I hear different opinions on "Go etiquette". Does anyone find it rude for someone to play on in a completely hopeless position? What about invasions that can't live without a blatant mistake but if successful, win the game? Are there any other so-called rude things that you've seen people do?

My opinion: I've come from a Chess background where every player has an absolute right to play on until checkmated, regardless of the position. That's why I found it odd when I first encountered this idea that you're supposed to resign if you get too far behind and it's somehow rude not to. However, Go is quite different because there isn't a definitive ending within rules of the game; it ends when one player realizes that he cannot win. Many think of the ending as being that point at which neither side has any productive moves left and both sides pass, however, the game isn't truly over because it's perfectly legal to play on after the scoring phase (assuming you didn't rearrange the stones for easier counting). So maybe you'd say, the game ends when both players agree to stop or when one player resigns. Nonetheless, who's opinion are we taking? If I play a Dan player, he would probably consider my position to be resignable within the first 20 moves, tops. However, it would take me much longer to realize how far behind I am. Therefore, if the weaker player believes he has a chance at winning or thinks there's a chance that the invasion will succeed, who's to tell him he's wrong? His opponent??? Personally, I feel rude for making my opponent play on when I know I can't win, however, I don't feel offended when others do it to me. Yeah, its a pain, but, Go is about making claims and challenging those claims. "This is my territory, I've claimed it and defended it and nothing you can do will take it from me." My opponent has every right to call me out and say "actually, I think its a bit too large, thin, whatever and I'm gonna prove it." You've got to be able to stick to your guns all the way to the end, this means not making blatant mistakes.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Hi Joel,

Good questions. Learning when to resign is actually a very non-trivial task for beginners --
that's why people ask your questions again and again here on the forum, and on other servers.

In insei schools, one of the very first things they learn is when to resign.

See also post 35 here .

The particular etiquette you are talking about concern stronger players. Anywhere below 15k, you should play your game into the endgame. You can't count anyway, and the probability you or your opponent misread the life and death status of a group on the board is far from 0. It might be boring for your opponent if he is much stronger and certain of his lead, but it's the tribute he is paying back to the community. Once, he too kept trying to make a dead group live and played out a 70 moku loss. You're learning, period.

As you grow stronger, you will learn by experience. You will start to resign from the 70 moku loss but keep playing out the 30 moku ones. Occasionally you will mess it up and resign too early, and learn that you should not give up too fast. The stronger you are, the more confident and accurate your judgement will be. You never see a pro game being lost by more than 10 points. That's because they can count and they know the game can't be turned.

In other words: play until you are convinced that you have lost.

On hoping for your opponent's mistake: if you're not sure of the outcome, go try it. It's absolutely legitimate. If you know that your move can be refuted by the proper sequence, and are hoping for your opponent to not play it, it's bad style. People do it, especially at tournaments. But it's bad style. I've seen people playing a two points endgame move instead of a four points endgame move, because the correct answer to the two points move was more complicated and they hoped I would mess up and lose. The result is they lost two points. Relying on such tricks will make you play worse. If you rely on your own strength it will make you stronger than. Relying on your opponent's weakness will not.

Resign when you think you can't win (very much non-trivial) or when the game is no longer fun (no point wasting your time on a boring game, rating isn't that important). In a teaching game it can become a discussion point whether the game is lost or not.

Playing a lost game to the very end is your right but most people avoid doing it when they think they've lost the game by a wide margin because unless you specifically want to practice endgame there's not much point as the game will have lost any sense of tension or competition.

If you're going against a weaker player, you take the risk they will play on to the bitter end no matter how badly they lost.

If that's too much to handle, you shouldn't expose yourself to that risk.

If you're up against a stronger player, don't sweat it. Just play on until you're done. Worrying about playing on too long is silly.

The only time it's at all rude to keep going is when you know it's over and you continue to waste time.

Isn't there some tourney rule that states if you cannot checkmate in certain positions
within some large number of moves, say, 80 moves, it's a tie ?

It's called the 50 move rule. If 50 moves go by without a single capture or a pawn move, either player can claim a draw. However, play can continue if both players agree to continue. In practicality, this happens when you have either no pawns or blocked pawns and you take all your opponents pieces leaving a lone king (realize that 50 is a ton of moves; it should never take that long to win). They use this rule on the server that I play on and I've yet to ever see it applied.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

You must also remember one crucial difference between go and chess. In chess there is an instant win condition in checkmate which naturally limits the length of an unbalanced game, in go there is no such thing. Thus a different etiquette is required since essentially a go game can be played beyond the equivalent checkmate point in chess (rough analogy at best).

