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

Uzziel · #1

I have been trying to figure out which scoring I want to learn.

From the get go I am leaning toward the Japanese way of scoring as it
feels as if it is the right approach.

Note: I have already previously tried learning this method of scoring
and know it is very difficult to learn or understand.
(If anyone could point me to a good site for further study I would be grateful.)

I have already searched the forums on this issue, and after seeing a few threads
where the discussion ended up with no summation or conclusion I am hoping that
maybe in this thread we can outline the fundamental differences between the different
methods of scoring.

Maybe we could also highlight the advantages/disadvantages/differences for a beginner to choose which
method may or may not be for them.

Although I have already decided to learn Japanese rules because they "feel" right, I am also
confused on how the other scoring systems were created as well as the contrasting affect
that they have on how the game of Go is scored.

I am also wondering if the scoring system could affect the strategy during play.

Thanks!

MOD: I put this in Beginners forums but please move it to "Go Rules" if and when the scope of the thread
becomes outside where I have posted it.

hyperpape · #2

Most players in the US will use Japanese style scoring. At tournaments, you will need to understand AGA style, which can be done with pass stones and Japanese counting. Occasionally you will meet a Chinese player, who may do the scoring for you in a way that you can't follow :lol:

Otherwise, invest as much or as little effort as you want into learning the subtleties of how they relate. In most practical cases, you will get the same result, so it's just a technicality.

Uzziel · #3

hyperpape wrote:

Most players in the US will use Japanese style scoring. At tournaments, you will need to understand AGA style, which can be done with pass stones and Japanese counting. Occasionally you will meet a Chinese player, who may do the scoring for you in a way that you can't follow :lol:

Otherwise, invest as much or as little effort as you want into learning the subtleties of how they relate. In most practical cases, you will get the same result, so it's just a technicality.

Then why is the standard for the US not Japanese scoring?
I can understand it is hard to teach but it makes no sense to have the majority of
players use Japanese scoring while using the AGA system at tournaments.

Is it just me seeing this or am I off in left field?

When playing a Chinese player (since obviously they do something different) how is someone to know when to resign?

amnal · #4

It realllllyyyy isn't that important. If you ever meet someone who wants to use a different system, you just say 'okay, how do we do it?'. Once you know how to count, it will be much easier to see the (minor) differences.

My personal opinion is that area style is the easiest to explain and for beginners to understand in terms of being able to capture stones in their territory etc. I like that. But territory style is the way everyone actually does it because it's functionally easier once you understand dead stones and so on. I was taught with territory rules, and have mainly used them for teaching, and I don't think it really matters much in the end. If anything, I'd say the most important thing is to have someone to ask questions if you're confused.

In the end, you'll come across other scoring systems just by talking to and playing with other people. But for now all you need to do is be able to score a game, for which you may as well just pick one. Just go for it!

Uzziel wrote:

From the get go I am leaning toward the Japanese way of scoring as it
feels as if it is the right approach.

Sounds like a plan.

Quote:

Note: I have already previously tried learning this method of scoring
and know it is very difficult to learn or understand.
(If anyone could point me to a good site for further study I would be grateful.)

What parts did you find difficult to learn or understand?

Quote:

Although I have already decided to learn Japanese rules because they "feel" right, I am also
confused on how the other scoring systems were created as well as the contrasting affect
that they have on how the game of Go is scored.

I don't know the exact history, but I don't think it's more than natural evolution in different geographical areas. Perhaps we could even say, if it *really* mattered everyone would have evolved basically the same ruleset, therefore the differences can't be that important

Quote:

I am also wondering if the scoring system could affect the strategy during play.

Although the numbers you get for the scores are different, all the scoring systems people use give the same actual result - as in, who wins. They don't affect strategy.

Now, that's not actually quite true as they can treat a few situations differently, but it's nearly true and the differences aren't remotely important enough to be an excuse to agonise over which ruleset to learn. Even where there are differences, they don't change the nature of the game in any significant way.

amnal · #5

Uzziel wrote:

Then why is the standard for the US not Japanese scoring?
I can understand it is hard to teach but it makes no sense to have the majority of
players use Japanese scoring while using the AGA system at tournaments.

AGA rules add a couple of extra things that let you count in a territory way (as in, Japanese scoring style) but get the same result as area counting would have (as in, Chinese scoring style). The changes are very minor, because the difference in counting styles is ultimately very minor. The only ones you'll tend to notice is the extra rule that white must pass last, and that when passing you give your opponent one prisoner.

