Anyone else enjoy playing outdoors?

My local Go club has plenty of passersby curious about what we're doing who don't come up to ask about the game. I designed some handouts so people could passively learn what Go is about even if they don't want to interrupt. This turned out to be a good idea for us so I thought others might find it useful.

There are optional fields for club meeting times and a QR code.

https://betterbaduk.com/handout

Let's spread the word and get more people into Go! 💪

This was an interesting problem, I thought. Black to link up.

The book answer is h3, g4 connects, f2 knights tesuji. White must connect after h3–the tiger’s mouth at g3 fails after black’s atari at f3 edit: actually I’m not sure what the follow-up is here.

Another line of play I found is for black to double peep first and then threaten to connect underneath: g5, h5 connects, g3, g4 connects, f3, and that should be enough for black to connect. If white doesn’t connect after the first peep, black cuts off the bottom two white stones. There’s kind of a nasty capturing race if white connects at g4 instead, but black seems to have the advantage. If white resists the second peep at g3 by descending to h3, black hanes underneath and should be able to keep connected.

The best resistance I’ve found is this line: g5, h5, g3, h3, h2 hane, now white turns with j4, black has to connect at k3, and white can cut off the upper 3 black stones.

Any faults I’ve missed here?

playgo.ggの日替わり詰碁の問題でした。

私は1だと思いましたが不正解になり、正解は2でした。

どうして1は駄目ですか？

This is a fun little way to look at the Data of the European Go Database. Every node is a player and every edge is a game between two players. The nodes are pushing appart and the edges pull together. Resulting in this network view.

https://online-go.com/api/v1/games/92003876/sgf/92003876.sgf
https://online-go.com/api/v1/games/92003876/png/92003876.png

I tried to go to https://tsumego-hero.com and the server has been offline for a while. Did it close?

It was so good for exercises!

Solo dev here (I'm building a small Go app), and I'm still learning Go myself, on screen.

Going back over my games is a habit I'm trying to build, and I keep switching between two ways of doing it. On my own first feels slow, and I miss things. Straight to the AI is faster, but I'm not sure how much of it sticks.

I've seen people argue for both, so I'm curious what actually works for you.

If you have a routine, what does it look like? How soon after the game do you look at it, for how long, and at what point do you open the AI, if at all?

I know this seems obvious now but I was always nervous of invading because I worried that if I messed up, that I would be giving my stones to my opponent…

However just last week I realized that if my opponent has to answer my invasion, even if just to stop a cut or something… I may lose the stone and my opponent still gets that free spot. BUT his/her stone that was used to block mine also reduces their territory by 1… so it’s a wash. Invading is only ever bad if your opponent don’t play and you still lose the stones!!

Anyway, just thinking about it and it’ll make me more aggressive in my invasions.

Guns blazing, jebus H

So, over the last five months I've been trying to improve at Go. I've reached 17k (though just dropped to 18k) on OGS, 11k on Fox, and 13k on Panda so I know I am improving, but I feel like maybe I haven't found the right method for learning.

I've read The Second Book of Go, Lessons in the Fundementals of Go, and the first 3 books in Learn to Play Go books by Janice Kim, as well as watched videos from Go Magic, StrugglebusGo, and Triton Baduk every now and again but it feels like things stick for maybe a day or 2 and then I reset.

I'd like to find a teacher, but I don't really have the budget to get lessons more than once a month unless someone knows a place where I could find cheaper lessons, but also if anyone knows any good resources that are good about showing and explaining concepts

Me vs Me, on a board I got gifted

Is this game finished? No, I just ran outta time 🥲

Whenever I see professional game boards they tend to be a lot more straight and horizontal instead of how diagonal I played here... I feel like black played better here, but what do you guys think?

I've only been playing for 1-2 weeks, so Im excited to get better

Fairness and Accessibility of AI-Cheating Appeals: Immediate Bans and the Burden of In-Person Proof

I understand and support the need to prevent AI-assisted cheating on OGS. However, my experience with an account suspension and the subsequent appeal process has raised serious concerns about the fairness and accessibility of the current system.

