Jeesh, just play it out anyhow... really - how much of a strict adherent to the dry letter of a rule are you, anyhow? Wait, don't answer that.

In any case, I could sort-of understand your argument if it was a tournament game, but then you would have had help from the TD or whoever.

In club games, be they formal teaching ones or not - you just need to loosen up a little dude. Is adherence to the dry letter of the rules and blind forceful insistence on this adherence worth losing a player? What would have happened if you just slap a few more stones on the board and say: see? The world would come to an end?

This is what I/we were doing in clubs all these decades ago when I was a beginner, and I never even heard of area scoring then neither. It really does not take a rocket scientist.

I still can't believe you alienated a 13k player because of your narrow interpretation. Really, very disappointing. And nothing to do with rules or scoring method.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Very often it is filling a dame that unsettles a group. Consider the 2x3 eye in the corner. With 2 dame it is alive, but . . . .

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The Japanese rules are not illogical. That is a myth.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

You were talking about the origins of go. The best evidence is that the earliest rules used territory scoring or stone scoring. Stone scoring persisted in China into the 20th century. Modern area scoring probably derived from stone scoring. IIRC, Ing thought that it arose during the Ming Dynasty.



The oldest game records with recorded scores plainly used a form of territory scoring. The scores for White and Black do not add to anything close to 361, while they match territory scoring with a group tax. (BTW, territory scoring with a group tax is how we would score the capture game, unless an early capture is made. )

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

At the time of the incident, I was simply trapped in the Japanese rules' concepts around having to determine LD status like in LD problems. A thinking outside that box occurred to me only later, when I studied also other rulesets. Anyway, what you are suggesting is to break with Japanese rules and apply an area scoring style playout solution. I.e., you are admitting that Japanese rules application is too difficult in difficult positions. Now, that is a progress; it needed many years of discussion to convince you of that.



The Japanese rules (whichever) are illogical, but the basic conceptual ideas of whichever Japanese ruleset is considered is modelled by logical rules or explanations:

- WAGC Rules and J1949 by the Model for WAGC Rules.
- Verbal Japanese Rules by my status commentary.
- J1989 by J2003/v35a.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html

You didn't address the reason I gave for why they are illogical. I'm not talking the kind of theory that Robert gets into. While many people have attempted to put the informal Japanese rules on a logical basis, the commonly used rules present a catch-22 to those that want to learn the game.

There is? I have taught the game with Japanese rules to dozens of beginners, and I've never had anyone perplexed. If you do have that experience, maybe you're not explaining it right?

Well you're free to be more concerned about one thing or the other, but I'm still not seeing how this qualifies in any way as "the same arguments that have already been refuted over and over, never acknowledging the standard counterarguments"
The counter-argument here seems to be that you, personally, are more worried about one thing that might trip up beginners than about another thing that might trip up beginners. How does that refute anything?

Area scoring rules are slightly easier to learn for beginners, but the difference is quite minor and disappears almost entirely once they have some experience. If the world makes this change, I'll be happy to change with it, but I don't consider it worth the investment to change over our club.

No, I was admonishing Robert about reprehensible social behaviour.

Well, since I don't think that that is true, I'll refrain from doing that. The best way to learn Japanese rules is to learn Japanese rules.

I'm not trying to trivialize the problem, it is quite capable of that all by itself.

Many teachers report difficulties explaining the endgame to beginners. Either you can magically impart wisdom that others can't, or perhaps you're too rosy in your assessment.



I made that statement in response to other arguments. I acknowledged that players using differing rulesets is a serious issue. If that was the only argument being made, instead of all the silly stuff that's been refuted countless times before, the discussion could be a lot less heated.



You admonished him because he destroyed a much weaker opponent on the board, instead of playing down to his level.



You're lying, since that's what you've been trying to do in your many posts to this thread.

Do you still think so? If yes,

1) why,
2) do you think that winning a game is reprehensible social behaviour,
3) how do you think that, at a time when Japanese rules were pretty much all I (and everybody in my environment) knew and we did not have any internet access yet, I could have invented ad hoc some sort of one-sequence playout method,
4) do you think that the inability to come up with an ad hoc solution as in and under the circumstances of (3) is reprehensible social behaviour of me and everybody in my environment at that time,
5) do you think that performing Japanese rules' scoring is reprehensible social behaviour (also by my opponent)?



IYO, which?

I am learning quite a bit actually. (Even with the somewhat negative tone the thread has evolved into).


The examples I gave were poor, and 9x9/13x13(less) were some what manageable for me in the end game
as well as score calculation. (I never really had an issue except on a few cases).

The problems I had were after a game on a board the size of 19x19.

When I first started playing I had no guidance other than "The interactive way of Go", and doing problems on http://www.goproblem.com as well as reading from sensei's library among other free online guides.

Back during this time I wanted to become strong quick, and was studying quite often.

I even started making a custom board out of wood.

Ended up buying a really nice board and some korean stones due to impatience.(& fear of not drawing perfect lines)

I lost a lot of go games in the process (growing frustration). I now understand that this is to be expected.
The straw that broke the camels back was when a 1 dan ,after he gave me 9 stones, thrashed me.

I was pretty burned.

When scoring if I felt confused on what was alive and dead... I would rather resign than
waste the opponents time (especially if I could tell they were playing extremely well).

I also did not want to play the game out because I have read that is annoying as hell online.

After losing a lot, being frustrated with not being able to read well enough (to my expectation) to know
what dead stones were/were not, walked away from the game.

In chess understanding how pieces move is easy to learn, and how to orchestrate them a intermediate difficulty.

