jann wrote:
What do you ask about specifically?
Japanese rules (say 1989) require significant expertise to apply when needed the most, which may not be available. So I was wondering just how close to result of ideally/expertly applied rules, would the Maas encore be. Which specific things would score differently (which, thanks you attempted to answer).
Quote:
Playing from prisoners gives an extra point for board plays (the removed prisoner), which is like taking an extra penalty for pass plays (as with pass stones). Both effectively switch to area for later phases, and pass stones (with equal moves) are the more common way for this.
Yes, meaning to ask about that also, but didn't--since I was still working it out for myself--so would like to append as a subsidiary question:
How Japanese rules compare to Ikeda territory rules II?, Those appear even more elegant, yet did they ever merit serious consideration for adoption anywhere?
I wonder how AGA went more for territory style counting, yet ultimately came as close to Chinese rules as possible, when I believe their constituents were far more steeped in Japanese practice, and Ikeda Territory II rules could have suited that goal. Is it that just AGA rules would land much closer to a major established ruleset (Chinese) with their choice, than the choice of Ikeda's Territory II rules would be in relation to Japanese rules?
Quote:
Some differences with any areafying encore:
- dame play necessary in main phase
- one sided dame and delayed mannenko resolution gives points
- the normal ko rule cannot be used in encore, so all superko anomalies
- things like torazu3 or bent4+seki play out to different results
- unique to LM rules: they use ko-unsafe encore switch, so simple endgame kos can also give 1 extra point
I get the first two points, on dame.
Can you elaborate on ko-unsafe encore switch? Is this unique to LM encore?