Rules of Go simple?

[hyperpape]

I see two conceptual mistakes here.

1) People forget that life and death evaluation is part of the rules of Go as it is actually played--you need it to score the game. Although you can write down simple rules that avoid life and death, beginners aren't taught those rules. Even most players using area scoring don't actually play out life and death to the point where they remove all bothersome stones--they just see live groups.

Scoring and the end of the game is important. Mef is right about gameplay, but that still leaves something out.

I think Jasiek is closest here: Go can have simple rules. As a game that is commonly played, it does not (I hope that statement is acceptable to you, Robert).

2) people are acting as if our goal is to evaluate the complexity of the linguistic statement of the rules, according some notion analogous to computational complexity. This is not the right question. The question was about what it takes for a beginner to understand the rules. Not even for a beginner to understand strategy. Just to be able to understand the rules, one proxy of which would be scoring a completed game. (I'm not 100% sure that's exactly what the original poster meant, but it seems like the best way to ask the question).

[RobertJasiek]

life and death evaluation is part of the rules of Go as it is actually played --you need it to score the game

This is correct for
- Nihon Kiin Rules
- WAGC Rules
- Verbal Japanese Rules
- Most Japanese style go server rules
- Korean Rules

It is wrong for
- simple area scoring rulesets (actually used by some!)
- Simplified Ing Rules (as used by the EGF)
- New Zealand Rules

It is partially right / wrong for (because life and death is mentioned but superfluous in the rules)
- Ing Rules
- Chinese Rules
- AGA Rules
- AGA style rules

Although you can write down simple rules that avoid life and death, beginners aren't taught those rules.

Wrong. - It is correct that some teachers do and some other teachers do not use such rules.

Even most players using area scoring don't actually play out life and death to the point where they remove all bothersome stones--they just see live groups.

This does not imply though that the rules would be needing any life and death. See, e.g., the Simplified Ing Rules, which provide the optional agreement phase without any reference to life and death.

I think Jasiek is closest here: Go can have simple rules. As a game that is commonly played, it does not (I hope that statement is acceptable to you, Robert).

This statement - yes.

[emeraldemon]

Although you can write down simple rules that avoid life and death, beginners aren't taught those rules. Even most players using area scoring don't actually play out life and death to the point where they remove all bothersome stones--they just see live groups.

I just wrote that I do teach beginners in exactly that way

For what it's worth, after a game or 2 I may say something like: "this stone of mine in your territory will die no matter what, you can just take it off now, those extra moves won't matter", which I think most players find fairly intuitive.

edit: I do agree that most players know and teach japanese rules which are more complicated and less elegent. This is something we can all work to change

[RedStick]

I never say that the go-rules are easy.

This is what I'm getting at. Simple yes. But when we say simple to people about to learn the game they take it to mean that they should be easy to understand and apply. Many beginners get turned off to the game when they don't quickly grasp what is going on on the board after they've been told the rules are simple. (in the original post I mention L&D but I could also have included "what is territory?" people often have trouble grasping the object of the game)

My point is that go players should be more up front with the fact that the game is kind of tricky to get the hang of even before elementary strategy comes into the discussion.

Emeraldemon: I've been experimenting with several ways to introduce newbies and I like the method you described earlier. I'll give it a shot next time i kind find someone willing to sit down to learn.

[oren]

Knowing you've reached the end of the game is the trickiest part for beginners. This is where Chess and similar games are much simpler. I've seen many players just continue to play moves inside their own territory because they didn't know it hurt them or that they could do anything else.

I think when you talk about rules, other games are much simpler. There are just more moves that you need to remember for games like chess, but people just keep the list next to them.

[EdLee]

Knowing you've reached the end of the game is the trickiest part for beginners. This is where Chess and similar games are much simpler.

What about certain end-game positions in chess? For example, (King+Rook) v. (King+Rook)?
Or, in some very closed positions where both sides can still freely move their pieces, but because of the closed pawn structures, everything is "stuck" and neither side can do anything useful?
It is not simple at all to tell when you've reached the end of the game in some situations, certainly not for beginners, and maybe not even for some experienced players.

[robinz]

Ed, I think there's a rather important difference there. In Chess, even the rawest beginner knows that the aim is to checkmate one's opponent's king - and that the game is a draw when both sides agree that neither player has any chance of doing so. So, if the players reach a position from which it is clear that neither of them can make any progress, I don't think it will seem strange to them to acknowledge the game as drawn (and therefore over). (Of course, if these are beginners, or even just weak players in general, it may be that both think the game is drawn when more skilful play by one of them would result in a win. But the concept is still there that, if neither side thinks they can achieve anything, a draw is the result.)

Contrast this to what happens in go. Rather than there being one specific goal, the winner is defined simply as the player with the biggest score at the end of the game, the latter being somewhat ill-defined to the beginner. One can only really define the end as "that point beyond which neither player has any beneficial moves left", but one can't really begin to tell when that is without having played at least a few games.

So I think that there is a genuine difficulty here in go, which doesn't exist in chess. I learnt only about 7 months ago, and I don't remember personally having much trouble over this point - at least not for long - but I have since played games against several beginners (my local club is essentially a university one, so naturally has a fairly large turnover of players), and seen that this difficulty definitely does exist for some.

[RobertJasiek]

Except for Korean Rules, this is only strategy. Under other rules, the game ends upon successive passes and each beginner is able to count to two of them.

