Life In 19x19

I have a query from a friend which I can answer with less precision than I would like, so I'm hoping for a few pointers from you all, please.

Basically he wants to know which is more popular among westerners - Japanese or Chinese rules. Clearly Japanese remains dominant, especially if we judge by the servers, but I don't know anything about club or tournament practice in certain areas of Europe. My impression is that Japanese rules prevail in clubs but a few tournaments may use AGA-type or Ing rules. Is that correct?

As a sub-question to that, where (as in the UK or USA) AGA rules are in force in tournaments, most people actually play and count under Japanese rules and revert to the AGA set only if a dispute arises (and in such cases, my impression is that most people wouldn't know the AGA rules accurately so would call in a referee). Is that impression correct?

My friend is also puzzled why Ing rules failed to catch on. T Mark used to regale me with horror stories about certain people trying to exploit the complexity of Ing rules and about huge dissatisfaction with the Ing clocks (plus some dissatisfaction with Ing sets), so I imagine these factors do apply, but my own feeling is that the sort of experienced players who go to European tournaments were happy with the simplicity of Japanese rules and that was the main reason for their unwillingness to go through the Ing mill. Correct?

Finally, in the case where Japanese rules are in use but a dispute arises, what is current practice? In my day, (a) it was rare, (b) a referee was called if one was available, (c) players agreed among themselves, (d) if player A became obstreperous, player B and most other people in the club would be disinclined to play player A again. Is this still a fair summary of normal practice?

It wasn't one of my friends questions, but as a rider of my own, can I ask whether nowadays, given that Chinese rules and AGA rules are better known even if not actually widely used, people who go to tournaments actually think about the rules. In my day I'd say 99.9% never did, but that may have shrunk to, say, 95% today?

Hi John,

I've only been playing since 2002, not very long, but I still don't know Chinese scoring.

For the US Open, maybe half the time my games ended in Resign,
so no scoring needed. The other half, if it's not very close,
then no problem. Only for close games... it could be tricky,
since I'm not familiar with AGA rules. I have to trust my opponent.
The nice thing about mobile devices is they can help with scoring,
as a second opinion, before requesting a ref.

People tolerate the ING clocks. Once we got used to them,
they're not so bad.

I actually like the ING stones, so much in fact that
after having spent over US$150 on Japanese and Korean glass stones
(over about a decade), I (re-)discovered the ING plastic stones,
$US25! -- I think they're prefect for club use (at coffee shops,
libraries, etc.), because they're practically indestructible.
Compared to glass stones, which are 3 to 5 times more expensive,
and easily chip when dropped on the coffee shop floor.

The ING stones containers, however, I hate.
They're a monstrosity and hideous -- when I bought my ING set
from Kiseido/Yutopian, I requested they keep the ING containers
and just ship me the stones, to save on postage.

To this day, I don't know if we're supposed to make sure
there are a certain number of Black stones and White stones,
precisely, before a US Open game. But AFAIK, I've never
seen anyone, not one single person,
who uses the ING containers to count the stones before or after
an AGA tourney game. Ever.

Yes, for our local casual club meets, we only use territory scoring.
( True since 2002; I don't know about before my time. )

My understanding of the ING situation -- and this is 3rd or 4th hand info
at best, so not reliable -- is when the original Mr. Ing was still in charge,
things were OK (tolerable). Later, another person took over
the ING foundation. (His son ?) Then, things were slightly different.

My understanding is there have been some meetings
with the ING foundation, and various groups, e.g. the AGA,
and/or the China QiYuan, etc. I heard, at least one Chinese pro,
on at least one occasion, showed a board position to the
ING official(s) that clearly demonstrated the ING rules
have problems scoring. Thus, the China QiYuan would not
adopt the ING rules for pro tourneys in China.
No idea about the situation in Japan or Korea, regarding ING.

I would be among the 90-99% who don't think about the rules
at the US Open.

I cannot answer for all westerners, but I can answer for the Netherlands and perhaps some surrounding countries.

