can someone give a quick answer to this question?

(don't answer with resign or time out, that is obvious)

it ends when there's no move left to play for the one on turn.

Just got defeated by this rule…http://littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1656944

I had similar game too and against the same opponent :) http://littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1659162&nmove=38 I played random move but if one-sided blockade would be just pass like in othello then H7 and next C4 will win. Ending like this is very anticlimax and look like against spirit of the game(like stalemate in chess). I hope that just like stalemate in chess make ending exciting and interesting Morelli profit from this too. However great part of beaty from ending in chess is thank to difficulty/minimalism ratio. Morelli ending is by no way minimal. And of course stalemate in chess is draw instead of victory, but in Morelli this is usually just lost. If I was designer of Morelli (and almost any other game), I would make end after double-sided blockade. I'm curious if it's just accident or it was some depth thought in this decision.

I can give a very definite reply to this one.  The rule governing the point at which the game ends was deliberately designed to create an extra factor which both players need to take into consideration.  Sometimes, success will depend upon starving your opponent of moves; at other times, upon starving yourself.  In my view, this rule contributes significantly to the overall subtlety and balance of the game, and I have absolutely no plans to change it - though as always I'm interested in following any discussion of the issue.

As for Game #1656944 specifically, Black had taken the Centre fairly early on, and subsequently, failing the establishment of a second square-in-waiting for the endgame, was always going to have to rely on exhausting his own supply of moves before White could deliver the killing blow.  But it turned out that he couldn't manage this either - or at least, not without White's co-operation … which (fortunately for him) duly materialised.  As play stood after Black's Move 37, White needed two more moves (B8-C7, followed by B9-B6) for the win.  And since Black was never going to be so obliging as to play either 39. H6-G7 or 39. H5-G5, it was essential that the first of White's two steps to victory be taken immediately - instead of G9-G7, which serves no positive purpose and in fact turns out to be suicidal.

I don't think it's the rule that was to blame here. :)

The same rule counts for Ayu (see codecup.nl and mindsports.nl), i.e. the one on turn having no move left wins. Which also gives rise to subtle tactical possibilities. I hope this game will be implemented on LG as too!

Paul: Yes indeed, and I'm sure there are other games making use of the same mechanism.It's worth emphasising, of course, that in the case of Morelli the player starved of moves only wins if in possession of the Centre at the time; otherwise, he loses.

…or draws (I should have added) if the Centre's unoccupied. :)