Life In 19x19

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.".

RobertJasiek wrote: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.)

Mivo wrote: 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".

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.

John Fairbairn wrote: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.

John Fairbairn wrote: 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?

Mivo wrote: 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.

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

hailthorn011 wrote: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)

RobertJasiek wrote: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"?

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

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

willemien wrote:Territory scoring has the advantage that you just don't have to count that far

We have to be more precise about what shall be counted.

1) Positional judgement during the game: Various methods can be applied. Some count great numbers, others count small numbers. For some the "great" numbers are just a few points greater than the "small" numbers (like local endgame counts including a few newly played boundary stones but disregarding prisoners). Area and territory scoring are very similar in positional judgement because counting methods for either can be adopted or modified to be adopted. The difference between counting or ignoring eye points in asymmetrical sekis or 1-sided dame is tiny.

2) Counting the score at the game end: Both area and territory scoring allow various different counting methods including such where counting is not even necessary but only the winning player's winning margin is seen (subject to komi). E.g., fill in empty territory intersections pairwise until one player's intersections are all filled. E.g., fill all, then remove pairs of one black and one white stone. E.g., fill all, then arrange all stones tengen-symmetrically as far as possible. You do not need Ing boxes for that. Both area and territory scoring can be reduced to seeing only the winning margin. (Hence one should compare elementary counting steps including actions like moving, removing or filling a stone. Both scoring systems have equally fast such methods, provided the life, death, territory status assessment step of territory scoring is pretended to consume 0 time.)

RobertJasiek wrote:

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

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

If neither the ref nor the player are going by the printed rules, then there's a bit of perversity in making your comparisons based on the printed rules. A sheet of paper is just that--it it is not a set of rules until it is used, at least some of the time.

You can criticize the printed rules as a poor codification of actual practice, or you can cricitize them as inferior to ideal rules. But there is a real sense in which they are not the rules until they are what are used to guide decisions on the ground.

In that sense, it sounds like John is right--the 11 year old understands the rules that are being used. He does not understand the written rules, but those rules are not the rules so far as they are never applied. You can imagine circumstances where this is a problem--an officious referee imposes the written rules, etc.

hyperpape, if I had applied your idea of rules application in my games, then referees would have punished me very harshly for violating the rules intentionally.

Japanese players and referees tend to state that they would apply the original (written) rules. The perversity is not my doing of what the tournament organizers declare to do but is their, the referees and most players' violation of their own statement. Not honesty of doing what one says is perverse but dishonesty of not doing what one says.

I appreciate the only noteworthy exception, the WAGC 2009 official rules expert's (James Davies) honesty: He quickly admitted Yes when I asked whether the flawed WAGC Rules wording would not be applied strictly.

Concerning official Ing Rules in European tournaments, the situation to 2003 (and partly beyond) was hardly any better: With the exception of Matti Siivola and myself, politicians and tournament organizers all insisted on applying the written rules strictly according to their literal wording while all informed players were aware that that was impossible (virtually nobody could understand the ko rules). Politicians even supressed freedom of speech in the 1996 congress journal when Christoph Gerlach, the editor, wanted to print a critical comic on the rules.

Get your history right, Robert. Christoph printed an article which would have been offensive to the sponsors and then refused to print an apology or accept that he had made a mistake. Soemtimes the "politicians" have to try to smooth over the differences between the ideals of the young and the practicalities of the money-men.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:Christoph printed an article which would have been offensive to the sponsors and then refused to print an apology or accept that he had made a mistake.

I see. Thank you for the correction! (Of course, he could not apologize since he had not made a mistake.)

Soemtimes the "politicians" have to try to smooth over the differences between the ideals of the young and the practicalities of the money-men.

Money never justifies suppression of speech.