Is the Go Tournament being sabotaged?

The current tournament is already over 13 months and has only one game, dead lost by b over one month ago, but he refuses to finish. He is now playing dumb moves inside his opponents territory without any opportunity to make even one (much less two) eyes. I have tried to explain it to the black player froccsontp .

But he ignored my message and played another dumb move. 330 players are waiting for him to resign, something he should have done one month ago, at least.

Maybe he doesn't understand English. It may be a good idea if some Hungarian speaker explains the situation to him in his language.

Otherwise, I hope Richard will finish the game manually, since he could be doing this for months. Of course, his opponent could also resign, since the fight is only about a shared 6th position, but I also hate resigning when I have won just because my opponent misbehaves.

I came to the same conclusion. For whatever reason, they do not want the new championship to start yet. Be aware that White's time is also run down to 54 hours.

Black doesn't need an native-language explanations; from his ranking he cannot be so limited in understanding. That only leaves the option that it happens intentional.

And did you notice that he was about to lose on time last night? He has lost games on time earlier this year, so he is out of vacation days. But one hour before time-out, he made a move.

Currently there are several championships being held back by one or two games each. I maintain a list on my profile. It would be nice if Richard could start the next rounds manually. (Especially since I have signed up for two of them!)

Now the game is finished! :-)

Hello there!

I made those "dumb/dead" moves. Just before I found this thread I had made another one about the game in focus, because someone has made my last moves instead of me. I think that's not right. It was yesterday when I read erratic's letter (thank you for being polite), but I haven't had time to answer it. Maybe you think my moves were dumb, maybe you are right, but I'm not sure about it. I tried to make a living group inside white's territory, and until someone else interfered the game, everything had gone on my planned path. From the comments I can see that some of you have looked at my previous games. Have you noticed that I always resign if I'm sure about my partner's winning? Why did you think, that I wouldn't do the same this time? Is there any time limit in games? Do some "dumb" moves or a list of 330 waiting people give right to someone to manipulate games? Who has the right to make decisions about my moves instead of me?

I'm a bit sad and confused: not about losing the game, but about manipulating games.

Thank you in advance for your responses!

I'm guessing TD is right about what happened: The webmaster probably interferred and stopped the game. Now to the question: Was that the right thing to do?

Well, on one hand you had A) lots of players waiting for this game to end so that a new championship could start, B) Both players were playing veeryy sloowlyy, C) the outcome of the game was pretty obvious, and should be so also for the players involved, and D) we have seen many times in the past players prolonging already decided games for a VERY long time for no apparent reason.

On the other hand, we have that E) no-one was breaking any rule or doing anything considered "illegal" (like mitm or using multiple accounts) and F) the moves being made seems to follow a plan, and are not randomly placed just to delay the game but probably in the hope that the opponent should make a mistake.

There are probably other factors to consider as well, but if I were webmaster, I would at least consider all of the above. Personally, I think I would have ended up doing what the webmaster did - but probably not before asking the players what was going on. And had it not been for D, I would have been very reluctant to force the game to end - after all, the rules DOES give one 36 hours pr move. But we HAVE seen too much of players deliberately delaying games before, and I think you must see this as one of the reasons for the reactions to this game, froccsontp.

On a side note, the lack of a clear end-state is one of the things I really dislike about GO. I hope I can say that without offending any affectionate GO-players...

I agree it seems a bit strange, but I think the circumstances around the game led to an executive decision. If you play the game out, you should be able to see that it's very difficult for black to make life. Black would need 7 more moves to make a living group, and it's doubtful White would let that happen. Then again, you never know...

But considering it was the last game of the entire championship, and that the result of the game didn't matter for either player, I can see why the decision was made. The only way Black lives is if White makes a series of very large mistakes. On the larger scale, nothing is learned by this, so there's really not much point.

Still, I'd feel a bit annoyed if this happened to me without warning.

I hear your comments, but didn't we all agree that it would be what we wanted to happen? Now it happened and suddenly people get second thoughts about it.

Yes, it is and was never a clear and proven case, but I looked at it and made up my mind from the facts, and I'm willing to bear the consequences (that maybe froccsontp doesn't like me for it). Consider the webmaster's situation: he does what people ask for and now would get attacked for it?

Anyway, it happened and it's over. Look forward to the next Championship, coming soon.

And remember that old chinese saying:

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

I'm excited about a new championship starting, that's for sure!

