Seems you did not listen to the proposed solution, or take Tygem's way into account. People with poor connections are provided a time limit for which they can return to the game.

_________________
be immersed

Again, in the case of tygem, one of the loss conditions is not returning to a game within the allotted time provided for poor network connections. This is defined as a loss condition by the system. Therefore, if you do not return to a game within the allotted time, you lose the game.

This implies that people that leave the game without returning in time for the timer to run out, by definition, lose the game.

If the person leaving the game has lost the game, what, exactly, are they escaping from? By the definition of the system, leaving the game and letting the clock run out, hitting the resign button, and letting the normal clock run out, are ALL lose conditions.




This is determined by the rules of the game. Actually, in the case of tygem, admins have the ability to dictate the result of the game to prevent cheating in this phase.

_________________
be immersed

I view this as escaping the game. They should have to resign. Just leaving means they have not finished the game. Therefore, it's escaping either way.




That would put quite a load on KGS admins.

That's the thing, "just leaving" means that they DO finish the game. It's the way the server is designed. By server definition, "just leaving" and letting the time run out is the same as clicking the resign button. In both cases, it's a resign. The game ends - there is no game left to finish - 끝 - 終わり - bye bye - game over.

It might be that you make a distinction since you are used to the KGS system, but in systems that use this method, there is no difference.



Sure. I'm not proposing such a system here (though it is nice) - it's kind of off topic.

_________________
be immersed

Bantari, I don't think you were really responding to the quote of me which you quoted, as I don't see the direct relation, but I would like to respond anyway.

I do not disagree in general that an adjourned (or cancelled) game is better for the rating system and the players than one that is decided by forfeit due to external circumstances. If winning would be all that mattered, we should be playing tournaments.

It is not as clear-cut as you say though, unless you assume an unbiased sample. In case of escapers, the very definition of it is about bias (not resuming games which should have been a loss). This bias is artificially inflating ratings, because systematic abusers can increase their winning percentage far above what it should be. We know that this is happening because some people are fair enough to admit that they do it, so it's not just a theoretical problem. Since KGS ratings are indeed fairly inflated, especially on the lower ranks, where escaping is more rampant, it does not seem that far fetched to suspect a relation.

My point is, that systematic escaping can be as harmful to the rating system as systematic sandbagging, yet it is officially sanctioned. I have not heard a convincing argument why that is the case, other than that it would create too much strain on the admins if complaints about escapers would be allowed.

While that's fair enough, let's not pretend that the policy is flawless. And I do believe that it would be possible to find a compromise, e.g. a flagging system which would allow admins to focus on the most prominent cases of abuse as they see fit, without being swamped in complaints. Like sandbagging, it would be impossible to perfectly get rid of the problem via policing, but even small efforts could make a big difference.

And no, I'm not personally bothered by it. I haven't encountered an escaper since I started playing again recently (well one, but it was forfeited so it doesn't count), and can barely remember what it feels like. I just like to discuss matters of user interfaces and preventing abuse in multiplayer games, and I feel that neither the system itself nor the policies are perfect yet. It almost never is, so as long as at least some people perceive this as a problem, it is worth looking for solutions and improvements.

In summary, my proposals so far are:

A) Don't allow escapers to start new games when their opponent is still waiting on the board (though provisions for simultaneous games could be made). If you are connected to the server and you have an open game, you should be in it.

B) Update the dialogs and wordings to make the situation more clear. E.g. don't scare users if they want to leave a game after their opponent escaped, and at least provide a warning when the KGS app is quit. I wouldn't be surprised if the latter accounts for a fair amount of "escapes".

C) Change the policy as described above, so abusers know they may be sanctioned and players know that their concerns are being taken seriously.

I do not see how either of these changes would pose a problem for anybody currently affected by the system, and combined I believe that they would improve the situation enough for an already small(ish) issue to become a non-issue.

I'm still not interested in arguing any points in these threads, but just to clear up some inaccuracies...



This is false, as has been stated several times in other threads -- An optimum escaper who plays a significant number of games could raise a 50% "properly handicapped" winning percentage to a 55%, this difference is still far less than the winning percentage needed for a promotion (approx 66%). This assumes of course people aren't resigning unfinished games to them.



This is false. There is a very strict upper bound on how much you can improve your winning percentage via escaping, and it is less than a stone. A game will not be mismatched due to this. There is no lower bound to how far you can reduce your rank by resigning won games, there is potential for great skew.

This is all well and good, but how can you start with the assumption that the abuser will play "a significant number of games"? As rating changes on KGS are inverse-proportional to the number of games played, and one can always create a new account and even play on many accounts alternating, I would not expect a systematic abuser to play many games on a single account.

Sure. But if you do that, let's also get rid of the entire rating system.

Otherwise, if you want to have a rating system, make it count losses to people that leave the game with no intention of returning.

The fact that a rating system exist, to me, gives reason to have that rating system give losses to those that leave with no intention of coming back. Make some allowances for poor connections, sure. Make some allowances for people that want to postpone the game, where both players agree, sure.

But don't let someone just leave a rated game they've agreed to without giving them a loss for it.

Removing the desire to win is fine and good, but if we are going to have a rating system, let's make it as good as we can.

_________________
be immersed

This would make go, at best, the equivalent of working on collaborative math problems (which may be fun for some people in some circumstances--but leave our ancient competitive games alone). Watching pros sit around and not try to win would be equally enthralling. It wouldn't even make much sense to have two opposing players--just have everyone play some version of Zen Go. Sure, this is fun in study groups, but "eradicating" any desire to win would rip the soul out of the game.