[HermanHiddema]

Whether or not life and death are part of the rules is really a non-issue when teaching beginners. You will need to teach them about life & death anyway, because you can't really play go without it. It is fundamental to understanding the game. If I only have one session with beginners to teach them, then I will do my utmost to make sure that making eyes is still part of it.

What is far more important when teaching beginners are things like enthousiasm, encouragement, support and patience.

[Kirby]

I see two conceptual mistakes here.

1) People forget that life and death evaluation is part of the rules of Go as it is actually played--you need it to score the game. ...

As far as I am concerned, if two 30k players think that a group is alive, even though it is dead, it is alive for scoring.

If one player disagrees, they should show the refutation.

[EdLee]

Hi Herman,

If I only have one session with beginners to teach them, then I will do my utmost to make sure that making eyes is still part of it.

I have an exact opposite approach. For my first lesson with raw beginners, I don't talk about eyes.
I think it's much better for them to discover eyes on their own (for instance, from capture Go).
If they ask, "When does the game end?" or "How do you know when it's over?"
I reply, "That usually takes a few weeks to learn."

What is far more important when teaching beginners are things like enthusiasm, encouragement, support and patience.

I agree completely.

Actually, I agree with much of what's expressed so far in this thread.
To raw beginners, I say, "The rules are very simple (and elegant), but the game is very rich and beautiful and deep."

[HermanHiddema]

Hi Herman,

If I only have one session with beginners to teach them, then I will do my utmost to make sure that making eyes is still part of it.

I have an exact opposite approach. For my first lesson with raw beginners, I don't talk about eyes.

Note that I only do this when I have only one session with them. On a normal beginners course, eyes do not come up in the first lesson, then its all about playing stones, liberties, capturing, etc. But if I have only one session, say some two hours, then I will end it with a simple explanation of the concept of eyes to make your groups permanently safe. Something they can take home and apply if they want to continue playing.

I think it's much better for them to discover eyes on their own (for instance, from capture Go).

I think its great if they discover them on their own, and I will certainly praise them for doing so. There are plenty of people out there, however, that will not discover them, at least not inside a reasonable time frame. And I'm not going to wait until they've played 50 games for it to happen, because I don't think there is extra value in the self discovery at that point. Mostly, it'll just be endless frustration at their groups getting caught.

Of course every student is different, and some student will prefer to work things out on their own, while others prefer being told. That is a thing for the teacher to judge, and can be quite hard. Either course of action can lead to people getting frustrated, either at you not telling them or at themselves for not understanding it by themselves.

If they ask, "When does the game end?" or "How do you know when it's over?"
I reply, "That usually takes a few weeks to learn."

That would frustrate me as a beginner, I think. To me, it feels like you're refusing to tell me something that sounds like it should be really basic information: "When does the game end". I would tell them something along the lines of:

"The game is over when both players pass, and you pass when you think you cannot make extra points anymore. Of course it takes a while to understand when there are no more points to be made, because you need some tactical insight for it, so if you're unsure feel free to ask me for help."

And then if they ask me for help, I will help them. Not by pointing out what points they can still score, of course, but by asking them which areas they think are theirs, which stones they think are dead, etc. If they agree, I help them count, even if there are still points to be made.

What is far more important when teaching beginners are things like enthusiasm, encouragement, support and patience.

I agree completely.

Actually, I agree with much of what's expressed so far in this thread.
To raw beginners, I say, "The rules are very simple (and elegant), but the game is very rich and beautiful and deep."

Yes. I use similar descriptions.

I think something along the lines of "Although the rules are not hard to learn, that does not mean the game is easy" is als oa fair warning for some students

[walleye]

Territory is a difficult concept, because it relies on life and death. So understanding when the game's over is hard, if you want to use territory to score it.

Area, on the other hand, does not depend on life and death at all. A point on the board where one of your stones stands or an empty point surrounded by your stones is part of your area. That's all there is to it.

It is very easy to understand when the game's over, if you are using area for scoring. The game's over when the whole board is completely divided between Black and White. They start the game with an empty board, they gradually fill it with stones, finally every point belongs to either Black or White. The game is over and the areas can be compared. Whoever has larger area wins.

I find this very simple, indeed.

It's much more difficult to explain how to capture stones, in my opinion. The end of game and scoring is easy.

[hyperpape]

I see two conceptual mistakes here.

1) People forget that life and death evaluation is part of the rules of Go as it is actually played--you need it to score the game. ...

As far as I am concerned, if two 30k players think that a group is alive, even though it is dead, it is alive for scoring.

If one player disagrees, they should show the refutation.

A mistake is harmless. But if the players are baffled, that is a different story.

Talking about refutations already imagines that our beginners are more sophisticated than they would really be, IMHO.

[EdLee]

To me, it feels like you're refusing to tell me something that sounds like it should be really basic information

Nope, I did not say that was the only info I am willing to give or that I'd refuse to answer any more questions.
Of course, if they have more time and would like to know more details, I'm happy to tell them.
And the tone of delivery makes a big difference, like what you said about enthusiasm and support.

For years, I used to say along the lines of "There comes a point in the game where nothing more can be gained by either side,
and so when both players agree the game is over, it is over; and then you count." (Similar to yours;
I think most people have very similar "standard" replies.)
However, my experience was that almost invariably beginners would have a blank look on their faces,
as if this was more puzzling and confusing. Which makes complete sense, because
they lack the experience to know what any of this means. They simply have to play to find out.
Which brings us back to the point that all this takes time.