Life In 19x19

I don't see a problem with allowing draw by agreement in tournaments with integer komi. It would be strange to deny the players the right to end the game when they are certain of the result (compare with denying the right to resign). To me this is another argument for fractional komi.

In many tournaments draws are impossible. Even when playing in a rule set without superko, a triple ko still is often a "no result" instead of a draw. "No result" means that the game has just that, no result, so if possible the game must be replayed.

If the rules make a draw impossible, then having players "agree to" a draw is of course against the rules. That would be like the players "agreeing" that each gets 10 wins for this game; it's something that simply is not a possible outcome of the game, agreement or no.

palapiku wrote:I don't see a problem with allowing draw by agreement in tournaments with integer komi. It would be strange to deny the players the right to end the game when they are certain of the result (compare with denying the right to resign). To me this is another argument for fractional komi.

If they're that sure, and they aren't pro, the game only has a few moves left which they already know the entirety of in the correct sequence - they may as well play it out

prokofiev wrote:That's an argument for why resigning should be allowed even when you're winning.

Well... isn't it?!?

freegame wrote:A triple ko is not a draw, but a "no result". there is a clear difference. for one, a draw in go affects your rank, a no result does not.

So, isn't it sufficient then to simply introduce a rule which states that draws do not affect ratings?
Case closed?

Bantari wrote:

freegame wrote:A triple ko is not a draw, but a "no result". there is a clear difference. for one, a draw in go affects your rank, a no result does not.

So, isn't it sufficient then to simply introduce a rule which states that draws do not affect ratings?
Case closed?

If I'm provisionally 10k and draw (get even score with integer komi) against 5d, it shouldn't affect my rating?

Bantari wrote:

freegame wrote:A triple ko is not a draw, but a "no result". there is a clear difference. for one, a draw in go affects your rank, a no result does not.

So, isn't it sufficient then to simply introduce a rule which states that draws do not affect ratings?
Case closed?

The BGA have said that triple ko was a draw. I don't know why you would want to make draws not count where they can happen? That seems creepy...

palapiku wrote:

Bantari wrote:

freegame wrote:A triple ko is not a draw, but a "no result". there is a clear difference. for one, a draw in go affects your rank, a no result does not.

So, isn't it sufficient then to simply introduce a rule which states that draws do not affect ratings?
Case closed?

If I'm provisionally 10k and draw (get even score with integer komi) against 5d, it shouldn't affect my rating?

No, it should not.
Why? Well... there can be many justifications.

For example:
1) Since draws are not possible in on-board play, such 'arranged' draw does not mean anything about your strength. Maybe you had toothache and your opponent graciously agreed to a draw.
2) Draws against much stronger/weaker players are also obviously 'arranged' for whatever reasons, and thus should not be part of ranking adjustment.
And so on...

In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

Javaness wrote:

Bantari wrote:

freegame wrote:A triple ko is not a draw, but a "no result". there is a clear difference. for one, a draw in go affects your rank, a no result does not.

So, isn't it sufficient then to simply introduce a rule which states that draws do not affect ratings?
Case closed?

The BGA have said that triple ko was a draw. I don't know why you would want to make draws not count where they can happen? That seems creepy...

Why should they? Nobody won, nobody gets a candy. Nobody lost, nobody gets spanked. What's creepy about that?
And why this should be any more or less 'creepy' than declaring 'no-result' in case of triple-ko?

Its just a convention, so we can set it to whatever we want.

Bantari wrote:...
In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

I believe that palapiku was referring to the situation where the draw was due to the situation in the on-board game:

palapiku wrote:If I'm provisionally 10k and draw (get even score with integer komi) against 5d, it shouldn't affect my rating?

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:...
In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

I believe that palapiku was referring to the situation where the draw was due to the situation in the on-board game:

I understand.
I addressed this in my other post. In the sentence about triple-ko being declared no-result. Sort-of the same thing.

But I'm not really invested in the idea very much, so I won't be insisting that Draws are good.
Its just that I don't really see any very convincing reasons for them to be bad, neither.

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:...
In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

I believe that palapiku was referring to the situation where the draw was due to the situation in the on-board game:

palapiku wrote:If I'm provisionally 10k and draw (get even score with integer komi) against 5d, it shouldn't affect my rating?

Man, I have a headache. Sorry for the messy posting.

I remember what I meant and why I said what I said. Part of the stipulation was that 'Since draws are not possible in on-board play...'
This was also expressed in the sentence of mine that you quoted: '[In Chess] you CAN get a draw [...] in on-board game' - this stipulates in Go you cannot.
So I was clearly referring to 'arranged' draws only. Sorry I did not make it clear.

Bantari wrote:

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:...
In Chess, situation is different, because you CAN get a draw against a stronger player in on-board game, and it DOES say something about your strength.

I believe that palapiku was referring to the situation where the draw was due to the situation in the on-board game:

I understand.
I addressed this in my other post. In the sentence about triple-ko being declared no-result. Sort-of the same thing.

But I'm not really invested in the idea very much, so I won't be insisting that Draws are good.
Its just that I don't really see any very convincing reasons for them to be bad, neither.

Edit: I see your post edit, so my explanation is irrelevant.

Anyway, I agree with what I believe to be your main point: "It's just a convention, so we can set it to whatever we want.".

Bantari wrote:

prokofiev wrote:That's an argument for why resigning should be allowed even when you're winning.

Well... isn't it?!?

KGS has the dishonest play clause in its terms of service that explicitly forbids rating manipulation. EGF tournament rules contains a more generic sportsmanship clause.

So no, resigning while winning may not always be allowed, depending on your intentions and the rules you are playing under.

There was a case just a few years ago in the London Open where, I believe, two Russians in contention for the top prizes and drawn together in the final round allegedly contrived a draw to ensure the money stayed in Russian hands. They were disqualified, though I can't remember how their complicity was proven.