Life In 19x19

shapenaji wrote:

DrStraw wrote:
The ugliness of Chinese-based rules for beginners is that you don't have to worry about if stones are alive of dead, you can just play it out and capture them (if you can), without bothering to learn the essentials of what make stones dead or alive.

With Japanese rules, if you play inside your own territory (to capture already dead stones), and your opponent doesn't respond (he passes), then you quickly learn the essentials of what is alive and what isn't, because you lose points, and games, because of it..

With Chinese rules, you have no incentive to read things out and become stronger.

I disagree, the incentive is still there. The only possible issue is if they wait until all dame are filled, and then start capturing, otherwise their opponent is always getting an advantage for slack play.

The advantage for two beginners to be able to just sit down and play and be able to resolve a game without outside arbitration is worth a little slack play at the end.

(And I doubt that slack play will last long, it's just too time consuming to capture everything, they'll figure it out)

Not to mention that beginners who learn Chinese counting don't suffer from "capturing disease".

Lets just agree that anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

Really, there are no significant benefits to any rule set that outweigh the most important consideration: What are the people around you actually playing with.

jts wrote:At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. Honestly, I don't see any serious problem with beginners losing or not losing points for capturing the stones that they think are still alive. After all, if they genuinely think the stones can be saved they should have played to capture them before dame (probably significantly before dame) and they would have lost the points under either scoring system.

The serious problem is that many beginners are so sunk into a fog about whether stones can be captured or not that they do not bother to make defensive moves when a defensive move might be sensible (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might be unnecessary), and then go ahead and make the defensive move anyway at the last possible second (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might not be unnecessary). This fog should be something that needles beginners. Likewise, sometimes beginners are in a fog about life and death and feel the urge in the middle of the game to make discrete, 1-point eyes inside an enormous territory. Again, this should be something that needles beginners. In practice, I've found that losing the point for "filling in your own territory" bothers beginners way more than losing a point for not playing a dame, or even than losing 2-10 points for not making a normal move that affects territory. Exactly how many points the unnecessary defensive moves, extraneous eye moves, etc. costs a beginner does not particularly matter; being needled slightly by the way the Japanese rules frame the point loss is very valuable.

Exactly!!
One of the best posts I have seen here in a long while. Thanks.

HermanHiddema wrote:Lets just agree that anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

Really, there are no significant benefits to any rule set that outweigh the most important consideration: What are the people around you actually playing with.

Nearest club from me is about 4-5hours away (not sure if they are even alive anymore). I am not sure what they are playing but for the most part im on my own

Uzziel, would you like to post more games for us to see what sorts of final positions you find worrisome? Both of the games you posted ended in resignation, so there was no need for you to decide which stones were alive and/or when you had reached the end of the game.

jts wrote:Uzziel, would you like to post more games for us to see what sorts of final positions you find worrisome? Both of the games you posted ended in resignation, so there was no need for you to decide which stones were alive and/or when you had reached the end of the game.

The reason example 1 ended in resignation is because I did not know when or how to end the game. Example 2 was just a bad example (from lack of games to choose from that i had on record).

I will have to play some more games to get back into the situations i am referring to before i can post more examples.

The examples I have posted so far are correspondence games that I had available.

Uzziel wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Lets just agree that anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

Really, there are no significant benefits to any rule set that outweigh the most important consideration: What are the people around you actually playing with.

Nearest club from me is about 4-5hours away (not sure if they are even alive anymore). I am not sure what they are playing but for the most part im on my own

The differences between the different rule sets are very minor, and if you're only playing online they all but disappear, because the server does the counting work for you. Generally, regardless of rule set, the following is broadly correct:

1. Just play the game. Try to kill groups, try not to get killed, try to surround areas, try to outwit your opponent.
2. If you reach the endgame without resigning, make sure you defend where appropriate, while trying to make as many points as possible.
3. Make sure you fill all the neutral points (dame) at the end while keeping a sharp eye on whether that forces new defensive moves.
4. Agree with your opponent on the dead groups.
5. Let the server count.