In my experience, people play by Japanese rules at clubs and most tournaments. Not for any strong preference, but just because that's how they learned it and it has served them well. There have been (and will be) some attempts to push Chinese/AGA/Ing in Europe, but I'm not seeing much enthusiasm for any of them. Indeed, at those tournaments that use such rules, many games are still played the Japanese way.

There is simply too little incentive to switch. The flaws in Japanese rules are mostly theoretical, and in those exceedingly rare cases they pop up, they are indeed resolved by the methods you describe, i.e: Players ask a referee or a stronger player, or just they agree to some reasonable resolution privately.

I think Ing rules (and AGA, BGA, FFG, NZ, etc) vs Japanese rules is a bit like Esperanto vs English. There may be theoretical advantages, but in practice they have too little value for most people to justify the effort of switching, especially since you're creating confusion at the start of every game until the switch is widely adopted. Japanese rules are the lingua franca of the western go world, and no amount of effort will shift them from that position at short notice (Ing certainly put enough money into the attempt). IMO, if a shift to some other set of rules occurs, it will happen organically and take a long time. And if it happens, I think it will most likely be towards Chinese rules, as there are already millions of players using them. (In much the same way that Chinese has a much better chance of supplanting English as an international lingua franca than Esperanto or Lojban do).

John Fairbairn wrote:As a sub-question to that, where (as in the UK or USA) AGA rules are in force in tournaments, most people actually play and count under Japanese rules and revert to the AGA set only if a dispute arises (and in such cases, my impression is that most people wouldn't know the AGA rules accurately so would call in a referee). Is that impression correct?

In UK tournaments with our BGA rules (which are essentially AGA) I wouldn't say most people play with Japanese rules and only use the AGA/BGA in disputes. We use the BGA rules (and most players are familiar enough for normal play with them by now), which happen to be pretty much the same as Japanese rules in almost all games, except for the pass stones at the end with white having to pass last and the 7.5 komi. BGA/AGA rules allow for Japanese-style counting and pretty much everyone does that, except the occasional confused Chinese student. Dame do count for a point now, so Alastair Wall forgetting to play one meant he didn't set the record for the most points to win the Stacey trophy (http://britgo.org/node/5132). As for other differences, you get points for eyes in seki and this is fairly rare so players might need reminding. I've not had a bent four in a counted game in a UK tournament, but someone else did and I think (but not 100% sure) the dead player just let the killer win the ko at the end of the game as there were none of those funny shapes like irremovable ko threats or eternal lifes or whatever that make complications.

John Fairbairn wrote: My impression is that Japanese rules prevail in clubs but a few tournaments may use AGA-type or Ing rules. Is that correct?

Clubs I've played at have used territory scoring. The Go Congress tournaments and many US tournaments use AGA rules.

John Fairbairn wrote: As a sub-question to that, where (as in the UK or USA) AGA rules are in force in tournaments, most people actually play and count under Japanese rules and revert to the AGA set only if a dispute arises

Yes, all the games I've played at tournaments have been counted using territory, except one, which for some strange reason, demanded that only ING counting be used. I think that was likely to raise awareness.

John Fairbairn wrote:(and in such cases, my impression is that most people wouldn't know the AGA rules accurately so would call in a referee). Is that impression correct?

I agree with this. In the tournament I played at that required ING scoring, we required assistance in counting. I have since forgotten how.

John Fairbairn wrote:My friend is also puzzled why Ing rules failed to catch on. T Mark used to regale me with horror stories about certain people trying to exploit the complexity of Ing rules and about huge dissatisfaction with the Ing clocks (plus some dissatisfaction with Ing sets), so I imagine these factors do apply, but my own feeling is that the sort of experienced players who go to European tournaments were happy with the simplicity of Japanese rules and that was the main reason for their unwillingness to go through the Ing mill. Correct?

People will use what they are used to, especially when it will give the same result 99% of the time.

John Fairbairn wrote:Finally, in the case where Japanese rules are in use but a dispute arises, what is current practice? In my day, (a) it was rare, (b) a referee was called if one was available, (c) players agreed among themselves, (d) if player A became obstreperous, player B and most other people in the club would be disinclined to play player A again. Is this still a fair summary of normal practice?

