Was ready to start playing go again and this happened...

[daal]

I don't understand these rants. For some, this seems to be a big problem, since these rant threads appear frequently.

If your opponent plays by the rules and you lose your concentration, then the game, there is only one person to blame. No need to vent.

The point is not the rule per se, but rather the issue of sportsmanship. Just because the rules do not disallow irritating comments in the chat for example , does not mean that this is generally perceived as a good tactic. On the contrary, we perceive this and some other behaviors permitted by the rules as unsportsmanlike, and it gets under the recipient's skin, which thence needs venting. This is generally true when making contact with someone we feel is acting like a jerk.

This issue been discussed here before, and the conflict parties generally fall into two camps: those advocating the primacy of rules and those advocating the primacy of sportsmanship. My impression is that those in the former camp see winning as the sole purpose of a game, whereas those in the latter camp tend to harbor loftier ideals.

To me, such rants make perfect sense. If on the contrary we reduce go to the question of who won, a wealth of history, camaraderie and idle philosophizing gets cast by the wayside, and that would not be the game that I love.

[Splatted]

I think this is a good attitude to have when on the recieving end of it, and is actually how I try to deal with it myself, but that's somewhat separate from speaking out about it when it's being discussed. There's no need to pretend there isn't someone being pretty unpleasant here. Unlike verbal abuse there's no way to just ignore it free of repercussions and yet everyone seems more than happy to condemn that.

Verbal abuse is a lot less acceptable to me than an opponent who insists on playing on with nonsense invasions. Verbal abuse at my club over a game would get you told never to come back. Also the repercussion is a lost game on an internet server. Not exactly something important.

I meant on the internet. If you don't like what someone is saying you can just ignore them with a 100% lack of consequences, but if someone is abusing the time system there is no consequence free way to deal with it. That's why in my mind it's a more serious issue, even if the consequences of dealing with it still aren't huge.

[kex]

The point is not the rule per se, but rather the issue of sportsmanship. Just because the rules do not disallow irritating comments in the chat for example , does not mean that this is generally perceived as a good tactic. On the contrary, we perceive this and some other behaviors permitted by the rules as unsportsmanlike, and it gets under the recipient's skin, which thence needs venting. This is generally true when making contact with someone we feel is acting like a jerk.

In this case, the person with irritating comments was the ranting one. This kind of ranting seems unsportsmanlike. I don't like the behaviour of people that rant and behave unsportsmanlike after losing a won game.

Btw. I have lost quite a many won game.

[Zombie]

I hAAAAAAAAAAAttttttttttteeeee these type of people. I am completely aware it is my fault that I didn't notice what would happen but it is so insulting and infuriating for people to play like that. I really only see it online, but have seen it in a tournament before in mid-dan level playing which was surprising.

Just as a public service announcement please do not do this, even if you end up winning the game you look like a complete jerk and when you lose which happens the majority of the time anyways you still look like a huge jerk.

How is it surprising? It is a competition with rules, most people's aim is to win. If you've outplayed them so that playing by the book will never cut it, they absolutely should try to get you to make a mistake or try to time you out if that is an option. It's their only out.

People quite routinely try to time Miracles players out in Magic the Gathering Online, for example (it's a really strong but really slow and ponderous style), likewise people time each other out in fighting games completely routinely (where it's jokingly called timer scamming the opponent), and it's an accepted part of the game because the rules are what they are. Both games' players don't put much stock in playing honorably - over the board certainly, but they seek to find game moves that are as cheap, unfair and hard to answer well as they can. That's the essence of cutthroat competition.

I don't know why it is, but it feels like Go's nature as a game less about making statements about what the opponent will be doing and more about "absolute truths" seems to breed an attitude where people get really angry about others doing moves they know to be bad ones, even if they themselves are incapable of refuting them. It's essentially an appeal to authority: professionals say this is safe so you should respect it! No. No I shouldn't. If you can't defend yourself properly, it is not safe at all. It may be safe if you are strong. If I play that kind of move, I am simply saying no, you're not strong or knowledgeable enough, or I'm desperate as hell and clutching any chance I get to avoid defeat, as I damn well should. That you're playing Go is an advantage, here - you can actually know what the absolutely correct (or close to it) move is and not actually care about the opponent's plans.

If I get hit by a stupid thing in a match, I don't get angry at the opponent playing that move. I am disappointed in myself because I got hit by stupid detritus I shouldn't get hit by. It doesn't matter one whit that the best players in the world can score 80% of the opponent's lifebar or just kill them from an opening if I cannot actually do the combo myself. That I theoretically have an out in some boardstate is utterly irrelevant if I, personally, don't see it while the game is in progress. The only exception is if the opponent thinks he's brilliant after playing like that, when he should know full well it generally isn't a good idea.

