Life In 19x19

Quick question about scoring systems. I have been using the Japanese scoring system as it is the default on OGS. Is that the 'standard' way of scoring generally? or the most widely used?
Just wondering as I'm never sure what one to pick and not sure how my opponents feel about using that system, or if it matters at all.

Thanks

Hi FishWizard,

Welcome. Good questions. Cans of worms.

Here are my guesses:

There are the two standards:) Most widely used depends on how you count usage. Pick the one you want provided your opponent agrees. The choice matters:

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

(As a beginner, the first link might be enough for you.)

The differences in practice are slight, and hardly affect how to play, but sometimes the difference in rules can make a big difference in the score. Just play whichever is the norm where you play. However, in a 24-kyu vs. 24-kyu game, both players will probably find AGA/Chinese scoring easier, as you can play on until only live stones are left on the board.

Japanese is the one which most people in the west are first introduced to and so is probably considered the standard on all western servers and forums and, of course, in Japan . But as there are probably more players in China than everywhere else the Chinese rule would have to be considered the most common. A lot of western nations have adopted a hybrid for their tournaments which was concocted by the AGA and which is neither Japanese nor Chinese.

AGA rules differ from Chinese rules, but AGA rules use Chinese scoring. They just have a provision that allows counting the score in the Japanese fashion.

In the japanese rules, you don't need to fill the neutral points at the end of the game. If you choose the chinese system, you'll have to explain to your opponent that neutral points are worth one point each.

So the japanese rules is maybe easier for most games.

But if you disagree with your opponent about life or death, the chinese rules are easier. In japanese rules, you can't prove your point without loosing points. You have to call an admin.

Pio2001 wrote:In the japanese rules, you don't need to fill the neutral points at the end of the game.

Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory.

Edit: Besides, 24 kyus should fill dame as a matter of course before passing.

Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory.

Strictly true - but, in practice, for amateurs?

I'm thinking of the situation, still common in Japan, where tournaments are run under sudden death. I think we all know western players who would try to exploit the need to play out dame so as to win a game on time. Indeed there are some who would play inside their own territories for the same purpose.

Now in general Japanese amateurs can be just as badly behaved as their western counterparts, but not in this respect, I think. I think - but I don't know, never having played in a tournament in Japan. The simple solution of course is for both players to agree the game is over (and thus stop the clock) before filling in the dame, but ever since the O Rissei-Ryu Shikun incident in 2002, it has become accepted wisdom among pros to play out the dame before agreeing the game is over (or more accurately: suspended), and who can blame amateurs if they follow their betters?

Anyone here au fait with actual amateur practice now in Japanese tournaments? Maybe sudden death is slowly dying out for just this reason

Bill Spight wrote: Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory.

What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at.

DrStraw wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: Since 1989, you do if you want to count all your territory. A region with a neutral point (dame) has no territory.

What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at.

Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc No territory
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X X X . . X O .
$$ | O O X . X X X O .
$$ | . O X X O O O O .
$$ | O . O O X . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki".

A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki".

Bill Spight wrote:

DrStraw wrote:
What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at.

Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules.

$$Bc No territory
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X X X . . X O .
$$ | O O X . X X X O .
$$ | . O X X O O O O .
$$ | O . O O X . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc No territory
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X X X . . X O .
$$ | O O X . X X X O .
$$ | . O X X O O O O .
$$ | O . O O X . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki".

A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki".

Weird. I've never heard of anything like that before.

DrStraw wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

DrStraw wrote:
What exactly does this mean? Do you have an example? Given that dame points have no territory I cannot see what you are getting at.

Here is what I had in mind. Diagram 15 from the official commentary of the J89 rules.

$$Bc No territory
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X X X . . X O .
$$ | O O X . X X X O .
$$ | . O X X O O O O .
$$ | O . O O X . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc No territory
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X X X . . X O .
$$ | O O X . X X X O .
$$ | . O X X O O O O .
$$ | O . O O X . . . .
$$ | O O O X X . . . .
$$ | X X X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Neither Black nor White has any territory in this corner because of the dame at A-19. The rules allow for the dame to be filled informally, or for Black to reopen play and fill the dame, but if the dame is not filled when scoring, there is no territory here. Both the Black group and the White group are considered to be "in seki".

A position has actually been found where, depending upon a ko, best play is to leave certain dame unfilled and produce this kind of strange "seki".

Weird. I've never heard of anything like that before.

It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules.

It's the main reason I do not like the J89 rules.

Hi Bill, follow-up question:
Under each of Chinese rules and J89 rules,
what's the score for this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B komi 0.0, no prisoners
$$ +---------+
$$ | O X . O |
$$ | O O O O |
$$ | X . X X |
$$ | X X . X |
$$ +---------+[/go]

J89 rules ==> Jigo.