scoring

[darWIN]

Sorry to say this, but I despise the scoring methods used in this game. When I first played the game I scored by who had the most stones--who had killed the most pieces. I did some research recently and the earliest known description of the rules says that the most stones wins, written in the tang dynasty which existed in 700 AD. The game was then mostly spread by word of mouth, the reason people argue about the rules, they weren't even formally written down until the middle of the twentieth century. must play all over the board and most stones wins, it said, that must mean, that you have to play all over the board, and whoever captures the most stones wins.

territory scoring is flawed in that it favors the loser of a match scored by capturing stones, a lot of the time, which isn't necessarily fair, if I played with my mom a capturing game that took over an entire 19 by 19 board, and captured more pieces than her, but because she was able to capture a lot of empty space, which because we were battling she did accidentally, she wins territory scoring.

that is not to say that surrounding the empty space isn't a good strategy, it is especially for defense, you can't capture a shape with two eyes, and a large area encompassed by enemy stones seems dangerous to invade.

I asked my mother if she wanted to learn the other way, not my way, but the way they taught, and she said that trying to capture was fun, she wanted nothing to do with territory. I showed her the territory scoring and like me, she was a bit horrified that they would actually move the pieces around.

capturing pieces is hard and who is in a better position is hard to say until the game gets played out. I'm not even talking about Yasuda Yasutoshi, I'm not saying this is a Go variant, because it isn't, it's the same game, just scored differently in a simple way that everyone can understand. It is still the same game with the same complex puzzles that make it such a great game. There's no reason not to score that way. If you got a lot of your pieces captured, you showed poor strategy. If you were able to capture a lot of pieces, you showed good strategy. If you were capturing empty space, chances are you were frustrated by the other person capturing you so you were moving somewhere else, alone and afraid.

[DrStraw]

There is a LOT of misconceptions in what you write. You really need to go to Sensei's Library and read all the information there about scoring. You will find that pretty much all your assumptions are wrong. You will see that the method of scoring does not affect the outcome of the game in almost all cases.

It is not that I am trying to be curt by writing this way. It is just that there is so much already written on SL that it seems pointless repeating it here.

[Dusk Eagle]

(Context: This discussion carries over from one in this thread, including a part where Darwin admits that he is trolling)

This isn't the first time someone who has barely played the game has come to this forum to promote their highly flawed alternative.



DarWIN, you have finally given me a reason to use the "blocked users" feature of phpbb forums. Congratulations.

[darWIN]

I'm not trolling I was kidding, I don't like being accused of trolling.

[darWIN]

I have personal experience in the method of scoring affecting the outcome of the game. I captured 38 of a person's pieces, and they won, because they had more territory. How can you still defend it?

You think this is just a beginner trying to say their stupid way of playing? How can you say that, you people who move all of the pieces around at the end of the board as if board position doesn't matter, don't you have any appreciation for the pattern?

No, you just want to win, and you win your way, so you'll count all of the empty spaces, even though the board clearly isn't designed for that. It has uneven amount of intersections making the math more difficult and a lot of intersections making it time consuming. But if you want to bore yourselves to death counting it's none of my business, I know I have fairly good strategy.

[speedchase]

I have personal experience in the method of scoring affecting the outcome of the game. I captured 38 of a person's pieces, and they won, because they had more territory. How can you still defend it?

You think this is just a beginner trying to say their stupid way of playing? How can you say that, you people who move all of the pieces around at the end of the board as if board position doesn't matter, don't you have any appreciation for the pattern?

No, you just want to win, and you win your way, so you'll count all of the empty spaces, even though the board clearly isn't designed for that. It has uneven amount of intersections making the math more difficult and a lot of intersections making it time consuming. But if you want to bore yourselves to death counting it's none of my business, I know I have fairly good strategy.

Your game is trivial. It's fine if you enjoy playing it, just like it is completely within your right to play tick tack toe. Just don't expect us to concern ourselves with playing it or studying it.

PS. the most stones on the board wins ruleset is almost identical to territory scoring (excluding things like passes and groups tax) as long as you fill territory.

PPS. you might consider playing a bit more with traditional rules. There is a reason they are the ones we use, it isn't just tradition. I'm sure once you get a bit stronger you'll start to understand why.

[DrStraw]

I have personal experience in the method of scoring affecting the outcome of the game. I captured 38 of a person's pieces, and they won, because they had more territory. How can you still defend it?

Simple. Go is not about capturing anything. If you want to capture, play chess.

Oh, no, that would not work for you would it? The pieces move.

Perhaps you should take up bridge.

[darWIN]

now I remember why I called you guys nerds back when I played basketball, before I got epilepsy and had to quit. It's because you're a bunch of pompous people who think you're the smartest when all you're doing is playing a game. A game is played for fun, and messing up the beautiful pattern created and counting the intersections isn't fun, destroying my opponent is. I'm not breaking the rules.

[darWIN]

If I had a pet robot who could look at the board and count the intersections for me, I'd consider playing your way, perhaps. unfortunately I'm a stupid human and it takes me fifteen minutes.

[darWIN]

you don't want to be schooled by a stupid jock though, your first instinct is to call me an idiot, you think I'm more brawn than brains, and you don't think about my words as if they real.

[speedchase]

If I had a pet robot who could look at the board and count the intersections for me, I'd consider playing your way, perhaps. unfortunately I'm a stupid human and it takes me fifteen minutes.

Play on the computer? Learn to count in like 2 minutes?

now I remember why I called you guys nerds back when I played basketball, before I got epilepsy and had to quit.

I've never heard someone brag about being a bully before. This really is a new one.

It's because you're a bunch of pompous people who think you're the smartest when all you're doing is playing a game. A game is played for fun, and messing up the beautiful pattern created and counting the intersections isn't fun, destroying my opponent is. I'm not breaking the rules.

Did you bother reading my post?

you don't want to be schooled by a stupid jock though, your first instinct is to call me an idiot, you think I'm more brawn than brains, and you don't think about my words as if they real.

I searched the entire thread. The word idiot only appears once, where you say it. (well now it appears more obviously). I searched the other thread as well. I can't find an occurrence there either. It is apparent that even though you may not realize your words are real, I do.

[Shaddy]

I have a question - do you allow passing?

[darWIN]

now I am the mongolian and you are china with your great wall. I am a soldier saying the game should be kill or be killed and you are the emperor looking from above who does not care who lives or dies, but just wants to divide the earth into his way of thinking and does not care for mine.

[darWIN]

I have a question - do you allow passing?

Well, passing isn't really practical. To capture pieces you have to be a step ahead of the other person. So if you pass you'll naturally be a step behind. If you capture first then want to stop playing, well, ok, but there's a lot of space on the board.

[Shaddy]

Here's the point I'd like to make: if you allow passing, then the first person to capture wins, if he wants to win. If you don't, you will eventually reach a point where there is essentially nothing left to capture, and the board is divided into territories. At this point, both players will start to fill in their own areas, until someone has to start filling in their own eyes; this will be the person with less territory, and he will lose, so capture-scoring becomes nearly equivalent to area-scoring.