Well, Aganju, I think similar situations will arise again, and then it might be a good idea to use this opportunity to think through what could and should happen? I, for one, see it as a good thing that the webmaster can, and occasionally will, interfere for the "greater good" of this site.

That can include banning players by closing down accounts or banning IP-addresses, forcing games to end or other things. But when should it be done? Let's stick to forcing games to end, as that's what the current situation is about. I personally think the current situation had many of the ingredients calling for interference, as stated above. But maybe the player in question should be sent a message first? Granted, in this case erratic actually HAS sent him a message without getting a reply (even though the player DID make a move after the message was sent, as I understand it). I think the interferrence was an OK decision, but personally I think that next time, I'd send the player a message with a stated deadline for reply before finishing the game. Or? How SHOULD similar situations be handled in the future?

I have to say I'm with froccsontp in this one.

I don't hold up any cup or tournament since I always play really fast, but I feel we all have the right to try to learn how to play all the games regardless of how poorly we play and we all have the right to finish all the games we start regardless of how this "inconveniences" other people, even if our skills are twenty times lower than the people who defeat us.

I have tried to learn how to play go and, since I wasn't making any progress, I had to resign the tournament games I was playing in just so that I wouldn't have to listen to some of the comments I hear in the forum. Being a low-skilled player in most games I find the virtual lynching of players who actually put the time to learn a game a little ridiculous.

We have no evidence the time is being used for learning the game. The evidence looked like deliberate time-wasting even it it wasn't.

The site exists for the many, not for the individual. If your behaviour looks like it's detrimental to the experience of the masses, then answer when asked why that is so.

"But he ignored my message and played another dumb move."

By so doing, he put his own head in the noose. We have to support Richard for doing what he thought was best for the large majority of Go players. Or at least I do.

Even though I am the kind of guy who's very likely to play dumb moves. I wish my opponent would say "stop playing there - they're already dead" a lot of the time, so it doesn't waste both our time.

While I'm in favor of sending a message first, I think it's a far cry to consider this a virtual lynching... this game was over a YEAR long.

froccsontp's slow pace might have inconvenienced other championship participants, but he didn't really violate any rules or harm others. I don't think it's fair to hijack his game. If you dislike slow players, try fixing the gaming platform to create incentives for fast players.

I think y'all need to look at the game. It was effectively over, but Black was trying a Hail Mary in the middle of a very solid White position. Nothing about the game itself was compromised.

An alternative to ending the game would be to start the new championship despite the fact that the old championship still had one game in progress.

I think that a player should have the right to try a "hail mary" in a dead lost position. It usually won't work, but sometimes it does! Also, if a player has an idea for a trick to win a lost game, and the opponent sends him a message asking why he is playing dumb moves, then that player has the right not to respond, as his response might alert the player to his trick! As far as the game holding up the championship, that is too bad, but there is always going to be one game that is the last game going, and in Go especially, that last game can go on for awhile. I think that a mistake was made by the webmaster. The webmaster should have sent an inquiry or warning to froccsontp before interfering with the game.

MarleysGhost, good point. This has been done before. For example, this GWG-game was still in the bidding stage when all the other championship games were finished. The next round was started manually - and finished before the old game!

Hello there!

Thank you for your responses, I think it's very useful to talk about this decision. I undersrtand that it makes a lot of people unpatient to have a game so long like this, but I still don't think it was a right decision to finish the game like this. There is some good ideas in the comments, which would be acceptable for me as well. I think best answer is to manually launch the next tournament, as it doesn't hurt anyone. If it's technically not possible to accomplish, it would be nice to have a warning, maybe with a deadline before someone else finishing the game.

I can see that some of you sees erratic letter as a warning what i just wrote about, thinking i was impolite to made a move after the letter. Let me clear some things: erratic was not my opponent, erratic is somebody who I don't know. As i was in a serious lack of time, first I made my last move (i8), and after it I read the letter. The next thing to happen was the closing of the game. On the other hand: if I had read the letter before my move: am I a bad person, if I do not doing what an unknown person telling me, when my partner in the game seems to be ok with my moves? Do I have to resign if someone asks me to do so in a letter, while i think i find a possibility? Maybe, if it is the owner of the site, and there are circumstances like in this case, I would happily do it. But please consider: do you resign, if i, froccsontp asks you, while you think there is a way to save the game?

Sorry for grammar mistakes. Thank you in advance for your responses!

