Time settings?

[Kaya.gs]

Even 1 minute main time + 10x2:00 is a really really really slow game, but would your system suspect it was a blitz game done strangely?

I think if the issue is a lack of adjournment, then the implementation of adjournment for real time games makes sense as a next step in this issue - it's a desirable feature anyway, and one I've used quite a few times on KGS.

Regarding escapers, I would like to suggest the following proposal - if people want to discuss it, I'll move it to a new thread for its own discussion:

1) If a player disappears, the game is automatically lost by timeout if he doesn't reconnect within 15 minutes.
2) This is prevented by the remaining player adjourning the game, at which point time is stopped.
3) The remaining player can "restart" the game at any point (regardless of whether the opponent is present, but it gives the players a chance to find a suitable time for both).

That way, people can't escape to avoid a loss, the remaining player isn't forced to fill up a list of unfinished games, and we deal with the time limit cap issue as the remaining player never has to wait longer than 15 minutes.

Remember 1) doesn't mean "hasn't moved for 15 minutes", it means "has left the board for 15 minutes". I don't think there's any problem spending 20 minutes on a single move in a difficult game.

Short answer to the first question: No.

I hadnt thought of someone being able to adjourn in that case. Ill think about that, but it will probably not come until deferred go comes in. I like that the live games have to re resolved on the spot.

Another thing i forgot to mention: we are obvioulsy going to add "Add time " capabilities. So basically, 2 people can start with 30 minutes, and give each other time as much as they wish.

The calculation you previously suggested is roughly how "Blitz/Fast/Medium/Slow" categories are calculated for the game list showing.

[RobertT]

I'm going to assume many of you have little to no experience with servers other than KGS. Many of the other servers including yahoo, playok, flyordie, tygem and wbaduk have this problem. It seems that servers with less admins or more lax rules have this problem more, probably why this concept seems so foreign to players on kgs because of the surplus of admins ready to ban. This isn't some unknown exploit that never happens. How it works is after a long time limit game starts the player leaves the computer or does something else and hopes for an opponent disconnect or resign. They then check back after a while, play a move and hope you left your computer at that point. They then wait for you to lose on time. The reason why some of you don't consider yahoo a real server is because it LOST to player that do this. Every other game you play on yahoo, the player does this or another exploit. Though Gabriel's solution might not be ideal, it does lessen the effect.

Also longer main time vs longer byo yomi isn't the same when it comes to this exploit since longer main time = longer wait time. Forcing the person trying to use this exploit to play 50 times instead of letting them wait 30 more minutes isn't the same. While this hasn't become an issue yet since its still in beta and only has somewhat serious go players signed up for it, once it opens up to everyone from any server we will have to find an more reasonable solution than having admins endlessly banning players. Time will tell how big of a problem this will become on kaya but I can see why Gabriel would fear this and make measures against it so kaya doesn't become another one listed on the yahoo, flyordie and playok list of "not proper Go servers".

[Mivo]

Short answer to the first question: No. I hadnt thought of someone being able to adjourn in that case. Ill think about that, but it will probably not come until deferred go comes in. I like that the live games have to re resolved on the spot.

Are you saying that if a player loses the connection and returns within a few seconds, the game is still automatically lost?

[speedchase]

I'm going to assume many of you have little to no experience with servers other than KGS. Many of the other servers including yahoo, playok, flyordie, tygem and wbaduk have this problem. It seems that servers with less admins or more lax rules have this problem more, probably why this concept seems so foreign to players on kgs because of the surplus of admins ready to ban. This isn't some unknown exploit that never happens. How it works is after a long time limit game starts the player leaves the computer or does something else and hopes for an opponent disconnect or resign. They then check back after a while, play a move and hope you left your computer at that point. They then wait for you to lose on time. The reason why some of you don't consider yahoo a real server is because it LOST to player that do this. Every other game you play on yahoo, the player does this or another exploit. Though Gabriel's solution might not be ideal, it does lessen the effect.

Also longer main time vs longer byo yomi isn't the same when it comes to this exploit since longer main time = longer wait time. Forcing the person trying to use this exploit to play 50 times instead of letting them wait 30 more minutes isn't the same. While this hasn't become an issue yet since its still in beta and only has somewhat serious go players signed up for it, once it opens up to everyone from any server we will have to find an more reasonable solution than having admins endlessly banning players. Time will tell how big of a problem this will become on kaya but I can see why Gabriel would fear this and make measures against it so kaya doesn't become another one listed on the yahoo, flyordie and playok list of "not proper Go servers".

Does playing at 30 minutes instead of 40 on those servers lessen this effect? It seems to me like the proper solution is to have enough admins that this is not an issue, not to reduce the servers functionality. If KGS is so effective at avoiding this, why not copy their approach instead of removing server functionality that probably won't solve this problem anyway?

