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

[RobertJasiek]

You behaviour was unnecessary (you can win a game without completely destroying the opponent)

It was not even a matter of choice of behaviour, but the game naturally evolved into killing all. 13x13, H4, white opening established two central cutting lines dividing the board into four separate parts. From then on, killing some corner is the natural choice. If Black is careless, then every cut's ending near an edge kills two corners simultenously. Almost automatically, everything died.

For this kind of strategic development, you can only argue whether I should have deliberately made mistakes and let Black revive part of his killed groups. In serious games, as that game was, I consider such unethical.

I do not even understand the problem you are having with killing everything. When I was Black in handicap games, I was happy to learn much when losing badly. Losing badly is a great chance to learn much!

and obviously distressed your opponent (never came back).

I do not think so. What obviously (from the expression of his face) distressed him was how Japanese scoring was done or maybe how - in his opinion - it favoured the stronger player able to show the more interesting variations.

unnecessarily slaughtering a beginner is uncalled for.

He was already 13 kyu - not an absolute beginner any more. A 13 kyu must be able to tolerate losing part of his games badly.

Also see above.

In particular, I disagree completely. In a serious, serious strategy is called for.

No, see above.

That you have a different opinion on playing (or not playing?) serious games against beginners does not require to let it be a matter of ethics. Regardless of the scoring method used, every two players deciding to play a game can choose for themselves whether it shall be a serious game or a teaching game, whether teaching after the game is desired or not etc.

Verbal.

Ok, then I understand that you manage to explain them to beginners reasonably well for your perceived standards.

[PaperTiger]

Although I've never had the problem, I can imagine others do have it. Can you quote numbers? What percentage of teachers have reported this problem? What percentage of their students had trouble in this area? You called it a "very good chance", so I assume it is a large percentage?

You've got me there. I haven't done a statistical study. I can point to many posts from different teachers on this forum alone, or to the many posts from beginners who get confused by Japanese "dead" stones, or to the many posts by people who gave up on Go for years before trying again, but I can't give you statistics.

I can also easily explain the logical conundrum and the practical issues involving agreement between two players who have just learned the rules, but I still can't give you statistics.

But then again, you haven't given any statistics either except for your own unconfirmable report.

Well, since my argument, in full, is: "Area scoring rules have some advantage when teaching beginners, but it is far more important to be friendly, enthusiastic and patient when teaching, and it is also more important to make sure the beginner learns the rules that he will be playing with against others", why are you arguing against that so heatedly?

Except that wasn't your full argument or the full arguments of the posts I responded to heatedly. When you finally did make the argument about playing others with the same ruleset, I acknowledged it.

What the hell kind of statement is that?

I truly think that the difference between area and territory scoring is trivial. That's my opinion. You have a different opinion. That does not make what I am saying a lie. There is no need for such aggression.

I didn't say your opinion was a lie. What was a lie was the statement, "I'm not trying to trivialize the problem, it is quite capable of that all by itself." Your many posts in argument of triviality attest otherwise. This is kind of post that I bluntly respond to and then get called out on for being aggressive, as if your statement wasn't.

[snorri]

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

Did he say that area scoring would help? If we're talking about unplayed tesujis, etc. after dame are filled, those are just reading deficiencies that would be present regardless of which scoring method is used. It would be interesting to do the same study on scoring. What would be needed? A large number of video of players scoring the endgame?

[Javaness2]

I always found it hard to understand why people beleive Japanese rules put people off learning the game. If you look at Japan or Korea, it seems that there are plenty of people playing there. I think that people who can't explain to others how to play Go are a greater cause of putting people off learning the game. There are many people who learnt from inadequate documents which tried to describe how to play. The result was that they didn't.

As to which ruleset you want to use, either Chinese or Japanese. I still see no reason to use AGA.

[PaperTiger]

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

Did he say that area scoring would help? If we're talking about unplayed tesujis, etc. after dame are filled, those are just reading deficiencies that would be present regardless of which scoring method is used. It would be interesting to do the same study on scoring. What would be needed? A large number of video of players scoring the endgame?