Other than that, players count just as they normally would. But it no longer matters if they want to use Chinese or Japanese style counting, they'll get the same result.

Edit: For what it's worth, I really like AGA rules. They let everyone carry on basically exactly as they already were, whilst retaining the advantage of Chinese rules when teaching beginners. And I think they're mathematically a neat choice...whatever that means

Quote:

When playing a Chinese player (since obviously they do something different) how is someone to know when to resign?

The game of Go is exactly the same as far as you need to be concerned.

hyperpape · #6

There are some arguable advantages of the AGA system over the Japanese, but they are designed to be very close. Since they are so close, most players here go on playing what they learned in the past (Japanese rules).

Uzziel · #7

amnal wrote:

It realllllyyyy isn't that important. If you ever meet someone who wants to use a different system, you just say 'okay, how do we do it?'.

My personal opinion is that area style is the easiest to explain and for beginners to understand in terms of being able to capture stones in their territory etc. I like that. But territory style is the way everyone actually does it because it's functionally easier once you understand dead stones and so on. I was taught with territory rules, and have mainly used them for teaching, and I don't think it really matters much in the end. If anything, I'd say the most important thing is to have someone to ask questions if you're confused.

In the end, you'll come across other scoring systems just by talking to and playing with other people. All you need to do now is be able to score a game, for which you may as well just pick one.

Uzziel wrote:

From the get go I am leaning toward the Japanese way of scoring as it
feels as if it is the right approach.

Sounds like a plan.

Quote:

Note: I have already previously tried learning this method of scoring
and know it is very difficult to learn or understand.
(If anyone could point me to a good site for further study I would be grateful.)

What parts did you find difficult to learn or understand?

Quote:

Although I have already decided to learn Japanese rules because they "feel" right, I am also
confused on how the other scoring systems were created as well as the contrasting affect
that they have on how the game of Go is scored.

I don't know the exact history, but I don't think it's more than natural evolution in different geographical areas. Perhaps we could even say, if it *really* mattered everyone would have evolved basically the same ruleset, therefore the differences can't be that important

Quote:

I am also wondering if the scoring system could affect the strategy during play.

Although the numbers you get for the scores are different, all the scoring systems people use give the same actual result - as in, who wins. They don't affect strategy.

Now, that's not actually quite true as they can treat a few situations differently, but it's nearly true and the differences aren't remotely important enough to be an excuse to agonise over which ruleset to learn. Even where there are differences, they don't change the nature of the game in any significant way.

That is definitely comforting to know that the way games are scored do not directly affect how the game is played, and scored.

The hard part was with dead stones. Even after understanding the rules, I would get to the end of a game
and second guess myself on what is dead/alive (Maybe this has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn
Japanese rules v.s. me being insecure about what I call a dead stone). Also I worry about objections from the other player.
I get to the end of the game, and feel overwhelmed at deciding what stays and what goes.
(Have not made it through many end games.)

This is why I had a quandary over if there was a really big difference between any of the scoring methods.

I was also just generally curious (from reading past threads) about if the scoring affects the games
(in past threads it said in some situations it could be a 1-10point difference resulting in a different game result).

From a beginners perspective there is great confusion on what scoring set to choose,
and how to even score the end game. It is very frustrating to not be able to feel
confident about finishing a game from beginning to resignation/end.

Dusk Eagle · #8

Just curious - have you heard of the concept of needing two eyes yet?

amnal · #9

Uzziel wrote:

The hard part was with dead stones. Even after understanding the rules, I would get to the end of a game
and second guess myself on what is dead/alive (Maybe this has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn
Japanese rules v.s. me being insecure about what I call a dead stone). Also I worry about objections from the other player. I get to the end of the game, and feel overwhelmed at deciding what stays and what goes. (Have not made it through many end games.)

Ah, this is the hard part, and it's why I say the most important thing is to have someone to ask. It's easy to get confused in any ruleset.

I'd have three suggestions for things you could do to get past this:
1) Play a few games online, perhaps even with people on this forum who may be able to arrange a game. If you go to the 'Beginner Room' on KGS, there are lots of people happy to play games and to help with scoring confusion.
2) Post a game here, with any questions you might have.
3) Use AGA rules

. The important difference here would be that when you pass you hand your opponent a prisoner, and that white must pass last. Now, if there's any confusion about dead stones you just play it out...any and every group on the board that you're confused about. The downside here is its easy to get confused about other things, so I recommend point 1.

