Proposed solution to the escapers problem...

[Bantari]

Kirby, why shouldn't you be allowed to not finish a game?

For instance, your mouse battery dies, you click on a 1x1 point instead of answering an atari against 30 stones. You explain the situation, your opponent ignores you. I'd prefer to leave the game, since my opponent is clearly an ignorant little so-and-so.

Because you agreed to play a rated game.

The question should be, "Why should you be allowed to not finish a game?".

Because your mouse broke, your house is on fire, had something come up at work. . .

The I would argue that winning/losing/unfinishing a game is the least of your concerns if your house is on fire.
And you should not be playing Go at work anyways - and if you do, you take your chances.

Seriously... is it really THAT important?

So every now and then you lose a game you did not deserve to lose. So what?
It will balance out by winning games you were not supposed to win on occasion, no? So what?
And I see with amazement that people have absoulutely NO COMPLAINTS about that side of the coin!

I mean really... if your mouse breaks and you make a silly move - ask yourself: can I still win this game? if not, resign. if yes, keep playing. It might actually make for a more interesting game... Whining about it and demanding undo or game nullification is so... undignified... in my eyes... Your mouse, your responsibility, period. I think in this respect chess got it right - you touch a piece you have to move it! Same thing here, I say...

I really think its just the same sickness all along - rank chasing. Because this is what i keep hearing all the time in this thread: rank, rank, rated, blah blah, rated, rank, blah, rank rank... If not for rank and your expectations about it - i don't see people having an issue or very much to say. And seriously - considering that misclicks happen rather seldom, their influence on rank is minuscule, win or lose. Unless they happen to you a lot - but then no server rules can help you... just get a new mouse, they are not that expensive.

Sheesh....
I feel better now.

[topazg]

As far as I'm concerned, when the clock starts, the game starts. When the timer runs out, the game ends, if it hasn't ended by some other means. I'm not sure why there's a need for a 5 or 10 minute timeout, just let the clock keep ticking. If you have a bad connection, don't play 10 second blitz games or be happy losing when you do. Likewise, if I was at a real tournament and suddenly had to rush to the toilet when in byo-yomi (eaten too much curry or something), I'd expect to lose the game if I did. I wouldn't consider it at all unsportsmanlike for my opponent to let my time run out and claim the win, because as far as I'm concerned I agreed to play within the time controls, and I shouldn't take up more of my opponent's personal time than that allotted for the game. If the opponent _chooses_ to postpone the game until I'm available again, that's fine too, but it should be entirely his choice to stop the clock.

I think this is fair to everyone. It might seem unfair to those with bad connections, but everyone knows where they stand and can set their time controls accordingly. Actual power failures will still cause problems, but that's relatively unavoidable.

I also 100% agree that escapers shouldn't be able to join or start a new game while their escaped game is still open.

[Kirby]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously. I agree that things come up with Internet go, but that should be reflected in your Internet go rating, in my opinion.

If you want to play without the stress of distractions, houses catching on fire, or misclicks... Then, simply play a free game.

[Li Kao]

So every now and then you lose a game you did not deserve to lose. So what?
It will balance out by winning games you were not supposed to win on occasion, no? So what?
And I see with amazement that people have absolutely NO COMPLAINTS about that side of the coin!

I do. Why not just ask me if we can finish later?

I mean really... if your mouse breaks and you make a silly move - ask yourself: can I still win this game? if not, resign. if yes, keep playing. It might actually make for a more interesting game... Whining about it and demanding undo or game nullification is so... undignified... in my eyes... Your mouse, your responsibility, period. I think in this respect chess got it right - you touch a piece you have to move it! Same thing here, I say...

People resigning because they have to leave is a bit annoying. I'd prefer them escaping and finishing later on. And please ask for undo if you misclick(excluding perhaps blitz games). Else you destroyed a perfectly fine game with your stubbornness. I don't care much about rank(if I get better it will follow anyways), but I care about not getting my game aborted in the middle.

[Kirby]

...
People resigning because they have to leave is a bit annoying. I'd prefer them escaping and finishing later on. And please ask for undo if you misclick(excluding perhaps blitz games). Else you destroyed a perfectly fine game with your stubbornness. I don't care much about rank(if I get better it will follow anyways), but I care about not getting my game aborted in the middle.

This would be solved by allowing for a "request resume later" option (which is like the "undo" request feature, but for postponing the game for later), would it not?