It can be highly fustrating when we come across people who appear either bent on ruining you day, or so emotionally unstable that they are insensitive to the feelings of the human being on the other side.

O_o'

WTF am I reading?

What about being insensitive to the feelings requires the person to be emotionally unstable? Some people are wired to pay attention to other people's feelings, often at the expense of examining what they themselves feel, while others are wired the reverse way. There's no instability, let alone malice, needed for this kind of ignorance. The thought "how will others feel about this" constantly occcupies some people's minds, some just don't pay attention to it in that kind of way.

I teach a lot of beginners, and they'll ask me questions about playing in what otherwise looks like my territory.

I tell them all the time, it never hurts to try.
I don't think you can live (or kill anything) there, but I've been wrong before.
If you don't succeed, then the final score is relatively unchanged (for every prisoner I gain, I also lose a point playing inside my own territory). But if you do succeed, then its a really huge gain (and bad on me that I thought my area was secure).

I welcome, and encourage my students to try.
Can't learn, if they don't try.

I want to second, third, fourth etc. this so damn much.

I'm really surprised by all the posts saying it's the op's fault for making the mistake and he should work on his reading. It goes without saying that everyone still has things to learn but who cares? That's completely irrelevant to issue of time scummers.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's a game with a timer where someone playing too slowly loses. Timing people out is perfectly valid, especially if you don't have another out but to try to tease a mistake or timeout out of them.

How timely. I recently posted about the other side of this. What if you don't know if you should play into an area? Or, what if you think trying might yield some gains of the opponent makes a mistake. I was worried that people would respond exactly as the OP did. The consensus however is ..... go for it. Nothing is settled territory until it is truly settled territory. And ignored territory is rarely ever settled.

Go for it. Can't learn unless you try.

After that previous post and discussion, I am of the mind that even obvious bad moves are still worthy moves. Not time stalling mind you, that is a bit different. But clearly bad moves to see if the opponent might play elsewhere and let your bad move be turned good? Just feels like a different form of Ko threat proposition to me.

I disagree. Timing out is perfectly valid and a very strong tool to use against those who play at a slow pace. They're using that time to make better moves earlier on, but there's a price tag attached. Make them pay for it if you can.

[Bill Spight]

I don't know why it is, but it feels like Go's nature as a game less about making statements about what the opponent will be doing and more about "absolute truths" seems to breed an attitude where people get really angry about others doing moves they know to be bad ones, even if they themselves are incapable of refuting them.

{snip}

I teach a lot of beginners, and they'll ask me questions about playing in what otherwise looks like my territory.

I tell them all the time, it never hurts to try.
I don't think you can live (or kill anything) there, but I've been wrong before.
If you don't succeed, then the final score is relatively unchanged (for every prisoner I gain, I also lose a point playing inside my own territory). But if you do succeed, then its a really huge gain (and bad on me that I thought my area was secure).

I welcome, and encourage my students to try.
Can't learn, if they don't try.

I want to second, third, fourth etc. this so damn much.

I'm really surprised by all the posts saying it's the op's fault for making the mistake and he should work on his reading. It goes without saying that everyone still has things to learn but who cares? That's completely irrelevant to issue of time scummers.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's a game with a timer where someone playing too slowly loses. Timing people out is perfectly valid, especially if you don't have another out but to try to tease a mistake or timeout out of them.

There are a couple of things going on here. One is the question of being able to defend territory (or near territory), and the question of trying to take it away. I tell weak players to always fill the dame before passing, and if they are not sure whether an attack succeeds, to try it, anyway. With the dame filled, both players may still not see the necessity for protective plays, but filling the dame makes it more likely that one player or the other will.

Another thing is the question of the rules. The players have agreed to play under time constraints, so it is valid to try to run the other player out of time. As you say.

Another thing is the nature of go. Go games usually last around 240 moves, with wide margins. However, a determined player can make a game last around 400 moves. Not all time constraints are set up to handle that kind of "time scumming", as Splatted calls it. Nor are the vast majority of players inclined to play such senselessly tiresome games, or to adjust their pace of play to allow for that possibility.

