Life In 19x19

luigi wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

luigi wrote:What about an annihilation goal (first to capture all enemy stones wins)? [...]

What is your criterion for winning? Only your own stones on the board? Then Black plays a stone on an empty board and wins.

No, because then Black hasn't captured all enemy stones. He hasn't captured any.

(This goal is used in the Redstone Go variant.)

He hasn't captured any, but he has captured all of them that were on the board.

(All in this case does not mean all of a given number of stones in the bowl, but all of the stones on the board.)

Bill Spight wrote: What xed_over is talking about is equivalence scoring,

am I?

there are so many names and terminology around different rules/scoring methods, I don't always know which one's which.

one of these days, I'd love to be able to just sit across the board from you and ask you a bunch of these type questions, in order to straighten them out in my own mind.

xed_over wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: What xed_over is talking about is equivalence scoring,

am I?

I think so. You are using stone scoring, but counting territory plus prisoners, right? Like AGA rules? That is called equivalence scoring, because the territory plus prisoner count is equivalent to the stone count.

If you just meant to shift to territory scoring, the I am wrong. It is not equivalence scoring.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned Tromp-Taylor rules:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?TrompTaylorRules

Go is played on a 19x19 square grid of points, by two players called Black and White.

Each point on the grid may be colored black, white or empty.

A point P, not colored C, is said to reach C, if there is a path of (vertically or horizontally)
adjacent points of P's color from P to a point of color C.

Clearing a color is the process of emptying all points of that color that don't reach empty.

Starting with an empty grid, the players alternate turns, starting with Black.

A turn is either a pass; or a move that doesn't repeat an earlier grid coloring.

A move consists of coloring an empty point one's own color;
then clearing the opponent color, and then clearing one's own color.

The game ends after two consecutive passes.

A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color.
The player with the higher score at the end of the game is the winner. Equal scores result in a tie.

Bill Spight wrote:

luigi wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: No, because then Black hasn't captured all enemy stones. He hasn't captured any.

(This goal is used in the Redstone Go variant.)

He hasn't captured any, but he has captured all of them that were on the board.

(All in this case does not mean all of a given number of stones in the bowl, but all of the stones on the board.)

With that logic also white had captured all black stones that were on the board before black played his first stone.

Bill Spight wrote:

luigi wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: No, because then Black hasn't captured all enemy stones. He hasn't captured any.

(This goal is used in the Redstone Go variant.)

He hasn't captured any, but he has captured all of them that were on the board.

(All in this case does not mean all of a given number of stones in the bowl, but all of the stones on the board.)

Matti wrote: With that logic also white had captured all black stones that were on the board before black played his first stone.

Ah! The no-move move! Zen go.

Alcadeias wrote:Hello.

I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, simple, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

The question could be rephrased as such:
If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?

Japanese scoring. Obviously.

Bantari wrote:

Alcadeias wrote:Hello.

I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, simple, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

The question could be rephrased as such:
If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?

Japanese scoring. Obviously.

God wrote: Sunjang Baduk, actually.

Problably Stone Scoring.

Alcadeias wrote:I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, simple, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

Hi,
I vote for the chinese aera scoring system.

Natural/logical : one step above the japanese system, I'd say, if we order them as Stones > Aera > Territory + prisoners.

Instinctive/intuitive : way above the japanese one from my point of view. The winner can be guessed just looking at the board and trying to evaluate the aeras. The fact that prisoners must be substracted is not something instinctive for me.

Simple : the japanese system has a point here. It's easier to count the score, both mentally, before the end of the game, and practically, after the end of the game ,with the japanese system.

Elegant : with 15 or 20 "precedents" that had to be handled as exceptions to the rule in the official version of 1949, some even in contradiction with other parts of the rule (three points without counting), and with the schizophrenic version of 1989 (different rules before and after the players pass their turn in succession), nothing could be less elegant than the japanese system.
Ok, the question was rather about the scoring system than the ruleset. Maybe if the japanese rule would have taken the opposite direction from the beginning, that is, counting every free intersection surrounded by living stones as territory, a more elegant system may have been found.
But the fact that the position must be counted as it is when the players have passed is a consequence of the territory counting system (otherwise, one could just pretend to live in order to force his opponent to add stones), and that leads to difficult problems.
The aera system is much more elegant in solving any problem by just resuming the play. A definition of life and death is not even needed since, in last resort, we can directly apply the fundamental rule 1 stone = 1 point (resuming the play until all dead stones are captured, and counting every remaining one).

Pio2001 wrote:Simple : the japanese system has a point here. It's easier to count the score, [...] mentally, before the end of the game

Counting the score before the game end is almost immaterial, but maybe you mean "making a count for positional territorial judgement"? If yes:

1) Which is simpler depends on shapes of regions and strings to be counted.

2) If (1) is not decisive, territory counting is simpler during the very late endgame if we mean "faster" because fewer intersections are counted. Earlier during the game, territory counting is not simpler because it applies regardless of whether area or territory scoring is used!

Capture 30