[hyperpape]

Why should a free game be any different than a ranked game?

[Bantari]

So every now and then you lose a game you did not deserve to lose. So what?
It will balance out by winning games you were not supposed to win on occasion, no? So what?
And I see with amazement that people have absolutely NO COMPLAINTS about that side of the coin!

I do. Why not just ask me if we can finish later?

I mean really... if your mouse breaks and you make a silly move - ask yourself: can I still win this game? if not, resign. if yes, keep playing. It might actually make for a more interesting game... Whining about it and demanding undo or game nullification is so... undignified... in my eyes... Your mouse, your responsibility, period. I think in this respect chess got it right - you touch a piece you have to move it! Same thing here, I say...

People resigning because they have to leave is a bit annoying. I'd prefer them escaping and finishing later on. And please ask for undo if you misclick(excluding perhaps blitz games). Else you destroyed a perfectly fine game with your stubbornness. I don't care much about rank(if I get better it will follow anyways), but I care about not getting my game aborted in the middle.

Yeah, one more example that you can't please everybody.
Even one person seems contradictory. You say you prefer escaping to resigning, and then you say aborting games in the middle you do not like. What really is the difference between escaping and resigning in such cases? Only rating, nothing else. The game is 'unfinished' in either case, no? At least - in my mind... In case of resigning, at least there is closure - I KNOW this game is done and can safely forget it. In case of escaping, I can expect the opponent showing up at any time and asking for resumption. But either way - it is so meaningless...

Chill, dude, chill.

[Kirby]

Why should a free game be any different than a ranked game?

A free game, by definition, means that the result does not matter. A ranked game is one where the result is valued and important.

If something happens on your end - your house burns down, you click the wrong spot, etc. - then you are the person that is responsible, and it should be reflected as such in your rank.

A ranked game, under particular time settings, should be executed and finished within the given time settings. If someone violates that, the rank of the violator should be affected, since the game they are playing is intended to be used as a metric for their rank, since they are playing a ranked game.

[topazg]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously. I agree that things come up with Internet go, but that should be reflected in your Internet go rating, in my opinion.

I partially agree with this. I suspect I only take a small fraction of my Go games "seriously", but I do expect them all to affect my rating, and I am entirely ambivalent towards losing because of some random act of God (hence the "resigning when my opponent escaped" comments in another thread). That's just life, and this is just Go, it's way down my list of actual life priorities, even though I enjoy it lots as a hobby.

Sometimes I play when I'm exhausted and just want to throw stones around, sometimes I play when I've had too much to drink, sometimes I play when I angry about something else in life, and sometimes I just play when I really want a game. The amount of different factors that apply must give me a strength of at least +/- 2 stones of my registered rank, and to be honest I don't feel any low self-esteem from losing to a 2k or high self-esteem for beating a 3d. These things happen sometimes, and my rank reflects my overall record. If it goes down, I don't actually believe I've gotten weaker, just had a worse set of results on average than I had beforehand. Likewise with going up.

I do however believe in being polite and courteous _all_ the time, regardless of how much effort I'm putting into the game. That includes being pleasant at the beginning and the end, and being polite mid game. I think the time issue is one of those things for me - I actually find it impolite to find the opponent, or the server, capable of holding a game that I have spared maybe 50 minutes for, in a semi-permanent status. I sit down, I play, when I get up, I want to have won, or lost, but at least finished the game.

People resigning because they have to leave is a bit annoying. I'd prefer them escaping and finishing later on. And please ask for undo if you misclick(excluding perhaps blitz games). Else you destroyed a perfectly fine game with your stubbornness. I don't care much about rank(if I get better it will follow anyways), but I care about not getting my game aborted in the middle.

Resigning is a valid move at any point. It seems impolite to begrudge someone ending the game because they have something more important to go and do, it certainly feels like their valid right to do so. Likewise, if I misclick, c'est la vie, until I can play the perfect game I've almost certainly destroyed it a few times already

[judicata]

The I would argue that winning/losing/unfinishing a game is the least of your concerns if your house is on fire.
And you should not be playing Go at work anyways - and if you do, you take your chances.

First, with my job, things come up all the time--even when I'm at home in the evening (if I'm lucky enough to be there).

