Life In 19x19

[admin]
In another thread, the issue of group tax arose. I'm moving that to its own thread, partly to avoid derailing the prior thread, and partly because I - as a player - think that the subject deserves its own thread.
I edited out some of quantumf's text that applied to the prior thread. -JB
[/admin]

I was ...also struck by the group tax - when did this end, and why?

quantumf wrote:I was struck by the comment that they entrusted the counting to the Chinese opponents. Chinese counting is very easily learnt, arguably simpler than Japanese. Was there some politeness/etiquette going on? Was also struck by the group tax - when did this end, and why?

More curiously, I have always wondered why it started in the first place.

DrStraw wrote:

quantumf wrote:I was struck by the comment that they entrusted the counting to the Chinese opponents. Chinese counting is very easily learnt, arguably simpler than Japanese. Was there some politeness/etiquette going on? Was also struck by the group tax - when did this end, and why?

More curiously, I have always wondered why it started in the first place.

The group tax was a feature of both the oldest known area scoring rules and territory scoring rules. It may well have been a feature of even older forms of go.

Curiously, if you make go rules with no passes and prisoner return, you naturally get territory scoring with a group tax. The Capture Game with no passes also yields territory scoring with a group tax.

Perhaps the oldest form of go was a no pass game. Interestingly, one of the questions that arose from the Segoe-Takahashi 10,000 year ko rules dispute was whether making a play was a right or an obligation. The pass as we know it was not part of the game. Games ended by agreement, which is the normal way of ending no pass games that have an obvious way of scoring.

I think no matter which scoring system you use a group tax should be implemented.

The group tax seems so natural.

Bill Spight wrote: Curiously, if you make go rules with no passes and prisoner return, you naturally get territory scoring with a group tax.

Can u pls explain.

Mighty Quinn wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Curiously, if you make go rules with no passes and prisoner return, you naturally get territory scoring with a group tax.

Can u pls explain.

If you place stones in empty area in your territory and then count the number of stones you placed (stone counting method) you get to see something very interesting.

Let's say that black has 3 groups on the board and after filling everything up you count the number of stones on the board and black has let's say 50 stones (50 points).

Now imagine if all the black groups were connected in one group. This means that you can still place 4 stones on the board (where the two eyes of the two previous groups were) and by doing that you get 4 points more.

This is why in group tax you have to pay 1 zi or 2 points for every group you have.

Krama wrote:you can still place 4 stones on the board (where the two eyes of the two previous groups were) and by doing that you get 4 points more.

Are you using territory scoring or area scoring here ?

Mighty Quinn wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Curiously, if you make go rules with no passes and prisoner return, you naturally get territory scoring with a group tax.

Can u pls explain.

Sure. Consider this whole board position, with no captured stones.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------
$$ | . X . X . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O . . . |
$$ -----------[/go]

The game is no pass go with prisoner return. Prisoner return means that on your turn you can return a prisoner instead of playing a stone on the board.

At this point the players could agree to stop play and score the game. Black has three one point eyes and can fill one of them safely. So Black has one move in her territory, which means one point. White has two safe moves in his territory and thus has two points. White has one more point than Black and wins by one point (move). The group tax simply means that neither player can afford to fill his next to last eye. The fact that White is one point ahead means that he wins even if he plays first.

For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------
$$ | . X 2 X . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O 3 1 . |
$$ -----------[/go]

resigns.

Note that White just barely wins. If it were White's turn he would resign.

Next, an example with prisoner return:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------
$$ | . X . . . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O O X . |
$$ -----------[/go]

In straight no pass go, without prisoner return, Black has two moves (points) while White has one point. Black wins even if she plays first.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------
$$ | . X 3 1 . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O O X 2 |
$$ -----------[/go]

resigns.

But in no pass go with prisoner return, the scores are the same as by territory scoring with a group tax. Each player has two points, four points before the group tax. The net score is 0.

In no pass go a zero means that the player with the move loses.

If Black plays first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------
$$ | . X 3 1 . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O O B 2 |
$$ -----------[/go]

returns the prisoner.

resigns.

