As defined by who is likely to have the most territory at the end of the game.

I don't understand why you are arguing with this.

_________________
be immersed

Wrong.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

[Two players filling up their last dame points in their game]

Player 1: "Well, based on my counting, I think I won by 2 points or so, what do you think Player 2?"

Player 2: "Actually, you forgot that we're inside the Joelnelsonb Go Club, where we use a scoring method based on the scoring function g(x, y) = x^2 + 3y, where (x, y) is the coordinate of a stone and g points is given to the player holding the color of that stone. Based on this heuristic, I am actually winning by 3,858 points, if I did my math right.

Player 1: "But what about the empty intersections marking our territories?"

Player 2: "Don't be silly Player 1, Go isn't about territory!"

Player 1: "Oh, you're right! How silly of me, I should have resigned then, good game Player 2!"

Player 2: "Good game Player 1, and don't forget: Go isn't about territory!"

For your sake, I'm just gonna pretend that post didn't just happen. Like, seriously...

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Oh I'm sorry, do you have a problem with my mathematically sophisticated scoring function? I am just bifurcating the scoring method used from the actual rules of game play. Please try to remember that using a scoring method is simply another strategy and doesn't relate to the rules of the game, and that making territory is really just subjective.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The ideas we're talking about are nothing more than fun food for thought. We all agree on how to play Go practically speaking; it's the finer points of theory that are under discussion. I will remind you that my original post pertained to the OP and I was talking about different playing styles and their association with different nationalities. I made a brief comment about the core theory of the different scoring methods commonly used and was attacked

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

You write statements like "You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think because you are no Go master (nor is anyone living, imo).", dismissive comments to others like "If you can't understand what I'm saying than just disregard the point altogether. It's isn't vital to the point of the post. But you are in fact wrong", quick to point others as being wrong or mistaken, and when I present an example that highlights the absurdity in your "core theory" you "pretend that post didn't just happen" "for my sake" whatever that means. And you're the one who thinks he's being attacked? Next level trolling, I suggest you stop now.

This was the original quote that kicked off the tangential discussion, and it seems to be based on an incorrect premise.



I personally know of no one that would characterize the Japanese style as being more associated with contact fighting than the Chinese style. In fact, I think most would characterize the Japanese as having the most peaceful attitude toward Go (you get yours, I get mine).

In terms of the Chinese approach, is it possible that when you were new to Go and heard this quote that the person was referring to the Chinese opening - a particular opening which emphasizes making a framework and which can result in a moyo game? This would be the only way that this comment makes sense to me.

Now, Solomon... no need to be mean or rude
Indeed, I challenged Joelnelsonb's statements right from the start, and we've been trying to understand each other's point of view ever since. And I think mhlepore may have identified another misunderstanding.

No doubt that joelnelsonb is a fine player, and has used his understanding of the game so far to raise himself to a respectable rank (I'm assuming he's SDK, as mentioned in his profile). Helping him to change what we see as misconceptions may not help him improve any faster, but I think it will help his students improve faster.

Exactly.

No one plays the game any differently based on which scoring method they are going to use to sum up the results.

The scoring methods are merely accounting -- they don't change the score, nor affect the score, they merely report the score. And regardless of which scoring method you use, the score will be the same (to within a point -- and that oddity of math can be explained).

I've mentioned in other threads that my approach to the is game is based on one thing: the easiest, most efficient method for teaching the game to new comers. I start new players off on a 9x9 and we use stone scoring. After a few games, player will start to understand the nature of "control" and predict who will when ahead of time without me ever even mentioning anything about territory. In this approach, "territory" is just a piece of jargon used between players.

For the record, I'm a 5 kyu on kgs.

Now back to the fascinating topic of the OP. Has anyone studied games from different countries extensively enough to say if there is an evident difference in the approach to the game?

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Oddly enough, I kind of get what you are saying. From the perspective of Chinese counting, for example, even at the end of the game, you don't have to think of the winner as the person with the most "territory" - counting up stones to add up the score could be viewed differently than "territory". They are stones you "control", but you could refrain from calling those stones "territory".

At the same time, though, whether you call this "control" territory or not makes no difference in the result of the game. Therefore, I would argue that trying to get the most "territory" is not subjective. Objectively, the player with the most "territory" will win. You just might not count it a particular way, or call it by that terminology.

_________________
be immersed

From everything I've ever read, the term "territory" refers to one thing only: vacant intersections that have been entirely surrounded by one color of stones. A player's "area" is the term which refers to his respective territory along with every stone that is agreed upon as "alive". Not trying to get technical here but I don't think it helps to bend the definitions of common terms.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Controlling the territory or controlling the area is the same result greater than 99% of the time.

I'm not sure why this would be relevant to the current discussion.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Man, you don't compromise, do you? I guess I don't usually either

From my view, captured stones are territory, too: When an opponent plays a stone in "my territory", that stone also becomes my territory.

I don't think this is bending a definition. But if your only qualm here is with whether we call this stuff "points" or "territory", then I don't really care what you want to call it.

_________________
be immersed

Territory is one of those go terms that has been around for long enough to have acquired a number of related meanings. (Like most words. Look in a dictionary. ) For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ White territory
$$ ----------------
$$ | . O O . X . O .
$$ | X X X X X . O .
$$ | . . . . . . O .
$$ | O O O O O O O .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

We normally regard White as having 22 points of territory in this corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Black territory
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . X O O .
$$ | . . . . . X O .
$$ | X X X X X X O .
$$ | O O O O O O O .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

We also say that White has a play inside Black's territory in this diagram.

And when we use territory scoring, we count each prisoner as one point of territory, just as we do dead stones. (And the concept of territory in no pass go includes dead stones, as well. )

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.