(a) yes, (b) yes, (c) generally, yes, (d) Maybe not so much. Pairings are assigned at most tournaments.

John Fairbairn wrote:It wasn't one of my friends questions, but as a rider of my own, can I ask whether nowadays, given that Chinese rules and AGA rules are better known even if not actually widely used, people who go to tournaments actually think about the rules. In my day I'd say 99.9% never did, but that may have shrunk to, say, 95% today?

Who knows the exact percentage? A big minority, for sure.

Not your question, but at your first tournament using ING, rules you learn very quickly to fill in dame, either because somebody takes advantage of your ignorance, or because somebody warns you of their experience. IMHO, this is all one needs to remember, fill all dame, pass a stone while passing, and white passes last. Then score how you like and you'll be fine.

John Fairbairn wrote:Basically he wants to know which is more popular among westerners - Japanese or Chinese rules. Clearly Japanese remains dominant, especially if we judge by the servers, but I don't know anything about club or tournament practice in certain areas of Europe. My impression is that Japanese rules prevail in clubs but a few tournaments may use AGA-type or Ing rules. Is that correct?

Almost all the AGA tournaments I've played use AGA rules.

John Fairbairn wrote:As a sub-question to that, where (as in the UK or USA) AGA rules are in force in tournaments, most people actually play and count under Japanese rules and revert to the AGA set only if a dispute arises (and in such cases, my impression is that most people wouldn't know the AGA rules accurately so would call in a referee). Is that impression correct?

Well the AGA rules are created such that the counting procedure is identical to Japanese counting. So "reverting to AGA" doesn't make any sense, it's the same. The only difference is the pass stones at the end. I have definitely seen many people not know about pass stones in AGA tournaments.

John Fairbairn wrote:My friend is also puzzled why Ing rules failed to catch on. T Mark used to regale me with horror stories about certain people trying to exploit the complexity of Ing rules and about huge dissatisfaction with the Ing clocks (plus some dissatisfaction with Ing sets), so I imagine these factors do apply, but my own feeling is that the sort of experienced players who go to European tournaments were happy with the simplicity of Japanese rules and that was the main reason for their unwillingness to go through the Ing mill. Correct?

Ing ko rules are complicated, I don't understand them. I don't like the fact that they require each side to have exactly 180 stones, that seems impractical.

John Fairbairn wrote:Finally, in the case where Japanese rules are in use but a dispute arises, what is current practice? In my day, (a) it was rare, (b) a referee was called if one was available, (c) players agreed among themselves, (d) if player A became obstreperous, player B and most other people in the club would be disinclined to play player A again. Is this still a fair summary of normal practice?

Pretty much this.

John Fairbairn wrote:It wasn't one of my friends questions, but as a rider of my own, can I ask whether nowadays, given that Chinese rules and AGA rules are better known even if not actually widely used, people who go to tournaments actually think about the rules. In my day I'd say 99.9% never did, but that may have shrunk to, say, 95% today?

AGA rules are used in all the tournaments I go to. I like them.

Among Westeners, it is not so much about Chinese versus Japanese Rules. Instead, it is about area scoring rules (real world or server) versus real world territory scoring without seki points versus territory scoring with seki points on servers.

Rules practice differs greatly from place to place, country to country and tournament to tournament - from almost 100% area scoring to almost 100% territory scoring. Overall it is roughly 2/3 territory scoring, 1/3 area scoring. In the 1970s, it was almost always territory scoring; area scoring has an increasing use and similarly increasing popularity of currently ca. 1/3. Exposure in tournaments, online information / discussion and server use have motivated more discussion, conversions of opinions and thus use.

In EGF tournaments with area scoring, almost all players newly exposed to it become familiar with it within two tournament games, although not everybody (especially weak kyus) learns all the details, such as scoring in sekis, immediately. There are, however, a few die-hards who do not want to think about rules at all and manage to pretend to themselves for years that they would still be using "Japanese rules", until they have a half point game and wake up that they need to understand at least the basic strategic differences.

