Because if your opponent has a heavy group on the board and youve surrounded all of his living groups, you've essentially surrounded the heavy group.


In my original post, I've revised many things including the rules terminology, basically explaining as follows: There is one rule with three stipulations. The one rule being to get the most stones on the board and the stipulations dictating where you can place them.

Also, it has occurred to me that there is actually a very significant difference between area and territory scoring that I had never thought of. Due to this, I now realize that under territory scoring, the "no definite ending aside from resignation" doesn't work and there must be a way for players to mutually agree to end play. Without going into elaborate detail, its based on the idea that under territory scoring, it costs you points to place stones that are unnecessary with the exception of dame.Therefore, if you've killed a group, you want to leave it dead with as few of stones as possible. As I understand it, when there's a disagreement about the status of a group during the scoring phase then you take note of the current position, play it out to prove it's status, and then return the board to the original position and score it based on that. This creates an entirely different complex than that which is scene in area scoring where you don't play things out simply because its a waste of time, however, you're still scoring the board AS IF it was played out as far as it could be. Otherwise, a dead stone would count as a point for its owner because it is still on the board at the end play. If territory scoring didn't work this way then players would always demand that their groups were alive until completely captured and in area scoring, you would have to count dead stones or play till they were captured meaning that the concept of alive and dead would be useless.

_________________
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...

Joel, indeed -- what are you talking about ?

Sorry, but since you allow players to pass, your rules are also inconsistent with "no definite ending aside from resignation" idea. OTOH, No Pass Go in its various forms is consistent with that idea. One of its forms being equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax. Which we know was played in ancient times.

Not that you haven't pointed to problems with modern territory scoring. But every such rule set has ways of dealing with those problems.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

This is kinda' an extreme example of what I'm talking about. Obviously, a stronger opponent would never allow you to do this but its still the basic strategically idea, imo.

_________________
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...

I think you're confusing heavy with dead in this case.

For a group or stone to be heavy, there are a few requirements from the top of my head:
1) Not light
a) not easy to sacrifice as a whole
b) not easy to sacrifice a part
2) Not yet alive, and often generally lacking in eyeshape
3) Attackable or having sente moves the opponent can play against it to accomplish a goal
4) Not yet dead

As corollaries:
If you're light, you can ignore attacks for bigger points or sacrifice strategically
If you're alive, you have nothing to worry about
If you're not attackable, say because there's nothing else anywhere nearby, or you're strong enough, there's no liability
If you're dead, you shouldn't be worrying about saving the group, though maybe you can exploit its aji later

Heavy has nothing to do with being sealed in or not. Being sealed in is bad, but separate. Heavy is about having a group that is a liability. It means you have to devote resources to defending it that you would rather place elsewhere. Note that this refers to living specifically, not just losing territory.

I've attached at the end of the original post a pdf copy of the intro and first chapter of the book. Most of the material is just a repeat of whats been posted, however, I have made some major revisions and would highly appreciate constructive criticism from anyone willing to read through it. I'd like to hear from players from all skill levels in order to get ideas about how players of varying experience think of the game. I would definitely like to hear from any total beginners about whether I'm making good sense of things or if I'm straying into being overly theoretical. Also keep in mind that I am writing the book entirely for fun and for the purpose of passing it on to my nephews and future children. I do not expect to ever make money off of it. Thanks everyone!

_________________
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...

Hi Joel,

The first empty board photo on page 5 is quite pretty. It's nice.

Are you sure about the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ? I seem to recall they used to play 17x17 (and other sizes) in ancient China.
Where's your source (citation?) for the 2,000-year-at-least duration for 19x19 ?

Hi Joel,180 + 180 = 360 which doesn't cover all 361 intersections on the 19x19 board.

Mr. Kuroki ships his slate & shell sets with 181 and 180 ,
plus a few "spare" stones for each color.

Other manufacturers also usually ship a few more than 181 and 180 .

As a practical matter, usually we don't care about how many stones exactly in each bowl
( unless for some very strict ING situation ), and as long as there are more than 181 and 180 ,
it's usually good enough. Often time, club sets don't even have 180 or 180 --
people just "re-cycle" stones, or, "borrow" from their friends at the next table if they run out.

It seems unusual to mention the exact number of stones in each bowl (except for some strict ING situation).
I think it suffices to say if you have at least 181 and 180 ,
then you can at least cover all 361 intersections, but there's still no guarantee
your game won't run out of stones.

Hi Joel,This feels a little cumbersome to me. Since the conditions are "symmetrical" --
zero liberties (positive) or no remaining liberties (negative) --
it seems unnecessary to use the negative in your sentence above.

