AGA rules and cultural barriers

[oren]

I like the previous post but it would be nice to separate them out as

1) Issues shared with all area scoring systems (Chinese mainly). Many of the topics have been general dislike of area scoring.

2) Issues from AGA scoring (having to use pass-stones, count points in seki in territory counting).

[snorri]

Still, more likely does not mean it is certain, so snorri's claim that "In fact, with odd komi, as is appropriate for the comparison, inferior or superior play for black with respect to choosing to make a point or play a dame has the same effect in both AGA and Japanese rulesets." is not true in general.

In that context, I was referring to that specific example, not trying to make general statement. It's possible that a more general statement can be made for a broad class of games, but I'm not in that business.

So if you are not referring to any general rule or principle, what is it about my comment that makes it misleading? Why is the example a red herring?

Because of this statement:

The point was that this is, IMO, a weakness of area scoring rules.

Because the common area scoring rulesets in the world are using an odd komi and related explanations later in the thread, the example isn't the best one to demonstrate a weakness, that's all. I don't think you were trying to mislead anyone, but if someone picks up that example and starts circulating it, the effect will be misleading.

In my experience, I think the #1 reason people dislike area rulesets is if they are using one (e.g., Chinese rules) which requires something like Chinese counting, which destroys the board even more than traditional territory counting and for some people is slower. (Of course NZ is a counter-example of that, but I've seen anyone use NZ, I can't comment.) Maybe #2 would be they think filling in dame online is a waste of time.

[skydyr]

I like the previous post but it would be nice to separate them out as

1) Issues shared with all area scoring systems (Chinese mainly). Many of the topics have been general dislike of area scoring.

2) Issues from AGA scoring (having to use pass-stones, count points in seki in territory counting).

Arguably, #2 is a subset of #1. In area scoring systems, eyes and stones in seki are counted. Also, being at heart an area scoring system, the pass-stones are a crutch to allow territory counting to match for those unfamiliar with counting by area.

[oren]

Arguably, #2 is a subset of #1. In area scoring systems, eyes and stones in seki are counted. Also, being at heart an area scoring system, the pass-stones are a crutch to allow territory counting to match for those unfamiliar with counting by area.

Except some people dislike all of #1 and other people are complaining about the problems in #2. Certainly none of #2 would be needed if AGA was not an area scoring system.

[snorri]

I like the previous post but it would be nice to separate them out as

1) Issues shared with all area scoring systems (Chinese mainly). Many of the topics have been general dislike of area scoring.

2) Issues from AGA scoring (having to use pass-stones, count points in seki in territory counting).

For me, the whole pass-stone thing is just such a minor issue. It's the least stressful part of my game. Macroscopic things are so much more important. For example, at the U.S. Open this year the tables were too close together. I had to go to the bathroom and while squeezing out I accidentally crushed my--uh--stuff. I played about 15 minutes in agony. Yeah, pass stones. Not an issue.

Points in seki is kind of rare to matter, so it would have to have odd parity to matter. That's for the theorists. As long as it is hard to impossible to create non-scorable positions as long as dame are filled, I'm okay.

[oren]

For me, the whole pass-stone thing is just such a minor issue. It's the least stressful part of my game. Macroscopic things are so much more important. For example, at the U.S. Open this year the tables were too close together. I had to go to the bathroom and while squeezing out I accidentally crushed my--uh--stuff. I played about 15 minutes in agony. Yeah, pass stones. Not an issue.

I like AGA rules, so I have no complaints either. The biggest problem for pass stone comes from communication with people unused to it and don't speak English well. Hopefully that can be fixed for future congresses.

[xed_over]

Also, if a TD were to decide to run a tournament via Chinese rules, like Craig Hutchinson used to do when he ran the Die Hard tournament at the U.S. Go Congress, those would have to be explained in detail as well to most players. IHMO, he did an excellent job of explaining them, and I miss him.

