You have presumed a combination of teaching of the rules and teaching of basic strategy (life and death), haven't you?

The goal is to teach the student how to play and enjoy the game.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Nobody denies the fun aspect of go.

True, but at times we forget how awful it can be.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Have you presumed otherwise?!?

When I teach a beginner, I try to (ordered by priority):

1. involve the beginner and show him/her that Go is fun, and
2. give him/her enough info that he/she can start enjoying games against other beginners

This implies teaching a combination of rules and strategy and other stuff as well, such as etiquette for example. I honestly cannot imagine separating this into: "Now I teach only rules and nothing else" or even "Now I teach only this particular rule(s) and nothing else." To me, teaching is about trying to give the student what I think he needs at the moment to make some next step - and in most cases this involves a wider horizons than dry separation into rules and strategy.

In case of absolute beginner, teaching to me is mostly about convincing him/her that Go is fun and worth his time and effort. To me, the whole interaction with beginners is all about that. This is one reason I disagree with your statement that 'its ok to crush beginners, its fun.'

I assume you handle it differently. But then - this might be your problem, you know.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

The latter is the punishment for the former. I really don't see players continuing to do this once their opponent concedes that the stones are already dead. It is more useful for players to know that they CAN capture those stones at their leisure, so that they don't rush to do it earlier.



This is a bit of a generalization, it may be true for BGA, but AGA rules have been used nearly universally at tournaments that I've attended within the last 6-7 years.



slight modification, unless you're suggesting that there are tangible benefits to Japanese rules, and not the previous argument, which was the null hypothesis.



I don't believe I expressed apocalyptic fears, but maybe you weren't referring to my concerns.



Whose likeness does this straw man represent?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Thanks for putting them up. I'll bookmark your post for future references. And I'd like to bury the hatchet, as I admit I can be too testy at times. So sorry to everybody for that.

I think you attended a Seattle tournament that would have been run on Japanese rules. I don't think we've ever run one here with AGA rules that I've been to.

The only place I've ever played with AGA rules has been US Congress.

That would have been pretty surprising given that it was for the AGA pro qualification, I vaguely remember handing a pass stone too... But I concede that that could be an artifact of my memory.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Yeah, I was thinking that one was possible, but I think we just ran Japanese rules for it.

I'm glad you brought this up I get really annoyed by the scoring. I absolutely love the game, I think it's very fun, but the scoring bores me to tears. That's why I always say that whoever captured more pieces wins. That way I probably know who won already and I don't have to do a lot of troublesome counting. Although it was really funny at my Go club, this boy beat the other guy, and he went, "2, 4, 6, 8, 74!!!!!!" It's better if I act it out. He just did it so quickly.

So, whoever captured more pieces wins for me. I'm wrong but I don't care. I don't make a fuss, but I do get annoyed when I capture more pieces and the other person got more territory.

But, life isn't fair, and I have to follow the rules. And capturing pieces isn't against the rules. It's the first rule you learn.

Why do you get annoyed when you win? I don't even want to imagine what happens when you lose.
Wait, you did tell your opponent that you were playing a go variant in which whoever has the most prisoners at the end of the game wins, right? Otherwise you two would be playing different games.

You can make the case that an early version of go was in fact scored by who captured more stones. It would have been a form of no pass go.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Probably. It's more satisfying to capture the opponent than it is to learn the complicated territory strategy. If people placed stones on the board without capture at all, wouldn't you both end up with equal amounts of territory?

No. There are even occasional professional games with no captures. The boundaries of territories may be more efficient for one side than another.

Well because they said they won but they didn't capture as many pieces as me. I'm a good loser actually, but I can be kind of a bad winner and gloat a little bit.

To answer your question, sometimes I tell them, and sometimes I don't, and the Go is always the same, either way you count. However if I tell them about the capture scoring then they become far more aggressive. It depends on the player, a woman I played was very good at capture, and captured all of my pieces. another time a man was very bad, even told to be aggressive he didn't do it, and said that my way of scoring would ruin the entire game. He did capture my pieces though, told to be aggressive, but not told to be aggressive, I could capture more pieces than him. Also I had a handicap against him.

Basically the entire game is about capture though. what makes a safe structure is about capture, and the goal is to find weaknesses and attack.

But capture isn't that easy. People notice if you're surrounding them, and try to escape. That's why it is a patient game.

The ladder is the fastest way. But really you need to plot, plan, trap, sneak up on them and surprise them with your kills. Get them in a position where there is no escape.

Do not underestimate the strategy of capture, it is all there is, and be patient. That's a big thing I've learned from the game, patience.

But how, they both placed the same number of stones, they should be taking up the same amount of space.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

For the sake of argument, here's a diagram where each player has played exactly the same number of stones. Black has enclosed twice as much space as white has. There's no way for either player to play stones inside the other's enclosed space without being captured, so instead of playing it out, we just count it as theirs to save time.

For example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 7 8 |
$$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X 2 9 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3 4 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . 5 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | 1 O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | 3 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | 4 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . 5 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3 4 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 2 7 |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So long as both players agree that one can't survive without being captured in an area surrounded by the other, it's a way to decide that there are no more meaningful plays. Otherwise, play could continue until there are no more legal moves, but the side with the larger empty space would win by being able to capture more so long as both players kept playing. When you pass to end a game, you are basically admitting that you don't think you can keep playing and gain anything. If both players were to keep playing infinitely, the player surrounding less empty space would lose, because he would have to fill his eyes for his groups first, giving his opponent a huge capture.

Does this make sense?

He means if there were no capture rule

The 3.8 version that I have on my computer uses territory scoring by default and I have never seen it or earlier versions have the behavior that you describe.



Count me in as another one who ended up not learning go because of territory scoring. It took me more than a decade after that first experience before I downloaded Igowin and learned to simply pass when it did and have it score, basically skipping out on the whole having to score part until I had enough life and death experience to actually learn territory scoring. (if it hadn't been for Hikaru no Go I would probably never have tried go again)



Yes, I don't want to have to seek specialized help just to learn to play a game.

Also, that doesn't even touch on the unrealistic perspective of finding a teacher to begin with. In my country there is about one go club per 40000 square kilometers or so.