Japanese v.s. Chinese v.s. AGA scoring here we "Go" again...

[RobertJasiek]

the more I am convinced that the above is true.

You have presumed a combination of teaching of the rules and teaching of basic strategy (life and death), haven't you?

[hyperpape]

the more I am convinced that the above is true.

You have presumed a combination of teaching of the rules and teaching of basic strategy (life and death), haven't you?

The goal is to teach the student how to play and enjoy the game.

[RobertJasiek]

The goal is to teach the student how to play and enjoy the game.

Nobody denies the fun aspect of go.

[daal]

The goal is to teach the student how to play and enjoy the game.

Nobody denies the fun aspect of go.

True, but at times we forget how awful it can be.

[Bantari]

the more I am convinced that the above is true.

You have presumed a combination of teaching of the rules and teaching of basic strategy (life and death), haven't you?

Have you presumed otherwise?!?

When I teach a beginner, I try to (ordered by priority):

1. involve the beginner and show him/her that Go is fun, and
2. give him/her enough info that he/she can start enjoying games against other beginners

This implies teaching a combination of rules and strategy and other stuff as well, such as etiquette for example. I honestly cannot imagine separating this into: "Now I teach only rules and nothing else" or even "Now I teach only this particular rule(s) and nothing else." To me, teaching is about trying to give the student what I think he needs at the moment to make some next step - and in most cases this involves a wider horizons than dry separation into rules and strategy.

In case of absolute beginner, teaching to me is mostly about convincing him/her that Go is fun and worth his time and effort. To me, the whole interaction with beginners is all about that. This is one reason I disagree with your statement that 'its ok to crush beginners, its fun.'

I assume you handle it differently. But then - this might be your problem, you know.

[shapenaji]

Under Chinese rules an unconfident player can ploddingly kill off each group in a formal way by removing each liberty, but he does not get punished for this. Boo! This, along with filling in the dame, also drags the game out quite a bit, which can be an important factor in a club situation where someone else may be waiting to play, and where you try to get in, say, three games a night rather than two.

The latter is the punishment for the former. I really don't see players continuing to do this once their opponent concedes that the stones are already dead. It is more useful for players to know that they CAN capture those stones at their leisure, so that they don't rush to do it earlier.

Also to be pointed out again: the BGA and AGA may have adopted AGA rules, but except in certain tournaments virtually nobody there uses them. They mostly stick with Japanese rules, and by choice not coercion (or, as with Ing rules, a form of bribery).

This is a bit of a generalization, it may be true for BGA, but AGA rules have been used nearly universally at tournaments that I've attended within the last 6-7 years.

As Hermann says, go with the flow, use Japanese/Chinese/AGA/Korean rules, and put all your freed-up mental energy into being nice to that guy sitting patiently waiting to play.

slight modification, unless you're suggesting that there are tangible benefits to Japanese rules, and not the previous argument, which was the null hypothesis.

At any rate it's a lot better than impersonating chicken-licken and rushing round saying the sky's going to fall in just because a friendly but otherwise utterly trivial game between two beginners very occasionally has an imperfect ending.

I don't believe I expressed apocalyptic fears, but maybe you weren't referring to my concerns.

And to those teachers who claim to have had bemused students under Japanese rules, did you simply tell them they could play on and see for themselves whether stones were really to be treated as dead or not? Or did you, and not the rules, bemuse them polishing your own ego: pointing out that Black of course could have done this, or used that tesuji, even though it's hard to see except for an "expert like me"?

Whose likeness does this straw man represent?

[PaperTiger]

Here you go:

http://eidogo.com/#3Db69KhOn
[..]

Thanks for putting them up. I'll bookmark your post for future references. And I'd like to bury the hatchet, as I admit I can be too testy at times. So sorry to everybody for that.

[oren]

This is a bit of a generalization, it may be true for BGA, but AGA rules have been used nearly universally at tournaments that I've attended within the last 6-7 years.

I think you attended a Seattle tournament that would have been run on Japanese rules. I don't think we've ever run one here with AGA rules that I've been to.

The only place I've ever played with AGA rules has been US Congress.

[shapenaji]

This is a bit of a generalization, it may be true for BGA, but AGA rules have been used nearly universally at tournaments that I've attended within the last 6-7 years.

I think you attended a Seattle tournament that would have been run on Japanese rules. I don't think we've ever run one here with AGA rules that I've been to.

The only place I've ever played with AGA rules has been US Congress.

That would have been pretty surprising given that it was for the AGA pro qualification, I vaguely remember handing a pass stone too... But I concede that that could be an artifact of my memory.

[oren]

That would have been pretty surprising given that it was for the AGA pro qualification, I vaguely remember handing a pass stone too... But I concede that that could be an artifact of my memory.

Yeah, I was thinking that one was possible, but I think we just ran Japanese rules for it.

[darWIN]

I'm glad you brought this up I get really annoyed by the scoring. I absolutely love the game, I think it's very fun, but the scoring bores me to tears. That's why I always say that whoever captured more pieces wins. That way I probably know who won already and I don't have to do a lot of troublesome counting. Although it was really funny at my Go club, this boy beat the other guy, and he went, "2, 4, 6, 8, 74!!!!!!" It's better if I act it out. He just did it so quickly.

So, whoever captured more pieces wins for me. I'm wrong but I don't care. I don't make a fuss, but I do get annoyed when I capture more pieces and the other person got more territory.

But, life isn't fair, and I have to follow the rules. And capturing pieces isn't against the rules. It's the first rule you learn.

[leichtloeslich]

whoever captured more pieces wins

I do get annoyed when I capture more pieces and the other person got more territory.

Why do you get annoyed when you win? I don't even want to imagine what happens when you lose.
Wait, you did tell your opponent that you were playing a go variant in which whoever has the most prisoners at the end of the game wins, right? Otherwise you two would be playing different games.

[Bill Spight]

I'm glad you brought this up I get really annoyed by the scoring. I absolutely love the game, I think it's very fun, but the scoring bores me to tears. That's why I always say that whoever captured more pieces wins. That way I probably know who won already and I don't have to do a lot of troublesome counting. Although it was really funny at my Go club, this boy beat the other guy, and he went, "2, 4, 6, 8, 74!!!!!!" It's better if I act it out. He just did it so quickly.

So, whoever captured more pieces wins for me. I'm wrong but I don't care. I don't make a fuss, but I do get annoyed when I capture more pieces and the other person got more territory.

But, life isn't fair, and I have to follow the rules. And capturing pieces isn't against the rules. It's the first rule you learn.

You can make the case that an early version of go was in fact scored by who captured more stones. It would have been a form of no pass go.

[darWIN]

You can make the case that an early version of go was in fact scored by who captured more stones. It would have been a form of no pass go.

Probably. It's more satisfying to capture the opponent than it is to learn the complicated territory strategy. If people placed stones on the board without capture at all, wouldn't you both end up with equal amounts of territory?

[snorri]

If people placed stones on the board without capture at all, wouldn't you both end up with equal amounts of territory?

No. There are even occasional professional games with no captures. The boundaries of territories may be more efficient for one side than another.