Life In 19x19

Paper Tiger: no need to be so nasty.

Bantari: I think you're making the mistake of giving reasons why under Japanese rules, well informed players will rarely be at a loss for what to do. But that doesn't tell us much about a game between two absolute beginners.

hyperpape wrote:Paper Tiger: no need to be so nasty.

Bantari: I think you're making the mistake of giving reasons why under Japanese rules, well informed players will rarely be at a loss for what to do. But that doesn't tell us much about a game between two absolute beginners.

You are right.

Here is the answer to you and to PaperTiger. Not going to respond to his nasty post, nyah nyah.

What I cannot see is - why cannot the same beginners just 'play things out' under japanese rules? What is preventing them?
When I was beginner playing other beginners - this is exactly what I did. It never occurred to me that it is 'confusing' or 'impossible' or even to resign the game rather than count. I mean really? I accept that situations like this might happen, and that people reacting like that might exist, but these day and age we are not living in vacuum.

I don't accept a scenario where two guys learning Go from a one-page pamphlet found in a dumpster in a remote village somewhere, without electricity or internet. They make the board out of paper and use buttons form stones, and try to 'play Go.' Does this happen anymore? And even if it does - I assert that those two will never really play any serious Go unless they get exposed to the culture and the community surrounding the game - and this includes more materials, help, and advice. Without it, regardless of the scoring method, they will probably shortly abandon Go and start playing Snakes and Ladders or something.

I know - I was in this position myself with Bridge once... learned from a newspaper article, made my cards by cutting packing paper and drawing card values on the pieces... was fun for a while, and then we started playing checkers. And it was not a commentary on the quality of Bridge as a game - just on the fact that without some kind of immersion, serious games like that never really catch on, I think, they are just too complex, no matter which exact rules you use. Or in terms of bridge - which exact convention.

So, when we disregard the rare/fictional case of remote couple playing with buttons and scratching their heads over the rules, what does it leave? Beginners with access to clubs, servers, internet materials, and whatnot. It is very hard for me to accept that with so much potential help around the choice of scoring method can make or break a Go player. Go offers much bigger challenges that that, especially to a beginner, and with a little help the scoring is easily accomplished. And if at some point there is no help around, nothing is stopping them from playing things out and learning... even if one of them loses a point by mistake.

And anyways... the assertion was that with further play after disagreement the score can 'mysteriously' change. It sure can, but it is due to the beginners making mistakes, not to the fact of playing itself. And beginners will make mistakes regardless of scoring method. So to me the whole argument is bogus, sorry.

Bottom line, and this is important to understand about my argument:
I am not against area scoring. I am not even trying to argue that it is not in some ways superior to territory scoring. All I am saying that, in my opinion, the most *important* factor in choosing this or that scoring method is: what are people around me use? And use the same as they do - because this will make life much less confusing that picking a method nobody around you uses. Especially to a beginner. Even if the method happens to be, in the opinion of some people, superior.

So, to me, if we are to change a scoring method, it is not by insisting beginners learn it instead of what everybody around uses. We can only change it by convincing the people around to change. The beginners will then naturally use the new method.

Personally, I do not see the advantages of area scoring to be anywhere near enough to start such massive campaign. If everybody changes their scoring ways, I will adjust gladly, but I will not lead the way or support that in any ways. Unless I hear better arguments that the bogus: 'it is impossible for beginners to learn Go.' Most of us learned with territory scoring, so it is obviously possible.

It makes perfect sense for beginners to be desperately unsure whether their stones can be captured or not... starting around move . In fact, as Bantari avers, it also makes sense for dan players to worry about this. It is somewhat peculiar to not be worried about whether your stone can be captured 5 moves before, 10 moves before the end of the game and then suddenly to start worrying again right before scoring, but it's something beginners do all the time.

It's not a problem that beginners have this inconsistent worry. I'm not even saying it's an illegitimate worry because it doesn't make much sense. It's very natural. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter exactly what the punishment for the worry is - losing cash because you defended at the proper time and gave your opponent free endgame moves, or losing dame, or losing territory, or losing nothing, or losing a huge section of your territory because your opponent didn't defend. All five outcomes are possible and fine. More important is helping beginners gain confidence in figuring out which stones they can capture/save, and which they can't. And here, for whatever reason, the one point of lost territory seems to needle beginners more than the lost dame or even losing sente, and lead them to realize that they need to figure out how to sort out capturable stones from safe stones.

If the weird beginner worry leads them to realize there is some big tactical concepts they're missing, they'll investigate, figure it out, and make huge progress. If it leads them to fill in 50% of their territory at the end of the game, then it's just a stupid worry that will haunt them for their first several hundred games.

Anyway, both Chinese and Japanese rules have been "when in doubt, play it out" since before I had even heard of the game; casual players have obstinately continued to teach Go as though life and death were integral to the rules of the game anyway, regardless of which country they live in and how they score the board; and beginners continue to ask why certain groups are marked dead, even when they are looking at an example diagram in an area-rules brochure. I really don't think that area rules remove very much of the trepidation a complete beginner feels at the end of the game.

