Life In 19x19
http://lifein19x19.com/

Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly bad?
http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=12663		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  Matti [ Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
I prefer other languages.
Author:  Galation [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Firebrand wrote:
I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.
From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/
Quote:
According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.
:shock: Rules set DO matter! :shock:

Galation :D
Author:  Bill Spight [ Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Galation wrote:
Firebrand wrote:
I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.
From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/
Quote:
According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.
:shock: Rules set DO matter! :shock:

Galation :D


Oh, yes! Kos at the end of the game and counting territory in seki can make for significant differences between different rules. But the initial rant in this thread about random dame is off base. Dame are not random, and their supposed effect on strategy is extremely rare.
Author:  xed_over [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Galation wrote:
Firebrand wrote:
I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.
From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/
Quote:
According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.
:shock: Rules set DO matter! :shock:

Galation :D

No.

This difference was not about different rule sets -- Japanese vs Chinese.
It was about the fact that the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.

Had he counted using 6.5 komi (which is what it would have been if Japanese rules were being used), then his score estimate would have been the same as the actual result.

There is a very good reason Chinese rules only use the odd integer komi, while the Japanese rules could use either.

Who's ready for the math lesson?
Author:  xed_over [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
xed_over wrote:
There is a very good reason Chinese rules only use the odd integer komi, while the Japanese rules could use either.

Who's ready for the math lesson?

...and its the very same reason AGA rules requires the same number of moves are played by each player (white plays last), and uses pass stones. (and also odd integer komi). Thus allowing players to use the more popular Japanese scoring/counting methods and not change the outcome of the game between the two methods.
Author:  Joelnelsonb [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
handa711 wrote:
Counting meaningless stones as points! why?!



Or "Counting meaningless intersections without stones as points?!?"
Author:  Galation [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
xed_over wrote:
the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.
I think GoGameGuru article referred to the korean pro commenting the game, not to Lee Sedol ;)

Galation
Author:  xed_over [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Galation wrote:
xed_over wrote:
the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.
I think GoGameGuru article referred to the korean pro commenting the game, not to Lee Sedol ;)

Galation

read the comments... David and I had additional conversations outside of those comments too.
Author:  markyears [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly bad?
I'm really sorry but I almost want to reply as that "Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly bad?"

I do agree that when you do practical counting, Japanese rule is more convenient. But I think as a rule at least for beginners, Chinese rule has advantages.

First of all, what do we mean by "Counting meaningless stones as points"? In all the rules, both territory and stones are counted as points. Otherwise, why Japanese rule needs to double count death stones? Because it does count both stones and territory. It just uses a different method.

Secondly, Chinese rule is more rigorous. For example, if at the end of game, your opponent refuses to agree some group is dead, say "hey they still have liberties...". And when you try to capture them, he passes... That's why AGA rule requires players to give a stone as prisoners. But it is a little counter intuitive.

Thirdly, it is easier to teach the beginners using Chinese rule in my opinion. Since in my opinion, concepts like "death/live" is really not a part of the rule. Rule needs to be simple and elegant. Using Chinese rule, you can easily say, if you think some group is dead, capture it! In addition, double counting the death or putting captured stones back to the territory is a little counter intuitive to beginners.

In general, I think the problem of Japanese rule is: Players are penalized when putting stones in his/her own territory. It makes things complicated and is a little counter intuitive in my mind.
Author:  Pio2001 [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Galation wrote:
From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/


Funny ! White threatened to take the two last dame with 272. Black had to take the other with 273.
Author:  Cassandra [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly b
markyears wrote:
In general, I think the problem of Japanese rule is: Players are penalized when putting stones in his/her own territory. It makes things complicated and is a little counter intuitive in my mind.

Both rule sets have their own philosophy.

Chinese:
"This is my ground."
My fences and walls are also my belongings, and so have to count.

Japanese:
"This is my rice field."
Rice cannot be cultivated on fences and walls, so only the free area can be considered to have a value.
Unused fence posts will have to be stored on own ground.
Author:  Bill Spight [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly b
markyears wrote:
Secondly, Chinese rule is more rigorous. For example, if at the end of game, your opponent refuses to agree some group is dead, say "hey they still have liberties...". And when you try to capture them, he passes... That's why AGA rule requires players to give a stone as prisoners. But it is a little counter intuitive.


