mangue: Draw is impossible in Hex.

Thnx fo link.

is not it? I havent play since a while... I used to play it on playsite.com but they remove it.
it is a very clever game and I will sure play some games here too

try hex against the computer.

http://www.mazeworks.com/hex7/index.htm

Has there been any word on getting komi fixed? With a too-low komi (drastically low in 13x13 and 9x9 sizes) white is at a distinct disadvantage.

headius: No. The normal is 6.5 in all these sizes if I had understand it right? At the current playing level of most of the people it is not problem, but of course more equal the better. I personally are not so sure which would be right komi.

Salkkuman: Currently on BrainKing, komi is 5.5 for a 19x19 board, 4.5 for a 13x13 board and 3.5 for a 9x9 board.

At the current playing level of most of the people (me included, rating notwithstanding) maybe a komi of 0 (zero) would be nice :)

hexkid: With normal I ment, outside of BK.

Salkkuman: As with so many things in Go, the Sensei's page about Komi is inconclusive

Salkkuman: I would vote for 6.5 for all sizes. For those who think komi should be larger or smaller for 13x13 or 9x9, consider this:

Yes, there are typically fewer points in 9x9 or 13x13...
...but the first move is also that much more important.

I believe most sources agree these two factors balance out so that komi should be the same on small boards.

In actuality, I would prefer a configurable komi, so we could specify it at game start, but I don't know how that would work with the current rating system. Fancier go sites are able to make games rated all the time, regardless of settings tweaks, but BK is limited in that regard. Perhaps only rated for default settings (komi 6.5, no handi)?

I have a problem with an opponent who refuses to end a game in a reasonable manner. More than once he has marked all the stones on the board as dead.

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1633225

Edited: As Hexkid thought it was just a misunderstanding about how to end the game. Silly me.

Flummoxed: Many people here have had their fist contact with Go a few weeks ago when Fencer introduced the game on BrainKing. As you win even with all stones marked dead, I'd try pointing to your opponent that no stones are dead in that game (even if you have to offer him F6), and then accept the correct score of "White wins". It is my understanding that winning by 30 points is exactly the same thing as winning by 0.5 point as far as the BKR and statistics go.

hexkid: Thanks for the advice.

It would be handy to be able to download an .sgf file, similar to the PGN code available for chess games. The format is fairly simple and, of course, supports all of the basic Go constructs available here, including komi and handicaps.

the score on player resign should not be displayed, because irrelevant and inaccurate
ex:
http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1677284
it should seems clear that white has more than 1 point... but it does not change the result, black resigned.

It is just a suggestion to removing the misleading point calculation

mangue: i do think the same way!

do you think it is accurate?

mangue: It is clear that it is inaccurate because it does not "kill" the dead stones.

3.5 komi in 9x9 = really good for black

tbart: That's why I try to avoid playing white on 13x13 or 9x9 on BK right now; they're heavily weighted toward black. We need komi fixed!

headius: I think making komi a user-selectable value would be nice. Instead of getting handicap stones I could play a game with komi set to, for example, -83.5 :)

hexkid: I'd be all over a user-selectable komi, so long as the standard rated games used correct komi to begin with.

I asked on the komi issue
answer:

"Komi will be made as an option with several possible values.
When I have time for it.

Filip"

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

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

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.

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.

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

Marfitalu: thanks

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

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.

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

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.

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: 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...

hexkid: Proving stones to be dead can cost points!

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: 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.

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

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.

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

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

Marfitalu: Will you kick them out?

Marfitalu: I thought the default was 1300...

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

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

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 ;)

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?

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