Players in chess also often resign when they feel they are irretrievably behind. What constitutes irretrievably behind varies according to playing strength, of course. Grandmasters resign in, say, a rook and pawns endgame which, though difficult, his grandmaster opponent can be counted on to win it. If the two players were 1700 rated the player with the endgame advantage might well botch it.

There is a difference between "absolute right" and "politeness" - and this might touch a little on the underlying cultural differences between chess and Go. Although in chess as well, I run into players who were shunned in a club because they consistently played on long before the game was done...

Still, from my observation and experience, in social setting, chess puts more emphasis on the result rather than on how you get there. In Go, personal culture and general politeness plays a much larger role. Part of this is because the game came to the West from Japan, and part because there are historically much fewer Go players than chess players, so annoying people is potentially much more costly. Thus, you try to be polite rather than just racking wins by hook and crook.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

My last game I couldn't count that I was down by 40+ points.
My opponent conceded after complicating the game and dying in the center when he was only down by 5 points that he could probably overcome with end game.

I hear that less than 15kyu shouldn't concede because without l&d skills the score swings wildly. But I feel the same way about my 3kyu games.

No shame in creating 100 tsumego positions on the board when you're hopelessly behind. Best case you outread your opponent and win. Worst case it's free tsumego problems for you to read when you review your game

Yeah but it comes down to can't win not won't win doesn't it? I'm well behind but the game can be made much more complicated, then I think I can play on. I'm well behind and all his groups are independently alive and well connected, I can't see any big kos or other ways to complicate and there's not enough left on the board to make up the difference (perhaps after the first example not working out well) then I think I should resign soon. The former usually precedes the latter. The difference with strength is how fast the former turns into latter and the latter may never be true at some DDK levels.

/2c

As an aside....if you didn't have this rule, there are some endgames that are still winnable yet require more than 500 moves! These are of course not necessarily representative of a common situation, but as I understand it there are a few common endgames (various rook-pawn scenarios?) that the 50 move rule renders draws rather than mates (assuming perfect play of course...that is a pretty high bar to set).

I agree with Bantari on the "absolute right" versus "politeness". However, it is a little more direct than that. I come from a chess background as well. I learned chess in the sixties and Go in the seventies - well before the internet. Yes everyone had the absolute right to play chess until checkmated and everyone had the absolute right to play Go until the end of the game. BUT everyone had the absolute right to refuse to play another game with you. Opponents were in short supply and everyone knew everyone else. You either became well "socialized" regarding your "absolute rights" or you took up another hobby that you could do alone, bird watching maybe. The difference today is that you can get away with behavior on the internet (or sitting alone with your computer) that was impossible back in the 'good old days'.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

There are such end game patterns that allow one player to resist checkmate long enough for this rule to apply, however, these situations are so uncommon that it takes an expert to deliberately set one up for an example and even that's tough because everything has to be perfect along with the alignment of the stars (and there must be a blue moon!) for it to actually happen. Even the king, knight, bishop checkmate, which is the hardest one for newbies, shouldn't take that long. Ultimately, this rule is about as likely as stalemate (but even less common) in that it almost always requires blunders by the player with the winning position.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Yes absoutely this. At chess, I'm very indulgent of low level players who want to play out to checkmate....the fact that they WANT to means either they don't realise how bad their position is (in which case, they need to play out that tyoe of position), or they want to learn how to 'win a won game' (so they should play it out), or they are hanging on for grim life desperately hoping that I'll make a slip and let them stalemate or something (in which case I take it as a challenge/practice to win as cleanly as I can while admiring their (rather mis-placed fortitude. I know that many people here have the same patience and willingness to help players to improve because I see it every time I log in here (or at DGS).

If you really enjoy the GAME and don't just want to chalk up the result, it doesn't really matter if a correspondence game drags on. Plans, calculations and combinations played in a dead won position as just as beautiful as in a tight struggle. I think this is much mre annoying in real-time or over-the-board games where you have to wait and 'waste' time that could better be spent elsewhere...

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...

It's more fun for both usually to play a rematch than continue a dead game for 100 moves for your opponent though and if you're past the raw beginner stage it's not a bad way of cultivating regular opponents. Even in the online world such relationships are nice to have! Each to their own though.

Oh yes, I certainly agree, I was still thinking of chess I guess. You can try for tricky positions right up to the end in certain types of endgames...I don't see how that could be the case in Go.

And playing on in hopeless positions ISN'T actaully all that much fun

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...

Oh, definitely agree with Chess! The difference I think is the instant win condition. It's over when the king falls not every dame filled.

Oh, tricky positions can easily occur at the very end in go, when shortages of liberties arise.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.