#161133: "Didn't agree about dead stones, resumed play, then game didn't count dead stones."
De què tracta aquest informe?
Què ha passat? Si us plau, selecciona a sota
Què ha passat? Si us plau, selecciona a sota
Si us plau, comprova si ja existeix un informe sobre el mateix tema
En cas afirmatiu, si us plau VOTA per aquest informe. Els informes amb més vots tenen PRIORITAT!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Descripció detallada
-
• Si us plau, copia i enganxa el missatge d'error que veus a la pantalla, si és que n'hi ha algun.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Si us plau, què volies fer, què vas fer i que va succeir
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar Imgur.com per pujar-ho i copiar i enganxar el link aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Què es mostrava a la pantalla quan estaves bloquejat (pantalla en blanc? Part de la interfície del joc? Missatge d'error?)
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Quina part de les regles no s'han respectat per l'adaptació de BGA
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• És visible la violació de les normes durant la repetició de la partida? Si es així, en quin número de moviment?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Quina va ser l'acció del joc que volies fer?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Què intentes fer per dur a terme aquesta acció del joc?
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. -
• Què va passar quan ho vas intentar fer (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat de la partida, ...)?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• A quina fase del joc va passar l'error (quina era la ordre en curs)?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Què va passar quan vas intentar dur a terme l'acció del joc (missatge d'error, missatge de la barra d'estat del joc, ...)?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Si us plau, descriviu el problema de visualització. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar Imgur.com per pujar-ho i copiar i enganxar el link aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Si us plau, copieu/enganxeu el text mostrat en anglès en comptes del teu idioma. Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar Imgur.com per pujar-ho i copiar i enganxar el link aquí.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• És aquest text disponible al sistema de traducció? Si és així, ha sigut traduït fa més de 24 hores?
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. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Si us plau, expliqueu el vostre suggeriment de manera precisa i concisa, per que sigui el més fàcil d'entendre possible.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Quin és el meu navegador?
Firefox v133.0.3
Historial de denúncies
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.
Afegeix quelcom a aquest report
- Un altre ID de partida / ID de moviment
- Prémer F5 ha ajudat a arreglar el problema?
- El problema apareix diversos cops? Cada cop? a l'atzar?
- Si tens una captura de pantalla d'aquest error (bona pràctica), pots utilitzar Imgur.com per pujar-ho i copiar i enganxar el link aquí.
