Pio2001 wrote:During centuries, in China and japan, go was played using territory counting,
In China, scoring systems changed at different times and included stone scoring and area scoring.
The first complete official ruleset was the japanese one of 1949.
It was a text maybe attempting to be complete, but of course was not complete.
These rules are the ones that are the closest to the tradition of go,
1) Tradition changed. There has not been a single tradition.
2) My Japanese 2003 Rules are the closest to current Japanese professional tradition.
3) The quality of the Japanese 1949 Rules was similar to that of the World Amateur Go Championship Rules, whose failure to model tradition I have described here:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcflaw.htmlThen, in 1975, China came with a much simpler ruleset using area counting.
Not China, not Taiwan, but Ing in Taiwan.
It is simple and clear,
No. I tried to be simple and clear. Much closer to simplicity and clarity, but still failing, are the New Zealand Rules. If you want it simple and clear, read the Simple Rules or the Tromp-Taylor Rules.
it is extremely heavy for the players, who have to count all the area at the end of each game.
1) For positional judgement, TERRITORY counting or LOCAL area counting work during the endgame. Therefore, counting is NOT extremely heavy.
2) For counting of the score of the final position, there are several possible counting procedures, which include HALF counting procedures and TERRITORY counting procedures for area scoring. Therefore, it is NOT necessary to count ALL the area. The speed of such counting procedures is essentially the same as that for Japanese fill-in counting. Therefore, it is NOT extremely heavy.
the simplicity of the chinese rules,
The Chinese Rules are not simple:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/c2002com.pdfIt is the area scoring core of the Chinese Rules that is simple.
Japanese-style rules have unsolvable theoretical problems,
I have solved them:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.html that occurs in one game out of 1000.
The theoretical problems of real Japanese Rules occur in EACH game. In practice, it is not that bad as long as one replaces application of the rules by their violation and uses verbal rules as a pretence of being an application of the written rules.
The Nihon Ki-in has been criticised for doing so, and some players (Go Seigen) even demanded that they change that. Which was done in 1989... for the worse !
The 1989 Rules were a major theoretical step forwards but introduced new practical problems creating nonsense.
But since problems occur so rarely,
The problems occur in EACH game. See
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.htmlIt is only the pretence of using the written rules while in fact using verbal rules that prevents the problems from becoming apparent in each game.
the players themselves are perfectly ok with these rules.
Rather many professional players using the 1989 Rules are ok with pretending to use them while in fact replacing them by verbal rules.
Chinese style rules give no problems to any federation of programmer,
It depends on which ruleset you are speaking of. The Chinese Rules create problems. Other area scoring rulesets do not create problems.
but they strongly annoy the players in each and every game.
When you speak of area scoring rules, this may be a matter of preference. For me, they provide great joy in each game.
AGA rules seem to get the best of both worlds.
The Japanese fill-in counting is not "the best" of the territory scoring world because it is very error-prone.
The 1989 japanese rules solved the problem introducing a new rule : ko fights are forbidden during imaginary play.
This is not the rule. Ko fights occur but their nature is very different:)
