jurek: Yeah, I would assume it's pretty easy to swap in those images...I'd really like a larger board AND pieces.

hexkid: The other alternative would be for Fencer to just use the Pente piece size setting for Go as well (and Connect6!)

headius: Go boards can be enlarged from the small size to a larger size :)

My solution works simply by setting the image height and width to 25; to use it you need Firefox and GreaseMonkey; you'll also need the Greasemonkey script and possibly to change the value to something you're confortable with (instead of the 25).

jurek: OK, so I can't subtract or add... it's actually 4.5 NEVERMIND!!!

I just finished a game with [Del] and noticed that the komi for 13x13 is actually 5.5, instead of the 4.5 as stated in the rules:
http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1759622

black territory is 4+12+20 = 36. Black's score is 29.5, so 36-29.5 = 5.5. The score wouldn't have mattered in this case if it were 4.5 (white still wins by 0.5), but I found it a little surprising.

Thanks. We have agreed now. :)

whopper: No, there is no way black can play and live, or kill any of the white groups along the C line. If in doubt, play it out.

Are b5,c5 alive?
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1761510

headius: It's worth mentioning that I had to settle for a seki because I was greedy and tried to allow your black group to grow before attempting capture. Suddenly it was too big, you cut off my group, and I had to just close the door and write it off.

Marfitalu: One of the games you and I played had an ugly seki (my fault for not stablizing a group early enough:

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1678903

In this case, it's actually one move away from being seki, which is still seki. If either the white group at K3 or the black group at K4 place a stone on their shared liberties, no further stones can be placed by either color.Since all surrounding groups are stable (or very likely to be) this would be seki.

onigoroshi: ah .. you mean the group with f13 ?

nice indeed :)

Pedro: oops .. missed the links .. just read the top one .. nice setups indeed :)

Hrqls: I didn't know it either - onigoroshi posted a great link some 10 posts below though and now it's all clear to me...:)

Hrqls:

At the end of the game, notice how there are two groups towards the bottom middle that are "coexisting". This means, that neither player wants to try and capture the other players stones, because this would lead to a capture by the other player. At first glance, it would seem that my stones are "dead" inside my opponents territory.

Marfitalu: what is the seki ? at which moves can i observe it ? :)

Marfitalu: Marfitalu: ah yes! i forgot 2 things .. i thought white couldnt play c9 .. but i forgot white could do so if he would capture black in that move .. which happens

i also missed it that b8 also creates the chain :)

thanks!

Marfitalu: but he can only do that by playing on c8, when black plays on c8 first then the group is isolated i think

onigoroshi: if black moves at c8, then the upper left white group is dead isnt it ?

(btw pedro means that your opponent wasnt polish but czech :))

onigoroshi: Well, I don't think learning Polish would be so helpful...:)

jurek:

okay, great! I prefer Chinese scoring with pass stones, as stated somewhere else on this board. It really simplifies scoring, disputes and teaching, in my opinion.

onigoroshi: Yeah, I know how the (Japanese/AGA) scoring is supposed to work :), but I was mostly referring to BK's implementation.

As far as BK implementation, Chinese scoring might be slightly easier to deal with issues like seki, because then you could just mark the seki stones as "dead" and then the scoring should be accurate.

hexkid:

thanks! If I get enough questions like "why X and not Y at move Z" then I will use that SGF and properly comment the game ;)

onigoroshi: I took the liberty to create an SGF file (which you can download) out of that game of yours.

jurek:

okay, I'll try to answer your questions. Unfortunately, I have no idea how the BK scoring works. Traditionally, in both Chinese and Japanese scoring "seki eyes" are not counted as territory.

For more information, see:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?seki
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChineseCounting
http://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseCounting

jurek: sorry, bad terminology... s/miai/seki

This isn't really a question about this game in particular (mainly because there are no eyes in either of the two shapes in miai), but more of a question about the scoring.
If there are any groups in miai that actually have eyespace (and therefore territory), does BrainKing count that territory for the player who surrounds the territory? If one color had eyespace but the other did not, then this could lead to some score inconsistency.

