A question about handicaps

[Fulan]

Absolute beginner at Go here. I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field. The stronger player managed to get to his level with the same tools at his disposal as anyone else so why is the weaker player deserving of a helping hand.

But I see in Go there is a well thought out handicap system. What's the rationale behind it?

Btw, this is not a jab at Go or the ruleset. It's just something that clashes with the culture that I'm used to when competing. Though it's currently the subject of a lot of heated debates between veteran and newer players.

[hyperpape]

The handicap system allows a wider range of players to play interesting games against each other. It also allows a more balanced exposure to the game. Take the endgame: without a handicap, I should resign my games against a stronger player quite early. With a handicap, I can have the experience of playing the endgame, and have a chance that it will matter, so we'll both take it seriously.

[Sverre]

Absolute beginner at Go here. I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field. The stronger player managed to get to his level with the same tools at his disposal as anyone else so why is the weaker player deserving of a helping hand.

But I see in Go there is a well thought out handicap system. What's the rationale behind it?

Btw, this is not a jab at Go or the ruleset. It's just something that clashes with the culture that I'm used to when competing. Though it's currently the subject of a lot of heated debates between veteran and newer players.

I play go to have fun, and a completely one-sided game isn't. The nearest player who can give me a challenge on an even board is eight hours away by bus or train. I can't afford that expense regularly so for me challenging even games is reserved for online play and tournaments. That leaves only handicap games.

Also, in an even game between players of different strengths the weaker player will not punish the stronger player's sloppy play. At the same time the weaker player won't learn as much from the stronger player if 99% of the time the stronger player is so far ahead that he is simply passively defending his lead. The handicap is there to push the stronger player to play at his limit so the weaker player can see how strong play looks in a real game.

[Fulan]

Are handicaps applied in tournament?

[illluck]

There are handicap and reduced-handicap tournaments, but I think most are even.

[Sverre]

Are handicaps applied in tournament?

Three common options are:
* No handicap
* Reduced handicap (score or strength difference -2, for example, in practice due to the pairing most people won't play a handi game in a reduced-handicap tournament)
* Full handicap

Full handicap tournaments are fairly rare.

[Ortho]

Are handicaps applied in tournament?

An aside-the way Go tournaments are typically set up, no one in position to receive a handicap can ever win the tournament outright, even if they win all of their games. For example, I entered my first tournament as the 110th or so strongest player, and if I had won all 7 of my games I would've finished 105th or something.

[hyperpape]

I have attended 11 tournaments, 10 of which had full or reduced handicaps for kyu players like me. Some, but not all, of these tournaments have had an open section for dan players, or high-dan players.

I don't know if this is a difference between the AGA and Europe, or what.

[NinG]

Not having played a single real life tournament, I don't like the idea of giving handicap in competitive play. It sounds stupid to me that a 6kyu has the same chances to win a tournament as a 2d, because he gets 8 stones handicap. What's the point in becoming good then, anyway? The better player is supposed to win, and not someone who is just better than his rank and thus gets free handicap stones, with which he can beat any other player... I played chess when I was younger and it would sound completely stupid to, lets say, remove a bishop of the stronger player, which would roughly be the same as giving stones in a handicap match.

[jts]

Some thoughts.

-- More so than practically any other game that is played competitively, there is no element of luck, chance, or imperfect information in Go. You can imagine that between a skilled an unskilled player of rock-paper-scissors, it would be quite normal for the unskilled player to win. Among a skilled and unskilled player of backgammon, the unskilled player will win often enough to tempt him back. Between a skilled and unskilled player of Go, you could easily play a hundred games and never have the unskilled player come close.

-- In most games there's no way to give a handicap without crippling the game. Even in Chess, giving a handicap gives a very different game. Back when I played computer games, the AIs were so bad that they had handicaps that involved having units with completely different statistics, or a large stockpile of resources at the beginning of the game - both of which give the player with the handicap a very different strategy. In Go, on the other hand, the local situation with one, two, or even three handicap stones in a given corner can easily arise in an even game, and many of the same strategic and tactical considerations apply.

