Pio2001 wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Pio2001 wrote:
I think that the main thing that will meet player's opposition is the fact that the button is supposed to be worth 0.5 points, but when you count the game filling territory with the prisoners, the button is actually worth zero !
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I am talking about your description of AGA territory button go in page 3 of this discussion.
The introduction to button go in general says that there is a token, called the "button", that is worth 0.5 points. Which means that it is interesting to take it once there are no more valuable plays available.
That is a description of the button under area scoring, not territory scoring.
Quote:
But in the rules, the one taking the button does not get 0.5 points. Instead, he -sometimes- gets the right not to hand a pass stone when he passes.
You will note that I separated the two sets of rules, depending on the scoring method. The easiest way to implement the button under areas scoring is to use a token worth ½ point. AGA territory scoring uses pass stones, so that is not the easiest way in that case. You are complaining about the inconsistency between the two, which will affect neither the play nor strategy.
Quote:
I can already see the player's reaction : "Come on, we're playing go, not poker ! The points are on the board !"
Players who feel that way can use the territory scoring method.
Quote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Actually, it's the other way around. The rule about who passes last is one way to implement the button.
That is what Jaeup has just talked about.
Your text was different. In your version, one has both to be careful about taking the button and also to be careful about who passes last.
People have objected to the rule that White must sometimes make a third, obligatory pass. I wrote the text to get over the objection of sometimes having an obligatory pass. Jaeup requires an obligatory pass, not by White, but by the player who did not take the button. Both in his implementation and mine you have to be careful about taking the button and about who passes last.
Quote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Another way is to say that Black pays one point to make the first pass, but White does not (by the WMSG rules).
One point of area or one point of territory ? Sorry I don't know the WMSG rule.
From an earlier note in this thread.
Bill Spight wrote:
The 2008 World Mind Sports Games in Beijing implemented Button Go without calling it that. They used area counting, but implemented the button in this way.
WMSG Rules of Go wrote:
There are two types of compensations. The first type depends on who passes first in the game. If White passes first, Black's score is reduced by 1. If Black passes first, no such compensation is given.
The second type of compensation aims to balance the advantage enjoyed by the player who makes the first play. To ensure a fair game, the Black player is asked to deduct an amount from his total points, traditionally known as the komi (tie-xian in Chinese). The amount of komi in this tournament is set to be 6.5 points.
Emphasis mine.
In the tournament they used the Ing fill-in method of counting.
Quote:
Bill Spight wrote:
The original idea of pass stones was to implement area scoring, it was not that area scoring was a way to trigger pass stones.
Right, this is pure area scoring. Pass stones are just here as a way of counting faster. They don't change the rule.
Here lies the main difficulty for the adoption of button go, in my opinion : the button changes the rules. The pass stones did not.
Actually, they did change the rules. Before their adoption the AGA played by Japanese scoring. And even today, most AGA players use some form of Japanese scoring in their regular online games.
Quote:
It even changes the rules in a way that is very difficult to understand. It looks like territory scoring at first sight, but not completely. At least not as the Japanese rule defines "territory".
No, they are not. The main difference with Japanese rules is that points are counted for territory in seki.