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

[jts]

Most of us learned with territory scoring, so it is obviously possible.

I would actually invert this. At a point when most people learned territory scoring, it was possible to use your favorite feature of the folk-rules as a scapegoat, and imagine that if everyone played button go there would never be any confusions between beginners.

But now most beginners learn area rules. Or at least, this is my impression after several years of hanging out in the KTL and Beginner Rooms on KGS, helping new players. Most of them had learned the rules and the baby-steps of how to play from playing GnuGo or something similar. GnuGo uses area rules, GnuGo fills in territory, GnuGo captures every single one of its dead stones. If territory scoring was the problem, these beginners shouldn't have had any problems. But they did have problems; they were horribly, horribly confused.

[PaperTiger]

What if the conversation then goes like this:

A: I think that is dead
B: So kill it
A: Well, I go here
B: Then I go here
A: And now I go here
B: And now I live with this
A: Oh, this move I made was wrong, I should actually go here instead
B: You can't do that! You just said you were going to go there
A: Yes, but this is about whether or not it's REALLY alive or dead, that's bigger than me
B: Not if you couldn't find the moves the first time!
A: *grumbles*
B: *grumbles*

So how are area scoring rules going to help here?

Easy. There is no verbal dispute. What's alive or dead is based on the skill of the players, as played on the board. Hypothetical play doesn't matter, at all.

[shapenaji]

What if the conversation then goes like this:

A: I think that is dead
B: So kill it
A: Well, I go here
B: Then I go here
A: And now I go here
B: And now I live with this
A: Oh, this move I made was wrong, I should actually go here instead
B: You can't do that! You just said you were going to go there
A: Yes, but this is about whether or not it's REALLY alive or dead, that's bigger than me
B: Not if you couldn't find the moves the first time!
A: *grumbles*
B: *grumbles*

So how are area scoring rules going to help here?

Because, it's "when in doubt, play it out"

A makes a mistake in playing it out, he doesn't get a chance to go back. He realizes "Oh no, I think I could have killed that if I'd gone there instead, I'll have to remember that for next time",

He/She never gets into an argument with their opponent because it's just like the rest of the game, someone made a mistake and one side capitalized.

As time goes on, what they can agree on expands and territorial rules are easier to explain. But there's no point in adding this negotiation barrier to new players.

[shapenaji]

Beyond those other pieces, there are also the cold hard facts:

1) The attrition rate for new players in go is frightfully high.
2) The place where they have the most issues is in ending the game.
3) Wherever there is a barrier, and the gameplay changes, new players will have difficulties
4) Japanese consists of 3 different kinds of gameplay: regular play, hypothetical play, and scoring
5) Chinese consists of 2 different kinds of gameplay: regular play, and scoring

[HermanHiddema]

Only because you relied on the players making an equal number of moves.

Yes, I know. If the number of moves is odd, the score might change by a point. Big whoop.

[PaperTiger]

Only because you relied on the players making an equal number of moves.

Yes, I know. If the number of moves is odd, the score might change by a point. Big whoop.

Come on, this has been refuted many times already. This is why I get frustrated and not as polite as I should be. It can take several stones to kill a group. It takes 4 for a single stone. OK, so you say that player is just being obstinate. I argue they are just trying to be logical and optimize their score, and see it as unfair that a stone is removed without playing. But there are more complicated cases, such as simple life and death shapes with big eye spaces. The bottom line is that you can't handwave away the complexity and score changes involved with Japanese rules.

[HermanHiddema]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

As far as I can see, absolutely everyone in this thread agrees that area rules have the advantage that you can play out life & death on the board more easily. Nobody is denying that.

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go. I will repeat again: Anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

And once you understand basic life and death, the issue of "playing it out" basically disappears in 99.9% of games because there are no longer any disagreements.

[Bantari]

1) The attrition rate for new players in go is frightfully high.

I wonder if we can compare those rates to like chess, or bridge, or something...
I know attrition rate in both these games are very high as well.