Ing Rules were disliked in this order because of the bowls and stones, the clocks, the rules of play, the tournament rules. There has been an exception in a few Eastern European countries, where Ing material was liked because too little other and good material had existed there at all. Ing material was the "luxury" of the poor countries.

"The simplicity of Japanese rules" - the what? Of course, it can only be the mistakenly perceived simplicity. The basics of area scoring are: stones are black or white. The basics of Japanese style territory scoring are: stones are dead black, alive not in seki black, alive in seki black, dead white, alive not in seki white, alive in seki white. The former are the simple basics - the latter are complicated. Experienced European tournament players were not happy with the simplicity / complexity aspect but with at that time having been more familiar with Japanese than Ing Rules, with Japanese style stones and with non-Ing clocks.

There is no common practice for how to handle Japanese Rules disputes but a variety of practices depending greatly on the context of playing. In particular, availability of experts / stronger players or play under the auspieces of referees.

Chinese Rules are still badly known among Westeners except for visiting Chinese. Westeners know other area scoring rulesets better. Exception: people reading webpages and online discussions would also know Chinese Rules to some extent.

How many tournament players think about rules? Almost all think at least enough about them to know counting and the most basic strategy. See above for becoming familiar within two played games. However, if you ask for how many know the "wording" of the rules details, maybe 1/3 very roughly because they have at least read them - but all details by heart we are surely in the ca. 5% range.

I am based on the U.S. West Coast, but have been to a number of U.S. Go Congresses. In the U.S. I have participated in tournaments where the rules are stated AGA, stated Ing, stated Chinese, stated Japanese or unstated until someone asks. That is the context of my experience in addition to club play.

John Fairbairn wrote:As a sub-question to that, where (as in the UK or USA) AGA rules are in force in tournaments, most people actually play and count under Japanese rules and revert to the AGA set only if a dispute arises (and in such cases, my impression is that most people wouldn't know the AGA rules accurately so would call in a referee). Is that impression correct?

The most visible difference between AGA and Japanese rules is the use of pass stones in AGA rules. If a game goes into counting, an observer will notice first whether or not pass stones are used. Generally speaking, what I've seen is that if one player wants to play by AGA rules, if that player passes first with a pass stone, then the other player will remember that pass stones are being used and play accordingly. If the player to pass first forgets to play a pass stone, then the other player may sometimes provide a gentle reminder that pass stones are being used and that is usually not a point of confusion except for players who have never been to an AGA tournament before. If neither player remembers to play pass stones, this may go unnoticed unless the TD is paying attention and wishes to intervene.

I have never seen AGA rules being used in informal club play. Only Japanese and Chinese rules.

In the case of disputes in tournaments, TDs are supposed to apply AGA rules if the tournament is announced to be played under AGA rules. There is some training for TDs and they have generally been part of the AGA for some time so from what I've seen they are capable of doing this. There is also TD training available at the U.S. Go Congress most years. Of course AGA rules simplifies the resolution of disputes.

The physical process of territory scoring is usually used. A few times I have had to revert to area scoring. One case is when I am playing a player (usually a child) who habitually throws prisoners back into my bowl. I usually just smile and say, "well I guess you've decided for us that we are counting Chinese-style." It's no big deal for me. I have also used area counting to resolve disputes when my opponent believes their loss is due to misplaced prisoners or if they think that they've accidentally put staged stones in their own territory. (Some players take stones out of their bowl and place them in front of the board to prepare to play. This is a dangerous habit as they can be mistaken for prisoners.) That's pretty rare, though.

I may be an outlier. Many U.S. players who not of Chinese heritage would not be comfortable with Chinese scoring, but I made a point of studying it and practicing it early on because I believe it's good manners to understand rules that may be in use wherever you go. Some Chinese players are surprised that I even know this, and so it's a good way to show respect and build trust.