Sorry if I've missed anything important in the discussion - "obfuscate" made me giggle and I had to skim the rest of the thread.

It just now occurred to me that I was the hypothetical guy living in a vaccuum who couldn't understand Japanese rules. I played a few games on Yahoo, then played against a friend who'd played the game as a kid, but never got far (I gather he never got close to beating his dad or grandfather).

He thought that you had to capture all the stones inside your territory at the end of the game, and we used territory counting. I had my doubts, but we played perhaps several games over the course of a few weeks using that inconsistent ruleset before I looked up the right way to score the game.

Now it's true I wouldn't have gotten anywhere without finding access to better teaching. I found "In The Beginning" and two games later, I started winning against that opponent and didn't stop. But it took many more games on go servers, at the go club, and against GnuGo before I hit 20k.

I'm not sure what this demonstrates.

Uzziel wrote:I have been trying to figure out which scoring I want to learn.

From the get go I am leaning toward the Japanese way of scoring as it feels as if it is the right approach.

Note: I have already previously tried learning this method of scoring and know it is very difficult to learn or understand. (If anyone could point me to a good site for further study I would be grateful.)

I have already searched the forums on this issue, and after seeing a few threads where the discussion ended up with no summation or conclusion I am hoping that maybe in this thread we can outline the fundamental differences between the different methods of scoring.

Maybe we could also highlight the advantages/disadvantages/differences for a beginner to choose which method may or may not be for them.

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, golf, or --gasp!-- baseball, go has relatively simple rules. In fact, it was played for centuries, if not millennia, without written rules. And the main variations are slight, with scores that rarely differ by more than one point. Still the end of the game can be especially confusing, and some beginners come to places like 19x19 for help and enlightenment. I am afraid that the heated discussions that they often find may turn them off. (Not that such discussions do not serve a purpose, but I don't think that they help beginners much.)

Perhaps we could have a special closed thread that explains the different official rules that are actually played. I imagine that some links to Sensei's Library might be useful there.

Bill Spight wrote:By contrast with contract bridge, golf, or --gasp!-- baseball, go has relatively simple rules. In fact, it was played for centuries, if not millennia, without written rules. And the main variations are slight, with scores that rarely differ by more than one point. Still the end of the game can be especially confusing, and some beginners come to places like 19x19 for help and enlightenment. I am afraid that the heated discussions that they often find may turn them off. (Not that such discussions do not serve a purpose, but I don't think that they help beginners much.)

Point taken, I shudup now.

Bantari wrote:Most of us learned with territory scoring, so it is obviously possible.

As well as it is also impossible for those beginners going away because of the territory scoring difficulty, before we really notice that they were there as potential go players.

Bantari wrote:Here is the answer to you and to PaperTiger. Not going to respond to his nasty post, nyah nyah.

What I cannot see is - why cannot the same beginners just 'play things out' under japanese rules? What is preventing them?

But you did respond, as you clearly read my "nasty" post, and you continued your argument. Except now you look even more willfully ignorant by continually ignoring that playout under Chinese-style rules is simple and doesn't change the score when a "dead" group is removed (as determined by the skill of the players), but Japanese rules do change the score. This isn't hard to understand, at all. The excuse is made that the beginners should find a club or expert to help them out.

When I was beginner playing other beginners - this is exactly what I did. It never occurred to me that it is 'confusing' or 'impossible' or even to resign the game rather than count. I mean really? I accept that situations like this might happen, and that people reacting like that might exist, but these day and age we are not living in vacuum.

Good for you. Give yourself a pat on the back for making sense of the senseless. Yet you've been presented with countless examples over the years of beginners who had trouble with the logical hurdle of the Japanese rules, but choose to brush them off.

I don't accept a scenario where two guys learning Go from a one-page pamphlet found in a dumpster in a remote village somewhere, without electricity or internet. They make the board out of paper and use buttons form stones, and try to 'play Go.' Does this happen anymore?

How about a married couple picking up the game and trying to play it? Two friends? Two family members? Or even a solo person who wants to understand the rules before playing online. Why can't they learn simple rules and play on their own? Why do they need to seek a club or expert advice on the Internet when a simple alternative exists that lets them play by the rules confidently, and once they have enough games under their belt they can easily learn the Japanese rules?

And even if it does - I assert that those two will never really play any serious Go unless they get exposed to the culture and the community surrounding the game - and this includes more materials, help, and advice. Without it, regardless of the scoring method, they will probably shortly abandon Go and start playing Snakes and Ladders or something.

Absurd. They will much more likely never seek to get further into Go if there are unnecessary obstacles.

It is very hard for me to accept that with so much potential help around the choice of scoring method can make or break a Go player. Go offers much bigger challenges that that, especially to a beginner, and with a little help the scoring is easily accomplished. And if at some point there is no help around, nothing is stopping them from playing things out and learning... even if one of them loses a point by mistake.

The problem with such help is that it is hand-holding and doesn't dispel the logical confusion. It doesn't let them confidently play games and learn by doing on their own. And losing several points to prove a group is dead punishes the removal, leading to logical confusion and an impractical hurdle to actually playing with other beginners.

