Life In 19x19

Chinese because it's my preference.

My 2 cents.

I usually refer to japanese rules:
1. much becouse I like Japanese rules and their style
2. lately there is a lot of people thinking that Japan is fashionable and is favourably oriented towards all that is Japanese (japanese culture, zen, cousine, etc) so it is good to present GO as Chinese game "developed in Japan".
I don't mean that this is the truth, only that it is good presenting it in this way

Still, I don't really think that there is only one "best way" good in all situations, as there is not a single Joseki.
Let me give you two "full board position" for better understanding:

Usually me and the good fellows of the Go Club spend 2 days at the annual Game Convention near home.

Bantari wrote:Go is not for everybody.

so I usually try to came in contact with as much people as I can.

My "kakari" to passers-by that curiously look to me and my goban* is
*usually saying genial things like - I know this game: it is Checkers! (...or, Othello or Chinese checkers)

This is GO, probably the oldest game here around: more than 4.000 years old!
I can teach you the rules in 5 minutes if you want.
...and btw Othello is there on that tables on my right and Checkers is here on the left

I try and mostly avoid saying: I can teach you to play in 5 minutes...

Those who are interested enough to lend my the 5 minutes will end knowing the basics for:
1. placing stones,
2. killing stones and groups*
3. don't suicide and
4. Ko

Then I propose playing a 9x9 game to get a better grasp of these basic rules and of the way and right time for passing and ending the game by agreement and the japanese way of counting points.

If I can see some interest I show that when passing is made in the correct time the count of the points won't change also adding stones to the enemy territory - maybe Chinese rules are better for this part- it is a useful demonstration of the way of closing the game by passing.

I do not teach, by purpose, the "2 eye" rule for unconditionally live groups, since:
a. the smarter will have the joy to understand it themselves
b. it is not a "rule" but a theorem derived from the rules as I suggest casually when it happen during the game

On the other hand when someone shows up at the club we usually make a better and longer presentation of the game and propose some 9x9 game (Japanese rules) just to strengthen the memorization of the rules.
When I have been that host, 2 guys played a 19x19 Malkovich for me, commenting their moves while playing:
it was very helpful for me.

i generally teach aga without pass stones, and focus on territory scoring over area.

phillip1882 wrote:i generally teach aga without pass stones, and focus on territory scoring over area.

Better, then, to teach Japanese or Korean rules. AGA rules are area rules, and eliminating pass stones introduces complications.

Galation wrote: I do not teach, by purpose, the "2 eye" rule for unconditionally live groups, since:
a. the smarter will have the joy to understand it themselves
b. it is not a "rule" but a theorem derived from the rules as I suggest casually when it happen during the game

Indeed, I've come to suspect that the most confusing thing for beginners is not that 2 eyes is alive, but that one eye is dead. Just like they tend to miss ko and ataris, I think beginners may subconsciously assume that their opponent can't play there since the stone played appears as if it wouldn't have any liberties. One eye really seems to be the anomaly, over two and zero eyes which easily behave as expected.

phillip1882 wrote:i generally teach aga without pass stones, and focus on territory scoring over area.

I would go as far to say that that's not even possible.
Perhaps the most significant feature of AGA rules, is... pass stones.

Without them, then you are only left with either Japanese/Korean or Chinese (depending on which scoring method you prefer).

Hi,
I don't teach go, but I think I'd go for a presentation in three rules :
1-The rule of capture (chains, liberties)
2-The rule of repetition (positional superko)
3-The rule of scoring (area scoring)

Then, eventually converge towards the french rule (since I live in France), that is basically the same as AGA, but with a shorter official text.

Pio, I suggest doing those in a different order:
1: Scoring
2: Capture
3 (for later) Ko.

By doing scoring first I emphasise that the aim of Go is to surround more territory than your opponent, not to capture more stones. This helps to avoid the common beginner disease of being obsessed with capturing stones. And Ko I don't even bother in the first lesson, it usually comes up naturally soon enough.

To teach scoring before capture, if it's territory scoring, then how do you explain dead stones? If it's area scoring, how do you teach not to fill an eye needed for life? Or not approaching in a seki? Or why Black does not win on an odd board?

OTOH, if you start with the Capture Game, with no passes, territory scoring arises naturally. Despite its name, the capture game is really quite strategic, because it is so easy to make a living group.

Simple: I don't explain dead stones initially. When I say do scoring first I do not mean teach all scoring rules to allow the beginner to fully score the game. I start simply, so construct a 2x3 area in the centre of the board and say "See here black has surrounded this empty space. Each empty intersection is one point so he would get 6 points for this area". Then do the same in a corner to explain how the edge of the board can be the territory boundary. Then onto the capture rule of capturing 1 and then 2 stones. As 6 is bigger than 1 and 2 that helps emphasise that most of your points come from territory.

That is closer to what I would call teaching the object of the game. The object is to score more points than your opponent. You get one point for each point of territory and one point for each captured stone or dead stone. You can explain what that means later on.