponent like perhaps 2 points but never zero.

does anyone know a detailed way how this is handled

ivoSF: sometimes the ratings do change, but you just don't know it.

That is it is possible your rating was 1533.0 and it raised to 1533.4 (but since you don't see the decimal part of it, it looks like it raised 0)

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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 ;-)

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.

jurek:

another vote for Chinese scoring!

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.

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.

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.

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

emmett: And experience enhances patience :)