At no point here do you really need to know the difference between the rule sets. At almost every point, you will need to understand the strategy and tactics of the game. Players with a few months experience will generally have no problem with point 4, it just takes a bit of practice but the concept is generally obvious to player 20k and stronger.

With Japanese rules, people will sometimes forego step 3, but I would recommend against that, because it is very common that filling neutral points exposes (to beginners) weaknesses that need to be patched with defensive moves.

If you're playing in real life, and are unsure about how to count, let the opponent help you.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Uzziel wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Lets just agree that anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

Really, there are no significant benefits to any rule set that outweigh the most important consideration: What are the people around you actually playing with.

Nearest club from me is about 4-5hours away (not sure if they are even alive anymore). I am not sure what they are playing but for the most part im on my own

The differences between the different rule sets are very minor, and if you're only playing online they all but disappear, because the server does the counting work for you. Generally, regardless of rule set, the following is broadly correct:

1. Just play the game. Try to kill groups, try not to get killed, try to surround areas, try to outwit your opponent.
2. If you reach the endgame without resigning, make sure you defend where appropriate, while trying to make as many points as possible.
3. Make sure you fill all the neutral points (dame) at the end while keeping a sharp eye on whether that forces new defensive moves.
4. Agree with your opponent on the dead groups.
5. Let the server count.

At no point here do you really need to know the difference between the rule sets. At almost every point, you will need to understand the strategy and tactics of the game. Players with a few months experience will generally have no problem with point 4, it just takes a bit of practice but the concept is generally obvious to player 20k and stronger.

With Japanese rules, people will sometimes forego step 3, but I would recommend against that, because it is very common that filling neutral points exposes (to beginners) weaknesses that need to be patched with defensive moves.

If you're playing in real life, and are unsure about how to count, let the opponent help you.

I will take your advice for online play, and maybe incrementally learn all of the rule sets.

Currently and probably for awhile at least I will not have a real game on a board, but that is what I would
like to happen for the majority of my games in the future. I enjoy playing and studying on a real board when
compared to a digital one.

I am not sure why, but when playing Go IRL I feel I am learning more than I would from a digital medium.


Thanks for your help.

HermanHiddema wrote:The differences between the different rule sets are very minor

I think you mean the differences for strategy. (Because the rules themselves are very different.)

Bantari wrote:

jts wrote:At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. [..]

Exactly!!
One of the best posts I have seen here in a long while. Thanks.

Oh really? Sounds like the same old arguments to me and ignores the standard counter-arguments. The best way to learn what is alive or dead is to play it out, yet under Japanese rules the beginner is confused by the procedure because the rules require knowledge of what is alive or dead, and is afraid to play things out. In Chinese-style rules, instead of having some 3rd party expert to play with or hover over their games, the beginner learns by doing using simple rules that don't mysteriously change the score when you play things out.

DrStraw wrote:Seeing things go wrong because of an error made under Japanese scoring is part of the learning process. Under Chinese scoring nothing can go wrong by playing inside a territory so they don't learn.

What utter garbage, and this by an "AGA 5d". Are you saying beginners don't learn when their "safe" territory is utterly destroyed? Are you saying they don't learn when they play a zero-point defensive move and their opponents take points instead?

PaperTiger wrote:

Bantari wrote:

jts wrote:At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. [..]

Exactly!!
One of the best posts I have seen here in a long while. Thanks.

Oh really? Sounds like the same old arguments to me and ignores the standard counter-arguments. The best way to learn what is alive or dead is to play it out, yet under Japanese rules the beginner is confused by the procedure because the rules require knowledge of what is alive or dead, and is afraid to play things out. In Chinese-style rules, instead of having some 3rd party expert to play with or hover over their games,

It is an often perpetuated misconception that you cannot play things out under territory-scoring. You do, I do, and everybody else does as well. Why? Because the potential of being wrong is much more costly than anything different scoring methods can affect.