-- Many strong go players do suggest that beginners learn more from playing even games than from handicap games, and if you join KGS you'll find plenty of people willing to play even games with you, and can observe plenty of unhandicapped games. However, many beginners find it grueling to play too many even games against stronger players and prefer to play with other beginners, or handicap games.

-- The ranking system of go is tightly connected to the handicap system, especially on KGS. Thus in some games, if you give a beginner some sort of advantage... re-rolls or mulligans or just advice and mercy... the game is completely useless for competitive ranking. In go, on the other hand, winning or losing a properly handicapped game has the same implications for your rank as an even game against a player of the same rank. (And it's rather amazing how many ranked handicap games come down to just a few points difference... I was shocked at first by how well the system works.)

[NinG]

Of course, for playing on KGS or any other "normal" game, giving handicap can be a good thing. The games become closer, the weaker player learns more, the stronger player needs to concentrate and find the best moves, too, etc.
But when it comes to something like tournament games, I just don't understand why there should be handicap given. The purpose of a tournament is to search for the strongest player. It doesn't make sense at all to give a weak player handicap here, because if - lets say - a 3 kyu wins a tournament where handicap is given, he is still definitely not better than the 2d player he won against with 5 handicap stones by 3.5 points. In fact, in the end you cannot tell at all which players are the strongest and which "deserve" to win, because the "chances" of every single person have been equalized. Why even make that tournament?

[Boidhre]

Not having played a single real life tournament, I don't like the idea of giving handicap in competitive play. It sounds stupid to me that a 6kyu has the same chances to win a tournament as a 2d, because he gets 8 stones handicap. What's the point in becoming good then, anyway? The better player is supposed to win, and not someone who is just better than his rank and thus gets free handicap stones, with which he can beat any other player... I played chess when I was younger and it would sound completely stupid to, lets say, remove a bishop of the stronger player, which would roughly be the same as giving stones in a handicap match.

Tournaments here from what I've heard are handicap - 2 with no handicap stones above 2k (if I recall correctly). If people are ranked correctly this is a rather large advantage to the stronger player.

[shapenaji]

Absolute beginner at Go here. I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field. The stronger player managed to get to his level with the same tools at his disposal as anyone else so why is the weaker player deserving of a helping hand.

But I see in Go there is a well thought out handicap system. What's the rationale behind it?

Btw, this is not a jab at Go or the ruleset. It's just something that clashes with the culture that I'm used to when competing. Though it's currently the subject of a lot of heated debates between veteran and newer players.

Well, a big part of it is that it determines your rank. If you can give another player 3 stones with 50-50 odds, you're probably 3 ranks stronger than them. Handicap is really the only thing that can determine rank, if people are more than 2 ranks apart, you'll never get any useful data from having thethem play an even game against each other.

And it's not just that the weaker needs a leg up. It's that the game is just not interesting for the stronger player without it.

Handicap is something that you earn:

If I start winning most of the games against a rival, we might change the handicap, and then I have a new challenge.

[Lahtis]

Tournaments in go are most often played with a McMahon system, with everyone above a certain rank (those who can actually win the tournament) play without handicap, whereas the rest play with reduced handicap. That is the most common setup for a Go tournament.

[hyperpape]

Not having played a single real life tournament, I don't like the idea of giving handicap in competitive play. It sounds stupid to me that a 6kyu has the same chances to win a tournament as a 2d, because he gets 8 stones handicap. What's the point in becoming good then, anyway? The better player is supposed to win, and not someone who is just better than his rank and thus gets free handicap stones, with which he can beat any other player... I played chess when I was younger and it would sound completely stupid to, lets say, remove a bishop of the stronger player, which would roughly be the same as giving stones in a handicap match.

Most tournaments I've played in have bands. So there are separate prizes for the best 5-8kyu, best 1-3 dan, etc. And the top level may be without handicap.

Also, chess with handicaps is an inelegant game (even worse than regular chess ).

The purpose of a tournament is to search for the strongest player.

If that's what you wanted to do, you'd just pick the player with the highest rating. You wouldn't necessarily need to play any games! Tournaments are about competition.