Is this unethical

[tj86430]

You are playing a fast game. Opponent kills your large group, and you are ready to resign, but you notice that opponent is short of time and there is some bad aji on the board. You decide to play on, making desparate attempts to make your opponent face difficult decisions hoping that you will win on time. Is this considered unethical?

[CarlJung]

Not unethical in my book.

If the opponent has spent so much time that he can't finish the game, he should lose.

[gaius]

Depends on my mood. In general I don't take blitz games too seriously, they're just for fun. So in a friendly game I might resign. But if I want to win this game for whatever reason - like being able to thrash-talk my friend - I push him through the clock .

[topazg]

Frankly, I couldn't care less

If it was me, I'd resign, simply because I blundered and was behind badly enough to warrant it - scoring a win on time is not interesting to me. If it was my opponent, he can do what he likes.

[Wildclaw]

You are playing a fast game. Opponent kills your large group, and you are ready to resign, but you notice that opponent is short of time and there is some bad aji on the board. You decide to play on, making desparate attempts to make your opponent face difficult decisions hoping that you will win on time. Is this considered unethical?

There are a couple of things that tie into this. First of all, is your intention to

* run your opponent out of time.
* force him to make a mistake due to lack of time.

The first is not very ethical in my mind, while the second is perfectly fine.

Also, was the reason you didn't exploit the aji earlier on because

* you didn't think it would work.
* there were bigger spots on the board.

The first is quite rude on your opponent in that you are playing moves that you had no expectation of actually working.

[Magicwand]

if you play by the rules you agreed on then there is no ethics needed.
if you can not handle the heat then dont play blitz. too easy.

[topazg]

There are a couple of things that tie into this. First of all, is your intention to

A) run your opponent out of time.
B) force him to make a mistake due to lack of time.

The first is not very ethical in my mind, while the second is perfectly fine.

Also, was the reason you didn't exploit the aji earlier on because

C) you didn't think it would work.
D) there were bigger spots on the board.

The first is quite rude on your opponent in that you are playing moves that you had no expectation of actually working.

This is interesting. To me, B and C (I lettered them for convenience) are intertwined. "Didn't think it would work" is dependent on the time to think things through. Even against an equal strength opponent, complicated but unfavourable positions get closer and closer to 50% favourable the less time there is to think about it, because pressured errors outweigh correct moves. Are you saying that hamete are always rude because given enough time your opponent will find the correct refutation?

I think if your opponent is short on time and the win is that important to you, evaluating awkward semi-exploitable aji as a "higher chance of success" because your opponent is short on time is not rude - it's playing with a recognition that the aji is very complicated, and without time to read out the complications the chances of success are good enough now even though they weren't earlier in the game.

[kokomi]

that's my strategy in side event, especially in sudden death time setting.

[HKA]

There is nothing wrong with it.

Go is a game. There are rules. Your example says there is aji, so this is not, in your view, a meaningless invasion.

I run into this attitude alot. Folks who spend too much time in the opening, develop a lead, and then complain when they make a mistake under time pressure. "I would not have lost if I was not short on time"

Perhaps they would not have been ahead if they were not short on time.

[phrax]

I don't think its unethical. It seems to me that playing within the rules defined is ethical (time allotted being part of the rules). But, there is an interesting aspect to the situation. If your primary goal is to win, then it may help you to achieve that. If your primary goal is to improve or get stronger, it probably won't help you achieve that. It's easy to associate winning with getting stronger, but that isn't always the case.

I'm inclined to agree with topazg, I usually don't care enough about the win to manipulate time when I feel I should have legitimately lost because of my poor play. Of course there are times when the immediate win has more value for me, the typical examples being tournaments or when my opponent was particularly annoying...

[freegame]

If there are still points on the board you can play them and make it as complex as you want to try and win on time.
When there are no points left you should pass, even if your opponent has only 1 sec left on his clock.
(no absurd invasions, useless ataries, or moves inside your own territory)

I think we even have explicit rules for blitz here in The Netherlands
They deal with this time issue, but I don't know the details.

I think in real life games people pretty much follow this.
Online some don't. I guess anonymity makes people less ethical.

[Phelan]

I wouldn't consider it unethical, unless it was a friendly game. The clock is part of the game as well.

[daal]

You say it's a fast game. The whole purpose of playing a fast game is to make time an important factor. What is unethical about using this to your advantage? And also, just because you try it doesn't mean that you'll necessarily succeed; your opponent might actually even enjoy the challenge of not cracking under time pressure.

[kirkmc]

Why would one want to have a win credited to them if they really knew they should have lost? That's the real question. If you're rating-obsessed, that might improve your rating a bit, but it's bogus, because your play didn't merit it. If it's a tournament, perhaps you might consider it a bit more fair, because of the pressure of tournament games. But in general, I feel one should have the humility to admit defeat.

[Phelan]

But in general, I feel one should have the humility to admit defeat when one hasn't used his time as optimally as the opponent.

Fixed your last sentence.