PaperTiger wrote:the beginner learns by doing using simple rules that don't mysteriously change the score when you play things out.

In practice, when beginners try to play out contested positions, the amount of mistakes that happen in such case greatly outweights the possible loss or gain of a single point due to scoring rules. These mistakes 'mysteriously' affect the score to a much greater extend than any differences in scoring method. And anyways - this only goes when you 'try things out' after the very last dame is filled.

For more advanced players, this argument is moot since things get played out long before final dame is filled, so making unnecessary moves within your own areas costs you the same points as under territory scoring.

PS>
Here is what I think:

- the whole bogus and over-dramatized 'play it out without penalty' argument - it applies to maybe a tiny fraction of a percent of the situations, but in practice - its pretty much meaningless.
- using the scoring method people around you use, so you know what's going on when you go to the club - priceless! If it happens to be area scoring - sweet. If not, no problem.
- on a server - not really much of a point.

And I like the idea that you actually have to *think* before making inside moves, rather than blindly playing. I find it very elegant that for each move you make you have to consider price-to-cost ratio and weight it out before you play. Trying to make a whole bunch of moves 'meaningless in terms of score' or 'no cost no matter what' - even if true - would go against the spirit of the game, I think.

So, good thing that area scoring for most part and in most practical situations imposes the same penalties on pointless moves inside your own areas as territory scoring does. And you trying to pretend it does not - its just incorrect. Especially when talking about beginners.

Bantari wrote:It is an often perpetuated misconception that you cannot play things out under territory-scoring. You do, I do, and everybody else does as well. Why? Because the potential of being wrong is much more costly than anything different scoring methods can affect.

Bravo. Excellent job of obfuscating an otherwise clear issue. We're talking about beginners being able to play things out on the board and score the game, without having to agree on dead-stone removal. I have no idea what you mean by, "You do, I do, and everybody else does as well."

In practice, when beginners try to play out contested positions, the amount of mistakes that happen in such case greatly outweights the possible loss or gain of a single point due to scoring rules. These mistakes 'mysteriously' affect the score to a much greater extend than any differences in scoring method. And anyways - this only goes when you 'try things out' after the very last dame is filled.

There's nothing mysterious about it. In fact, that's the entire point. If it can be killed "hypothetically" by "agreement", under Chinese-style rules the score remains the same if you actually play to kill it. Under Japanese rules, the score doesn't remain the same. If a mistake occurs in playout under Chinese-style rules, there is nothing mysterious about it. It's just a mistake, and something to learn from.

PS>
Here is what I think:

- the whole bogus and over-dramatized 'play it out without penalty' argument - it applies to maybe a tiny fraction of a percent of the situations, but in practice - its pretty much meaningless.

Here's what I think. You've got blinders on, as any beginner will encounter the logical confusion of having to agree to what is alive and dead in their very first game. In this very thread we were told the original poster resigned rather than attempt to score the game. Yet instead of acknowledging this problem, demonstrated countless times over the years in online discussions, you ignore it and try to pass it off as not a practical problem.

- using the scoring method people around you use, so you know what's going on when you go to the club - priceless! If it happens to be area scoring - sweet. If not, no problem.
- on a server - not really much of a point.

How about instead of insisting that people need to learn from a club, that instead beginners use rules that are beginner friendly, and then you can easily explain the difference for territory rules once they have some games under their belt.

And I like the idea that you actually have to *think* before making inside moves, rather than blindly playing. I find it very elegant that for each move you make you have to consider price-to-cost ratio and weight it out before you play. Trying to make a whole bunch of moves 'meaningless in terms of score' or 'no cost no matter what' - even if true - would go against the spirit of the game, I think.

Ah, more "spirit of the game" fallback nonsense. We've seen the same nonsense by being told Westerners are trying to impose their way of thinking on the East, but Go originated in China, not Japan, and the Chinese use area scoring rules.

