Life In 19x19

Joelnelsonb wrote:So suppose both players passed after the first move or within a couple moves - I know this isn't practical but who would take the game? Would it be a draw?

It is possible to count such an unfinished position to get a score, but rather meaningless.

Joelnelsonb wrote: I'm not understanding how you can "control" territory without actually surrounding it, just because you're in a position to.

You can't, you do have to surround it! Your computer program is wrong.

Joelnelsonb wrote: I've played chess my whole life so in my mind, it doesn't matter if you have the whole board in your favor; if you don't put the nail in the coffin then you don't win.

There's not the same single goal of capturing the king in Go, so it is possible, but silly, to count an unfinished game. For example in your game the only surrounded territory is the marked bit on the right with the dead black stone inside:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . O O . O O X X |
$$ | X X X X X X X O O |
$$ | X O X . . . X O C |
$$ | . O X X O . O C B |
$$ | . O O O X . . O O |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

That black stone can't escape or make 2 eyes so we call it dead, so white has 3 points of territory there plus one capture which is 4 points. No other area of the board is completely surrounded by only one player so it is all neutral, no one's points. So white would win this game by 4 points (plus any komi). But it's better to finish the game before passing and counting.

One final note on the white shape in the lower right...if that shape was completely on its own surrounded by black, your black stone would have killed it by making it impossible to make a second eye. In that case, it would have become your territory, and the white stones would be dead. Like this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . O O . O X X X |
$$ | X X X X X X X O O |
$$ | X O X . . . X O . |
$$ | . O X X O X O . X |
$$ | . O O O X X O O O |
$$ | . . . . . . X X . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

But because white can make its second eye on the lower side, or by capturing the two black stones above, white is alive and the black stone inside is dead.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , b b |
$$ | . . O O . O O X X |
$$ | X X X X X X X O O |
$$ | X O X . . . X O ? |
$$ | . O X X O . O ? X |
$$ | . O O O X . . O O |
$$ | . . . . . . . a ? |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

Uberdude wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:So suppose both players passed after the first move or within a couple moves - I know this isn't practical but who would take the game? Would it be a draw?

It is possible to count such an unfinished position to get a score, but rather meaningless.

Joelnelsonb wrote: I'm not understanding how you can "control" territory without actually surrounding it, just because you're in a position to.

You can't, you do have to surround it! Your computer program is wrong.

Ing rules use proximity scoring, where an empty point belongs to the nearest stone, or is neutral if the nearest stones are different colors. In practice it gives the same score as area scoring, except in very rare cases. But it does allow any board to be scored. (Which, I suspect, is why Ing included it.) By proximity scoring I get a 7 point win for White.

But anyway, the computer program is indeed wrong.

Joelnelsonb wrote:I'm not understanding how you can "control" territory without actually surrounding it

Hi Joel, play, play, and play.

Experience is very helpful to you at this phase.
Direct personal experience.

Many others at your level also ask the same questions
as you do, and they also crave for more instructions, more theory,
and more tips as you do. It's all very natural.

Like a baby learning to walk, or an adult learning to swim, to bike, or to play golf for the first time, theory and tips are OK -- up to a point.
(In the case of babies learning to stand up or to walk, theory is completely useless.
Of course, all anologies have their limitations.)
At the end of the day, we must jump into the pool (and inhale a few mouthfuls
of water), get on the bike (and fall off a few times),
and try to just hit the golf ball (and miss, over 50%, on day one!)

Understanding from theory is one sphere;
understanding from actual combat is another.
It's an iterative process: the two provide a feedback loop
to each other. Learn some theory, test it in real games;
rinse and repeat.

Since you play chess, you already have an understanding
of the process.

You need direct personal experience. Lots of it.
Play bots. Play humans. 9x9, 13x13, all sizes OK.
Finish lots and lots of games.