I also wonder that with chess, for example, the possibly lower attrition rate can be attributed to the fact that chess is more popular in the west - so people getting into chess know very well *what* they are getting into. With Go its more - oh, what is it, i have a few minutes, lets try it, cute, thanks.

In other words - is the attrition rate really due to the rules?

[Bantari]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

As far as I can see, absolutely everyone in this thread agrees that area rules have the advantage that you can play out life & death on the board more easily. Nobody is denying that.

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go. I will repeat again: Anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

And once you understand basic life and death, the issue of "playing it out" basically disappears in 99.9% of games because there are no longer any disagreements.

Exactly!

Anecdotical insert - here are two scenarios, both happened to me:

1. A person walks into a club and looks interested. Asks 'what is that, looks cool?' and since I am not playing I show him the ropes, explain the rules, and play a few 9x9 games, then he moves off to play some other beginner in the club to get his feet wet. I use area scoring.
2. Same situation, except I use territory scoring.

What I noticed is the following (taking into account everybody in the club commonly uses territory scoring):

• it was slightly less messy (i.e. easier on me, the teacher) to use area scoring to teach and play the first few 9x9 games
• when the guy moved off to play other beginners, in case #1 there were big issues, once even resentment and never-come-back-ment... but I showed him like that, and now they doing it like this, and they tell him that he is losing tons of points by doing it the way I showed, what kind of idiot I am... this was *much* harder to explain and generated much larger attrition than grappling with the territory scoring issues.
• after case #2, even when it was harder for me to initially teach, the guy had no issues afterwards, and certainly no resentment, even thought every now and then there was a question. All in all, everybody was happy, even if I had to work a little harder and explain a little more. I did it gladly, and have been doing it ever since.

The above is the main reason I advocate teaching what is played around rather than insisting on one particular scoring method no matter what.

Also, I completely agree that any advantages of area scoring are, at best, minimal - in the long run.

[shapenaji]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

As far as I can see, absolutely everyone in this thread agrees that area rules have the advantage that you can play out life & death on the board more easily. Nobody is denying that.

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go. I will repeat again: Anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

And once you understand basic life and death, the issue of "playing it out" basically disappears in 99.9% of games because there are no longer any disagreements.

Right, if you want to play go, you must learn life and death, and no one IS disputing that. My issue is with the people who "MIGHT want to play go"

The difference is that I'm trying to put the fewest things in the way of them finishing their first game. I don't want to put any unnecessary steps in their way as far as learning.

My approach, (and I can't speak to your anecdote Bantari, because I've never had that circumstance, and I don't know the details) is to give them the rules. Tell them they get 1 point for every stone on the board, and 1 point for territory, and then tell them to try to control more than half the board.

If they play inside repeatedly, I tell them that there are still points to go out and get, they don't get bright-eyed about capturing 4 stones.

Right now we have a selection bias toward the die-hards, they've learned the game one way, and they feel that others should learn the game in the same way (Cuz hey, it worked for them right?). That tells us nothing about which ruleset is better, only which ruleset was taught more 40 years ago.

[Bantari]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

As far as I can see, absolutely everyone in this thread agrees that area rules have the advantage that you can play out life & death on the board more easily. Nobody is denying that.

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go. I will repeat again: Anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

And once you understand basic life and death, the issue of "playing it out" basically disappears in 99.9% of games because there are no longer any disagreements.

Right, if you want to play go, you must learn life and death, and no one IS disputing that. My issue is with the people who "MIGHT want to play go"

The difference is that I'm trying to put the fewest things in the way of them finishing their first game. I don't want to put any unnecessary steps in their way as far as learning.

My approach, (and I can't speak to your anecdote Bantari, because I've never had that circumstance, and I don't know the details) is to give them the rules. Tell them they get 1 point for every stone on the board, and 1 point for territory, and then tell them to try to control more than half the board.

Right now we have a selection bias toward the die-hards, they've learned the game one way, and they feel that others should learn the game in the same way (Cuz hey, it worked for them right?). That tells us nothing about which ruleset is better, only which ruleset was taught more 40 years ago.

This is true. But, as I stated, in my experience teaching what is not applied around causes much more trouble than anything else. You want to remove stumbling blocks, think about that.

I repeat again - I am absolutely open to everybody changing to area scoring, and I think most of people are, not so many die-hards around. But this change, if possible, has to be accomplished from top down, not from bottom up. In other words - you need first to convince the people already using territory scoring to use area scoring instead. Only then will it make any sense to start teaching beginners who walk into a club this method as well. Until then, it is simply a moot point, regardless of how many advantages of area scoring you can list here.

Trust me - my anecdote *is* true, and teaching what is not applied is a much larger stumbling block than any difference between scoring method. I mean - you certainly have to agree that a beginner will have to use what others in the club are using if he wishes to play with them, no? So teaching him first what nobody is using is simply bound to create more confusion when it has to be unlearned.

[HermanHiddema]

Yes, some use an even simpler method, the stone counting teaching method, which simply only scores how many stones you have on the board. Even less obstacles.

But the problem, and what Bantari experienced first hand, is that you're not teaching in a vacuum. These beginners will go online, or play against others in real life. And then, if the rules they learn turn out to be different from what everyone is used to, they run into far greater frustration than any frustration had from territory confusion. So you need to make plenty clear: What I am teaching you now is not how the game is usually played, this is a teaching aid. And then, before you set them loose on the world of go, you need to make very sure to teach them what is actually played.

And, regardless of the issues above, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach.

[shapenaji]

Well, most of the time, I'm teaching area scoring (with pass stones) to beginners who are playing other beginners.

For them, there is no ingrained ruleset.

The real danger isn't "people coming into the community using a different ruleset",

it's people buying a go set from their local game shop, reading the rules (which pretty much always give a very awkward "territory scoring" lesson), and then trying to play against their family members.

I had this experience with my father the first time I ever played (when I was 8). The game went on forever, and we ran into serious confusions about how to score. As a result, I did not try the game again for another 12 years, when I had someone to walk me through territory scoring.

And I probably wouldn't have played again at all if I didn't have a chess player buddy of mine badgering me to try out the go club. My early view of go was very negative as just a very long game with unclear rules and an unclear end.

The onus here is not on area scoring to prove itself. Area scoring is already played by more people worldwide than territory scoring.

[HermanHiddema]

Yes, it is the major weakness of go. Even though the rules are theoretically simple, people get hung up on the life & death issue. When do I pass, what is really definitely mine? Area rules don't solve that problem, as exemplified here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?StoneCountingTe ... ngTheBoard People run into this, they get frustrated, they drop out, just like you did.

There is just a fundamental piece of the puzzle missing for beginners, and it takes some effort to get through that phase.

It might be better if beginner go sets came with capture go rules, because the goal is so much simpler, but even then people will fail to spot captures and get confused and drop out.

[Bantari]

it's people buying a go set from their local game shop, reading the rules (which pretty much always give a very awkward "territory scoring" lesson), and then trying to play against their family members.

I had this experience with my father the first time I ever played (when I was 8). The game went on forever, and we ran into serious confusions about how to score. As a result, I did not try the game again for another 12 years, when I had someone to walk me through territory scoring.

But don't you think that chances are that, unless you went to the club, you would never play any serious Go regardless of the rules on the pamphlet?

I mean - I understand what you are saying - when you buy a Go set and try to play against a family member, both starting from a complete 0 knowledge - the area scoring method is slightly better. But what I am saying is that, in reality, such situation is bound to fizzle out anyways unless you take the next step and go to a club or something. And at that point you will get some much help and advice that is really does not matter which scoring you initially learned.

The only advantage I can see in what you say is that there might be a slightly bigger chance of you going to a club if you like the game more - which area scoring might help in (or at least put you off less than territory scoring.) But I still think that by far the major contributor to people taking this next step is the not spontaneous 'I love this game so much I just *have* to find me a club' - but rather a friend dragging you there, or you walking to a club by accident (like in a coffee shop.) In which case, again, the initial scoring method loses significance.