So, good thing that area scoring for most part and in most practical situations imposes the same penalties on pointless moves inside your own areas as territory scoring does. And you trying to pretend it does not - its just incorrect. Especially when talking about beginners.

Huh? I agree, area scoring imposes those penalties for the most part in practical situations. I was arguing that very case to DrStraw. It's actually a commonly held myth that Japanese rules are special in this regard.

PaperTiger wrote:

Bantari wrote:It is an often perpetuated misconception that you cannot play things out under territory-scoring. You do, I do, and everybody else does as well. Why? Because the potential of being wrong is much more costly than anything different scoring methods can affect.

Bravo. Excellent job of obfuscating an otherwise clear issue. We're talking about beginners being able to play things out on the board and score the game, without having to agree on dead-stone removal. I have no idea what you mean by, "You do, I do, and everybody else does as well."

I mean, and this answers the rest of your post pretty much as well, that the case in which area scoring is presented as superior to territory scoring is very very rare, if it even happens at all. In most cases, regardless of scoring method, group status is determined long before the last dame is filled. This should go for both beginners and advanced players. Thus I said: you do, I do, and everybody else does as well.

To be precise, the only case I can think of that what you suggests holds true is:
- after game ended (i.e. two passes or whatever) AND
- there is a disagreement about status of a group, AND
- the score is very close, like 0.5 points or something

In those rare situations I give you that area scoring allows one party to add a single stone to the position without affecting the score.

However - if you talk about 'determining the status of the group without penalty' - this is highly suspect, especially in beginner games. If there is a longer sequence involved, after the end of the game, that the players need to play out to determine the proper status - proper determination requires a more-or-less perfect sequence, which is mostly wishful thinking. When beginners start putting stones on the board, anything can happen... dead group can be alive, live group can die, the surrounding stones can die, it can end in seki, whatever. The scoring method they use is the least of their problems!

So arguing that area scoring somehow allows beginners to determine the proper status of a group in cases of disagreement - puh-leeze... That's just bogus.

Before the game ends, if there are concern about status - it needs to be played out, and the fact that it costs points to make unnecessary moves is very good, imho - and it applies to each scoring method, so no advantage here.

So, as I have stated in my previous post: I still give the overwhelming advantage to using the scoring method which is used around you. Whichever this might be. Anything else is smoke-screen.

Bantari wrote:I mean, and this answers the rest of your post pretty much as well, that the case in which area scoring is presented as superior to territory scoring is very very rare, if it even happens at all. In most cases, regardless of scoring method, group status is determined long before the last dame is filled. This should go for both beginners and advanced players. Thus I said: you do, I do, and everybody else does as well.

This is a joke when it comes to beginners, and that's why I say you have blinders on. The logical confusion around Japanese rules for beginners has been documented countless times, in threads you have participated in. In this very thread we were told by the beginner he resigned rather than score the game:

"The hard part was with dead stones. Even after understanding the rules, I would get to the end of a game and second guess myself on what is dead/alive (Maybe this has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn Japanese rules v.s. me being insecure about what I call a dead stone). Also I worry about objections from the other player. I get to the end of the game, and feel overwhelmed at deciding what stays and what goes. (Have not made it through many end games.) [..] It is very frustrating to not be able to feel confident about finishing a game from beginning to resignation/end. [..] The reason example 1 ended in resignation is because I did not know when or how to end the game."

Under Chinese-style rules, "When in doubt, play it out." There's nothing confusing about that. Under Japanese rules, the score mysteriously changes, so players typically don't play things out, and a playout method typically isn't even taught.

To be precise, the only case I can think of that what you suggests holds true is:
- after game ended (i.e. two passes or whatever) AND
- there is a disagreement about status of a group, AND
- the score is very close, like 0.5 points or something

And yet you ignore the countless beginners who just can't make sense of Japanese-style rules, for good reason. This is absurd when an easy alternative exists for a game that is supposed to have simple rules but be hard to master to play well.

In those rare situations I give you that area scoring allows one party to add a single stone to the position without affecting the score.

