Japanese v.s. Chinese v.s. AGA scoring here we "Go" again...

[RobertJasiek]

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go.

The advantage is very important for learning the rules, because learning the rules is much easier if they can be learnt without learning life and death.

For the COMBINATION OF THE RULES AND BASIC GO THEORY UNDERSTANDING SUCH AS BASIC LIFE AND DEATH, the "combination of area rules and basic go theory understanding such as basic life and death" is similar to the "combination of territory rules and basic go theory understanding such as basic life and death".

Note that the combination of... is not the same as only the rules.

In particular, a beginner can learn area rules within minutes. Then he needs weeks to learn the basics of life and death. Only then he has acquired a combination of rules and an understanding of basic and death.

But..., before I started to explain everything in detail, what you want to see in the "basics" of life and death (so that 99.9% of the LD cases are covered) are NOT completely understood by many 1 kyus. (JFTR, I do NOT speak about any special shapes. Basic shapes only. It is already basic shapes, where life and death is not properly understood. typical test shape: a "dead" group with one eye and three outside kos.)

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

For the purpose of simple area rules, you don't need to know the words life and death. For the purpose of becoming stronger than absolute beginner, you need to understand some life and death.

[Bantari]

In any case, we have here at least two distinct situations:

1. learning by yourself, in total isolation, form a pamphlet, and
2. walking to a go club where somebody shows you the rules

Can we at least agree, as a starting point, that:

1. in this case, area scoring has some advantages, and
2. in this case, you have to teach the method people in the club commonly use?

Further, I would like to add the following:

1. in this case, chances are things will fizzle out regardless of the scoring method, most likely (but not always), and
2. in this case, we have a decent chance to retain the beginner if we play our cards right.

[HermanHiddema]

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go.

The advantage is very important for learning the rules, because learning the rules is much easier if they can be learnt without learning life and death.

But I'm not talking about learning the rules, I'm talking about learning to play go.

You need life & death to play go.

[RobertJasiek]

Bantari: anecdote: In a club with Japanese rules in use, I played a 13 (!) kyu newcomer on 13x13 (IIRC, 4 stones handicap), killing all by dividing the board into four parts. We passed very early; everything was still "open", but all his stones were dead. We disagreed about the status of his groups. So I explained, showing him sequences etc. After 5 or 10 minutes (in the middle of the explanation why indeed his stones are dead), he left and I have never seen him again. This is the effect of territory scoring rules.

[HermanHiddema]

Bantari: anecdote: In a club with Japanese rules in use, I played a 13 (!) kyu newcomer on 13x13 (IIRC, 4 stones handicap), killing all by dividing the board into four parts. We passed very early; everything was still "open", but all his stones were dead. We disagreed about the status of his groups. So I explained, showing him sequences etc. After 5 or 10 minutes (in the middle of the explanation why indeed his stones are dead), he left and I have never seen him again. This is the effect of territory scoring rules.

No, this is the effect of being an cad to weak players.

What kind of idiot goes and kills every stone on a 13x13 board against a beginner.

[shapenaji]

But I'm not talking about learning the rules, I'm talking about learning to play go.

You need life & death to play go.

Patience grasshopper, they will learn L&D in time, the important piece is getting the addictive substance into their veins...

[HermanHiddema]

Patience grasshopper, they will learn L&D in time, the important piece is getting the addictive substance into their veins...

Uh, yeah, this is what I have been arguing throughout the thread.

[Bantari]

Bantari: anecdote: In a club with Japanese rules in use, I played a 13 (!) kyu newcomer on 13x13 (IIRC, 4 stones handicap), killing all by dividing the board into four parts. We passed very early; everything was still "open", but all his stones were dead. We disagreed about the status of his groups. So I explained, showing him sequences etc. After 5 or 10 minutes (in the middle of the explanation why indeed his stones are dead), he left and I have never seen him again. This is the effect of territory scoring rules.

And what would you have done with area scoring? Played it out, right?
So why didn't you do the same? It was a teaching game, not a tournament game. And it would be a great way of teaching.

It seems this was the effect of bad teaching and not of scoring method. I mean - really... a 13k player leaving because you cannot explain why something is dead, and you blame it on scoring method? No offense - people have told you many times that you are not the most diplomatic or open-minded person out there, and that your 'bed-side manner' leaves a lot to be desired. I would look there for the explanation for why the guy got miffed, not in scoring method.

