I'm playing this game http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1093406 against Carlos Emanoel. I am playing Black and _none_ of the white stones on the board are alive (after 135 moves). I figured taking off large groups of his stones would help him see the error of his ways, but sadly - no he just plays inside of the dead areas.
I think he either: -
a) does not understand the rules of Go, or
b) is being perverse, or
c) waiting for me to time out in the game, or
d) all of the above
Is there anyway to get an adjudication in the tournament
There are a few more players like this. Don't capture is good advice... To make this game a bit more interesting (after pointing Karim to useful sites like Sensei's, and getting a reply basically saying "I don't wanna learn"), I challenged my opponent that I'd win without losing a single point.
Just plod on, they'll probably get tired before you do; and it doesn't take much of your time.
At least, let him finish the shisho, he will learn when he gets stuck on the edge ;)
When I happen to play those players, I usually try to help them a bit by giving them a link to an interactive tutorial :) ( not sure I can advertize links ?)
Thanks for all your helpful comments, I only hope that this site adds a moderator soon. So far I've blacklisted Carlos and karim saif.
Ichi (the second game in my original post) hasn't made any moves for about two weeks now, so I guess he'll time out fairly soon :-/ and not learn.
Carlos has just got caught in a ladder, so I hope he'll learn (I sent a link to Sensei's Library), but based on his previous gameplay I expect he'll make me take the stones off and then start playing inside of the captured area! - ho hum
I think the previous championship go9 Richard manually stopped my game against the same Carlos after I mentionned it in a topic in the forum. Hopefully he reads this as well...
I really don't understand why such players play on a turn based server. Clearly, it would make more sense to play 200 quick games first and get a notion of what go is about. Then play on a turn based server to ponder about their moves and improve.
But anyway, it is their right to play here no matter how weak they are.
I have another concern about ratings. What really makes LG handicap go a "let the most underrated man win" tournament is that some players lose hundreds of rated games on purpose to get more handicap. Then they enjoy bullying opponents of similar level with lots of handicap stones. The rating system should identify that behavior and give the handicap according to the best result, not the rating. In 19x19 go it is simply impossible to lose to a 20k and then win to 4k. That should immediately give handicap as 4k and not 19.6k or whatever the rating is.
I agree, I think that is a good idea. A game like Go19 is not won by 'a lucky streak' or 'a stupid error' of the opponent - if you win against a much higher rated opponent, you should be moved up in rating a lot, like 3/4 of the difference. But - be aware that for balance the looser would need to be moved down that same amount, otherwise you would have a rating-generation-machine (you make two IDs, play one down by having it loose, and then have it come back in one win - repeat ten times, and your IDs are both 20 dan). All rating adjustments need to be mutually identical with opposite signs, so they add to zero.
Maybe there could be two ratings for each ID - one that is used for calculations, and one for handicap only - so a 'surprise winner' would get a jump in his handicap rating only. That way, the whole move-the-rating-down-and-up-cheating would become completely pointless, as it takes 20+ games to help you for only one game.
Note that this technique would not be applicable to games where an oversight (or bad luck) can loose the game - for example, in Go9, I sometimes (1 in 25) win against someone 8 or 10 kyus higher, because a single error of him is enough (and sometimes they make one error). Even more for games with more luck, like StreetSoccer - if I play 10 games against people rated 300 higher, I still win about 2 of them.
thanks. As a non-native speaker, lose (opposite of win) sounds more like a double o (actually they both sound the same to me). But I always strive to learn more. One day I might get away with my english...
[I know, pronunciation and spelling of english is the easiest in the world, there is only four rules to learn - everything else is exceptions...]
I conversed with Nader during our game. Since they moved at almost the same time and in similar styles, I asked if they were two accounts for the same player. He said I was close, but actually Karim was his son.
The game with Karim eventually ended yesterday after two passes and a score (after 242 moves). Nader's game is unfortunately still going on ... and ... on - 254 moves and he's only got 1 group of living stones.
Please can we have a flag for adjudication button.
... oh and it can skew the ratings as they're timed games, they can time out if you're out of internet contact for a prolonged period (and as these two games started in September 2009 (9 months ago), there is a higher chance of them timing out during my summer hols).
True. But you never run out of moves, as you can always pass, suggest a faulty score or disagree with a score. Against an opponent who has no intention of accepting his loss, the game could last forever.
theoretically you could end up with 180 of your on stones on the board in a chequer pattern which means that your opponent cannot move, but this will take at least 360 moves and considerably more when you allow for captures (let's say double), so this game *could* last two years, oh -joy!
@Chris: even in this way, your opponent CAN ALWAYS move: pass, suggest all your stones are dead, you disagree, and there we go again. So, as Marius pointed out, the game could last forever.
True, and I think a "flag for adjudication" feature is the only way to resolve this. Fortunately the two games I was having problems with have just finished
Marius> But you never run out of moves, as you can always pass, suggest a faulty score or disagree with a score. Against an opponent who has no intention of accepting his loss, the game could last forever.
In the case of Karim and Nader, I don't think they're maliciously trying to postpone the end of the game by any and all means. I think they just rather innocently like to keep placing stones as long as possible. Other players probably find this annoying in direct proportion to their skill at the game, which is why I don't find it as galling as the rest of you do (I'm just happy for a win, no matter how long it takes.).
And now this is the atari you mentioned. Are you sure I'm "lucky"? I know it's nominally a game in progress, but of course, there's no "game" any more. What should I do to get the tedium over as quickly as possible (without actually resigning)? It seems I may have to create some kind of sponge where he can't play, and then he'll be forced to pass. I'd rather do that in his area than my own.
I think the fastest way to force an end is to play in your own territory to reduce the number of legal moves your opponent has. Eventually he'll pass or time out.
FatPhil, I suggest you kill the big group. Sometimes this has bigger psychological effect on inexperienced players. They suddenly realize they have lost too many stones.
Little Golem