It also can take several stones to fully remove a dead group from the board, not just a single one.

However - if you talk about 'determining the status of the group without penalty' - this is highly suspect, especially in beginner games. If there is a longer sequence involved, after the end of the game, that the players need to play out to determine the proper status - proper determination requires a more-or-less perfect sequence, which is mostly wishful thinking. When beginners start putting stones on the board, anything can happen... dead group can be alive, live group can die, the surrounding stones can die, it can end in seki, whatever. The scoring method they use is the least of their problems!

You just don't get it. The "proper" status of the group isn't hypothetical play between perfect players. The status of any stone on the board should be determined by the skill of the players through play. That experienced players can normally agree without actually playing is a shortcut. Japanese rules have lost this aspect so that you can't just forego the shortcut if there's any uncertainty. This is a severe penalty for beginners when learning the game.

Before the game ends, if there are concern about status - it needs to be played out, and the fact that it costs points to make unnecessary moves is very good, imho - and it applies to each scoring method, so no advantage here.

*laugh* You really are clueless. Player A thinks a group is alive (common among beginners who don't understand false eyes and such). Player B thinks the group is dead, but doesn't want to lose points taking it off the board. Which ruleset lets you play on using the same rules you were using before without changing the score for Player B? Are you still going to say it's "very good" that it costs points to determine the status? Is it "very good" beginners are confused and can't end games, confident that they are playing according to the rules?

So, as I have stated in my previous post: I still give the overwhelming advantage to using the scoring method which is used around you. Whichever this might be. Anything else is smoke-screen.

I give the overwhelming advantage to rules that don't confuse beginners with logical inconsistencies, that are simple to teach, and that let them confidently play and teach other beginners. Those are Chinese-style rules.

Ah! A rules dispute. Nothing quite like it for heating the blood.

Although this thread is in the Beginners forum, this post records the
views of an experienced (but still weak) British player.

I learnt to play 40 years ago with a group of other beginners using the
rules as defined in a little note with the Ariel set we had. As far
as I can remember, the games were mostly attempts to capture as many of
the opponent's stones as possible, and we never had any problems with
knowing when the game had ended or deciding the status of groups.

Soon after that, I began to play in tournaments, which exclusively used Japanese
rules, as informally understood and passed on from player to player, with
per-move byoyomi. I never experienced a triple ko, or torazu san moku or
any other of the odd positions. There must have been some cases where
"bent four in the corner" was significant, but I would probably have been
(and still am) too weak to notice. Seki has been rare in my games, and
I can't recall any game where the issue of points in a seki would have
affected the outcome.

When I resumed playing in 2012, things were different. BGA tournaments now
use the AGA version of Chinese rules, with situational superko and Canadian
overtime. Games in the two clubs I visit still use Japanese rules, with
absolute time limits.

There are practical differences between the two rule sets in tournament play.
In order to get the correct exchange of pass stones with AGA rules and territory counting,
all the dame have to be played out with the clock still running. This means that
it is advisable to keep some time in reserve to avoid blunders during dame filling,
especially if one's opponent does not like to resign even when 30 points
behind, or when playing with tight time limits that leave no time to work
out whether to resign.

I quite like the dame-filling phase with Japanese rules: after two hours of
struggling with one's opponent, it is nice to decompress and cooperate with
him or her to fill the dame in consultation, then rearrange and count the board.

So in practice, I prefer Japanese rules. In theory, I would like everyone to
use the same rules world-wide, as happens with Western Chess. Worldwide rules
would have to be logical, and as simple as possible for ease of translation and
understanding, and for implementation in software. AGA/Chinese rules are therefore
better in theory. In reality, I'll try to understand and conform to the local
standards, like everyone else.

One more thing: Canadian overtime is better in tournaments. If my game finishes
early, I can stand around and watch other games being played out without any risk
of being asked to act as a time-keeper for count-down byo-yomi. Idle players used
to leave the playing area promptly to avoid this fate.

Edited for clarity on 14 September 2013.