If White plays first:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ -----------
$$ | . X 4 2 . |
$$ | X X X X X |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . O O B 1 |
$$ -----------[/go]

returns the prisoner.

resigns.

¿Es claro?

Bill Spight wrote: ¿Es claro?

Complicated, but clear. But in Spanish it is ¿está claro? (Is it clear?) Es claro? Actually translates the same on first sight, as Is it clear? But actually, no: Is it light (shade)?

Spanish and ser/estar. Confusing people since forever

? What are the respective ages of the question mark and the inverted question mark ¿

EdLee wrote:? What are the respective ages of the question mark and the inverted question mark ¿

wikip wrote:Inverted question (¿) and exclamation (¡) marks are punctuation marks used to begin interrogative and exclamatory sentences (or clauses), respectively, in old written Galician and sometimes also in its daughter languages such as in Spanish. It is also occaisonally used in Catalan to mark a specifically long quetsion or exclamation. or Waray-Waray. They can also be combined in several ways to express the combination of a question and surprise or disbelief. The initial marks are normally mirrored at the end of the sentence or clause by the common marks (?, !) used in most other languages. Unlike the ending marks, which are printed along the baseline of a sentence, the inverted marks (¿ and ¡) actually descend below the line.

Inverted marks were originally recommended by the Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal Academy) in 1754, and adopted gradually over the next century.

I was also curious heh. It is formally used, but in common day use it is of course skipped.

RBerenguel wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: ¿Es claro?

Complicated, but clear. But in Spanish it is ¿está claro? (Is it clear?) Es claro? Actually translates the same on first sight, as Is it clear? But actually, no: Is it light (shade)?

Spanish and ser/estar. Confusing people since forever

I thank you. My grammar thanks you.

Which reminds me of an old, bad joke.

Gringo, wishing to break the ice on a hot day: Está usted caliente?

Señorita, wagging finger: No, señor! No! No! No!

Bill Spight wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: ¿Es claro?

Complicated, but clear. But in Spanish it is ¿está claro? (Is it clear?) Es claro? Actually translates the same on first sight, as Is it clear? But actually, no: Is it light (shade)?

Spanish and ser/estar. Confusing people since forever

I thank you. My grammar thanks you.

Which reminds me of an old, bad joke.

Gringo, wishing to break the ice on a hot day: Está usted caliente?

Señorita, wagging finger: No, señor! No! No! No!

Btw, a reason for the double question marks probably stems from the fact that some questions in Spanish are just the same as declarative sentences. So, an initial mark clarifies the type of sentence.

RBerenguel wrote:some questions in Spanish are just the same as declarative sentences.

Sometimes with friends, I use the period instead of the question mark, "How are you." Is this bad ?

Krama wrote: If you place stones in empty area in your territory and then count the number of stones you placed (stone counting method) you get to see something very interesting.

Let's say that black has 3 groups on the board and after filling everything up you count the number of stones on the board and black has let's say 50 stones (50 points).

Now imagine if all the black groups were connected in one group. This means that you can still place 4 stones on the board (where the two eyes of the two previous groups were) and by doing that you get 4 points more.

This is why in group tax you have to pay 1 zi or 2 points for every group you have.

Thanks for the explanation for those of little brain, but I still don't get it. First of all, "stone counting method" means that whoever has the most stones on the board at the end wins, right? If so, having three groups instead of one lets you place fewer stones. Why then should you be further penalized (taxed) for having played less optimally? It seems to me that it should be just the opposite, that one should receive a tax break of two stones for each extra group, that way such a game as this (from the stone scoring page of SL) would be a tie as it is under territory or area scoring (note that w has captured three stones and black one).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B example game 2, moves (25 _ 34)
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X 3 O . |
$$ | X . X O 4 6 |
$$ | X X 2 O O O |
$$ | O O O 1 X X |
$$ | 8 O X X . X |
$$ | . O O O X . |
$$ ------------[/go]

What am I misunderstanding?