My first Die Hard tournament, I didn't like having to use Chinese rules, and was totally confused by the scoring method. But afterwards, I forced myself to sit down with a smaller board and explore the math so that could fully understand it.

The very next week I experienced my first encounter with playing against a Chinese player who just tossed his captures back into my bowl. I was taken aback at first, but then happily remembered my lessons from the week before at Congress.

I think everyone should participate in a Chinese rules tournament at least once in their life. And I think the Die Hard is a perfect tournament to expose it to people. I wish it would continue that tradition.

[skydyr]

Honestly, the only issue I have with AGA rules, which is certainly a preference many people don't share, is that I don't like superko. I can't imagine actually being able to keep track of when superko requires a ko threat and when it does not in addition to making effective moves, and I don't have any particular problem with replayed or drawn games, provided that they are infrequent.

[oren]

Honestly, the only issue I have with AGA rules, which is certainly a preference many people don't share, is that I don't like superko.

Completely agree. It's infrequent enough that I don't dislike AGA rules due to it, but I would be happier if superko disappeared from the rules and games were negated if triple ko or similar situations arise.

[HermanHiddema]

So if you are not referring to any general rule or principle, what is it about my comment that makes it misleading? Why is the example a red herring?

Because of this statement:

The point was that this is, IMO, a weakness of area scoring rules.

Because the common area scoring rulesets in the world are using an odd komi and related explanations later in the thread, the example isn't the best one to demonstrate a weakness, that's all. I don't think you were trying to mislead anyone, but if someone picks up that example and starts circulating it, the effect will be misleading.

Well, as I said before, the example is correct, and it is possible to embed the example as a corner in a 19x19 board and have it make a difference for any komi, odd or even. The fact that is is not likely to make a difference is not really relevant, IMO. The handling of long cycles like triple ko is considered a weakness of Japanese rules, no matter how unlikely they are to occur, and there is nothing misleading about giving an example of triple ko either.

[RobertJasiek]

In practice, applying superko to a long cycle shape is MUCH easier than reading typical life and death problems, because applying super can often be done with reading ONE sequence of 3 to 6 plays, while life and death can easily require reading many sequences with various numbers of plays. Therefore, I do not understand at all why a few perceive a difficulty for superko, unless they simply refuse to read the only one sequence of in practice at most 6 plays. This then is not a difficulty of superko itself.

I also do not understand why a (Japanese / Korean / Chinese referee) long cycle rule would be any simpler in practice, because - as for superko - it is also necessary to understand whether an opponent's claim of a cycle having occurred is correct. Necessary for your pride, because your disagreement and recycling several times until you understand the fact of recurrence becomes enbarrassing in exhibiting an apparent inability to recognise repetition on just 3 or 4 intersections earlier.

Superko is one of the best things of AGA Rules, except that considering the turn makes it less easy than possible.

[oren]

Even Professional players have missed making ko threats and losing the game before(and voiding the game in one famous incident). Personally if I got into the situation of a repeating board, I know I would have trouble telling who made the first illegal move and let alone trying to unroll for double digit kyus in a tournament setup.

Down with superko!

[RobertJasiek]

Professional players have also overlooked atari. Such does not prevent them from learning to stop making simple mistakes, such as not knowing that the simplest triple ko fight under superko allows making a ko threat after only ONE play in the triple ko.

[oren]

Professional players have also overlooked atari. Such does not prevent them from learning to stop making simple mistakes, such as not knowing that the simplest triple ko fight under superko allows making a ko threat after only ONE play in the triple ko.

Yes, and double digit kyus overlook atari all the time. You're making my point that errors happen all the time and unwinding games is difficult. Thank you.

[RobertJasiek]

Errors are not there to serve justification of continuing making errors, but errors are there to be overcome. Superko encourages this.

In practice, unwinding games is equally difficult for superko and Japanese style long cycle rules, because the same kind of move sequences are the basis for rules applications.