AGA Rules vs. Japanese

[amnal]

This argument is absurd...

1) You make the unjustified implication that we all must personally be able to verify the values of fundamental constants. I don't see why you would think this.
2) You make the nonsense statement that one cannot understand a system of units without having understanding of the method by which these units are derived in the first place. This is clearly not the case.
3) The 'average width of a thumb' thing makes little sense to me. It suffices in the short term, for basic tasks, but...well, there are horrendous problems with using that kind of measurement in the modern world. Who is measuring all these thumbs? What happens when the average width of them changes? If we keep the old value, how do we make sure we don't lose track of what it is? And if you keep an old value like that, it's arbitrary and unmeasurable (which you seem to think is a bad thing) any way, so you haven't gained anything. It is far more useful to have values that can be measured accurately at any time because they are tied in to fundamental universal constants.

I fear you completely missed the point. Of course the argument is absurd, that's what I was trying to get at. I was taking the old tried and true arguments you see over rulesets and moving them into a different context. Personally, if I went back to the "rules of the metric system" I would never be able to find out how long a meter is. I would be unable to measure it. The strict definition of a meter to an average everyday person has no use. Of course in practice no one worries about these things, and when they do matter you have people who are familiar with the specifics you can rely on (which is the entire point I was getting at). It is all to common to hear the claim Japanese rules cannot be understood by a beginner and are therefore unusable. Things like moonshine ko, 5 points without capture, etc are brought up in this context...it is comparable to saying you can't measure something in feet because you don't understand NAD27 or you can't actually measure something using a meter before you know quantum mechanics (otherwise how can you know what a meter is?).

In reality, most of us can get by with most of what we do with rough approximations...likewise most of us can play go with our friends without worrying about whether we need 2, 3, 4, or 17 passes at the end of a game in order to properly confirm that it has ended.

Oh, I see.

In that case, you took your analogy too far

[RobertJasiek]

We've told you a million times never to exaggerate.

I have not exaggerated. There is a difference in our perceptions though: You ignore rules difficulties while I do not ignore them. You pretend to apply inapplicable rules while I seek an interpretation to apply a correction of what was inapplicable in the original rules.

An 11-year-old youngster can even start earning a living in go under Japanese rules without ever having studied them.

It is not Japanese rules what he applied but their pretended simplification. (We have discussed this since about 1995 now. That a pretended simplification is being used has been proven beyond doubt.)

the anomalies either occur very, very, very rarely

Just for the reference, it is also the most ordinary aspects of Japanese rules that create problems of inapplicability until a) the rules are explained in detail or b) a pretended simplification is used.

Go is a game, not a research project.

Maybe for you. For me Go is both.

[Mivo]

For the OP, I have been told several times that even in US events with AGA rules players often agree tacitly or formally to count up the Japanese way.

Have there been considerations to adopt the Japanese rules officially, or is there a strong political aspect so that this is better left untouched?

[RobertJasiek]

is there a strong political aspect so that this is better left untouched?

The AGA is educated enough about rules so that you need not fear. Even if there were a motion for territory scoring rules, why would nowadays anybody want to adopt "the [official] Japanese Rules"? Rather everybody wants simplifications. Compare for example the German Go Association's choice for verbal German-Japanese rules or the EGF's rules option of verbal European-Japanese rules, which are some such simplifications of a kind.

[Mef]

Oh, I see.

In that case, you took your analogy too far

Haha perhaps, it's a slow day at work and I tend to ramble (hence leaving it shadowed)...All I really wanted to say was when you get an original question like this:

Is it possible to play the same way with both sets of rules?

A response like this:

Good luck on your tournament! Just remember dame, give a stone when you pass and white must paSs last. Have a blast!

Seems infinitely more useful than this:

The factor is 2,524,554. That much more difficult is Japanese scoring.

[RobertJasiek]

Mef, you have ignored that

1) I have given links with more useful hints about practical differences than "Just remember dame, give a stone when you pass and white must paSs last.",

2) "The factor is 2,524,554. That much more difficult is Japanese scoring." is not a reply to the request for practical differences but to the OP's statement "[...] I prefer Japanese scoring. It's so much simpler.".

