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

[PaperTiger]

The rules of bridge are godawful. The number of "bridge lawyers" is not small. The rules of chess are more complicated than go rules, as well. That has not stopped either game from gaining players.

I don't know about bridge, but I can tell you that the rules of chess are vastly simpler than the illogical rules of Japanese go, which have the catch-22 that to understand the rules so that you can play, you need and understanding of how to play.

Now I learned Japanese rules go from a pamphlet and a friend and I played a game. We did not experience any problem ending the game. But many people who learn without a teacher do have such problems.

I'm always amazed when I hear stories like this, because when I tried to learn that "dead" stones are removed at the end of the game my mind went, "Whaa?". I wish I had a time machine to observe what actually happened in detail.

[HermanHiddema]

I really wonder if everyone is reading the same thread here.

Yes, I wonder the same thing, because I see that people keep on posting the same arguments that have already been refuted over and over, never acknowledging the standard counterarguments.

Please, then, what is the standard counterargument to:

"regardless of the rules issues, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach."

[PaperTiger]

Go originated in China, not Japan, and the Chinese use area scoring rules.

That's relatively recent. The oldest known scored game records from China appear to use a form of territory scoring. The oldest known description of go rules, also from China, appears to be of a form of stone scoring.

Just how many hundreds of "relatively recent" years is that? I read Fairbairn's article on this years ago, and my impression was that the claim was based on assumptions involving scant evidence, and hardly conclusive. Records can be very misleading due to lack of context. As an example, when I looked up a game record from a Chinese tournament, I was quite surprised that the dame moves weren't recorded. An alien race poking through the ashes of our civilization might stumble across that single record thousands of years from now and think dame weren't counted under Chinese rules.

Anyways, it isn't really important, since you can hardly accuse the Chinese of trying to impose "Western thinking" and violating the "spirit of the game" by using area scoring rules, and that was my main point.

[PaperTiger]

Please, then, what is the standard counterargument to:

"regardless of the rules issues, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach."

Easy. Playing the game is fun. That's easier for beginners to do with simple to understand rules. We were explicitly told by the thread starter about their frustration on how to end the game (quoted twice now), he even resigned rather than score it. You were told about people who walked away from the game for years because it didn't make sense to them. Is that fun?

[HermanHiddema]

Please, then, what is the standard counterargument to:

"regardless of the rules issues, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach."

Easy. Playing the game is fun. That's easier for beginners to do with simple to understand rules.

You would really prefer using area scoring rules over having an enthusiastic and friendly teacher willing to spend time and answer question? You really think the rules issue is that important?

We were explicitly told by the thread starter about their frustration on how to end the game (quoted twice now), he even resigned rather than score it.

Did you even look at his game? There was zero issue there with the rules.

You were told about people who walked away from the game for years because it didn't make sense to them. Is that fun?

I've also heard about people walking away because they learned are rules that were not being used by their opponents, and about people walking away because the teacher was incredibly rude.

How is it that those things are not an issue to you?

[RobertJasiek]

cad [...] idiot

Unnecessary.

[who] kills every stone on a 13x13 board against a beginner.

It was not meant to be a teaching game, but a serious game (club game, where each player just tries his best to win). In a serious game, I play seriously and I hope my opponent does so, too.

If then my opponent turns out to lose badly, I discuss or explain to him strategy and mistakes after the game. It does not matter whether my opponent is a beginner, equally strong or stronger. If he wants to learn and I can give him some advice, I do so. AFTER the game. NOT DURING the game and not by faking the game by playing weakly intentionally.

And what would you have done with area scoring? Played it out, right?

Of course. (And my opponent would have understood perfectly why his stones were dead, without any further explanation needed.)

So why didn't you do the same?

1) Because we were using Japanese rules, which do not provide the possibility of playing it out in an area scoring manner.

2) Because the incident happened before I started to become a rules expert. At that time, I was not aware of the playing out area style method yet, nor of the relation between different scoring systems.

It was a teaching game, not a tournament game.

It was neither, see above.

And it would be a great way of teaching.

Yes. (If I had known this way and if my opponent had accepted it.)

It seems this was the effect of bad teaching and not of scoring method.