I'm not Eric van der Werf, but I did at one point go through my games and came out with about 1% that would have benefited from playout rules because of a dispute. I mentioned it already once on this forum in this post. An excerpt from the link within that post:

Well, I've played about 1,000 games, and have presented to you 8 of my games that would have benefited from simple play-out-rules. A lot of cases were resolved verbally, but computers do not have that option. I also think resolving the game "outside the game" by discussion or an arbiter is an unsatisfactory end to a Go game.

[Bantari]

Many teachers report difficulties explaining the endgame to beginners.

As I said - there are many bad teachers out there.
It takes more to be a 'teacher' than just to swing a beginner around.

Personally, I find it much harder to retain a beginner when I tech non-common rules than the common ones. And by that I mean - the ones used around or not. To me, this is much more important than strict adherence to once specific scoring method.

[Bantari]

[You admonished him because he destroyed a much weaker opponent on the board, instead of playing down to his level.

Nope.
He admonished him because, from Robert's context, we thought it was a teaching game which Robert treated as a contest - a behavior not worthy of a teacher.
Later Robert backpedalled and explained that that was *not* a teaching game, but a contest game, but this is neither here nor there.

In any case, crushing beginners by killing all their stones some consider a very bad manners, regardless if the game is teaching or not. And it has nothing to do with 'playing to their level'. Please do not distort half of what you quote. I know you are very passionate about 'area scoring' and that you think its the best thing since sliced bread, but its really not such a big deal, dude. So chill out, yes?

[Bill Spight]

I am quoting part of the original post, because I think that, while the discussion is not strictly OT, it has long ago reached the point of negative utility for beginners. (Maybe Uzziel would disagree. If so, that's great! )

By contrast with contract bridge...

I am learning quite a bit actually. (Even with the somewhat negative tone the thread has evolved into).

I'm glad.

When scoring if I felt confused on what was alive and dead... I would rather resign than
waste the opponents time (especially if I could tell they were playing extremely well).

I also did not want to play the game out because I have read that is annoying as hell online.

After losing a lot, being frustrated with not being able to read well enough (to my expectation) to know what dead stones were/were not, walked away from the game.

I am not sure of the origin of this online impatience. I remember when it was usual to pay for online time by the minute, and it was quite expensive by comparison with today. But confusion about life and death is the norm for double digit kyu players (DDKs), and any experienced player who plays them and considers it a waste of time to play things out or explain things to them should be put out of their misery, IMHO. I appreciate your diffidence, but you are well worth it.

When I was 4 kyu, for my birthday a friend gave me a book of Go Seigen's games. OC, the game records almost all ended with dame unfilled, and if there was a final ko fight, only the result was indicated, not the plays in the fight. I discovered, to my dismay, that I was often unable to verify the score. The reason, OC, was that I was not seeing the necessity for some protective plays. And, although not yet a dan player, I was above average.

Filling dame correctly takes a fair amount of skill, certainly more than a DDK has.* That is true, regardless of the rules used. When I learned go it was the custom to fill dame informally and to point out protective plays as necessary. I do not play online, but I gather that that is not the case with online play. (It would not be so easy to program, I suppose.) Besides, since dame filling takes skill, it should be normal to fill dame when playing online.

The Japanese '89 rules have a clever provision that almost mandates filling dame before ending play, and since then I always do so. By contrast with filling dame informally, it does not add much time, if any, before the game is scored. And it removes any nagging doubts about whether a player saw the need for a protective play. (The J89 rules have an escape clause that allowed pros to continue the practice of filling dame informally. But accidents have happened, even to pros. ). Were I to play online I would fill the dame, and if doing so annoyed my opponent, I would consider that his problem, not mine.

As for DDKs, my advice is this:

Never resign. And always play out the dame.

If you play out the dame, it is a good bet that your opponent will be able to take advantage of your missing a protective play, or that you will be able to teach your opponent a lesson.