And anyways... the assertion was that with further play after disagreement the score can 'mysteriously' change. It sure can, but it is due to the beginners making mistakes, not to the fact of playing itself. And beginners will make mistakes regardless of scoring method. So to me the whole argument is bogus, sorry.

Again wallowing in ignorance. How does a player prove that a group is dead without losing points under Japanese rules? How can you act like this problem doesn't exist?

Bill Spight wrote: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.

I quoted it too, because it shows how badly beginners like him are brushed off by people who think the issue isn't a big deal. He resigned rather than score the game. Fortunately he made his way here, and hopefully will get over the hurdle. How many people just give up instead? How can a beginner like this try to teach other beginners?

(Not that such discussions do not serve a purpose, but I don't think that they help beginners much.)

He explicitly asked which ruleset to learn from. If another beginner understands that Chinese-style rules can be simple, allowing for an easy jump to Japanese rules after enough experience, then that is useful.

PaperTiger wrote:How does a player prove that a group is dead without losing points under Japanese rules?

A: I think that group is dead
B: I don't see why.
A: What if I play here?
B: Then I play there.
A: So I play here
B: Well I'll play here.
A: But now this group is in atari
B: Oh, I guess you were right, it is dead.

HermanHiddema wrote:

PaperTiger wrote:How does a player prove that a group is dead without losing points under Japanese rules?

A: I think that group is dead
B: I don't see why.
A: What if I play here?
B: Then I play there.
A: So I play here
B: Well I'll play here.
A: But now this group is in atari
B: Oh, I guess you were right, it is dead.

You haven't specified if that's actually being played on the board or is a verbal argument. If you're talking about verbally, that doesn't work for two beginners, nor does it dispel the logical confusion that stones can be removed without play.

If you're talking about playing it on the board, then the score will change, highlighting the logical confusion and making it practically difficult to end and score the game properly.

If you want to suggest having another board handy to play things out on, that almost never happens due to inconvenience. If you want the beginners to play it out and rewind the board and score with removal, that is too complicated and also almost never happens.

What does happen a lot under Japanese rules is that there is a verbal argument and appeal to an outside authority if one is available. Now compare that with Chinese-style rules: Continue playing, using the same simple rules you've been using, and score. What is alive or dead is determined by the skill of the players, as it should be.

PaperTiger wrote:You haven't specified if that's actually being played on the board or is a verbal argument. If you're talking about verbally, that doesn't work for two beginners, nor does it dispel the logical confusion that stones can be removed without play.

It is on the board. The score didn't change.

HermanHiddema wrote:

PaperTiger wrote:How does a player prove that a group is dead without losing points under Japanese rules?

A: I think that group is dead
B: I don't see why.
A: What if I play here?
B: Then I play there.
A: So I play here
B: Well I'll play here.
A: But now this group is in atari
B: Oh, I guess you were right, it is dead.

It can certainly play out like that, however (and remember we're considering two beginners):

A: I think that group is dead
B: Okay, so kill it
A: I don't have to, it will die anyway
B: What do you mean "it will die anyway", it won't die unless you kill it

(And, this is actually a real issue for players at higher ranks when it involves a bent-4 and an unremovable ko threat)

You are now forcing new players to resolve a game with an argument.

It gets even more complicated when you consider that they may not have the skills yet to complete accurate hypothetical play.

What if the conversation then goes like this:

A: I think that is dead
B: So kill it
A: Well, I go here
B: Then I go here
A: And now I go here
B: And now I live with this
A: Oh, this move I made was wrong, I should actually go here instead
B: You can't do that! You just said you were going to go there
A: Yes, but this is about whether or not it's REALLY alive or dead, that's bigger than me
B: Not if you couldn't find the moves the first time!
A: *grumbles*
B: *grumbles*

Concerning Herman's idea, for the territory score to remain constant every two moves, it is necessary to play an equal number of playout moves. Other conditions must also apply. Such circumstances must be explained to the beginners supposed to use them. Such a procedure and the restriction to only one playout sequence (or one per group) do NOT conform to actually used Japanese rules, whether written or verbal. There is, however, a similarity to the Simplified Japanese Rules.

shapenaji wrote:
What if the conversation then goes like this:

A: I think that is dead
B: So kill it
A: Well, I go here
B: Then I go here
A: And now I go here
B: And now I live with this
A: Oh, this move I made was wrong, I should actually go here instead
B: You can't do that! You just said you were going to go there
A: Yes, but this is about whether or not it's REALLY alive or dead, that's bigger than me
B: Not if you couldn't find the moves the first time!
A: *grumbles*
B: *grumbles*

So how are area scoring rules going to help here?

HermanHiddema wrote:It is on the board. The score didn't change.

Only because you relied on the players making an equal number of moves. If Player B feels no need to respond, either because he doesn't see the threat or is logically trying to optimize his score, then the score will change. The logical confusion still exists, and so does the practical one.

Of course, the idea of an equal number of moves is the idea behind pass stones, but now you are back to AGA and dame being worth 1 point, which are just area scoring rules in disguise.

(I see this post is similar to Robert's reply, but I had already written it up by the time I checked for new posts.)