Why don't more people use Tygem?

[SamT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
Some people will offer a highly unfair split.
Many people will harm themselves in order to not reward that behavior.

Ooh! See, I've already been rewarded for my persistence. I've learned something new

"Rejections in the ultimatum game have been shown to be caused by adverse physiologic reactions to stingy offers.[13] In a brain imaging experiment by Sanfey et al., stingy offers (relative to fair and hyperfair offers) differentially activated several brain areas, especially the anterior insular cortex, a region associated with visceral disgust. If Player 1 in the ultimatum game anticipates this response to a stingy offer, they may be more generous."

Visceral disgust is a very accurate description of what I felt.

Still, perhaps I will be more flexible next time.

I was under the impression that the ranking system on Tygem was like KGS, and if I let him steal the win, then every win I earned afterward he would be awarded a share of. This in particular I could not stand for. It felt wrong down to the very foundations of the game. Viscerally disgusting, as it were.

However, Tygem doesn't work that way. So, blah.

Also, it's the first time I've been cheated playing Go. And I worked very hard to win that game, with several moves I was extremely proud of. So perhaps I took it a little more personally than I normally would.

Oh, and if you haven't noticed, I tend to be rather determined in anything I do.

[Bill Spight]

It is said that it is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness.

I say why not do both?

[Pippen]

Also, it's the first time I've been cheated playing Go.

Hm...the guy was not cheating. He played according to the rules and beat you, because 1) he wanted the win more than you and 2) your technical device failed. I used this technique once just to prove to me how powerful total determination is (I had just read the famous quote about it from Bruce Lee and wanted to "test" it with Go rather than with fighting^^).

[S2W]

Visceral disgust is a very accurate description of what I felt.

Still, perhaps I will be more flexible next time.

Nah - keep fighting the good fight.

[SamT]

Also, it's the first time I've been cheated playing Go.

Hm...the guy was not cheating. He played according to the rules and beat you, because 1) he wanted the win more than you and 2) your technical device failed. I used this technique once just to prove to me how powerful total determination is (I had just read the famous quote about it from Bruce Lee and wanted to "test" it with Go rather than with fighting^^).

Pippen, if this doesn't meet your definition of cheating then perhaps you misunderstand the situation. Even after the board was completely filled in and he had no where else to move (increasing my lead from 30 to 50 points), he continued to pass and disagree with the score infinitely in order to exploit a technical glitch.

This is by any reasonable definition both 1) cheating and 2) theft of something that was rightfully mine. He lost. By a startlingly huge amount. But because of bad client design (tygem) and bad coding (tygem again), he was able to get a "win". He neither earned it nor deserved it.

If anyone finds this type of behavior reasonable at any level, I have every right to judge them as either severely morally flawed or a child, and it is my greatest pleasure in life not to associate with them, and it will also be their greatest pleasure not to know me.

I, personally, am assuming my opponent was a kid playing as it seems a childish thing to do.

[xed_over]

Pippen, if this doesn't meet your definition of cheating then perhaps you misunderstand the situation.

when the rules are defined by the system of enforcement, then strictly speaking, Pippen is right, he wasn't cheating

your still thinking in terms of the spirit of the game itself. how dare you

[Pippen]

when the rules are defined by the system of enforcement, then strictly speaking, Pippen is right, he wasn't cheating

Yes.

I feel bad to talk about that since I did such stuff once and since I understand Sam's point and since I also would say that such an behavior is really really bad stuff. Actually it's so bad, because it uses the rules against the game. It's actually worse than if someone just leaves, call you names or smashes the board, because of the humiliation factor: he beats you by playing along the rules, both of you knowing that it becomes a "who wants this win more" - game.

The rules allow you to fill all liberties as long as it's a legal move, the rules allow you to pass on and on (because by rule it has to be two passings in a row). I think that's a special feature of Go: If you really want to, you can win a lost game, just by refusing to end it and continue to play. At least in Chess such a way is impossible. And I somehow like that, because as you cannot force a man to be convinced of a truth as well you cannot force your Go opponent to lose...it has to be agreed upon.

I wonder if such stuff happens also in real tournaments. I mean can u imagine sitting in front of a guy that plays these "games"?

[Uberdude]

The rules allow you to fill all liberties as long as it's a legal move, the rules allow you to pass on and on (because by rule it has to be two passings in a row). I think that's a special feature of Go: If you really want to, you can win a lost game, just by refusing to end it and continue to play. At least in Chess such a way is impossible. And I somehow like that, because as you cannot force a man to be convinced of a truth as well you cannot force your Go opponent to lose...it has to be agreed upon.

I wonder if such stuff happens also in real tournaments. I mean can u imagine sitting in front of a guy that plays these "games"?

You may be able to force a win by exasperation online, but this won't work in a real-life tournament game. For one the other person won't lose because their iPad breaks, at best you can hope to prolong the game for ages. But mainly because they will call the referee who will tell you to stop being a jerk, and has the right to declare you lose if you don't.

What you can do is win by time. If there is overtime and your moves are so stupid they don't need to even think to answer or pass then you can't win by time either (and the referee may still make you lose for being a jerk). With sudden death it is possible to win like this, but again if you are being a jerk and filling in your own territory etc. the referee will probably tell you to stop or make you lose. The more plausible scenario is continuing to play sensible moves in a game you are hopelessly behind and winning on time, and this does happen, with varying views on how sporting such behaviour is.

The International Teams Tournament in London uses sudden death and I have lost games on time I was ~100 points ahead as my opponent continued to play (reasonable moves, not filling in territory junk). It annoys me a little bit (less that it used to), but as they aren't EGF rated I don't mind so much.