Hi FishWizard,
Welcome. Good questions. Cans of worms.
Here are my guesses:
| Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Japanese vs Chinese scoring system http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=13884 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | FishWizard [ Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Quick question about scoring systems. I have been using the Japanese scoring system as it is the default on OGS. Is that the 'standard' way of scoring generally? or the most widely used? Just wondering as I'm never sure what one to pick and not sure how my opponents feel about using that system, or if it matters at all. Thanks |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sun Dec 18, 2016 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi FishWizard, Welcome. Good questions. Cans of worms. Here are my guesses: |
|
| Author: | RobertJasiek [ Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
There are the two standards:) Most widely used depends on how you count usage. Pick the one you want provided your opponent agrees. The choice matters: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/diffasts.html http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/mistakes.html http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf (As a beginner, the first link might be enough for you.) |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
The differences in practice are slight, and hardly affect how to play, but sometimes the difference in rules can make a big difference in the score. Just play whichever is the norm where you play. However, in a 24-kyu vs. 24-kyu game, both players will probably find AGA/Chinese scoring easier, as you can play on until only live stones are left on the board.
|
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Japanese is the one which most people in the west are first introduced to and so is probably considered the standard on all western servers and forums and, of course, in Japan . But as there are probably more players in China than everywhere else the Chinese rule would have to be considered the most common. A lot of western nations have adopted a hybrid for their tournaments which was concocted by the AGA and which is neither Japanese nor Chinese. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
AGA rules differ from Chinese rules, but AGA rules use Chinese scoring. They just have a provision that allows counting the score in the Japanese fashion. |
|
| Author: | Pio2001 [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
In the japanese rules, you don't need to fill the neutral points at the end of the game. If you choose the chinese system, you'll have to explain to your opponent that neutral points are worth one point each. So the japanese rules is maybe easier for most games. But if you disagree with your opponent about life or death, the chinese rules are easier. In japanese rules, you can't prove your point without loosing points. You have to call an admin. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Pio2001 wrote: In the japanese rules, you don't need to fill the neutral points at the end of the game. Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory. Edit: Besides, 24 kyus should fill dame as a matter of course before passing. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Quote: Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory. Strictly true - but, in practice, for amateurs? I'm thinking of the situation, still common in Japan, where tournaments are run under sudden death. I think we all know western players who would try to exploit the need to play out dame so as to win a game on time. Indeed there are some who would play inside their own territories for the same purpose. Now in general Japanese amateurs can be just as badly behaved as their western counterparts, but not in this respect, I think. I think - but I don't know, never having played in a tournament in Japan. The simple solution of course is for both players to agree the game is over (and thus stop the clock) before filling in the dame, but ever since the O Rissei-Ryu Shikun incident in 2002, it has become accepted wisdom among pros to play out the dame before agreeing the game is over (or more accurately: suspended), and who can blame amateurs if they follow their betters? Anyone here au fait with actual amateur practice now in Japanese tournaments? Maybe sudden death is slowly dying out for just this reason
|
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Bill Spight wrote: Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory. What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
DrStraw wrote: Bill Spight wrote: Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory. What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at. Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules. Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki". A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki". |
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Bill Spight wrote: DrStraw wrote: What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at. Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules. Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki". A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki". Weird. I've never heard of anything like that before. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
DrStraw wrote: Bill Spight wrote: DrStraw wrote: What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at. Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules. Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki". A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki". Weird. I've never heard of anything like that before. It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules. |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules. Hi Bill, follow-up question:Under each of Chinese rules and J89 rules, what's the score for this: |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
J89 rules ==> Jigo. |
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee wrote: Quote: It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules. Hi Bill, follow-up question:Under each of Chinese rules and J89 rules, what's the score for this: It seems to me that white wins by one point under both rules. It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone, under Chinese rules he occupies on more point after capturing the stone. |
|
| Author: | Cassandra [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DrStraw wrote: It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone, ... If the position shown is the FINAL position of the game, then the result / score is jigo. If White wanted to win the game, she should have captured Black's single stone earlier. Black's single stone is not situated inside White's territory, as White does not have any territory. Therefore, this stone cannot be taken of the board after the end of the game to be counted as a prisoner. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
DrStraw wrote: It is clearly seki regardless but under Japanese rules white will capture one stone Will she? Ed's question was "What is the score" (expanding out the apostrophe), present tense. I have often thought "I will win this game", and then not .
|
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
I think the two replies to my post indicate an attitude of arguing for the sake of argument. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Japanese vs Chinese scoring system |
Otherwise known as strictly following the rules (and I thought you were a fellow pedant). If following the rules gives results that feel wrong to people who know how to play Go then there are problems with the rules, which is why many people have criticised and tried to improve upon the J1989 rules (e.g. Bill Spight, Robert Jasiek). It is not an easy task though. Of course most people won't be a stickler over these things, but if you ask Csaba Mero I'm sure he'll tell you it's better if rules don't have flaws like this (he had a famous dispute with Robert under Ing rules). |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|