Another thing is the question of sportsmanship. It is true that sportsmanship has lost ground over the past century to the idea of winning at all cost, by fair means or foul, to the idea of cutthroat competition. There may well be games in which cutthroat competition is the norm. Go is not one of those games. Even games with cutthroat competition exist within a matrix of cooperation, as the players agree among themselves to play those games. As has been pointed out in this discussion, one does not have to agree to play with those who try to win on time instead of winning on skill at go. The Japanese rules, written by and for professional players, for whom winning is a matter of livelihood, state:

These rules must be applied in a spirit of good sense and mutual trust between the players.

The pros realize that rules may not be perfect, that good will is important, and that the spirit of the rules is more important than technicalities. I have played games with complicated rules and players who were "rules lawyers", but I have never played a game in which rules lawyers were respected.

Yes, go is a game with the norm of sportsmanship, a game of mutual respect, not a game of cutthroat competition, especially where time constraints are concerned.

[Boidhre]

My blunter way of putting this to people is: it's a game of go on an internet server with likely a complete stranger. It is not important. Why on Earth would you waste your time and energy drawing out some lost game to the last move hunting some major blunder for one tiny movement of your rating graph that is guaranteed not to matter either way in the near future? If your opponent gets into time trouble, sure use that against them, but playing a 100 extra moves to whittle away at 10 minutes of maintime that your opponent has is going to annoy almost any opponent you meet to the point of landing on their block list. They've better things to do with their time.

Also the Magic analogy doesn't work, you're normally playing in a tournament format online, limited or standard. Every win really does matter, going out on the first round regularly will cost you money. Versus go where a loss has no meaningful effect on anything since your rating will always settle near your average standard of play anyway in the near term. That and if you win a lot of games by forcing time outs with lots of unnecessary plays no one will take your rating seriously anyway since it doesn't actually reflect your strength at the game.

[Bantari]

The pros realize that rules may not be perfect, that good will is important, and that the spirit of the rules is more important than technicalities. I have played games with complicated rules and players who were "rules lawyers", but I have never played a game in which rules lawyers were respected.

Yes, go is a game with the norm of sportsmanship, a game of mutual respect, not a game of cutthroat competition, especially where time constraints are concerned.

I hate to make "me too" comments, but yeah - that!
Sort of.

[Polama]

The point is not the rule per se, but rather the issue of sportsmanship. Just because the rules do not disallow irritating comments in the chat for example , does not mean that this is generally perceived as a good tactic. On the contrary, we perceive this and some other behaviors permitted by the rules as unsportsmanlike, and it gets under the recipient's skin, which thence needs venting. This is generally true when making contact with someone we feel is acting like a jerk.

This issue been discussed here before, and the conflict parties generally fall into two camps: those advocating the primacy of rules and those advocating the primacy of sportsmanship. My impression is that those in the former camp see winning as the sole purpose of a game, whereas those in the latter camp tend to harbor loftier ideals.

To me, such rants make perfect sense. If on the contrary we reduce go to the question of who won, a wealth of history, camaraderie and idle philosophizing gets cast by the wayside, and that would not be the game that I love.

I disagree. To me the primacy of the rules is part of good sportsmanship. I play with a gentleman who will sometimes criticize my position during a game. This can be flustering. I recenter myself and play on. If I become too fixated on proving his criticism unfounded and overplay, I certainly do not blame him: he violated no rules. To do other than to accept my loss with dignity would be to behave as a poor loser.

I make two exceptions (that I happily have never run into). Truly abusive language, and slowly filling in your own territory merely to prolong the game hour after hour until your opponent loses patience and leaves.

Sportsmanship does not require you to accept another game from an individual. If you find their demeanor during play distasteful, it's certainly your freedom to stop playing with them. I don't see it as any different from avoiding a slow player if you enjoy fast games.

People have different opinions on the matter, my own is that hoping your opponent makes a mistake or being slow to resign or using posture and play speed to try to trick a player into missing a trap are at best minor infractions, while refusing to accept responsibility for a loss violates the core of what good sportsmanship is all about.

[daal]

The point is not the rule per se, but rather the issue of sportsmanship. Just because the rules do not disallow irritating comments in the chat for example , does not mean that this is generally perceived as a good tactic. On the contrary, we perceive this and some other behaviors permitted by the rules as unsportsmanlike, and it gets under the recipient's skin, which thence needs venting. This is generally true when making contact with someone we feel is acting like a jerk.

This issue been discussed here before, and the conflict parties generally fall into two camps: those advocating the primacy of rules and those advocating the primacy of sportsmanship. My impression is that those in the former camp see winning as the sole purpose of a game, whereas those in the latter camp tend to harbor loftier ideals.

To me, such rants make perfect sense. If on the contrary we reduce go to the question of who won, a wealth of history, camaraderie and idle philosophizing gets cast by the wayside, and that would not be the game that I love.