John Fairbairn wrote:My friend is also puzzled why Ing rules failed to catch on. T Mark used to regale me with horror stories about certain people trying to exploit the complexity of Ing rules and about huge dissatisfaction with the Ing clocks (plus some dissatisfaction with Ing sets), so I imagine these factors do apply, but my own feeling is that the sort of experienced players who go to European tournaments were happy with the simplicity of Japanese rules and that was the main reason for their unwillingness to go through the Ing mill. Correct?

I don't think it's the simplicity of the Japanese rules, but rather familiarity. By familiarity, I don't mean deep rules knowledge, but just casual experience.

There are some factors that hold back Ing Rule popularity even more.

The Ing bowls problematic. Stones get stuck in the bowls. Springs fail. Sharp pieces of plastic break off and cut people. People who have never used them struggle. Even experienced players sometimes get frustrated in byoyomi and tip the bowls upside down, releasing dozens of stones and disturbing everyone. The stones themselves are rugged, but they can be used in regular bowls.

Of course if Ing money sponsors a tournament maybe Ing rules will be mandated. From what I've seen, some players are more likely to just resign than count, which at least helps the next round get started on time. I've had opponents whisper to me at an Ing tournament that they want to count by Japanese rules for our game to get some kind of gentleman's agreement before the game starts. When players do count the Ing way, there is a 50% chance some stones will be missing---this happens even if the bowls have the right number of stones at the beginning---confusion will ensue, and maybe some amicable agreement will be reached.

Dispute resolution is 95% psychology and 5% rules knowledge.

John Fairbairn wrote:Finally, in the case where Japanese rules are in use but a dispute arises, what is current practice? In my day, (a) it was rare, (b) a referee was called if one was available, (c) players agreed among themselves, (d) if player A became obstreperous, player B and most other people in the club would be disinclined to play player A again. Is this still a fair summary of normal practice?

It wasn't one of my friends questions, but as a rider of my own, can I ask whether nowadays, given that Chinese rules and AGA rules are better known even if not actually widely used, people who go to tournaments actually think about the rules. In my day I'd say 99.9% never did, but that may have shrunk to, say, 95% today?

My experience is consistent with what you describe. I've seen disputes. It's hard for me to judge the percentage. Maybe less than 1%? TDs at larger tournaments may provide a more accurate and possibly higher number.

I've been at it since 1980 or maybe a little before, made it to 5d at some point. Have played in Poland, Italy, Germany, Canada, and the US. Tournaments in each country, although some only informal ones. So much for credentials.

I have yet to visit a club where people are using Chinese rules. And I yet have to play a tournament in which Chinese rules were formally stated. From what I remember, rules were either unstated and implied, which was majority of the time, or stated as Japanese - but it might be that I was simply not interested enough to inquire or to remember. In any case, I never used Chinese counting (or area scoring) in any game except for the few ocasions when it was done "for the heck of it" - and it never raised an eyebrow, not in any tournaments, and not even when I was just visiting at other clubs.

What's more, I never had any problems with scoring or applying the rules, nor was I ever a witness to any problem. As RJ might say, what I was applying and what was applied around me were not really the strict Japanese rules, but some informal derivative, but still - this is the closes I can come up to answering the question.

As said above - the only time when I experienced Chinese rules was when somebody wanted to try them out, so we played a game or two, but it was never clear what the difference was, other than the actual counting.

PS>
To be honest, I have been out of the serious circuit for the past 10 years or so, so things might have changed. I have also never took part in a formal AGA-organized tournament (all tournaments in the US I played in were more informal and private affairs, like club championships, club vs club games, etc.) Same in Canada, I think.

PS2>
My personal take is that the main difference between counting methods is the need for distinction between life and death, and this is also the main problem. My experience is that there is a turning-point level of play which works like that:
- Below this level, neither you nor your opponent can tell what is alive and what is not, so you playeverything out regardless of the rules.
- Above this level you can tell the difference, so you know if further play is meaningful or not, also regardless of the rules.
- Cases where you are unsure but refrain from playing out a sequence because of the rules are rare, if they ever happen (never happened to me.)

