Explaining clearly how to end the game seems to be one of the most difficult aspects of the game. Because it requires an understanding of surrounding empty territory (or area), along with a rudimentary understanding of life and death. The latter being one of the more difficult for first time beginners. The basic concepts of each are so intertwined. But the goal is more territory/area than your opponent, not simply make sure you have two eyes.
I've begun to move away from using Capture Go to teach beginner, though I still believe it has value, and will go back to it for some beginners who are having trouble grasping certain concepts. I never like two beginners play each other with Capture Go, because I don't feel they will learn the intended concepts on their own and they do indeed tend focus too much on capturing (without teacher intervention).
When I do use it, I usually start on a small 5x5 board, or start with a cross cut setup in the center of a 9x9. I tell my opponent
not to try and capture me, because
they won't be able to (I've had to eat my words a time or two, because I'm still not quite strong enough to back up that claim). I tell them to try and
not get captured.
(In my opinion) The intended goals for using Capture Go are:
1) learn to defend before attacking
2) learn to make uncapturable shapes (at least start to think along these lines)
3) learn how to end the game: the one with the most territory wins (when no one is captured, count to see who has surrounded the most open area)
These concepts can be, and have been for centuries, taught on a full sized board with regular Go. But you can get past these initial hurdles much faster on a smaller board, and the concepts are easily transferable to the larger game.
And because ending the game seems to be the most difficult to explain, I like to get to #3 as quickly as I can with a first time beginner. Everything else stems from these concepts. No need to over explain, because the rest can be self-discovered.
Even without using Capture Go, I also try to avoid over explaining capturing (because beginners do like to focus on capturing, for some reason). I try to use "suffocate" rather than "surround to kill/capture". The word surround can be too ambiguous, since its possible to surround a living group and not kill it.
But I'd rather my students focus on surrounding open territory instead of surrounding and killing enemy stones. Build a bigger house.
I try to explain that the initial moves are fence posts, and eventually we'll try to connect them together to surround and control more open range land than our opponents. The game ends when I can't make my territory and larger, or yours any smaller, or there are no more weaknesses to exploit or protect.
I love the way Karl Baker describes how to end the game in his book,
The Way to Go.
[quote=Karl Baker]
Ending The GameThere is one main goal in go: control more of the points on the board. This is done by (1) increasing your area, (2) reducing your opponent’s area, (3) capturing enemy stones, and (4) protecting your own stones. The winner, on balance, has always accomplished these objectives more efficiently than the loser.[/quote]
I don't believe passing was ever an official rule of the game. Its just a way to say, "I think we are done." The game is ended by mutual agreement (passing) --
that the final outcome of the game will not change with further play. We've kinda had to formalize it for amateur play.
I believe in the concept of "never answer a question that hasn't been asked", when teaching the game. So I rarely talk about two-eyes, or ko, or life and death. These can all be self-discovered as a natural concept of suffocation -- maintaining liberties for your stones/groups. I do talk about liberties, breaths, breathing straws. When they can't breath, they suffocate and die. Suicide is easy to explain, but unfortunately, its just as easy to confuse with taking an opponent's last liberty. And the first time they take a ko illegally, I just keep taking it back again until they see the futility of it, then explain the rule.
But ko is so much bigger than "you must play somewhere else first". That just cheapens it. It has a much deeper strategy than beginners are usually ready for. Its more about offering a trade for something you might deem more valuable. "I'll give you that, if you'll give me this". (
and one of you gets two moves in a row elsewhere). That's why I'm in no hurry to explain it to beginners. I don't want to stunt their understanding of it. Setting up a decent example is not easy.