The first suggestion is the most ideal, and I think by far the best to get past this little difficulty - everyone goes through it, it's legitimately hard, and all the questions are most easily solved by asking someone in a real situation.

Quote:

This is why I had a quandary over if there was a really big difference between any of the scoring methods.

They really honestly don't in any important way, don't worry about it.

Uzziel · **#10**

Dusk Eagle wrote:

Just curious - have you heard of the concept of needing two eyes yet?

Yes. I know how to make life. But globally on a 19x19 board I feel pressured on picking a stone that is not dead.

I am starting to think this could be a mental issue with me not wanting to look like a fool
marking stones that are not dead because of my "noobness".

There is clear life, and then there is obfuscated life that I know I will miss.

amnal · **#11**

Uzziel wrote:

Yes. I know how to make life. But globally on a 19x19 board I feel pressured on picking a stone that is not dead.

Try playing a few 9x9 games. They're shorter, and the smaller size makes it easy to zero in on scoring confusion.

Uzziel · **#12**

amnal wrote:

Uzziel wrote:

Yes. I know how to make life. But globally on a 19x19 board I feel pressured on picking a stone that is not dead.

Try playing a few 9x9 games. They're shorter, and the smaller size makes it easy to zero in on scoring confusion.

Im currently using a 9x9 now as I work through Cho Chikun's book.

But there has not been an emphasis on endgame scoring as of yet.

msgreg · **#13**

Uzziel wrote:

The hard part was with dead stones. Even after understanding the rules, I would get to the end of a game
and second guess myself on what is dead/alive (Maybe this has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn
Japanese rules v.s. me being insecure about what I call a dead stone). Also I worry about objections from the other player.
I get to the end of the game, and feel overwhelmed at deciding what stays and what goes.
(Have not made it through many end games.)

This is why I had a quandary over if there was a really big difference between any of the scoring methods.

Regarding dead stones: the really cool thing about AGA rules is that it doesn't matter if you can *identify* dead stones. It's really about whether you and your opponent agree, not whether you are technically correct in identifying dead stones. If you and your opponent don't agree, then it is the obligation of person that thinks the stones are dead to actually capture them. If the player can't capture them and they remain on the board, they are deemed alive.

viewtopic.php?p=126997#p126997

xed_over · **#14**

The beauty of using Chinese based rules for beginners is that you don't have to worry about if stones are alive or dead, you can just play it out and capture them (if you can), without loss in score.

With Japanese rules, if you play inside your own territory (to capture already dead stones), and your opponent doesn't respond (he passes), then you will lose points.

With Chinese rules, you won't lose any points for the same actions.

With AGA rules, your opponent would have to give you a prisoner each time he passes, so you still won't lose any points -- and you can count the score using the more popular Japanese scoring method.

RobertJasiek · **#15**

jts · **#16**

xed_over wrote:

The beauty of using Chinese based rules for beginners is that you don't have to worry about if stones are alive or dead, you can just play it out and capture them (if you can), without loss in score.

At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. Honestly, I don't see any serious problem with beginners losing or not losing points for capturing the stones that they think are still alive. After all, if they genuinely think the stones can be saved they should have played to capture them before dame (probably significantly before dame) and they would have lost the points under either scoring system.

The serious problem is that many beginners are so sunk into a fog about whether stones can be captured or not that they do not bother to make defensive moves when a defensive move might be sensible (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might be unnecessary), and then go ahead and make the defensive move anyway at the last possible second (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might not be unnecessary). This fog should be something that needles beginners. Likewise, sometimes beginners are in a fog about life and death and feel the urge in the middle of the game to make discrete, 1-point eyes inside an enormous territory. Again, this should be something that needles beginners. In practice, I've found that losing the point for "filling in your own territory" bothers beginners way more than losing a point for not playing a dame, or even than losing 2-10 points for not making a normal move that affects territory. Exactly how many points the unnecessary defensive moves, extraneous eye moves, etc. costs a beginner does not particularly matter; being needled slightly by the way the Japanese rules frame the point loss is very valuable.

Uzziel, please: show us examples of games near the end where you can't tell whether a certain stone is dead or alive. Let's get to the bottom of this!

Uzziel · **#17**

jts wrote:

xed_over wrote:

The beauty of using Chinese based rules for beginners is that you don't have to worry about if stones are alive or dead, you can just play it out and capture them (if you can), without loss in score.

At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. Honestly, I don't see any serious problem with beginners losing or not losing points for capturing the stones that they think are still alive. After all, if they genuinely think the stones can be saved they should have played to capture them before dame (probably significantly before dame) and they would have lost the points under either scoring system.