( Bold in original text; not mine. )

Hi Joel, Are you sure about the above statement ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Zero captures
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X , X X X X X O . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . O . . O . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

( Bold in original text; not mine.)

Hi Joel, your statement above is incorrect:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------
$$ | B B B B |
$$ | X B X B |
$$ | . X . X |
$$ +----------[/go]

All six stones above have zero liberties left,
yet it's perfectly legal for "every stone" above to remain on the board.

Your statement above says "every stone...in order to remain on the board, must at all times enjoy at least one liberty."
This is very much incorrect.

Actually, you probably only need at least 150 stones to play a game, because unless you're using Ing rules, you'll probably not ever cover the board completely.

You and I both have sufficient experience to know that most of the time, we don't run out of stones.
However, occasionally, it does happen.
Even with a full set of over 181 and 180 --
example: a long game, over 320 moves, with lots of captured stones removed (Japanese rules set), with a long ko, etc.

But that's not the point. I just thought it's a little strange
to mention exactly 180 stones in each bowl.

If anything, I would just casually mention many manufacturers (like Mr. Kuroki)
ship 181 (+spares) and 180 (+spares) , and leave it at that.
That's just my preference; you may feel free to mention "150".

X - as in cross(ed)

Hi Joel,

I understand your intention with this "second rule".
However, it's a little strange, to me.
I've only experienced Go for just over a decade --
during this period, I've met hundreds (probably less than 1,000 ? ) beginners,
and I've read various "beginner's guides" to Go --
I've never seen this "second rule" stated like this in your text, nor do I find it necessary.
This is only my opinion; maybe others feel differently.

( Highlights are mine, not in original text.)

Hi Joel,

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with the above opinion.

If I were writing a beginners' guide to bicycling, and I claim that
The Fundamental Strategy is to consistently use training wheels......I would also be incorrect.

I understand that some people quite enjoy to "provide" to beginners
this "advice," or variations of it.

However, as many people soon realize,
the above "strategy" is full of traps and is something they have to un-learn very quickly.

From a recent thread, post 4:
Connecting and cutting are Not some fundamental strategy of Go;
rather, they are merely training wheels for the beginner to gain valuable experience.

Hi Joel,

I understand where you're going with this,
but I just want to point out it's a problem.
The problem is the way you discuss (or define) what constitutes a "connection" between stones.

In your text, up to page 12, when you write "connection,"
what you actually mean is, narrowly, a "solid connection":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Shape 1
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

Compare to, say, a diagonal shape:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Shape 2
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . O . .
$$ . . O . . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

When we see a diagonal shape, above,
we consider the two stones to be "connected" --
just not "solidly connected", as in Shape 1.

The obvious Q&A:
1. Can Shape 1 be cut by enemy stones ? No (unconditional).
2(a). Can Shape 2 be cut by enemy stones ? Yes (conditional) -- if White allows certain local Black moves.
2(b). Can Shape 2 be cut by enemy stones if White replies correctly ? No. (conditional)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Shape 2
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . x O . .
$$ . . O y . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

Because, as you are well aware, White has miai of (x) and (y) to become "solidly" connected.

Hi Joel,

I strongly disagree. I would say your "second rule" (pages 10-12) is in fact auxiliary (not necessary at all).

In contrast, the ko rule is not auxiliary at all -- it's fundamental.

As Mr. Demis Hassabis explained very nicely in his Oxford speech,
there are only two "rules" in Go (axioms): the liberty rule, and the ko rule.
(Actually, this is not quite true: you do need an auxiliary rule which explains
exactly what happens when the stone you play has apparently zero liberties the moment you place it,
but is in fact legal because you're capturing one or more enemy stones.)

Thank you very much for the suggestions, Ed! Some I find quite valid while others I disagree with, however, I appreciate the work you've put into each one of them. I have no intention of arguing with you over any of the finer points but I will ask you to keep in mind: This book is intended for the absolute beginner. In other words, if the student wouldn't think to ask the question then I'm not going to labor into the technicalities of it. This book is the result of having taught countless people to play go and figuring out what the best/most strait forward approach to the game is. Also, a lot of the points you bring up will be elaborated on and cleared up in future chapters. Thanks again! Keep it coming and this might actually turn into something worth reading...

_________________
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...

while I agree with your goal of keeping things simple for the beginner, you should try to look for better ways to word what Ed suggests, as you shouldn't need to correct yourself later.

I'd be curious as to which points of Ed's you disagree with -- I don't believe he will get offended, besides, what's the point of having a discussion forum if we can't argue discuss?