You can have territory scoring with pass stones, as well. :)

Quote:
Thirdly, it is easier to teach the beginners using Chinese rule in my opinion.


Area scoring is in general easier for beginners to learn on their own. :)

Quote:
In general, I think the problem of Japanese rule is: Players are penalized when putting stones in his/her own territory. It makes things complicated and is a little counter intuitive in my mind.


To see how close the two forms of scoring are, you can alter the AGA rules slightly and get territory scoring. Instead of having White always make the last pass, have White make the last pass unless White makes the first pass, in which case have Black make the last pass. :)
Author:  Galation [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly b
markyears wrote:
if at the end of game, your opponent refuses to agree some group is dead, say "hey they still have liberties...". And when you try to capture them, he passes...
I never focused on this aspect:
:lol: this is definitely something I have got to try in my next game :lol:
Galation
Author:  hyperpape [ Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly b
markyears wrote:
Thirdly, it is easier to teach the beginners using Chinese rule in my opinion. Since in my opinion, concepts like "death/live" is really not a part of the rule. Rule needs to be simple and elegant. Using Chinese rule, you can easily say, if you think some group is dead, capture it! In addition, double counting the death or putting captured stones back to the territory is a little counter intuitive to beginners.
I am not sure what a rules maven would say about what is rigorous, but I believe Japanese rules handle this with hypothetical play. You freeze the board, play it out to settle if the group is dead/needs reinforcement, then count based on the result. Easy to imagine with computers, a bit of a pain over an actual board. Luckily, disputes are rare enough between players who aren't beginners.
Author:  zinger [ Fri Feb 19, 2016 10:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
The main disadvantage of Chinese rules is that counting the score is more difficult. In my experience, this occurs in 100% games that are played over the board and not ended by resignation.

The main disadvantage of Japanese rules is that they do a poor job of handling life and death disputes at game end. In my experience, this occurs in less than 1% of games.

Pretty easy choice for me.

Yes, area scoring rules (such as AGA) that support Japanese style counting are fine.
Author:  Pio2001 [ Fri Feb 19, 2016 11:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
zinger wrote:
The main disadvantage of Japanese rules is that they do a poor job of handling life and death disputes at game end. In my experience, this occurs in less than 1% of games.


If I consider only my own practical experience of go, the main disadvantage of japanese rule that I actually experienced is that the rules of play appear nowhere in the initiation books.

I agree with the percentage about disputes. It occured only once for me in 675 games for the japanese rule (afair) : my opponent claimed to live with one eye, plus a liberty inside a ko that lead to nowhere, and I would have had to play inside my territory to prove him wrong.
Author:  gamesorry [ Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
zinger wrote:
The main disadvantage of Chinese rules is that counting the score is more difficult. In my experience, this occurs in 100% games that are played over the board and not ended by resignation.



If you're used to it, the score counting in the end is not that difficult ;-) Here's a nice video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4OqfDA0-hE
Author:  Joelnelsonb [ Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Ultimately, territory scoring is a method which requires more rules in order to govern game play. Maybe this bothers you and maybe it doesn't but what a lot of go players fancy most about the game is the simplicity of the game play. If you're wondering what extra rules consist in territory scoring, consider this: No where in the stone-scoring rule book does it mention anything about the idea that if you surround an intersection, you get credit for it as a "point". In fact, there aren't even points in strict stone scoring (just stones). Also, territory scoring requires the stipulation that the game ends when both players pass and any play beyond that to prove the status of a group is considered nullified and the stones played are not deducted from the final score. No such stipulation is necessary under stone scoring as you can play out the position as far as you'd like without altering the outcome of the game. I consider the different between the two rules sets to be "popular" vs "purist" or rather "modern" vs "old-school". And to the OP: Has anyone mentioned to you that when using stone scoring, one must only tally up black's score alone in order to determine the outcome of the game? Definitely makes things faster when playing over the board (and you also don't end up with a huge pile of prisoner stones when something like a long ko-fight occurs).
Author:  Bill Spight [ Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Joelnelsonb wrote:
Also, territory scoring requires the stipulation that the game ends when both players pass


That rule is really quite modern. Ending play by agreement was traditional.
Author:  Bill Spight [ Sat Feb 20, 2016 2:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly ba
Joelnelsonb wrote:
I consider the different between the two rules sets to be "popular" vs "purist" or rather "modern" vs "old-school".


I find that rather confusing, since both territory and stone scoring are quite ancient.
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/