#161133: "Didn't agree about dead stones, resumed play, then game didn't count dead stones."
Kāds ir šis ziņojums?
Kas notika? Lūdzu izvēlies no zemākredzamajiem
Kas notika? Lūdzu izvēlies no zemākredzamajiem
Lūdzu, pārbaudiet, vai par šo pašu tēmu jau ir ziņojums
Ja jā, lūdzu, balsojiet par šo ziņojumu. Ziņojumiem ar vislielākajām balsīm tiek dota PRIORITĀTE!
| # | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
|---|
Detalizēts apraksts
-
• Lūdzu nokopē/ielīmē kļūdas ziņu, ko redzi ekrānā, ja tāda ir.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Lūdzu paskaidro, ko Tu vēlējies darīt, ko Tu izdarīji un kas notika
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Kas tika attēlots ekrānā, kad Tu tiki bloķēts (tukšs ekrāns? Daļa no spēles interfeisa? Ziņa par kļūdu?)?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Kura noteikumu daļa netika ņemta vērā BGA versijā?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Vai noteikumu pārkāpums ir redzams spēles atkārtojumā? Ja jā, tad kurā gājienā?
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Kādu spēles darbību Tu vēlējies veikt?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Ko tu dari, lai panāktu šo spēles darbību?
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. -
• Kas notika, kad veicāt šo darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Kurā spēles solī problēma parādījās (kas bija tā brīža spēles instrukcija)?
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Kas notika, kad mēģinājāt veikt spēles darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Lūdzu aprakstiet radušos problēmu. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. -
• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?
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. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
-
• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.
Table #642822106
Have the game count the dead stones to give the proper score to both players. • Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?
Firefox v133.0.3
Ziņojuma vēsture
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.
Pievieno kaut ko šim ziņojumam
- Cita galda ID / gājiena ID
- Vai F5 atrisināja šo problēmu?
- Vai šī problēma parādās vairākas reizes? Katru reizi? Nekonkrētās reizēs?
- Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.
