I like the previous post but it would be nice to separate them out as

1) Issues shared with all area scoring systems (Chinese mainly). Many of the topics have been general dislike of area scoring.

2) Issues from AGA scoring (having to use pass-stones, count points in seki in territory counting).

Because of this statement:



Because the common area scoring rulesets in the world are using an odd komi and related explanations later in the thread, the example isn't the best one to demonstrate a weakness, that's all. I don't think you were trying to mislead anyone, but if someone picks up that example and starts circulating it, the effect will be misleading.

In my experience, I think the #1 reason people dislike area rulesets is if they are using one (e.g., Chinese rules) which requires something like Chinese counting, which destroys the board even more than traditional territory counting and for some people is slower. (Of course NZ is a counter-example of that, but I've seen anyone use NZ, I can't comment.) Maybe #2 would be they think filling in dame online is a waste of time.

Arguably, #2 is a subset of #1. In area scoring systems, eyes and stones in seki are counted. Also, being at heart an area scoring system, the pass-stones are a crutch to allow territory counting to match for those unfamiliar with counting by area.

Except some people dislike all of #1 and other people are complaining about the problems in #2. Certainly none of #2 would be needed if AGA was not an area scoring system.

For me, the whole pass-stone thing is just such a minor issue. It's the least stressful part of my game. Macroscopic things are so much more important. For example, at the U.S. Open this year the tables were too close together. I had to go to the bathroom and while squeezing out I accidentally crushed my--uh--stuff. I played about 15 minutes in agony. Yeah, pass stones. Not an issue.

Points in seki is kind of rare to matter, so it would have to have odd parity to matter. That's for the theorists. As long as it is hard to impossible to create non-scorable positions as long as dame are filled, I'm okay.

I like AGA rules, so I have no complaints either. The biggest problem for pass stone comes from communication with people unused to it and don't speak English well. Hopefully that can be fixed for future congresses.

My first Die Hard tournament, I didn't like having to use Chinese rules, and was totally confused by the scoring method. But afterwards, I forced myself to sit down with a smaller board and explore the math so that could fully understand it.

The very next week I experienced my first encounter with playing against a Chinese player who just tossed his captures back into my bowl. I was taken aback at first, but then happily remembered my lessons from the week before at Congress.

I think everyone should participate in a Chinese rules tournament at least once in their life. And I think the Die Hard is a perfect tournament to expose it to people. I wish it would continue that tradition.

Honestly, the only issue I have with AGA rules, which is certainly a preference many people don't share, is that I don't like superko. I can't imagine actually being able to keep track of when superko requires a ko threat and when it does not in addition to making effective moves, and I don't have any particular problem with replayed or drawn games, provided that they are infrequent.

Completely agree. It's infrequent enough that I don't dislike AGA rules due to it, but I would be happier if superko disappeared from the rules and games were negated if triple ko or similar situations arise.

Well, as I said before, the example is correct, and it is possible to embed the example as a corner in a 19x19 board and have it make a difference for any komi, odd or even. The fact that is is not likely to make a difference is not really relevant, IMO. The handling of long cycles like triple ko is considered a weakness of Japanese rules, no matter how unlikely they are to occur, and there is nothing misleading about giving an example of triple ko either.

In practice, applying superko to a long cycle shape is MUCH easier than reading typical life and death problems, because applying super can often be done with reading ONE sequence of 3 to 6 plays, while life and death can easily require reading many sequences with various numbers of plays. Therefore, I do not understand at all why a few perceive a difficulty for superko, unless they simply refuse to read the only one sequence of in practice at most 6 plays. This then is not a difficulty of superko itself.

I also do not understand why a (Japanese / Korean / Chinese referee) long cycle rule would be any simpler in practice, because - as for superko - it is also necessary to understand whether an opponent's claim of a cycle having occurred is correct. Necessary for your pride, because your disagreement and recycling several times until you understand the fact of recurrence becomes enbarrassing in exhibiting an apparent inability to recognise repetition on just 3 or 4 intersections earlier.

Superko is one of the best things of AGA Rules, except that considering the turn makes it less easy than possible.

Even Professional players have missed making ko threats and losing the game before(and voiding the game in one famous incident). Personally if I got into the situation of a repeating board, I know I would have trouble telling who made the first illegal move and let alone trying to unroll for double digit kyus in a tournament setup.

Down with superko!

Professional players have also overlooked atari. Such does not prevent them from learning to stop making simple mistakes, such as not knowing that the simplest triple ko fight under superko allows making a ko threat after only ONE play in the triple ko.

Yes, and double digit kyus overlook atari all the time. You're making my point that errors happen all the time and unwinding games is difficult. Thank you.

Errors are not there to serve justification of continuing making errors, but errors are there to be overcome. Superko encourages this.

In practice, unwinding games is equally difficult for superko and Japanese style long cycle rules, because the same kind of move sequences are the basis for rules applications.

Actually, the double button implements nicely. There are two buttons, one in which Black only gives a pass stone and one in which White only gives a pass stone. In terms of the count, the cancel out. We simply require the first player to pass to take the button where he gives a pass stone. Here is how it works.

Each player gives a pass stone when passing, except if the same player makes the first and last pass. In that case she does not give a pass stone when making the last pass.

For example, suppose that the territory score difference is 7 pts. in favor of Black, and White gets the last dame. Then Black passes, handing over a pass stone and then White passes, handing over a pass stone. Each player has taken a button, although that is not obvious. The result remains the same. Similarly, suppose that the territory score difference is 6 pts. with Black getting the last dame. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone and then Black passes, handing over a pass stone. The result remains the same.

Now suppose that we have a situation where White takes a 1 pt. ko but Black has no ko threat and no dame to play, and she passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White fills the ko and Black passes again, handing over a pass stone. Then White passes, handing over a pass stone. White gains an extra point, unlike current Japanese rules, but as both Honinbo Shusai and Go Seigen thought was right.

Hmmm. It's not so easy to get the same player to make the first and last pass, is it? How about an attempted pass fight? Black passes, handing over a pass stone. Then White plays a threat that Black must answer. After Black answers, White passes, handing over a pass stone. Then Black passes, but since he passed first, does not hand over a pass stone. White gains nothing from the attempted pass fight.

Edit: I posted a note here about komi, territory go, area go, and button go. While attempting to quote part of it I actually edited it.

As there appears to be no undo edit, I'll try to reconstruct it later.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

There is no need to unwind for Japanese long cycles. Both players realize there is no method to break out of cycle, and it is a draw/no result.

Imagine a player realizes a cycle has occurred and claims no result, and the opponent thinks a cycle hasn't yet occurred and wants to continue (believing they can still win if they deviate from the cycle and give up the triple ko). The TD has to rewind the game to figure out who is correct.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Or you can simply keep going with the TD there. If the cycle occurs again, it should start to be obvious. I think claiming no result should be ignored in that case.

That (unfairly?) gives one side many additional chances to deviate...

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com