[Mivo]

The AGA is educated enough about rules so that you need not fear.

John's post gave the impression that on many AGA tournaments, players use territory/Japanese scoring/rules. If this is wide-spread, it would indicate that the people who -are- the community prefer these methods. Most people on the go servers also use Japanese rules/territory scoring (as do most books). From a purely practical perspective, it seems counter-productive (and stubborn) to cling to systems or rules that the majority of the players doesn't prefer. (But I sense there is a strong political component and I didn't mean to open a can of worms here.)

[RobertJasiek]

the impression that on many AGA tournaments, players use territory/Japanese scoring/rules.

From what I have heard, the AGA situation is pretty much as confusing as the European situation: AGA Rules applied strictly, AGA Rules applied carelessly, official Ing rules pretended to be applied, KSS Ing Rules or some sort of Japanese style rules. (I do not know if some Chinese organize tournaments with Chinese rules but maybe also that.)

If this is wide-spread

In Seattle I have played some games under AGA Rules, some I had to play under Japanese style rules.

Most people on the go servers also use Japanese rules/territory scoring

But why...? Because it is the default and often forced. OTOH, on KGS usage of Chinese, AGA and NZ rules has greatly increased during the last 5 years.

From a purely practical perspective, it seems counter-productive (and stubborn) to cling to systems or rules that the majority of the players doesn't prefer.

If it is the majority. - You can also point out that it is counter-productive to use (Japanese) rules that almost nobody understands. People should stop pretending usage of Japanese rules but state the reality "simplified approximation of Japanese style rules" or "verbal Japanese style rules".

[John Fairbairn]

Have there been considerations to adopt the Japanese rules officially, or is there a strong political aspect so that this is better left untouched?

Politics have never come into pro rules discussions in a big way. Nearly all the noise has been made by western amateurs.

Nationalist feelings come into play, of course, but even then not much. There have been (and are) tournaments in mainland China played under Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese (Ing) rules, because the sponsor is foreign. This has even led to some absurdities, such as a Chinese 9-dan forgetting he was playing under Korean rules (a Nongshim Cup qualifier) and, literally at the every end with just two dame left he decided he had lost, and so resigned to spare the tedium of counting up. He would have been correct under Chinese rules but would have won had he counted up under the applicable Korea rules.

There has been one case (1999) of a Korean playing in China losing a game by 3/4 zi (half a point) because he was unfamiliar with Chinese-style dame fights. It wouldn't have been an issue under Korea rules.

But most (though still rare) problems internationally arise with Chinese players tossing their prisoners back in the opponent's bowl, a problem exacerbated by the Mickey Mouse time limits which means that many games are not recorded. This leads to arguments not so much about the rules but about who is telling the truth - word against word. National associations instinctively take the side of their players, and no doubt language problems supervene. The last couple of incidents have been fairly heated at the time but have had no lasting impact.

In fact, most pro rules discussions are not about the sort of rules we are talking about here, but rather tournament rules. For example, in the early days of the Japan-China goodwill games, games were played under Japanese rules even in China. But eventually the Chinese took a polite stand and insisted on having a day before the next event to agree on the rules. This did mean switching to Chinese-style counting, but that was incidental. The real discussion was about playing even. The Japanese pros baulked at that, as the Chinese were still amateurs. There was also discussion of komi and time limits. These are what took the time (although the Japanese said yes to almost everything instantly - one senses the diplomatic briefing they got beforehand). The way the Chinese-style counting was handled was quite simple. If was agreed that if any dispute occurred over a game because of this aspect, the game would be declared a draw.

The Japanese also tried to be diplomatic with westerners when they began organising international amateur events, and they heeded pleas for revised rules. It's safe to say they rue the day they said yes.

The 2010 Mindsports Games perhaps marked a new stage in international rules, but we'd need to see if anything happens in the next event in Incheon and whether Korean rules are used there. But as things stand, it seems go will not feature this time, so the debate will go back onto the back-burner.

[tundra]

For the OP, I have been told several times that even in US events with AGA rules players often agree tacitly or formally to count up the Japanese way.