[aconley]

Could you just add a warning dialog? If you select a long time limit for a rated game, make the users agree to a warning dialog explicitly pointing out that they will not be able to start another game until this one finishes or the time limit expires? If there is a potential problem here -- and it sounds like there can be -- at least you can't say you weren't warned. Preferably with an option to turn it off after the first time.

[speedchase]

I just chatted with Gabriel, and he was very helpful. he explained to me that once he implements differed games, you will be able to start a differed game of 40+40/5, and the only difference between this and a regular game is that if your opponent leaves, his clock keeps going, instead of him loosing in 5 minutes, and if your opponent waits, to get you to leave, you can start another differed game and leave the first open.

[lorill]

If KGS is so effective at avoiding this, why not copy their approach instead of removing server functionality that probably won't solve this problem anyway?

because their approach means being able to exit a game without resigning it, then causing pages and pages of complaints about escapers. KGS made this choice, here we simply see the other side of the compromise.

[Mivo]

because their approach means being able to exit a game without resigning it, then causing pages and pages of complaints about escapers. KGS made this choice, here we simply see the other side of the compromise.

The alternative to KGS's solution doesn't have to be restrictions to the length of rated games, or an inability to start a new game before an old one is finished if you were not the first person to leave. I think KGS's system is basically a good one, except that it gives an escaper way too much time to escape some more before the previous games are forfeited.

[topazg]

I'd like to offer the point of view that I find KGS's arbitrary and random time limits incredibly irritating. At any one moment, there might be a game at 5+100*.10 or 30+5*30 or 10+40/10 or 0+1*0.l0. These all require a fundamentally different time management strategy, which really rankles. I don't want to have to choose games based on whether a potential opponent is offering a normal game or an out-there game. I would prefer a standard time limit, that I can get used to, and after a few games, time management will become a background problem, leaving me to focus on the Go.

Note I am referring to rated games here, free games can be anything.

I would probably consider allowing three variations - fast, normal, slow, with some predefined time limits. They could be rated independently.

I do not regard this as nannying, I regard this as focusing on Go rather than meta-Go.

For example, at our club, rated games are always 30+25/10, we don't allow players to pick crazy variations from this - or if they do, they are not rated games.

Surely this is easy to resolve by giving the players the ability to set filters for what they can see time control wise - most chess servers I play on do this.

[quantumf]

Surely this is easy to resolve by giving the players the ability to set filters for what they can see time control wise - most chess servers I play on do this.

Perhaps, but how would it work if if every game offered is something entirely different (as is usually the case)?

[speedchase]

Surely this is easy to resolve by giving the players the ability to set filters for what they can see time control wise - most chess servers I play on do this.

Perhaps, but how would it work if if every game offered is something entirely different (as is usually the case)?

Then you would play one I the time settings that someone wanted to play. Go is a two person activity, if you refuse to compromise on the length of the game why should your opponent be forced to play a game with time settings they don't like?

[topazg]

Surely this is easy to resolve by giving the players the ability to set filters for what they can see time control wise - most chess servers I play on do this.

Perhaps, but how would it work if if every game offered is something entirely different (as is usually the case)?

Then you either pick the one that suits you best, or offer a game yourself with the time controls you like. It can't always be your opponent doing the offering

[daal]

There is always an upper limit, that is unavoidable. The current one is arbitrary, so the question is How can we measure what would be the best maximum time allowed for rated matches?

An upper limit is not unavoidable. It is perfectly possible for games to be played with no time limit whatsoever. As long as players abuse neither the system nor the patience of their opponents no maximum time is necessary. The problem to be addressed is therefore not how to measure the best maximum time for a rated match, but rather how to prevent abuse.

Let me toss in a suggestion. Let's create an upper limit not for the game, but rather for a single move. If we set the maximum time for a move to 10 mins, after which the game is forfeited, it would become too much of a bother to abuse the system.

[cata]

I still don't get why this is an actual problem. If you don't want to be at risk of your opponent using (say) 120 minutes of time on a lost game, then don't start a 120 minute game with a stranger. This doesn't mean that there's a reason to restrict people who want to start 120 minute games with friends, or who don't mind just checking back once in a while and taking the win.

A warning dialog is a poor idea. Nobody reads warning dialogs, so if you take the "problem" seriously in the first place, the dialog solves nothing.

Also, please don't adopt this suggestion of limiting the time on one move to 10 minutes (or 20 minutes, or 30 minutes.) That's even more conservative than the original policy. I break that limit even in 30-minute main-time games. I spent 35 minutes on a move the other day in the U.S. Open.

It sounds like this idea of "differed" (deferred?) games is going to resolve the perceived problem anyway, so I guess the argument is over.

[quantumf]

Surely this is easy to resolve by giving the players the ability to set filters for what they can see time control wise - most chess servers I play on do this.

Perhaps, but how would it work if if every game offered is something entirely different (as is usually the case)?

Then you either pick the one that suits you best, or offer a game yourself with the time controls you like. It can't always be your opponent doing the offering

What I mean is, how do the chess servers do filtering? What options are available for creating games, and what options are available for filtering them?