But I think you missed my point. While I take rated games seriously (e.g., I respect my opponent), my attitude is similar to yours. I don't believe I've ever abandoned a game intentionally (I remember two occasions in which my connection dropped and my opponent refused to resume--I was ahead in both cases), and I don't really see a big escaper problem. Sure, I've run into a few and it bothers me because I've invested time into playing and learning and escaping shows disrespect for that.

My comment was a counter-point to Kirby's idea that "you agreed to it so you have to finish it." I've said before I won't describe behavior that justifies abandoning an online game. But if I agree to a game in real life, and the other person keeps shouting at me and hitting me on the side of the head, I feel justified in abandoning the game. Why? My opponent and I had an agreement, and they broke it by behaving the way they did.

But for me this is really just academic--I really don't care about the "escaper problem."

[Bantari]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously.

Well, when you think about this, you will understand that the ONLY difference between free and rated games is the rank.
So, you might have worded your question differently: I am surprised people do not take rank seriously.

But then, the question is - why do you play a game?
Yes - a specific game, a single game, the one you will start tonight or in the moment?
You play it because rank is important to you, or because playing it gives you pleasure? or both, in which case - which is the more important reason. Would you have less pleasure if the game was unrated? If so, why? The game can be as serious as rated game, so what that it does not affect your rank. And so what if it does?

I guess I am a dinosaur here, but i still clearly remember all the games I played in Go clubs, face-to-face, with real sotnes and on real boards, and the only mice around were the one scurrying in the corners of the coffee shops. And none of these games were ever 'rated' or 'ranked' - but they were so much fun... I simply refuse to fall into that trap of "rated = important" and "unrated = unimportant".

I know that my words fall on deaf ears for many, but still - this is what i seriously believe in.
And so to me, personally, I like rated games, and I like unrated games, I play them both with the same amount of seriousness, and I value the results to the same extent. If that means that every now and then my rank is a fraction of a stone inaccurate - I don't care! really.

[Bantari]

[quote="Bantari"

The I would argue that winning/losing/unfinishing a game is the least of your concerns if your house is on fire.
And you should not be playing Go at work anyways - and if you do, you take your chances.

First, with my job, things come up all the time--even when I'm at home in the evening (if I'm lucky enough to be there).

But I think you missed my point. While I take rated games seriously (e.g., I respect my opponent), my attitude is similar to yours. I don't believe I've ever abandoned a game intentionally (I remember two occasions in which my connection dropped and my opponent refused to resume--I was ahead in both cases), and I don't really see a big escaper problem. Sure, I've run into a few and it bothers me because I've invested time into playing and learning and escaping shows disrespect for that.

My comment was a counter-point to Kirby's idea that "you agreed to it so you have to finish it." I've said before I won't describe behavior that justifies abandoning an online game. But if I agree to a game in real life, and the other person keeps shouting at me and hitting me on the side of the head, I feel justified in abandoning the game. Why? My opponent and I had an agreement, and they broke it by behaving the way they did.

But for me this is really just academic--I really don't care about the "escaper problem."[/quote]

Oh, sorry... I read my post again and I see I wrote it to look like I am responding to yuo personally. this was not my intention.
And yes - i agree with you in full in this respect. I also do not care if the guy escapes or resigns, or whatever. I chalk it mentally as a win and move on. And it makes absolutely no difference to me if this happens in a rated game or unrated game.

[oren]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously. I agree that things come up with Internet go, but that should be reflected in your Internet go rating, in my opinion.

If you want to play without the stress of distractions, houses catching on fire, or misclicks... Then, simply play a free game.

I don't play rated games seriously online. If someone disappears, you go find another game. It won't change your rank, and you know whether or not you've won.

[Kirby]

...

I don't play rated games seriously online. If someone disappears, you go find another game. It won't change your rank, and you know whether or not you've won.

I have this attitude for free online games.

But when I select the option to have a "rated game", it means that I care about playing a game that will affect my rank. I think that it's for this reason that I get frustrated when people don't take rated games seriously - the free game option is always available.

[Kirby]

I am surprised people do not take rated games seriously.

Well, when you think about this, you will understand that the ONLY difference between free and rated games is the rank.
So, you might have worded your question differently: I am surprised people do not take rank seriously.

...

Not exactly. I am OK if people do not take rank seriously. That's perfectly fine. And KGS has an option for people that want to play games like that: Free games.

What surprises me is when people use the option that's available on KGS, which specifies that "I want this game counted toward my rank", and then treat it lightly.

It could be argued that people want to affect their online rank in a non-serious way - but why not just play a free game in this case?