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

Bill Spight · **#181**

skydyr wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

skydyr wrote:

Additionally, there's no reason to invade in capture go, because you might die, but consolidating a smaller area is fine and carries no penalty.

Actually, invasion is safer in capture go, as it is easier to live.

And invasion pays off, once the players are experienced enough, since the game will likely come down to territory.

But as per darWIN's rules, there is no territory. Only captures matter, and one can presumably choose to stop playing at some point.

darWIN wrote:

It doesn't even make sense to me that people argue about this. This game is very old, you'd think they'd have agreed upon something like how you win by now.

What game is he talking about?

darWIN wrote:

But the end of the game... maybe that's always been a bit neither here nor there. When playing for capture, the end of the game you can just feel, that it is time to stop, but in territory you have to wall off all of your borders before you stop so there is an actual end of the game.

Now, presumably darWIN's game is a form of no pass go, but he does not realize the consequences of that.

Bantari · **#182**

Quick question: Why is everybody discussing this?
The guy obviously either has no clue or he did not explain himself very well. Ask him what he means instead and then we can talk. Or not.

darWIN · **#183**

Bill Spight wrote:

darWIN wrote:

I don't sacrifice. And I don't want to count that many spaces. It's tiring. You aren't thinking about the strategy needed to capture stones. Think about it. You'll see that it is an intense amount of strategy.

If you're trying to surround empty space, then that is a goal.

If you're trying to surround pieces, then that is a goal.

But capturing pieces you can do regardless of whether you're trying to surround empty space or the enemy. While you're busy trying to surround empty space it's far easier to capture you than while you're trying to surround pieces. Because you aren't paying attention. Think about that.

I am afraid that you are talking to people who have thought a great deal more than you have about such things. :roll:

You are very right. I was good at sports, but I'm new to this game. But you still need to think about capture go more and respect the strategy needed in capturing pieces. Because you notice when someone is after you, but when you're in a position where you can't escape, it's always sort of shocking, and sometimes you thought pieces were fairly safe, and they weren't at all, someone was able to attack. The shapes battle.

Bill Spight · **#184**

darWIN wrote:

But you still need to think about capture go more and respect the strategy needed in capturing pieces.

Absolutely.

Look at a game between a couple of double digit kyus and you will almost certainly see failures to capture.

darWIN · **#185**

Bill Spight wrote:

Kirby wrote:

This discussion reminds me of Myungwan's statement at go congress this year that it's difficult for people to improve after a certain point when they learn go via capture go, and they should instead learn about the game in terms of efficiency. When you think of the game in terms of capturing stones, it's difficult to see past this, and when you reach a certain skill level, you hit a wall because to win the game, you have to have a different mindset than capturing stones.

That's what I used to think. However, since then I have had some experience with capture go, and I think that it is actually a more strategic game than go. Because all you need to live is a single eye with two points, it is easier to make a live group, and, with a little experience, the game becomes one of territory. The first one to come down to a one point eye loses. It is a kind of territory go with a group tax.

The key question then becomes how to make the most territory with the fewest plays. I. e., efficiency.

That is actually the progression I observed with one of my students, who did not want to take a handicap. So we played capture go on small boards. On the 7x7 I saw that I could make a live group by invading on the 2-4 point, threatening to jump to the 2-2 on either side.

It was like playing a wedge on the third line on a larger board.

Once you move to Capture 2 you can't just live with a 2 point eye. But you can with a 3 point eye, until you move to Capture 4. As you increase the number of captured stones needed to win, the game becomes more like regular go, mainly because it becomes harder to live.

Well, it's not about life it's about killing. The better you can make your pieces live, and kill, the better off you are. On a bigger board, there is more space to play. but if you link to a group that has already captured stones, then that group is almost invincible.

My advice, take my philosophy, rules were made to be broken, and just try to capture each other's pieces until you get tired of it on a full sized board. the more stones you place the more battles there will be, the harder it will be to concentrate on just one battle, when there are several going on. whoever is stronger in the end and can win the most battles wins the game.

hyperpape · **#186**

darWIN wrote:

I don't sacrifice. And I don't want to count that many spaces. It's tiring. You aren't thinking about the strategy needed to capture stones. Think about it. You'll see that it is an intense amount of strategy.

If you're trying to surround empty space, then that is a goal.

If you're trying to surround pieces, then that is a goal.

But capturing pieces you can do regardless of whether you're trying to surround empty space or the enemy. While you're busy trying to surround empty space it's far easier to capture you than while you're trying to surround pieces. Because you aren't paying attention. Think about that.

Unless you are a sandbagger (someone who disguises their true skill), I suspect that many players on these boards could play against you and never lose a single stone. And if two of those players played each other while trying to avoid captures, the game would probably have zero captures. This would not be so interesting. It is just too easy to play slowly and safely.

What makes the game interesting is trying to control larger parts of the board (including empty space). To do that, you cannot just play safe--you have to be ambitious.

