#161133: "Didn't agree about dead stones, resumed play, then game didn't count dead stones."
Sobre qué é este informe?
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Por favor revisa se xa hai un informe sobre o mesmo tema
De ser afirmativo, por favor VOTA por este informe. Aos informes con máis votos se lles da PRIORIDADE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descrición detallada
-
• Por favor, copia e pega a mensaxe de erro que ves na túa pantalla, se houbera algún.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Por favor, explica o que querías facer, o que fixeche e o que pasou
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é así, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Qué había na pantalla cando se quedou bloqueado? (mensaxe de erro?, pantalla en blanco?, unha parte da interface do xogo?)
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Qué parte das regras non se cumpriron na adaptación da BGA?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• é visible a violación das regras na repetición? Se o é, en que número de movemento?
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Qué acción de xogo querías realizar?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Qué é o que tratache de facer para activar esta acción do xogo?
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. -
• Qué sucedeu cando o fixeche (a mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
No errors, the game simply ended without allowing use to mark the dead stones. The game didn't identify the dead stones correctly, and didn't even ask if we agreed with the counting result. As several stones were not marked as dead, I lost the stones and the territory they were in.
In my recent table, #642822106, my opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?", which almost cost me the game. This violates the rules of the game. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• En que paso do xogo ocorreu o problema (cal foi a instrucción actual do xogo)?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Qué sucedeu cando tratache de facer unha acción de xogo (mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Por favor, describe o problema de visualización. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é así, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
My opponent and I didn't agree about the marking of dead stones, so we resumed play. My opponent selected "No" to the question, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?" He was losing, and by selecting "no", he almost won the game, as the game didn't mark the dead stones, and didn't give my the resulting 36 points I should have received.
I only won because I was far enough ahead in points. However, Go is usually so close in score that every point makes a huge difference. This prevents people from playing by the rules. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Cal é o teu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
Historial de informes
imgur.com/a/olkcuJm
In bug ID #14642, this problem is marked as fixed, but it actually doesn't fix anything. Rather, it only allows for cheating to continue happening.
This is still happening. Because of my first experience with this, I managed to save my game in this way:
My opponent & I passed. My opponent refused to mark the dead stones. When the question came, "Do you want to have a stage of designate dead stones after next series of passes?", I naturally answered, "yes". I kept playing and killed enough groups to make the game clearly won, and when we both passed, there was no re-counting of dead stones.
Sure enough, my opponent had selected "no", as I suspected he would.
This clearly promotes cheating. The proposed solutions are as follows, going from best to worst:
1) An algorithm that automatically designates dead stones.
2) NO QUESTION about having another stage for designating stones. Since there was already one stage, but the players COULDN'T AGREE, that means that there AUTOMATICALLY needs to be another round of dead stone designation. This should just happen every time.
3) If the question remains like it does now, it should be that if EITHER or BOTH of the players answers "yes", then there should be a stone counting stage.
Engade a este informe
- Outro DI de mesa / ID de movemento
- Premer F5 resolveu o problema?
- Apareceu o problema varias veces? Tódalas veces? Aleatoriamente?
- Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquí.