I disagree. To me the primacy of the rules is part of good sportsmanship. I play with a gentleman who will sometimes criticize my position during a game. This can be flustering. I recenter myself and play on. If I become too fixated on proving his criticism unfounded and overplay, I certainly do not blame him: he violated no rules. To do other than to accept my loss with dignity would be to behave as a poor loser.

You are showing good sportsmanship - your opponent... maybe not. His behavior may be within the boundaries of the rules, but that doesn't make it sportsmanlike. Given the choice, I personally would rather play a game with someone who doesn't fluster me verbally while I am playing. If you feel otherwise, then go ahead and play him again. Once you build up enough resistance to his critical comments he might stop - he might also try to find a better way to get under your skin, like rattling the stones in the bowl, snorting derisively, rubbing his nipples, sharing conspiracy theories, whatever. I think that irritating an opponent is not what the game is about, and I don't want to play with someone who feels that that is a legitimate tactic.

I have no problem with your disagreement. If you want to spend your free time with this gentleman then be my guest. To every pot a lid!

[Polama]

You are showing good sportsmanship - your opponent... maybe not. His behavior may be within the boundaries of the rules, but that doesn't make it sportsmanlike. Given the choice, I personally would rather play a game with someone who doesn't fluster me verbally while I am playing. If you feel otherwise, then go ahead and play him again. Once you build up enough resistance to his critical comments he might stop - he might also try to find a better way to get under your skin, like rattling the stones in the bowl, snorting derisively, rubbing his nipples, sharing conspiracy theories, whatever. I think that irritating an opponent is not what the game is about, and I don't want to play with someone who feels that that is a legitimate tactic.

I have no problem with your disagreement. If you want to spend your free time with this gentleman then be my guest. To every pot a lid!

I attend a small go club, so the match-ups are usually which pair of players is free right now. I certainly prefer this opponent to sitting around waiting for forty minutes. If a player just politely refused to play with him, I quite agree that it would be no poor reflection on the refuser, although that is a tricky social situation to finagle with grace. And in fact, it's not clear to me whether he's crafty or just overly talkative.

My point was that I believe good sportsmanship involves showing respect to all (non-cheating) opponents. It's unfortunate when they fail to reciprocate, but I don't think that forgives poor sportsmanship in return. And if their style is mind games, trick plays and creating complexity when time is low, or in a more complex game trying to catch you in violation of rules minutia, it's not a style I'd recommend striving for, but I don't think it's a style that should be dismissed as unworthy respect either.

[Bonobo]

Upon reading and re-reading, two things come to my mind:

1) In the 1980s it was, I think, that I used to play a few games of Go and Chess with a guy, every week, for about two years. Some day he quit playing with me, complaining about my bad style of play, especially in Chess. Fact was that I won the majority of the games. I liked to use the concept of “poisoned figures” (German chess term for sacrifice), which he extremely disliked and thought of as deceit.

2) While I replied with harsh critique of the OP’s behaviour and comments, I feel it is appropriate to admit that I can definitely empathise with their feelings, knowing that I have behaved like a jerk more often in my life than I feel comfortable admitting — and in areas much more real and important than in a game, namely In Real Life. I know perfectly well how it feels to lose my self-control and to forget my ethics when somebody pulls certain strings in me, when it feels like somebody is doing me wrong.

So … I’m not above this, I just wish to leave such behaviour behind, and I dearly hope nobody finds those other strings in me …

Cordially, Tom

[kex]

People have different opinions on the matter, my own is that hoping your opponent makes a mistake or being slow to resign or using posture and play speed to try to trick a player into missing a trap are at best minor infractions, while refusing to accept responsibility for a loss violates the core of what good sportsmanship is all about.

Well put. Hear, hear.

[wineandgolover]

You want to know about losing won games? In the past few months, I've lost three games during scoring!

In two of them I failed to mark dead stones, turning victory into defeat. In the third, the opponent somehow managed to unmark a stone I had already marked as dead. I didn't notice until I hit "done" a second time.

So here's how I feel about that. Whenever I play and my opponent fails to mark one of my dead groups as dead, I will mark it as dead. Always. But I need to be aware that others don't. If I fail to mark a group as dead, that's 100% on me, even if I'd have handled it differently than my opponent.

That third game, oh, that third game. I was steaming after that, because it was sneaky and underhanded. In the end though, I did hit "done" a second time, which should have been a warning flag.

So there you go. My fault. I accept responsibility. But I REALLY hope that the third time is the charm and I don't do it again.