The serious problem is that many beginners are so sunk into a fog about whether stones can be captured or not that they do not bother to make defensive moves when a defensive move might be sensible (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might be unnecessary), and then go ahead and make the defensive move anyway at the last possible second (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might not be unnecessary). This fog should be something that needles beginners. Likewise, sometimes beginners are in a fog about life and death and feel the urge in the middle of the game to make discrete, 1-point eyes inside an enormous territory. Again, this should be something that needles beginners. In practice, I've found that losing the point for "filling in your own territory" bothers beginners way more than losing a point for not playing a dame, or even than losing 2-10 points for not making a normal move that affects territory. Exactly how many points the unnecessary defensive moves, extraneous eye moves, etc. costs a beginner does not particularly matter; being needled slightly by the way the Japanese rules frame the point loss is very valuable.

Uzziel, please: show us examples of games near the end where you can't tell whether a certain stone is dead or alive. Let's get to the bottom of this!

Example 1:

--Deleted Example 2 as it wasn't a good example

skydyr · **#18**

Uzziel wrote:

jts wrote:

xed_over wrote:

The beauty of using Chinese based rules for beginners is that you don't have to worry about if stones are alive or dead, you can just play it out and capture them (if you can), without loss in score.

At the same time, the deeper problem is that if Uzziel can't tell dead stones from living stones, then he is missing something very basic about go, in general, regardless of the scoring system. Honestly, I don't see any serious problem with beginners losing or not losing points for capturing the stones that they think are still alive. After all, if they genuinely think the stones can be saved they should have played to capture them before dame (probably significantly before dame) and they would have lost the points under either scoring system.

The serious problem is that many beginners are so sunk into a fog about whether stones can be captured or not that they do not bother to make defensive moves when a defensive move might be sensible (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might be unnecessary), and then go ahead and make the defensive move anyway at the last possible second (because there is some niggling worry that a defensive move might not be unnecessary). This fog should be something that needles beginners. Likewise, sometimes beginners are in a fog about life and death and feel the urge in the middle of the game to make discrete, 1-point eyes inside an enormous territory. Again, this should be something that needles beginners. In practice, I've found that losing the point for "filling in your own territory" bothers beginners way more than losing a point for not playing a dame, or even than losing 2-10 points for not making a normal move that affects territory. Exactly how many points the unnecessary defensive moves, extraneous eye moves, etc. costs a beginner does not particularly matter; being needled slightly by the way the Japanese rules frame the point loss is very valuable.

Uzziel, please: show us examples of games near the end where you can't tell whether a certain stone is dead or alive. Let's get to the bottom of this!

Example 1:

Example 2:

Which stones or groups in those two examples are the ones you are unsure of?

Bill Spight · **#19**

Uzziel wrote:

I have been trying to figure out which scoring I want to learn.

To any beginner who asks which scoring system to learn, I say AGA/Chinese/area scoring, since if there are any questions about life and death at the end of the game, the players can just play it out.

Quote:

I have already searched the forums on this issue, and after seeing a few threads
where the discussion ended up with no summation or conclusion I am hoping that
maybe in this thread we can outline the fundamental differences between the different
methods of scoring.

If there are no kos or sekis, then territory scoring is area scoring with a penalty of 1 point for each stone played. In that case correct strategy under territory scoring is also correct strategy for area scoring. (But not vice versa.) The result of an even game will be the same, or Black will score one more point.

If there is a ko, then it is possible for one player to gain more from taking and winning the ko under area scoring than under territory scoring, because the other player must fill territory instead of playing Japanese dame. That can affect stategy.

If there is a seki with eyes or one way dame, which are scored under area scoring but not under Japanese scoring, then that can affect strategy. (Note: There are forms of territory scoring that also score such points, but they are not popular.)

Quote:

Although I have already decided to learn Japanese rules because they "feel" right, I am also
confused on how the other scoring systems were created as well as the contrasting affect
that they have on how the game of Go is scored.

The oldest known game records apparently used territory scoring, but the oldest description of go rules apparently describes area scoring.

BTW, there are forms of scoring that fall between the two.

See http://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo

Uzziel · **#20**

The example 2 I put up was not very good after all.

In example one Black 33/35 would trip me up i think.

Sorry for the lousy examples I did not record games back when first started often
and I ran into this issue more when I played a game that was not turn based ,which was recorded, (KGS)
than when it was.

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

Who is online