I am not writing simply to demand the restoration of my account. My purpose is to raise a broader issue: whether the appeal process provides a meaningful opportunity for players whose only practical place to play Go is online.

1. Banned after the first game

On August 22, 2026, I played my first game on my OGS account, EmmyNoether.

• Game ID: 89982388
• Result: I won as Black by resignation after 187 moves.
• Outcome: The game was annulled, and my account was suspended for suspected AI assistance.

I did not use AI assistance during this game.

The moderation team explained that two detection systems had flagged the game and that a dan-level moderator had independently reviewed it. Figures such as 85 "blue moves" were cited in support of the decision.

Despite my denial and subsequent appeal, the decision was not reversed.

This account was suspended after just one game, without a prior warning.

2. The evidence required for an appeal

The moderators suggested that I provide independent evidence of my playing strength and identity, such as games played in a setting where AI assistance was not possible, verified by a club, tournament organizer, or other independent party.

But not every Go player has access to such opportunities.

Some people can only play regularly online because of geographical, physical, or personal circumstances. I am among those for whom online Go is the primary practical option.

If restoring an account effectively requires in-person games and independent witnesses, such players may have no realistic way to satisfy those conditions.

Alternative forms of evidence could be proposed, but no clear objective criteria were provided for determining what would be sufficient. The evaluation was described as ultimately subjective.

3. Evidence I provided

During the appeal, I submitted or presented supporting information, including:

• Six game records from Yugen no Ma, operated by the Nihon Ki-in, where I had achieved a 7-dan rank.
• Records of my playing history on other online Go servers.
• Evidence of tournament participation and results, including a tournament victory.
• Information relating to independent assessments of my playing strength.

I also obtained an assessment of the disputed game from a professional Go player in Japan.

The assessment recognized high-dan playing ability in the game, while also expressing reservations about certain moves. It did not claim to establish conclusively whether AI had been used.

I understand that previous game records and professional opinions cannot, by themselves, prove that AI was not used in a particular online game.

Nevertheless, I was unable to obtain a sufficiently clear explanation of how such evidence could be evaluated or what additional evidence would realistically satisfy the requirements.

After a prolonged appeal process, the matter was closed on September 20, 2026, without the suspension being reversed.

4. A troubling imbalance

Another concern is that admitting AI use was presented as a possible route to account restoration.

For someone who did not use AI, however, admitting to something they did not do is not an acceptable solution.

This creates a troubling imbalance: accepting an accusation may offer a relatively straightforward path to restoration, while maintaining one's innocence can require evidence that may be practically impossible to obtain.

I question whether this is a fair structure for an appeals system.

5. Suggestions for improvement

I believe OGS should consider:

1. Clearer safeguards and review standards before permanently or indefinitely restricting a new account after its first game.
2. Accessible appeal procedures for players who cannot participate in independently supervised, in-person games.
3. Clearer guidance on acceptable evidence and how it is assessed.
4. Meaningful explanations of appeal decisions, while protecting confidential anti-cheating detection methods.
5. A process that does not make admitting an alleged violation easier than pursuing a genuine claim of innocence.

I am not asking OGS to weaken its protection against AI cheating.

Preventing cheating and protecting innocent players from wrongful punishment are both essential parts of a fair moderation system.

For players who can only enjoy Go online, losing access to a Go server is not a trivial matter.

I am sharing this experience and these concerns in the hope that OGS and the community will give them consideration.

I do not intend to reopen my individual appeal through this post, nor do I plan to engage in an extended debate. I hope the issues raised here can be considered on their own merits, regardless of whether I participate in further discussion.

I'm not affiliated with chess.com in anyway. I just remembered that someone posted a while back that they wondered if the company would ever explore a Go Platform.

