Life In 19x19

Joelnelsonb wrote:You must bifurcate the scoring method used from the actual rules of game play.

Yeah, I've got no problem separating these two things.

Joelnelsonb wrote: You can play the same game of Go that you know and love simply by stating three things: The liberty rule(s), the ko rule and the basic objective of capture the most stones to win so long as you mention that passing is illegal.

Two of these are right. Obviously its the third that we disagree on...

Joelnelsonb wrote: What your suggesting is true: that many, many strong players have throughout the ages demonstrated that the most effective way to build a stronger position than your opponent is to place emphesis on un-played areas of the board in attempt to make use of them later.... But I'm still not convinced. I often have games, depending on how my opponent plays, where I don't make a single move with the intention of making territory directly. Rather, my moves are aimed at challenging the infrastructure being developed by my opponent and granting limited mobility. You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think ...[(unintended) insult deleted].

Ok, I think I see what's going on here... I think you're confusing strategy (method) with objective (goal).

These aren't the same at all. You can aim at attacking without trying to take territory, as a strategy, but that doesn't change the overall goal (objective), of trying to control a larger sphere of influence on the board.

I think your suggested strategy is a perfectly fine one. Its just not the main objective of the game.

Joelnelsonb wrote: (during that period that never gets played out because of the scoring method used which allows players to agree on the result long before the game has ended)

the scoring method has no bearing on whether or not surrounded stones should be played out to capture or not.

xed_over wrote: Ok, I think I see what's going on here... I think you're confusing strategy (method) with objective (goal)

These aren't the same at all. You can aim at attacking without trying to take territory, as a strategy, but that doesn't change the overall goal (objective), of trying to control a larger sphere of influence on the board.

I think your suggested strategy is a perfectly fine one. Its just not the main objective of the game.

On the contrary, I'm claiming that the statement "Go is about making territory" is subjective. I say this because surrounding intersections in order to control them is, as you said, a strategy. So to say what Go is "about" as an objective statement we must look within the actual confines of the game and not to the most popular strategy employed (because this is subject to change with time). Saying that it's about surrounding territory would be like saying that it's all about responding to a knight's approach with a one space pincer. Why sum up the entire game according to a theory that's been fabricated by players?

Joelnelsonb wrote: (during that period that never gets played out because of the scoring method used which allows players to agree on the result long before the game has ended)

the scoring method has no bearing on whether or not surrounded stones should be played out to capture or not.

Of course it doesn't. Remember though that using a scoring method is simply another strategy and doesn't relate to the rules of the game.


For the record, I wasn't trying to troll this thread

Joelnelsonb wrote: Remember though that using a scoring method is simply another strategy

It's not a different strategy.

Joelnelsonb wrote:On the contrary, I'm claiming that the statement "Go is about making territory" is subjective.

It is not subjective. Objectively, at the end of the game, whoever has the most territory wins. There are many *strategies* for achieving this

Kirby wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:On the contrary, I'm claiming that the statement "Go is about making territory" is subjective.

It is not subjective. Objectively, at the end of the game, whoever has the most territory wins. There are many *strategies* for achieving this

So that's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that at a certain point in the game, both players employ a scoring method to deduce who is leading and will therefore win the game if played until completion. It is at this time that both players agree to quit placing stones.

Joelnelsonb wrote:So that's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that at a certain point in the game, both players employ a scoring method to deduce who is leading

As defined by who is likely to have the most territory at the end of the game.

I don't understand why you are arguing with this.

Kirby wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:So that's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that at a certain point in the game, both players employ a scoring method to deduce who is leading

As defined by who is likely to have the most territory at the end of the game.

Wrong.

Joelnelsonb wrote:You must bifurcate the scoring method used from the actual rules of game play.

Joelnelsonb wrote:Remember though that using a scoring method is simply another strategy and doesn't relate to the rules of the game.

Joelnelsonb wrote:On the contrary, I'm claiming that the statement "Go is about making territory" is subjective. I say this because surrounding intersections in order to control them is, as you said, a strategy. So to say what Go is "about" as an objective statement we must look within the actual confines of the game and not to the most popular strategy employed (because this is subject to change with time).

Joelnelsonb wrote:So that's one way of looking at it. