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

[RobertJasiek]

If you look at Japan or Korea, it seems that there are plenty of people playing there.

That's why, on average, it is much easier THERE to explain the game to beginners despite territory scoring.

[Bill Spight]

I am aware of a class of L&D problems (and especially, endgame problems) where status and/or correct play depends on dame. And you're definitely right that, as you get higher and higher in the kyu grades, the problems you see are more likely to involve stones that could live, if not for a shortage of liberties situation that suddenly arises at the end of the game because a dame is filled. But for the vast majority of unsettled groups still on the board during scoring are not in 5k games, they are in 15k, 20k, 25k games. And these are groups that may have been unsettled since the opening!

Good point.

Some years ago I took a look at online game records where both players were around 10 kyu. In the overwhelming majority of cases one or both players missed a protective play (and often more than one).

As for your point about unsettled groups earlier in the game, my eyes were opened when, as a 7 kyu playing against a 5 kyu, I made a ko threat to threaten to kill a group, only to discover that I had actually killed it!

[John Fairbairn]

Nobody else is doing it, so I suppose I have to remind the squabblers that you can and should play out the games under Japanese rules if you are unsure whether a group is dead. One side can pass of course, and so make a gain if his judgement was correct - a reward for his skill that is lacking under area rules.

Furthermore, it is not normal to play out even under Chinese rules. The dame will be filled, yes, but "dead" stones can be picked up and tossed away even if they are alive, and so beginners (and others) can make exactly the same mistakes as under Japanese rules. 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 true arguments between J and C rules are not to do with any of this, but with freak situations or arbitrary (yet maybe sensible) rulings on things like bent four and triple ko.

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).

No-one is sure why the Chinese switched to area rules in the Ming, but the strongly favoured view is that it was to do with the rise of gambling go. Captured stones in candle-lit rooms and with servants hovering over the board had a habit of disappearing. The solution was to make captured stones not matter. Chicanery is just as widespread on today's servers, of course, but surely is no longer a good reason for deciding which rules to teach beginners. As Hermann says, go with the flow, use Japanese/Korean rules, and put all your freed-up mental energy into being nice to that guy sitting patiently waiting to play.

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.

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"?

[Bantari]

If you look at Japan or Korea, it seems that there are plenty of people playing there.

That's why, on average, it is much easier THERE to explain the game to beginners despite territory scoring.

Robert,
Your personal preference is well known. But the facts, as presented, are as follows:

1. there are (some) people who have issues teaching beginners, and sometimes they blame it on the scoring method or rules used
2. there are (many) people who have no trouble and a lot of success teaching beginners regardless of the scoring method rules used
3. there are huge areas of the world where Go is popular and beloved and successful regardless of the scoring method or rules used

This facts point me to the most likely conclusion that: some people who try to teach beginners are just bad teachers and they try to blame it on scoring method or the rules. I have stated it before, and all new information I see points more and more in the same direction.

So, my position is, I repeat:

• Area scoring might make teaching slightly easier.
• For bad teachers - this is a BIG FREAKING DEAL - they can't do otherwise.
• For good teachers - it does not matter all that much - they get results either way.

The more I read and the more I learn, the more I am convinced that the above is true.

[RobertJasiek]

The true arguments between J and C rules are not to do with any of this, but with freak situations

Both kinds of arguments are "true": those about the most basic removals and those about the ultimately fine print.

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?

Nowadays, since we use the internet and everybody has heard of such ideas, it is very much different from what it was in those bad old days (TM) when we knew nothing.

[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.