No. The teaching (explanation of dead stones) was fine, but the position was tactically too complex for the missing patience of my opponent. Recall that he passed too early, so he must have been under the illusion of a) having alive stones, b) maybe having killed all my stones (but the expression of his face lets this seem unlikely), c) a finished game. So his opinion on the final position started with completely wrong premises, which he was not willing to abandon quickly. Therefore, 5 or 10 minutes of sequence showing for LD analysis could not be enough to convince him. Before he even started to admit to himself having had wrong premises, his impatience won, and he left.

I mean - really... a 13k player leaving because you cannot explain why something is dead,

I could, and started to do, but I could not complete it within the 5 or 10 minutes, because the sitation was tactically too complex. As I have said, the position was pretty much open, like a middle game position, in which I just barely killed everything, but very much room for movement and aji was still available. Something like a whole board life and death problem in the middle game for 3 dans.

I would look there for the explanation for why the guy got miffed,

Maybe also because it dawned upon him that his life and death understanding was totally off in that game.

a student while under the care of the teacher

Forget the student and teacher terminology. It was..., see above.

- unless the teacher is really really bad, period! This has nothing to do with a scoring method.

1) "The teaching" was "the scoring", i.e., the determination of the life and death at the game end. Since we disagreed, we needed to clarify the status.

2) Clarifying LD status, in case of disagreement under Japanese rules, requires analysis of sequences, as I did. I showed relevant sequences, and where my opponent did not understand something, I showed additional, more detailed sequences. This is not bad scoring (scoring, not teaching), but perfectly suitable scoring.

3) As you can now understand, it had indeed nothing to do WITH scoring, because it WAS the scoring itself!

4) A different scoring method (area) would have simply let us played it out in only ONE sequence.

Area scoring might make teaching slightly easier.

Or MUCH easier, as in the case above.

For good teachers - it does not matter all that much - they get results either way.

There is no way a good teacher can show 200 sequences on the board within 5 or 10 minutes, so that a beginners understands everything. The teacher (or here: the scoring opponent) needs more time.

[Sverre]

You would really prefer using area scoring rules over having an enthusiastic and friendly teacher willing to spend time and answer question? You really think the rules issue is that important?

Is it impossible for an enthusiastic and friendly teacher to teach people using area scoring rules? I don't understand your argument.

[HermanHiddema]

You would really prefer using area scoring rules over having an enthusiastic and friendly teacher willing to spend time and answer question? You really think the rules issue is that important?

Is it impossible for an enthusiastic and friendly teacher to teach people using area scoring rules? I don't understand your argument.

My argument is:

Area scoring rules have some advantage when teaching beginners, but it is far more important to be friendly, enthusiastic and patient when teaching, and it is also more important to make sure the beginner learns the rules that he will be playing with against others.

That is all.

I am really stunned that there are people who think using area rules is more important than either of the other two issues, especially the first one.

[PaperTiger]

Area scoring rules have some advantage when teaching beginners, but it is far more important to be friendly, enthusiastic and patient when teaching, and it is also more important to make sure the beginner learns the rules that he will be playing with against others.

That is all.

I am really stunned that there are people who think using area rules is more important than either of the other two issues, especially the first one.

There's a very good chance that the person teaching will be enthusiastic and friendly without any discussion regardless of the rules being taught, so it is off-topic. On the other hand, there's a very good chance that a beginner will be perplexed by the logic of Japanese rules and have trouble playing games against other beginners.

While it is a concern that players will encounter trouble if others around them use a different ruleset, I'm more concerned that a beginner won't get past the logical and practical hurdle of Japanese rules. There are also some ways to alleviate this. If you're teaching a class and having beginners play each other, then they can all be using the same simple rules. If you want to learn to play against a friend or family member, it is more important to be taught easy to learn rules.

If there is an expectation of club play, then it is easier for experienced club players to learn area scoring than it is for a beginner to learn Japanese rules. Play down to their level. Isn't that what you were admonishing Robert about? I also think you need to at least mention the Japanese rules, and say you aren't teaching them because they are best learned after some experience with Chinese-style rules.

And finally, the way to make progress on this issue is to acknowledge the problem and work to fix it. The AGA changed. The BGA changed. KGS runs their tournaments under AGA rules. Trying to trivialize the problem isn't helping.

[jts]

In most cases, regardless of scoring method, group status is determined long before the last dame is filled. This should go for both beginners and advanced players.