----

* Perhaps someone should write a book, Dame Filling for Dummies. It would probably be more useful for DDKs than books on life and death.

[snorri]

Well, I've played about 1,000 games, and have presented to you 8 of my games that would have benefited from simple play-out-rules. A lot of cases were resolved verbally, but computers do not have that option. I also think resolving the game "outside the game" by discussion or an arbiter is an unsatisfactory end to a Go game.

Thanks for sharing that. It must have taken some time. Hmm. These 1% to 2% error rates aren't particularly alarming. If a 30% one-way bias is equivalent to a 1-stone difference in rating, 1-2% is barely notable. There was one point in my go career when I decided that losing games on time wasn't worth fixing as long is it was under 15%. (And I probably would have set a higher number except that some opponents believe it is rude to lose on time and would insult me.)

Then there is the TD headache for tournaments. At 1-2% this is a couple of games per tournament for a medium-sized tournament that need some intervention if players don't work it out themselves. Seems about par for the course, but YMMV.

[Bantari]

I was admonishing Robert about reprehensible social behaviour.

Do you still think so? If yes,

1) why,
2) do you think that winning a game is reprehensible social behaviour,
3) how do you think that, at a time when Japanese rules were pretty much all I (and everybody in my environment) knew and we did not have any internet access yet, I could have invented ad hoc some sort of one-sequence playout method,
4) do you think that the inability to come up with an ad hoc solution as in and under the circumstances of (3) is reprehensible social behaviour of me and everybody in my environment at that time,
5) do you think that performing Japanese rules' scoring is reprehensible social behaviour (also by my opponent)?

Question not directed at me, but I try to answer anyhow, its a slow morning:

1. Because your behavior led to a person leaving a club and never coming back. We do not have the luxury of too many beginners, so alienating them like you did is not good. And, knowing you, and with all due respect - I can easily imagine your 'bedside manner' to have cause the problem. You can be really difficult and hard to take when you get into your Vulcan mode, which is what I think has happened in that case.
2. Not in itself. But there are many ways to win a game, especially when you are so much stronger that you can actually kill every stone. Also, once you notice where the game is going, you can always try to turn it into a teaching game, even an informal one.
3. And how did others in the club managed it? I cannot believe you got to be so much stronger than a 13k, a regular club goer, without running into such situation before, or without witnessing such situation before. And if you have not - this in itself tells us a lot about the magnitude of the problem, no?
4. Nope, you are off the hook for this one. At most, one could say that the painfully obvious did not occur to you. Having blinders is not a reprehensible social behavior, so you're ok on this count. Really, painfully obvious. You never analyze the game afterwards? Just analyze the final position... I mean - really.
5. Nope. Preference of scoring method is just a preference, it has nothing to do with behavior. A reprehensible social behavior would be, for example, when you *insist* that everybody around you follow *your* personal preference even when they don't want to.

[HermanHiddema]

I'm not Eric van der Werf, but I did at one point go through my games and came out with about 1% that would have benefited from playout rules because of a dispute. I mentioned it already once on this forum in this post. An excerpt from the link within that post:

Well, I've played about 1,000 games, and have presented to you 8 of my games that would have benefited from simple play-out-rules. A lot of cases were resolved verbally, but computers do not have that option. I also think resolving the game "outside the game" by discussion or an arbiter is an unsatisfactory end to a Go game.

Here you go:

http://eidogo.com/#3Db69KhOn
http://eidogo.com/#kJqUQtFL
http://eidogo.com/#3ffaI941
http://eidogo.com/#3oPyn2gv1
http://eidogo.com/#cXM4LI4v
http://eidogo.com/#26UxjAhqL
http://eidogo.com/#v4U3OIO8
http://eidogo.com/#3wjih8zql

EDIT: And PaperTiger's commentary on those (in the same order):

Gusu-PaperTiger.sgf: Look at the situation in the lower left corner. I
was dreading the dead-stone-removal phase, because I didn't know the
status and I expected a dispute. Fortunately, I had a late end-game
kill and my opponent resigned. This is exactly the kind of complex
position that needs to be played out on the board, on the clock, and not
disputed about verbally.

kuillua1-PaperTiger.sgf: The right side was in dispute. I was able to
verbally convince my opponent that it was seki and win the game. If it
was dead I would have lost.

