Why do people still use the Chinese when it's clearly bad?

[Jhyn]

When arguing that Chinese rules give randomly 1 point to one of the players, you are implicitly saying that Japanese rules give the "proper" result and any another result would be a "gift" for the benefiting player.

Instead a Chinese player could argue that Japanese rules gave randomly one point to its opponent as compared to the proper rules which are the Chinese.

I do agree, however, with your argument that keeping in mind the parity of the dame adds a layer of difficulty that is not particularly interesting.

[Bill Spight]

I do agree, however, with your argument that keeping in mind the parity of the dame adds a layer of difficulty that is not particularly interesting.

Or necessary, except in rare cases.

[Pio2001]

The irony is that one of the reasons for which the Japanese prefer territory counting is that it adds a "layer of difficulty" at the end of the game, because you have to ponder if you should risk loosing one last point in order to secure a fragile territory, or risk it to be cut or killed by a complex invasion.

[skydyr]

The irony is that one of the reasons for which the Japanese prefer territory counting is that it adds a "layer of difficulty" at the end of the game, because you have to ponder if you should risk loosing one last point in order to secure a fragile territory, or risk it to be cut or killed by a complex invasion.

Well, using chinese/area counting you have the same conundrum, as any play inside your own territory means that you give an additional dame (read: point) to your opponent except at the very end of the game, when you would be passing anyways.

[Xylol]

Counting meaningless stones as points! why?!

bad troll is bad looks like you posted that and then waited to see all the reactions. Of course I can be wrong, if so: sorry for calling you a troll.

[Matti]

I prefer other languages.

[Galation]

I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.

From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/

According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.

Rules set DO matter!

Galation

[Bill Spight]

I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.

From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/

According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.

Rules set DO matter!

Galation

Oh, yes! Kos at the end of the game and counting territory in seki can make for significant differences between different rules. But the initial rant in this thread about random dame is off base. Dame are not random, and their supposed effect on strategy is extremely rare.

[xed_over]

I am fairly confident that there were pro games where one player resigned because he (correctly) calculated a 0.5 point loss, though I'm unable to remember an example right now.

From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/

According to 9 dan Korean professionals commenting on the final game, the result was unexpectedly hinged on half point kos and the counting system used.
Using Japanese counting (with 7.5 points komi), Lee (as white) would have won by half a point. In other words, Black was only ahead by 7 points on the board, so pros who typically count games using territory scoring initially thought that White was ahead.

Rules set DO matter!

Galation

No.

This difference was not about different rule sets -- Japanese vs Chinese.
It was about the fact that the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.

Had he counted using 6.5 komi (which is what it would have been if Japanese rules were being used), then his score estimate would have been the same as the actual result.

There is a very good reason Chinese rules only use the odd integer komi, while the Japanese rules could use either.

Who's ready for the math lesson?

[xed_over]

There is a very good reason Chinese rules only use the odd integer komi, while the Japanese rules could use either.

Who's ready for the math lesson?

...and its the very same reason AGA rules requires the same number of moves are played by each player (white plays last), and uses pass stones. (and also odd integer komi). Thus allowing players to use the more popular Japanese scoring/counting methods and not change the outcome of the game between the two methods.

[Joelnelsonb]

Counting meaningless stones as points! why?!

Or "Counting meaningless intersections without stones as points?!?"

[Galation]

the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.

I think GoGameGuru article referred to the korean pro commenting the game, not to Lee Sedol

Galation

[xed_over]

the pros don't understand the difference between those two rule sets and he used the wrong komi value in his head while estimating the score -- so he estimated incorrectly, thinking he had won, when in fact he had lost.

I think GoGameGuru article referred to the korean pro commenting the game, not to Lee Sedol

Galation

read the comments... David and I had additional conversations outside of those comments too.

[markyears]

I'm really sorry but I almost want to reply as that "Why do people still use the Japanese when it's clearly bad?"

I do agree that when you do practical counting, Japanese rule is more convenient. But I think as a rule at least for beginners, Chinese rule has advantages.

First of all, what do we mean by "Counting meaningless stones as points"? In all the rules, both territory and stones are counted as points. Otherwise, why Japanese rule needs to double count death stones? Because it does count both stones and territory. It just uses a different method.

Secondly, Chinese rule is more rigorous. For example, if at the end of game, your opponent refuses to agree some group is dead, say "hey they still have liberties...". And when you try to capture them, he passes... That's why AGA rule requires players to give a stone as prisoners. But it is a little counter intuitive.

Thirdly, it is easier to teach the beginners using Chinese rule in my opinion. Since in my opinion, concepts like "death/live" is really not a part of the rule. Rule needs to be simple and elegant. Using Chinese rule, you can easily say, if you think some group is dead, capture it! In addition, double counting the death or putting captured stones back to the territory is a little counter intuitive to beginners.

In general, I think the problem of Japanese rule is: Players are penalized when putting stones in his/her own territory. It makes things complicated and is a little counter intuitive in my mind.

[Pio2001]

From GoGameGuru: https://gogameguru.com/2nd-mlily-cup-final/

Funny ! White threatened to take the two last dame with 272. Black had to take the other with 273.