IGS scoring

[Bill Spight]

Off topic, to Pio2001

And that's how the Japanese style of counting (territory minus prisoners) was born.

That's a myth. The earliest scored game records we have used territory scoring. In China. The oldest description of go that we have seems to indicate that stones were counted, but we have no such game records until much later. It is quite possible that both territory and stone scoring derived from an earlier form of the game. We just don't know.

I have nothing against teaching beginners AGA, French, or Chinese rules, but Flint Prophet is playing on IGS, and should use their rules. No sense having beginners get into rules quibbles, IMO.

[Pio2001]

I have nothing against teaching beginners AGA, French, or Chinese rules, but Flint Prophet is playing on IGS, and should use their rules.

Thank for the reminder about the history of go, Bill.

My advice to Flint Prophet is motivated by this post :

Okay, I'm still confused, but have been reading a lot...scoring is a lot harder than I first perceived. And so far, I've not read any chapter in a book on scoring that thoroughly educates me (obviously).

Since he has already read a lot of chapters about scoring, and 80% of them deal with Japanese style scoring, and the problem is that all these failed to "thoroughly" educate him, I tried something else, that gives a straightforward and clear definition of who's the winner.

No sense having beginners get into rules quibbles, IMO.

That's right, but in this case, we need a unique rule worldwide that can be understood by beginners.
No rule that bases the definition of the score on "life" or "death" can be applied by a beginner player, because a beginner can't tell if a stone is dead or alive.
In some simple cases, like an endgame open ko, even an experienced player can't.

[Bill Spight]

No sense having beginners get into rules quibbles, IMO.

That's right, but in this case, we need a unique rule worldwide that can be understood by beginners.
No rule that bases the definition of the score on "life" or "death" can be applied by a beginner player, because a beginner can't tell if a stone is dead or alive.
In some simple cases, like an endgame open ko, even an experienced player can't.

Well, then, tell him to switch to a go server that uses those rules. Otherwise there is trouble ahead.

I learned the Japanese rules, but I was able to rely upon my opponents to tell me which stones were alive or dead. I expect that is the case on IGS.

The problem comes when beginner plays beginner, which was typically the case in the West before the age of the internet. Now it is possible for rank beginners on the internet to consult with experienced players or, possibly, to rely upon the server to do the scoring. In the case in question, IGS was right about the score. The large difference between its score and his counting was not a result of the rules.

[Uberdude]

Count a small board first to practice.

https://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseCountingExample

[Bill Spight]

Count a small board first to practice.

https://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseCountingExample

The problem with a couple of those examples is leaving the dame unfilled. Filling the dame before scoring is the normal practice.

[Mike Novack]

Count a small board first to practice.
https://senseis.xmp.net/?JapaneseCountingExample

The problem with a couple of those examples is leaving the dame unfilled. Filling the dame before scoring is the normal practice.

Perhaps not just "normal practice" but something beginners should certainly do because can make a difference in the score. As dame are filled, it may become apparent that a defensive play is needed. For example, which side fills a dame may affect the connectivity of a group. Life and death situations may depend on how many open dame.