Life In 19x19

xed_over wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

No, they don't count for nothing, even in area-based games. They are each, one less live stone on the board that your opponent still has on the board. So, that means that there are more actual white stones on the board then. Living stones on the board count toward the area score (just like prisoners count against territory score) -- it all equals out (like algebra; A+B=C or C-B=A).

Right. It'd be like in baseball if you said "instead of giving you a run for every runner that crosses home plate, were just going to subtract a run for every runner who comes up to bat and doesn't score."

Joelnelsonb wrote:

xed_over wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

No, they don't count for nothing, even in area-based games. They are each, one less live stone on the board that your opponent still has on the board. So, that means that there are more actual white stones on the board then. Living stones on the board count toward the area score (just like prisoners count against territory score) -- it all equals out (like algebra; A+B=C or C-B=A).

Right. It'd be like in baseball if you said "instead of giving you a run for every runner that crosses home plate, were just going to subtract a run for every runner who comes up to bat and doesn't score."

Um... this isn't strictly accurate. For example you could have 5 batters in one inning, with 2 on base when the last batter strikes out, giving a net score of -5, and in the other half of the inning, the opposing team's first 3 batters all get struck out, for a net score of -3. But this makes a difference of 2 points, while counting runs it's 0 since no one rounded the bases.

Joelnelsonb wrote:Right. It'd be like in baseball if you said "instead of giving you a run for every runner that crosses home plate, were just going to subtract a run for every runner who comes up to bat and doesn't score."

That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

Since each hit creates a new baserunner (and an opportunity for a runner to fail to cross home), a homerun accomplishes nothing (you didn't get -1, but there's now an extra baserunner in play). The score ends up being -1 * (27 + men left on base).

Since getting on base can only have negative repercussions, fielders wouldn't catch fly balls. And in fact, batters wouldn't want to hit the ball anyways, and would try to strike out by swinging away from the ball. So the pitchers only hope would be to hit the batter. Each at bat, the pitcher tries to hit the batter, and the batter tries to dodge the pitches while making sure to swing in the process. Only once the bases have some runners on does the game return to regular baseball.

Polama wrote:

...Since getting on base can only have negative repercussions, fielders wouldn't catch fly balls. And in fact, batters wouldn't want to hit the ball anyways, and would try to strike out by swinging away from the ball. So the pitchers only hope would be to hit the batter. Each at bat, the pitcher tries to hit the batter, and the batter tries to dodge the pitches while making sure to swing in the process...

Now were talkin...


I didn't think too hard about the baseball analogy, obviously. my only point was that it's kinda a backwards way to count the score but the margin between opponents remains the same.

I think I may be getting red eye just reading this thread.

Joelnelsonb wrote:

xed_over wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:My point is that the dead stones, like prisoners, count for nothing; they just go back into the bowl.

No, they don't count for nothing, even in area-based games. They are each, one less live stone on the board that your opponent still has on the board. So, that means that there are more actual white stones on the board then. Living stones on the board count toward the area score (just like prisoners count against territory score) -- it all equals out (like algebra; A+B=C or C-B=A).

Right. It'd be like in baseball if you said "instead of giving you a run for every runner that crosses home plate, were just going to subtract a run for every runner who comes up to bat and doesn't score."

but just think about it...

area scoring == (number of stones on the board) + (territory)
where (number of stones on the board) = (number of turns) - (prisoners (that were thrown back in the bowl))

territory scoring == (territory) - (prisoners)
where (prisoners) = (number of turns) - (number of stones on the board)

same thing.
so prisoners count. always.

I didn't mean that in the sense that there's no benefit to taking prisoners, I just meant that there's no reason to keep track of them or count them when you're counting all the stones on the board.

Polama wrote: That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

And if the pitcher manages to hit the batter, forcing him to first base, the runner will then try to steal his way home, in order to avoid the negative point. If he gets thrown out along the way, that also avoids the negative point, so he does not have to try very hard

Uberdude wrote:As far as I know everyone, even Chinese pros, uses territory-scoring based approach for score estimating during the game even if the counting at the end is area-based. Are you saying you are counting all the live stones on the board as part of your score estimating process just because the ruleset is area counting? That seems like a huge waste of time.