In any case - back to the topic - such problem can exist with inept teaching, true, but they usually happen early, while still under the care of the teacher - which means the teacher can explain and adjust. I see absolutely no reason for alienating a student while under the care of the teacher - unless the teacher is really really bad, period! This has nothing to do with a scoring method.

The anecdote I presented illuminates the danger of things going wrong *after* the initial teaching, which is usually much more severe and can lead to much larger problems.

PS>
Look at it like that:
Area scoring might make teaching slightly easier.
For bad teachers - this is a BIG FREAKING DEAL - they can't do otherwise.
For good teachers - it does not matter all that much - they get results either way.

[Bill Spight]

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

I would actually invert this. At a point when most people learned territory scoring, it was possible to use your favorite feature of the folk-rules as a scapegoat, and imagine that if everyone played button go there would never be any confusions between beginners.

I think that even now most players have never heard of button go.

But now most beginners learn area rules. Or at least, this is my impression after several years of hanging out in the KTL and Beginner Rooms on KGS, helping new players. Most of them had learned the rules and the baby-steps of how to play from playing GnuGo or something similar. GnuGo uses area rules, GnuGo fills in territory, GnuGo captures every single one of its dead stones. If territory scoring was the problem, these beginners shouldn't have had any problems. But they did have problems; they were horribly, horribly confused.

Could you elaborate? What did/do they find problematic or confusing? Thanks.

[Bill Spight]

1) The attrition rate for new players in go is frightfully high.

I wonder if we can compare those rates to like chess, or bridge, or something...
I know attrition rate in both these games are very high as well.

The attrition rate for bridge was once very low. Why? Social reasons. Bridge is a very social game. You do not have to be serious about it. If bridge is no longer popular, it is also because of social reasons.

In other words - is the attrition rate really due to the rules?

The rules of bridge are godawful. The number of "bridge lawyers" is not small. The rules of chess are more complicated than go rules, as well. That has not stopped either game from gaining players.

Now I learned Japanese rules go from a pamphlet and a friend and I played a game. We did not experience any problem ending the game. But many people who learn without a teacher do have such problems.

[Bill Spight]

But I'm not talking about learning the rules, I'm talking about learning to play go.

You need life & death to play go.

Patience grasshopper, they will learn L&D in time, the important piece is getting the addictive substance into their veins...

The Capture Game!

Then capture 1, capture 2, capture 3, and capture 4. Maybe capture 5. The more stones you have to capture, the more a capture game resembles regular go.

Edit: Besides, the capture game provides a good introduction to the concept of territory. If territories have been settled without a capture, then each player starts filling in territory. The player with the most territory (using group tax) wins. It's probably a good idea to use pass stones with capture N. That equates giving a pass stone with filling territory.

[Bill Spight]

Go originated in China, not Japan, and the Chinese use area scoring rules.

That's relatively recent. The oldest known scored game records from China appear to use a form of territory scoring. The oldest known description of go rules, also from China, appears to be of a form of stone scoring.

[Bill Spight]

And, regardless of the issues above, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach.

Amen, brother, amen!

[Bill Spight]

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.

You have been a dan player for too long.

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

[PaperTiger]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

Yes, I wonder the same thing, because I see that people keep on posting the same arguments that have already been refuted over and over, never acknowledging the standard counterarguments.

As far as I can see, absolutely everyone in this thread agrees that area rules have the advantage that you can play out life & death on the board more easily. Nobody is denying that.

I think erroneous comments like "big whoop" over "a point" trivialize just how much an advantage it is. We also have Bantari's claim that beginners making mistakes "change" the score the same as the Japanese rules do, completely getting the issue wrong.

But that advantage is not very important. Why? Because you have to learn about life and death anyway if you want to play go. I will repeat again: Anyone who says "You don't need to learn/worry about life & death" is doing something wrong, regardless of rule set.

Nobody said you don't have to worry about life & death under area rules. At a minimum, a beginner should be taught how a group with two eyes can't be killed and a few basic life and death shapes. The point is that area rules are simple to understand and let the beginners play complete games and experiment for themselves what is alive and dead, without worrying about rules that make no sense and mysteriously change the score.

And once you understand basic life and death, the issue of "playing it out" basically disappears in 99.9% of games because there are no longer any disagreements.

The easiest way to gain that basic understanding is by playing games to completion using simple rules instead of being confused about rules and how to end the game. "Lose your first 50 game fast."