I once saw a gallery of photos that someone (trevoke?) had taken at a U.S. Go Congress, from 2006 or 2007. Included were a few photos of players displaying triple kos that had occurred in their games. This stuck me as rather odd, as a triple ko should be impossible under AGA rules, since it is prevented by the supeko rule. Under AGA rules, those games should have been played out, with one of the players forced to break the cycle. But it looked like the games were deemed finished.

On the other hand, these did not look like top-level games, so perhaps the tournament directors did not mind. For the U.S. Open, however, perhaps the AGA rules are enforced.

[RobertJasiek]

Politics have never come into pro rules discussions in a big way. Nearly all the noise has been made by western amateurs.

This might be so for the internet but what about the real world? There are also a few (I have heard of) / some / many(?) Asian amateurs interested in rules and expressing their opinion.

Thank you for the history report!

The way the Chinese-style counting was handled was quite simple. If was agreed that if any dispute occurred over a game because of this aspect, the game would be declared a draw.

Are you referring to the rearrangement of stones (counting mechanics) or to the scoring definitions (area vs. territory)?

The Japanese also tried to be diplomatic with westerners when they began organising international amateur events, and they heeded pleas for revised rules.

Yes? The changes from Japanese 1949 to WAGC79 to WAGC80 Rules are so relatively small that I do not understand what you might mean. WAGC or Nihon Kiin 1989 style Rules are still being used in Japanese organized international amateur events. Several attempts by the Japanese pros in charge were made to BLOCK changes and to play on time when arguments don't convince. It is closer to the opposite of diplomacy.

Matters are pretty different for tournament rules and systems though. There Japanese have listened to a bit of western input and 30 years of step by step changes have led to some noteworthy but small changes.

The 2010 Mindsports Games perhaps marked a new stage in international rules

Which rules were used there?

[oren]

John's post gave the impression that on many AGA tournaments, players use territory/Japanese scoring/rules. If this is wide-spread, it would indicate that the people who -are- the community prefer these methods. Most people on the go servers also use Japanese rules/territory scoring (as do most books). From a purely practical perspective, it seems counter-productive (and stubborn) to cling to systems or rules that the majority of the players doesn't prefer. (But I sense there is a strong political component and I didn't mean to open a can of worms here.)

Virtually all games played under AGA rules don't change from Japanese rules except for the pass stones. I just try to make sure pass stones are handled at the end, and everyone does what they're used to. There is no need to do area counting if you don't want to.

[willemien]

Territory scoring has the advantage that you just don't have to count that far (all points occupied by living stones don't need to be counted)
Unfortunedly territory scoring has the disadvantage that in rare positions it is difficult to decide how big the territory acctualy is.

so it is abit what weights the most, the advantages or the disadvantages.
(and for people concerned with the rules of our game it is clearly the disadvantages)

The area based Ing scoring (fill in counting) solves the problem of having to count further by exactly counting the number of stones that each player has, so that it is easy buy filling territory the difference can be counted)

The AGA rules solves this problem on another way: the pass stones end the rule that white has to hand over the last pass-stone make that the differences between territory scoring and area scoring disappears.



To go back to the original question

Hello, I'm an 11k player on KGS, and I've always played using Japanese scoring. However, today I'm going to be participating in a tournament that uses AGA rules. Is it possible to play the same way with both sets of rules?

I've looked over the rulesets and I can't really see anything drastically different, but I just thought I'd ask so I know ahead of time what I'm getting myself into.

No not really, play as always (just make sure you keep your prisoners, fill all dame and that you get your pass-stones)

[hyperpape]

It is not Japanese rules what he applied but their pretended simplification. (We have discussed this since about 1995 now. That a pretended simplification is being used has been proven beyond doubt.

What are you saying here? Do you mean that the youngster understands a "pretended simplification", but the rules that are applied are the complicated ones? Or that both the youngster and the referees apply the
"pretended simplification"?

[RobertJasiek]

Or that both the youngster and the referees apply the "pretended simplification"?

Both. (Although each might have in mind a slightly different simplification.)