Fascinating. I've been trying to use area-based half-counting to see if I have a way to 181 (adjust as necessary for komi) when I'm trying to figure out how far ahead or behind I am, with mixed success.

Last night I had White with 6.5 komi and figured I had to get to 178, as I was trying to count and take dame into account, it looked like I was only going to get to 177. Imagine my pleasant surprise when the server said that I won by 1.5.

Counting the stones on the board, I find there tend to be more rectangles that make counting easier: 3x6, 4x4, 2x10, or what have you. When there's a stone inside that territory, and you also have to take prisoners into account, and count both players' territory, I find it gets harder. (Also, I find it harder to keep track of the changing score that way.)

mitsun wrote:

Polama wrote: That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

And if the pitcher manages to hit the batter, forcing him to first base, the runner will then try to steal his way home, in order to avoid the negative point. If he gets thrown out along the way, that also avoids the negative point, so he does not have to try very hard

Come to think of it, every inning ends with 3 outs. So, the only way to get ahead is to get an opposing runner on base and then get him out before he scores. Perhaps this is easier if the pitcher injures the batter sufficiently to slow him down as he runs.

mitsun wrote:

Polama wrote: That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

And if the pitcher manages to hit the batter, forcing him to first base, the runner will then try to steal his way home, in order to avoid the negative point. If he gets thrown out along the way, that also avoids the negative point, so he does not have to try very hard

Weirder and weirder.

Ok, so the pitcher must first get two outs (and the offense wants this too, so he'll lob pitches over and the batter will swing wildly with no intention of making contact), then try to bean the next batter. The ball is dead until the pitcher gets the ball back and the ump calls "play". The baserunner will immediately steal second, and the pitcher will immediately try to throw a strike.

The friendly way to play is that the manager can now call "time!" to create a dead ball and freeze the batter at second. Since we're already trying to bean players, it's worth noting that an injury also causes a dead ball...

The pitcher receives the ball again, the ump calls "play", he pitches and the baserunner steals third. Again "time!" is called. Once more, this repeats, with the baserunner heading for home as the pitcher pitches. If the pitcher manages to pitch 3 strikes in a row, the inning is over with one man left on base. If he throws a ball at any point, the runner makes it home, and he needs to bean this batter and repeat the prrocess (although this batter got some free strikes first, so it'll be harder to accomplish).

I think I may have wandered off topic a little bit here...

Polama wrote:

mitsun wrote:

Polama wrote: That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

And if the pitcher manages to hit the batter, forcing him to first base, the runner will then try to steal his way home, in order to avoid the negative point. If he gets thrown out along the way, that also avoids the negative point, so he does not have to try very hard

Weirder and weirder.

Ok, so the pitcher must first get two outs (and the offense wants this too, so he'll lob pitches over and the batter will swing wildly with no intention of making contact), then try to bean the next batter. The ball is dead until the pitcher gets the ball back and the ump calls "play". The baserunner will immediately steal second, and the pitcher will immediately try to throw a strike.

The friendly way to play is that the manager can now call "time!" to create a dead ball and freeze the batter at second. Since we're already trying to bean players, it's worth noting that an injury also causes a dead ball...

The pitcher receives the ball again, the ump calls "play", he pitches and the baserunner steals third. Again "time!" is called. Once more, this repeats, with the baserunner heading for home as the pitcher pitches. If the pitcher manages to pitch 3 strikes in a row, the inning is over with one man left on base. If he throws a ball at any point, the runner makes it home, and he needs to bean this batter and repeat the prrocess (although this batter got some free strikes first, so it'll be harder to accomplish).

I think I may have wandered off topic a little bit here...

And some people think that go has complicated rules!

skydyr wrote:

mitsun wrote:

Polama wrote: That would be an interesting game of baseball =).

And if the pitcher manages to hit the batter, forcing him to first base, the runner will then try to steal his way home, in order to avoid the negative point. If he gets thrown out along the way, that also avoids the negative point, so he does not have to try very hard

Come to think of it, every inning ends with 3 outs. So, the only way to get ahead is to get an opposing runner on base and then get him out before he scores. Perhaps this is easier if the pitcher injures the batter sufficiently to slow him down as he runs.

Send in the designated crawler.

I like how only two responses to this post have actually been on topic...