You're focusing on capturing. But in territory go, you're mapping out areas and saying "these are mine. Play in here, and I will capture you." It is just as much about fighting as capturing itself.

shapenaji · **#187**

hyperpape wrote:

Unless you are a sandbagger (someone who disguises their true skill), I suspect that many players on these boards could play against you and never lose a single stone. And if two of those players played each other while trying to avoid captures, the game would probably have zero captures. This would not be so interesting. It is just too easy to play slowly and safely.

What makes the game interesting is trying to control larger parts of the board (including empty space). To do that, you cannot just play safe--you have to be ambitious.

You're focusing on capturing. But in territory go, you're mapping out areas and saying "these are mine. Play in here, and I will capture you." It is just as much about fighting as capturing itself.

Let me add one thing here, as someone who loves to capture en masse. The thing that makes capturing so much fun is that it's a balance. Capturing isn't worth anything on its own. Targeting 15 stones could be a massive error of judgement, and targeting 1 stone could mean the game.

The thing that makes killing worthwhile (usually), is the power it gives you to negate territory. If all the game was about was finding a way to trap a few stones, it would be pretty boring.

darWIN · **#188**

Have you ever heard this song? "When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, what will I be, will I be pretty, will I be rich, here's what she said to me. Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera, sera."

The future's not ours to see.

Especially not in a game where you place pieces anyplace. You want to make a fortress that can withstand the attack of the best strategic capturer in the world? I'm sorry but your jaw will drop, because the future isn't yours to see.

Bill Spight · **#189**

darWIN wrote:

Have you ever heard this song? "When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, what will I be, will I be pretty, will I be rich, here's what she said to me. Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera, sera."

The future's not ours to see.

Especially not in a game where you place pieces anyplace. You want to make a fortress that can withstand the attack of the best strategic capturer in the world? I'm sorry but your jaw will drop, because the future isn't yours to see.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ | . . . . . . $$ | O O O O O . $$ | X X X X O . $$ | . X . X O . $$ ------------[/go]

Challenge. Show how White captures the Black group in the corner.

Bantari · **#190**

I feel like in a Fellini movie... not even sure what this discussion is actually about. Certainly not about Japanese vs Chinese vs AGA scoring. Its almost like its about 'Capturing Game is better than Real Go' - which is certainly a matter of opinion when comparing two different games.

For those who have hope, let me quote darWIN from his original post:

darWIN wrote:

I'm wrong but I don't care.

You guys really trying to convince a person like that?
Cool, lemme get some popcorn.

skydyr · **#191**

Bantari wrote:

I feel like in a Fellini movie... not even sure what this discussion is actually about. Certainly not about Japanese vs Chinese vs AGA scoring.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there was a thread that started there and eventually wandered to where we are now via how to explain scoring to beginners.

darWIN · **#192**

Bill Spight wrote:

darWIN wrote:

Have you ever heard this song? "When I was just a little girl, I asked my mother, what will I be, will I be pretty, will I be rich, here's what she said to me. Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be, the future's not ours to see, que sera, sera."

The future's not ours to see.

Especially not in a game where you place pieces anyplace. You want to make a fortress that can withstand the attack of the best strategic capturer in the world? I'm sorry but your jaw will drop, because the future isn't yours to see.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W $$ | . . . . . . $$ | O O O O O . $$ | X X X X O . $$ | . X . X O . $$ ------------[/go]

Challenge. Show how White captures the Black group in the corner.

White can't commit suicide twice.

darWIN · **#193**

Yeah I'm just trying to rile you guys up.

xed_over · **#194**

darWIN wrote:

Yeah I'm just trying to rile you guys up.

an admitted troll -- that's impressive.

Bonobo · **#195**

darWIN · **#196**

I read that Go rules weren't formally written until the middle of the twentieth century. Also, Go only reached the west at the start of the twentieth century. So really, that's 100 years of playing Go versus thousands of years, I wouldn't talk like you know what you're talking about either.

If you want to score by how many captured stones it's easy, and you can even make stones you haven't captured but only out-gunned a half point. Because you're both putting stones on the board, it doesn't really prove anything if you surround more empty space, the point of the game is to fill space, and take away the other person's stones, not to look at the empty board as if that matters. It's a game, your opponent matters. You say my game is stupid and simple, I say your game is stupid and simple, that's the way people work.

darWIN · **#197**

don't think of go as a square. think of it as a circle. as a vortex. think of it as two people drawing on an etch a sketch, fighting for their color to be more.

shapenaji · **#198**

darWIN wrote:

It's a game, your opponent matters. You say my game is stupid and simple, I say your game is stupid and simple, that's the way people work.

Eh... The existence of a unique point of view does not inherently give that point of view value.

hyperpape · **#199**

If you're really trying to troll us, admitting that was the goal probably didn't help.

ez4u · **#200**

skydyr wrote:

Bantari wrote:

I feel like in a Fellini movie... not even sure what this discussion is actually about. Certainly not about Japanese vs Chinese vs AGA scoring.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there was a thread that started there and eventually wandered to where we are now via how to explain scoring to beginners.

Wrong fantasy? This seems more like Discworld than Star Wars! Where's the librarian when you need him(er... it)? :blackeye:

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

Who is online