OK, I lied, there is a question about this game...
If BrainKing were to change over to Chinese scoring, how would the scoring of the white F11 group and the black J11 group be handled? They would count for neither player, correct?

yes, unfortunately, i was unable to explain to my opponent that my group at the bottom-center is alive in seki... he seemed to think that I won by (only) 0.5 point. oh well, maybe I should learn polish ;)

I just finished up an interesting game and would be glad to entertain any questions anyone might have ;)

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1712857

Marfitalu: If he's wrong, Fencer will tell it to him. :)

Marfitalu: In cases like this one, the player who claims a win (or draw) should report such a game to Fencer and he'll call it a win (or draw). That's how it works on BrainKing.

Marfitalu: I thought the default was 1300...

Marfitalu: Will you kick them out?

Marfitalu: I have no finished 19x19 matches, but was allowed to join.

Marfitalu: It just means that the players are unrated, they can have played zero games or have won three or lost three or whatever.

Marfitalu: Why unrated are welcome? I think then the idea of having one rating area is broken?!

Marfitalu: This problem could be solved very easily by following the rule used by the AGA: If both players pass twice in a row, the game ends immediately and all stones on the board are counted as alive.

This rule should be very easy to implement, and would completely avoid situations like this.

IMHO, Chinese Scoring (http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChineseScoring) with pass stones (http://senseis.xmp.net/?PassStones) would be the way to go.

hexkid: What if, for example, there was a board position that was entirely filled, except for a seki position? The person rejecting the score count can force the other player to play, thereby forcing the first player to lose more points than by not playing.

jurek: One of the games posted by Marfitalu could proceed to this position. Black has just (wrongly) marked all White stones dead and will have to play a stone on her next turn ...

Even if Black insist on playing on, at some point in time White advantage due to captured stones will be big enough to accept the wrongly marked dead stones :)

hexkid: Proving stones to be dead can cost points!

hexkid: This is the way I see it:

player 1: I say these stones are dead
player 2: I'm not going to accept, so I can reduce your point count by one!
player 1: OK, I'll play here
player 2: pass
player 1: pass
player 2: Dead!
player 1: HAHA! I'm going to reject this, so you lose a point too!
...ad nauseum...

Salkkuman: The player who (wrongly) marked dead stones is the one who has pass disabled, not the other way around.
Think of it as
player 1: I say these stones are dead
player 2: I don't agree, prove it.
player 1: ok, I play here (and lose 1 point)
player 2: Ah! you're right (but you're now losing by 0.5 points) ... pass
player 1: pass
player 2: mark dead stones correctly
player 1: decline
player 2: (Rats! she didn't fall for it) ... resign

hexkid: How would it be right if opponent makes wrong the dead stones and you would have to make a move? It might be that you would lose because of that.

volant: This problem could be solved, if playing a stone was mandatory after a decline of dead stones. A game could then go like this:

137 ...  pass
138 pass D
139 -    h7 (no pass!)
140 pass pass
141 D    -
142 h9   pass
143 pass ...

This, at least, avoids repetition of the same position for every dead stone marking phase and gives a chance for both players to mark stones dead.

The referees thing would be nice too ... I volunteer

volant: If he could have, he would have. Marking dead stones is a very hard thing for a computer to do and even the best go counting algorithms aren't perfect. In the two games listed, there aren't any dead stones (and in the second one, Gabby should have won, had she passed on move 34 and marked the 4 stones at B8 dead).

I think one or more referees would be a good thing for Go here, given the scoring issues that some games end up having, like the two Marfitalu listed.

Marfitalu: maybe Fencer could re-write the Go program so the BK computer will mark the dead stones and games will be over.

Marfitalu: thanks

hexkid: I wasn't sure so thought I had better ask. Thank you I can but try 

volant: Yes ... well, no ...

There is nothing wrong with the picture.
What is wrong is the marked dead stones. After they were marked the way they were marked, the server calculated the score correctly :)

In the game there should be no dead stone marked. All stones on the board are alive.

You should decline the score and maybe tell your opponent to not mark your stones dead.

Marfitalu: I am the first to admit I don't know anything about this game. But should all of the black stones have been marked as dead. I thought they had lots of eyes. I'm really confused.

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this picture?

ttp://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1607471