You have been a dan player for too long.

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

When Bantari says "status is determined long before the last dame is filled," he doesn't mean that the groups are settled long before the last dame is filled, he means that when there is an unsettled group on the board after the last dame was filled, it was not the last dame that caused the status to be unsettled: usually it was a stone placed five, twenty, even 100 plays earlier.

[Bantari]

1) Because we were using Japanese rules, which do not provide the possibility of playing it out in an area scoring manner.

Jeesh, just play it out anyhow... really - how much of a strict adherent to the dry letter of a rule are you, anyhow? Wait, don't answer that.

In any case, I could sort-of understand your argument if it was a tournament game, but then you would have had help from the TD or whoever.

In club games, be they formal teaching ones or not - you just need to loosen up a little dude. Is adherence to the dry letter of the rules and blind forceful insistence on this adherence worth losing a player? What would have happened if you just slap a few more stones on the board and say: see? The world would come to an end?

This is what I/we were doing in clubs all these decades ago when I was a beginner, and I never even heard of area scoring then neither. It really does not take a rocket scientist.

I still can't believe you alienated a 13k player because of your narrow interpretation. Really, very disappointing. And nothing to do with rules or scoring method.

[Bill Spight]

In most cases, regardless of scoring method, group status is determined long before the last dame is filled. This should go for both beginners and advanced players.

You have been a dan player for too long.

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

When Bantari says "status is determined long before the last dame is filled," he doesn't mean that the groups are settled long before the last dame is filled, he means that when there is an unsettled group on the board after the last dame was filled, it was not the last dame that caused the status to be unsettled: usually it was a stone placed five, twenty, even 100 plays earlier.

Very often it is filling a dame that unsettles a group. Consider the 2x3 eye in the corner. With 2 dame it is alive, but . . . .

[Bill Spight]

The rules of bridge are godawful. The number of "bridge lawyers" is not small. The rules of chess are more complicated than go rules, as well. That has not stopped either game from gaining players.

I don't know about bridge, but I can tell you that the rules of chess are vastly simpler than the illogical rules of Japanese go, which have the catch-22 that to understand the rules so that you can play, you need and understanding of how to play.

The Japanese rules are not illogical. That is a myth.

[Bill Spight]

Go originated in China, not Japan, and the Chinese use area scoring rules.

That's relatively recent. The oldest known scored game records from China appear to use a form of territory scoring. The oldest known description of go rules, also from China, appears to be of a form of stone scoring.

Just how many hundreds of "relatively recent" years is that?

You were talking about the origins of go. The best evidence is that the earliest rules used territory scoring or stone scoring. Stone scoring persisted in China into the 20th century. Modern area scoring probably derived from stone scoring. IIRC, Ing thought that it arose during the Ming Dynasty.

I read Fairbairn's article on this years ago, and my impression was that the claim was based on assumptions involving scant evidence, and hardly conclusive. Records can be very misleading due to lack of context. As an example, when I looked up a game record from a Chinese tournament, I was quite surprised that the dame moves weren't recorded. An alien race poking through the ashes of our civilization might stumble across that single record thousands of years from now and think dame weren't counted under Chinese rules.

The oldest game records with recorded scores plainly used a form of territory scoring. The scores for White and Black do not add to anything close to 361, while they match territory scoring with a group tax. (BTW, territory scoring with a group tax is how we would score the capture game, unless an early capture is made. )

[RobertJasiek]

I still can't believe you alienated a 13k player because of your narrow interpretation.

At the time of the incident, I was simply trapped in the Japanese rules' concepts around having to determine LD status like in LD problems. A thinking outside that box occurred to me only later, when I studied also other rulesets. Anyway, what you are suggesting is to break with Japanese rules and apply an area scoring style playout solution. I.e., you are admitting that Japanese rules application is too difficult in difficult positions. Now, that is a progress; it needed many years of discussion to convince you of that.

The Japanese rules are not illogical. That is a myth.

The Japanese rules (whichever) are illogical, but the basic conceptual ideas of whichever Japanese ruleset is considered is modelled by logical rules or explanations:

- WAGC Rules and J1949 by the Model for WAGC Rules.
- Verbal Japanese Rules by my status commentary.
- J1989 by J2003/v35a.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html