You can backpedal now if you want, and say you really meant "don't get too obsessed with winning" or "don't focus only on winning." I'll forget the hyperbole. (Disclaimer: my argument is intended neither to defend nor oppose any escaper system.)

I guess I just meant to say, if you're going to have a rating system, you might as well make it as good as you can. The rating system takes wins/losses into account. An escape with no intention of returning is a loss that should be counted.

Talking about the "desire to win", etc. is beside the point.

_________________
be immersed

Escapers are not evil, nor ar they part of an evil conspiracy. They should simply get losses for their games if they have no intention of returning.

Sure, maybe both escapers and I care about winning. I don't think that this is evil.

But leaving the game with no intention of returning should be a loss condition, as it cannot be practically distinguished from a resignation (which is another loss condition).

P.S. By adding a timeout and an option for a mutually-agreed-upon resume later, we can distinguish between leaving the game with no intention of returning and connection issues, for example, in most cases.

_________________
be immersed

I completely disagree with this. Go is not mutual Sudoku, it is a fighting game through and through (just in case the "killing" and "cutting" didn't give it away ). A dance is an activity with two participants trying to move in synchronous rhythm, a fight is an activity with two participants trying to make each other trip.

A good analogy would be Badminton, a game that is often played by two people not with the purpose of winning, but simply to keep the ball up for as long as possible. While that can be fun, it has none of the brilliance and spark of a "true" Badminton match, where both players use feints and force not in order to make their partners hit the ball, but to miss it. In short, it becomes a completely different game (to the extend that we have a different name for it).

I feel the same way about Go, the desire to win is what creates unexpected situations and brilliant encounters. E.g. why would one start a fight in a losing position, if not with the intention to turn the game around and win?

You can say that it only happens with the intention to find the best play, but is it really? Or is it objectively incorrect, but played for the reason that it offers the highest chances for your opponent to trip and fall? This does not a dance make.

To me, Go without the desire to win is not Go. But what should go without saying is that this is about winning on the board, not through cheats or regulations. I don't see how there can be any pleasure in the latter, at least as long as no direct benefits are involved.

You may have a very different attitude towards Go and life in general, and perhaps this will help you reach enlightenment sooner than the rest of us, but let us enjoy our bloody game!

People use the word desire quite differently. Some people use it like they use "need" or "urge" or "fascination". For them, the desire to win would mean an all-consuming thing. For others, desire means little more than that you try to achieve something.

Clearly, go would not work without the latter. If your moves did not aim at winning, there would be no point to the game. It's something closer to the former notion that we're talking about when we argue about whether a desire to win is good.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

This is actually what I feel with a number of games: I play with the objective to win. I cannot understand people that say they do not want to win, because the objective of the game, in my mind, is to win.

One of my coworkers says this will change after I have kids. He says that your objective might not always be to win, but to be able to spend time with your kid, and enjoy the fact that s/he is learning new things.

I don't think I am that way now, but I guess I'll find out how I am after having kids.

_________________
be immersed

Capoeira anyone?



I'm actually going to take Helel's side on this one. Many a game where I've been 10 points ahead I've played namby-pamby moves to secure the win, but at that point, it's less about interesting go, and more a matter of completing a formality. If the result was unimportant, I would be free to read and try for complicated endgame tesujis, and seeing how many points I could squeeze out of the remainder of the game. I naturally will win more games with better play, so striving to win in and of itself is irrelevant, as with "best play" those wins will come anyway.

I remember a somewhat trite but relevant quote from the film "First Knight". Richard Gere, playing Lancelot, was asked what made him so good. He spouted the normal rhetoric about practising every day, and yada yada yada, but his last comment was about ".. not caring whether you live or die". I think to be truly free to play great Go, you have to not care about the result enough to try the most daring and adventurous things you think you can read. Of course you want to win, but that's not the same as playing to win.

Distinguish "I desire to win" from "I desire to win above all else" and I don't think you're really disagreeing with me or Kirby, Topazg.

And saying you strive to play the best moves not to win is similarly not a problem. Compare: "I try to make sure the things I say are supported by the evidence. I don't have to think about whether they're true because things that are supported by the evidence are more likely to be true. So I don't really care if the things I say are true."

What we care about is not just winning, but winning as an exercise of our own skill. So it's not as good to win a cakewalk, or win a lost game because your opponent self-ataris. But winning is still a goal, and if winning were not a goal, we would not really have Go.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I kind of agree with this. It is not interesting to play passively and thoughtlessly when you are ahead on points. It's still a good exercise to think about the game seriously, which might help you in future games. I see this as kind of a "theoretic exercise of local situations", though.

If the result of a game has been decided, it's still interesting to train yourself by continuing to think. It's still good to play your best.

From the perspective of game theory, though, go is a still a zero sum game: All that matters is the win or loss. A 50 point win is nice, but it's valued no greater than a 0.5 point win.

So I would say that I feel that, the objective of the game of go is to do whatever is necessary to win - be it by 1/2 point or by 100 points.

But playing passively and thoughtlessly is probably a waste of time - you could be using the exercise as an opportunity to stretch your mind in order to grow for future games.

_________________
be immersed

Well, just have a 5 minute window which can't be recharged. (If you disconnect for 2 minutes, then you have 3 minutes for future disconnects)

This seems obvious, no need for a flag. You can also just have an "adjourn" button if players both agree to finish it later.

Why is this complicated?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

This is exactly my proposal (though, I didn't settle on the name "adjourn").

I guess it gets complicated when people argue about the definition of "escaper". :-p

_________________
be immersed