The other issue - "trying things out without penalty" as the proponents of Chinese rules profess - is to me either bogus (there usually is a penalty if you are mistaken, unless at the very end of the game when you really should not be trying uncertain things anymore anyways) or I actually like the Japanese approach better (you have to think a little before making silly moves inside opposing areas.)

The only advantage of Chinese rules and area scoring I can see is that they might make it easier for isolated enthusiasts to learn from. But in this day and age of internet, this also becomes less and less of an issue.

Hope this helps.

I am very interested in go. I am mostly uninterested in the differences between its rule sets.

One of the appeals of the game is the simplicity in its rules. So I have spent very little time getting to know the differences between rule sets.

There are corner cases where this line of thought would get me into trouble. But I have played go happily for several years without worrying about rule sets.

To answer the original question, I think what I'm usually playing is close to Japanese rules - or AGA rules if I'm in an AGA tournament. But I haven't experienced positions where any of the differences in rules have seemed to manner (except for that whole pass-stone deal with AGA rules).

Ing rules? I don't even know how they work without looking up online.

Chinese rules? I know this has something to do with counting all of the stones when you're done with the game, but other than that, I couldn't tell you how they work.

Hello,
I've been playing in France in a large club (63 registered players) for 2 years. In France, the AGA rules have been officially used since 1993, and the currently most popular book for beginners (Le langage des pierres - Motoki Noguchi, 2005) explains the AGA rules (give a prisonner when you pass, White plays last, then count territory).

At the club, everyone fills the dame before passing. Since this is the main strategic difference with the japanese rule, we can say that we play under AGA rules.

Most player give the pass stone. However, we use to give just one stone if Black plays the last move, and nothing if White plays the last move. My opponents are surprised when I, as Black, give a prisoner. Not because they don't know the rule, but because since White has played the last move, it is "useless".

I have not taken part in many tournaments, but I'm sure that some games are indeed played without the final pass stone.

The function of the ugly ING "bowls" is to make it easy to determine whether there are the proper number of stones of each color before the game starts. I think ING scoring is made simpler if both sides start out with full sets of stones, i.e. the bowls are full. For example you can count how many stones of each color are on the board at the end of the game by counting how many stones are left in the bowls and how many have been captured.

In sanctioned USA tournaments AGA rules are used. In club tournaments mostly AGA rules are used. In informal play, clubs or not, a version of Japanese rules is used, i.e. territory scoring without formalities concerning disputes or exotic repetitive-type positions.

When were the AGA rules formulated and mandated in AGA tournaments? I have not played a tournament in over 10 years, but I played many in the 10 years prior to that. As far as I know the AGA rules were in place during those 10 years but I never played a game under them. At least, they were not announced or explained in advance and all games which required counting were counted under Japanese rules.

As I have said many time, I am not an advocate of AGA rules because they seem contrived. It is like finishing off the war and when it is over giving up more POWs. I have never handed over a pass stone in any game I have ever played.

Kirby wrote:I haven't experienced positions where any of the differences in rules have seemed to manner

Your (game end) strategy must be weak because many games have such differences even if dame are filled alternately.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/diffasts.html

Even if you ignore the rules, you should not overlook their strategic consequences.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Kirby wrote:I haven't experienced positions where any of the differences in rules have seemed to manner

Your (game end) strategy must be weak because many games have such differences even if dame are filled alternately.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/diffasts.html

Even if you ignore the rules, you should not overlook their strategic consequences.

Yes

But not enough to affect the outcome of the game more significantly than, say, my middle game weaknesses.

To my knowledge, I have never lost a game where a result would be different depending on the ruleset. I have lost hundreds, perhaps thousands, of games for reasons that have a more substantial impact on the score.

I'm not arguing that ruleset knowledge is not beneficial toward strategy.

I'm simply saying that:
1. I have little interest in such knowledge compared to other areas of the game.
2. My weaknesses in these other areas that I'm more interested in studying contribute more to the result of the game anyway.

Perhaps I will study differences in rulesets when that becomes the bottleneck in my growth as a go player. But I think I'm a long way from there.