PaperTiger-AkitoKun.sgf: This was a KGS tournament game. Upper-right
corner. Looks like a bent-4 in the corner situation. Read the
commentary starting at move 187. There was lots of confusion among 19k,
8k, and even a 1d. At the end my opponent thought for a long time
before agreeing to seki. Well, he had won the game no matter what. But
what if the game had depended on the outcome?

PaperTiger-Lastplayer.sgf: The lower left was in dispute. Another game
I won after verbally convincing my opponent it was seki.

PaperTiger-mosco.sgf: Lower left corner. A more complicated seki. This
particular opponent could not be convinced either verbally or by playing
it out, and escaped the game. Well, I had won this game even if I
wrongly agreed it was dead, but I was not going to agree to an incorrect
result.

PaperTiger-Ronnin.sgf: Left side. I knew it was somewhat tricky, so I
told my opponent before the game end that if he wanted to remove it that
he should do so via play. I thought it was dead, and he a seki, so it
was scored as a seki. I lost anyways.

stef-PaperTiger.sgf: Lower-right corner. This time I was wrong. I
thought it was dead, but it was seki. I lost in any event.

yin-PaperTiger.sgf: Lower-right corner. After some debate, I was
finally able to convince my opponent it was seki.

[jts]

@Uzziel - have you had a chance to ask for help on KGS yet? (If so, what rooms did you try, and were they helpful?)

I hope this debate has taught you, if nothing else, that playing a lot of go makes many people very, very passionate about the game. And maybe just a litttttle bit nerdy.

You have been a dan player for too long.

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

When Bantari says "status is determined long before the last dame is filled," he doesn't mean that the groups are settled long before the last dame is filled, he means that when there is an unsettled group on the board after the last dame was filled, it was not the last dame that caused the status to be unsettled: usually it was a stone placed five, twenty, even 100 plays earlier.

Very often it is filling a dame that unsettles a group. Consider the 2x3 eye in the corner. With 2 dame it is alive, but . . . .

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!

Thanks for sharing that. It must have taken some time. Hmm. These 1% to 2% error rates aren't particularly alarming. If a 30% one-way bias is equivalent to a 1-stone difference in rating, 1-2% is barely notable. There was one point in my go career when I decided that losing games on time wasn't worth fixing as long is it was under 15%. (And I probably would have set a higher number except that some opponents believe it is rude to lose on time and would insult me.)

Sometimes I wonder whether anything lower than 10%-20% doesn't need to be fixed. If I'm not using the main time in the middlegame and continue to think hard and count carefully in the endgame, maybe I'm just not focusing. [/offtopic]

[Bill Spight]

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

Did he say that area scoring would help? If we're talking about unplayed tesujis, etc. after dame are filled, those are just reading deficiencies that would be present regardless of which scoring method is used.

I guess I was unclear. If a protective play is needed, the life and death of some stones is unsettled, and that is what I was talking about. It is not a rules issue.

[Bantari]

You're lying, since that's what you've been trying to do in your many posts to this thread.

I am sorry dude, but this one line pretty much invalidates you as a conversation partner, in my book.

[HermanHiddema]

I didn't say your opinion was a lie. What was a lie was the statement, "I'm not trying to trivialize the problem, it is quite capable of that all by itself." Your many posts in argument of triviality attest otherwise. This is kind of post that I bluntly respond to and then get called out on for being aggressive, as if your statement wasn't.

I consider the difference between rule sets, for the purpose of teaching beginners, trivial. It exists, area scoring is slightly nicer, but in the big scheme of things it is trivial. In my opinion, therefore, it is not possible to trivialize the difference, because how do you trivialize something that is trivial?