It's bundled up with other classic games such as backgammon and Mahjong in one app, but it's cool to see them entertaining the idea.

App only came out three days ago and still in beta. It's called "classics by chess.com".

I understand and support the need to prevent AI-assisted cheating on OGS. However, my experience with an account suspension and the subsequent appeal process has raised serious concerns about the fairness and accessibility of the current system.

I am not writing simply to demand the restoration of my account. My purpose is to raise a broader issue: whether the appeal process provides a meaningful opportunity for players whose only practical place to play Go is online.

1. Banned after the first game

On August 22, 2026, I played my first game on my OGS account, EmmyNoether.

• Game ID: 89982388
• Result: I won as Black by resignation after 187 moves.
• Outcome: The game was annulled, and my account was suspended for suspected AI assistance.

I did not use AI assistance during this game.

The moderation team explained that two detection systems had flagged the game and that a dan-level moderator had independently reviewed it. Figures such as 85 "blue moves" were cited in support of the decision.

Despite my denial and subsequent appeal, the decision was not reversed.

This account was suspended after just one game, without a prior warning.

2. The evidence required for an appeal

The moderators suggested that I provide independent evidence of my playing strength and identity, such as games played in a setting where AI assistance was not possible, verified by a club, tournament organizer, or other independent party.

But not every Go player has access to such opportunities.

Some people can only play regularly online because of geographical, physical, or personal circumstances. I am among those for whom online Go is the primary practical option.

If restoring an account effectively requires in-person games and independent witnesses, such players may have no realistic way to satisfy those conditions.

Alternative forms of evidence could be proposed, but no clear objective criteria were provided for determining what would be sufficient. The evaluation was described as ultimately subjective.

3. Evidence I provided

During the appeal, I submitted or presented supporting information, including:

• Six game records from Yugen no Ma, operated by the Nihon Ki-in, where I had achieved a 7-dan rank.
• Records of my playing history on other online Go servers.
• Evidence of tournament participation and results, including a tournament victory.
• Information relating to independent assessments of my playing strength.

I also obtained an assessment of the disputed game from a professional Go player in Japan.

The assessment recognized high-dan playing ability in the game, while also expressing reservations about certain moves. It did not claim to establish conclusively whether AI had been used.

I understand that previous game records and professional opinions cannot, by themselves, prove that AI was not used in a particular online game.

Nevertheless, I was unable to obtain a sufficiently clear explanation of how such evidence could be evaluated or what additional evidence would realistically satisfy the requirements.

After a prolonged appeal process, the matter was closed on September 20, 2026, without the suspension being reversed.

4. A troubling imbalance

Another concern is that admitting AI use was presented as a possible route to account restoration.

For someone who did not use AI, however, admitting to something they did not do is not an acceptable solution.

This creates a troubling imbalance: accepting an accusation may offer a relatively straightforward path to restoration, while maintaining one's innocence can require evidence that may be practically impossible to obtain.

I question whether this is a fair structure for an appeals system.

5. Suggestions for improvement

I believe OGS should consider:

1. Clearer safeguards and review standards before permanently or indefinitely restricting a new account after its first game.
2. Accessible appeal procedures for players who cannot participate in independently supervised, in-person games.
3. Clearer guidance on acceptable evidence and how it is assessed.
4. Meaningful explanations of appeal decisions, while protecting confidential anti-cheating detection methods.
5. A process that does not make admitting an alleged violation easier than pursuing a genuine claim of innocence.

I am not asking OGS to weaken its protection against AI cheating.

Preventing cheating and protecting innocent players from wrongful punishment are both essential parts of a fair moderation system.

For players who can only enjoy Go online, losing access to a Go server is not a trivial matter.

I am sharing this experience and these concerns in the hope that OGS and the community will give them consideration.

I do not intend to reopen my individual appeal through this post, nor do I plan to engage in an extended debate. I hope the issues raised here can be considered on their own merits, regardless of whether I participate in further discussion.

Source: J-Ratings