In chess it is understandable how, and why a lost occurred. It is tangible.

Outside of 9x9 sized board I felt lost if I won (super rare) and lost if I lost.

In 19x19 I was lost entirely, and would resign every game out of confusion of what groups were alive and dead
in complicated positions.

Now here I am trying to figure out what I need to do in order to surpass what burned me out.


This is why I started this thread because there was no thread currently to address this issue of the Japanese rulest
and deadstones.

Although I've never had the problem, I can imagine others do have it. Can you quote numbers? What percentage of teachers have reported this problem? What percentage of their students had trouble in this area? You called it a "very good chance", so I assume it is a large percentage?

Well, since my argument, in full, is: "Area scoring rules have some advantage when teaching beginners, but it is far more important to be friendly, enthusiastic and patient when teaching, and it is also more important to make sure the beginner learns the rules that he will be playing with against others", why are you arguing against that so heatedly?

What the hell kind of statement is that?

I truly think that the difference between area and territory scoring is trivial. That's my opinion. You have a different opinion. That does not make what I am saying a lie. There is no need for such aggression.

And perhaps your assessment is too black (and white). As I see it, the issue is how best to keep beginners from running away screaming after their first encounter with the game and its players. Surely the rules are just one element in this experience, and the scary factors of go are there no matter how it's presented. I personally have been playing for 6 years and I still don't understand the rules. Maybe this would be different if I had been taught area scoring in the beginning, but it's never caused me more grief than watching one of my dragons die. I've also taught several people go, and although I do have to muddle through the counting phase, it has never been an issue. In other words, while I agree that there are confusing elements in Japanese scoring that are absent in Chinese scoring, the subject is a molehill rather than a mountain.



My impression is that the discussion is heated is because you seem to want a fire. You have repeatedly insulted people for disagreeing with you. You should definitely keep away from Japanese rules.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Your issue is not going to be solved by using different rules. What you need to do is find someone to play a few teaching games with you and to explain what is going on and why your groups are alive or dead.

I would really recommend sticking to 9x9 and 13x13 for now, because at your current level of understanding, there is nothing 19x19 adds except making the game longer and less manageable.

People will get annoyed if you play longer than they think is reasonable, and they may get rude or just leave the game, which is frustrating and demotivating for you. Not very nice of them, but that's people for you, I guess. Since 9x9 is a lot shorter, there is a lot less chance of people getting annoyed and you will get more chances to try your endgame and counting.

Also, please do post games to this forum, there are plenty of people here willing to review and teach.

Go has a bigger hurdle up front than chess, but it is well worth the effort! Once you're over that hurdle, there is a nice long stretch of continually getting stronger. I've heard a lot of players comment on how enjoyable the feeling is to constantly encounter and understand new concepts in the double digit kyu range.

Yea im not giving up. Guess just needed to change my perspective on Go. Before I wanted to win!(Guess Go has already taught me something) Now I just want to learn and make perfect moves. Winning and losing are both good things, and the most enjoyable thing is discussing the game with the person you are playing with after having played.

But don't get me wrong... I want to play strong and be a fierce opponent.

I was polite.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Good!

Oh, and fair warning, not everyone is a good teacher. When I teach, I try to just touch on one or two core issues per game, but some people may comment on every perceived mistake, which can really take the flow out of a game. If you encounter such a teacher, be patient with them.

You behaviour was unnecessary (you can win a game without completely destroying the opponent) and obviously distressed your opponent (never came back).

No. Winning is fine, unnecessarily slaughtering a beginner is uncalled for.

The error was already made before then.

No, see above.

No, see above.

Verbal. Further details than that are irrelevant to beginners.

I don't think calling somebody's statement a myth and not addressing their non-mythological reasons is polite. Just the opposite, in fact.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine that the odd point here or there is a huge source of angst for beginners.

While reading this thread, I'm trying to recall what was most confusing when I was learning. Mostly the confusing things were about how to play and not lose massively. At the end of the game, it was pretty common that I had little sense of who was ahead or behind and it was certainly not to the accuracy of a point. OTB, sometimes the stronger player would stop the game and help me estimate the score before the end of the game. (This was usually a game I should have resigned, but sometimes he would do it to explain why he resigned. The world could use more teachers like that.) None of that was really confusing. I actually don't remember many life & death endgame disputes. I think there was maybe one case online when my opponent thought a false eye was real, but online one runs into all sorts of weirdness.

For some time the actual process of OTB territory scoring was frightening to me. More experienced players would move stones around, push around the boundaries of the territories, all with their hands moving faster than I could see. It always seemed like some kind of carnival shell game, and it's hard to escape the feeling I was being swindled. I understood the process, but because the other players were so much faster at implementing it that I was, it was unsettling. And then at the end of a tiring game, people are expected to multiply and add and not forget komi? A little annoying. I think many games are lost or won in scoring mistakes, even among stronger players. The Chinese method may be slower in the minds of some of these slight-of-hand masters, but there's a lot less math and no chance of arguing about boundaries. With territory scoring, I do remember games where the rectangles had almost as many white and black stones on the edge and both players forgot whose territory it was! Usually one player just felt behind and would politely concede.

The times I felt I'd be turned away from go were associated with two things. 1) Unfriendly personalities. 2) Confusing online interfaces (only IGS at the time). Both things delayed me for a few years.

That is so common that Guo Juan 5p actually had advice for the situation. She said something like, "The stronger player may want to show off all the stuff they know, but if you can't stop them, just try to remember one or two things to improve for any game. That's enough."