I do agree it seemed a little premature and presumptuous to end the game (although I'm not familiar previous discussion on the matter), but again I think we need to realize it was a fairly hopeless position for you. If you and your partner want to continue the game, you could send moves to each other via private messages, that way you still have the experience of playing out your plan without holding everybody else up.

I encourage you to load your game in an SGF editor (such as EidoGo player) and try out variations. This way you can learn from the position. There is a chance your opponent would make big mistakes, but this kind of win is not a clean win, and nothing is learned from it. Everything that could be gained from the game has already been settled, and anything that could be gained from this final battle can be done so outside of the scope of the game. Such is the way of Go: it is not unusual.

1. Of course I agree that starting the tournament and letting the game continue

is the ideal solution, but that is not how this site works.

2. You are right, I am not an admin or whatever. I am just another player

who is stronger at go and checks the state of the tournament every day.

I explained the situation politely, specially because I would not like to be

in your place. I imagine that you may not know and tried to explain.

3. I did not expect the prompt reaction. I expected other forum participants

to agree with me and that would convince you.

And about the game:

The moment when you play c5, then c6, let your opponent hane at c3 then

b3 (around move 90) is when you kill your own f5, h5 stones.

100 moves later (around 195) you play moves that suicide n11. I will never

understand why someone plays turn based, has 36 hours to think and plays m12

and then n12. Don't take this bad. There is a proverb that you have to lose your

first 50 games as fast as possible. It is pointless to think hours at your level. Take a time trial at goproblems.com until you can do at least 100 30kyu and 100 25 kyu problems before the time runs out. Play fast games at KGS, at your level you will improve 4-5 stones easily before your next tournament games

reach move 30. Then you will enjoy LG even more.

And finally around move 210 you are extending your dead group. There is no

such thing as "try a hail mary". It is 120 moves too late. You have to

try things while you have a potential to achieve it. When your moves force

your opponent or at least are hard to answer. Why do you think your opponent

passed two weeks ago?

1. @froccsontp:

I understand that you are annoyed by the decision

without warning. A hint: For learning Go it is much

better to play realtime games, for instance on a

server like KGS.

2. @erratic:

I think it was not a good idea to send another player

a message, urging him to resign a game.

3.

pfapfap wrote:

> I encourage you to load your game in an SGF editor

> ... and try out variations.

This is not completely trivial, as Little Golem uses a

rather strange system of coordinates.

Normal go notion does not have letter "i" for the 9th column,

but directly "j".

I would propose that Richard changes LG go coordinates to

normal sstandards.

Just my 3 cent, Ingo.

Ingo, an info regarding your I/J naming comment:

the SGF files from LG load without issues on KGS or qGo, I do it all the time (and they are correct). So although the columns might be named differently on the screen display, it is not an issue for SGF.

> Ingo, an info regarding your I/J naming comment:

> the SGF files from LG load without issues on KGS or qGo,

Thanks Aganju, for this information. Only now I saw the

sgf button above the notation list.

I used is directly to analyse the game under question

(Hoff vs. froccsontp(White) ) with help of "Many Faces of Go".

Many Faces is one of the strongest go bots (about 2-dan on

19x19 on KGS server). From froccs view point it gave the following

evaluations.

at move 40: 33.5 %

at move 60: 20.0 %

at 80: 12.5 %

at 100: 9.1 %

at 120: 5.5 %

at 140: 4.3 %

at 160: 3.5 %

at 180: 1.5 %

at 200: 1.0 %

at 234 (point of resignation): 0.1 %

To interpret these data, one has to know that Many Faces

is based on Monte-Carlo game tree search. A value of 50 %

means an even position. Values below 25 % indicate that

in the opinion of the bot the game is clearly lost.

Bots playing on KGS typically resign when there evaluation

drops below 30 %.

Ingo.

I completely agree with erratic and the webmaster here.

The game was lost, why make 300 people wait?

And it's tricky when you're playing to ask your opponent for resignation, so it's good having someone else doing it (especially if you passed and your opponent didn't get the hint).

When should the webmaster manually ends games? When the game is the last one of a championship tournament and the game is clearly decided, he definitely should.

In other situations, I'm not so sure. If we're talking about game 1092749, it's quite fair to let it continue if it's not the last game of the tournament.

We won't find a perfect solution to this problem, each case is different. We can always discuss those games in the forums and try to reach a consensus. And in the end we have to trust Richard.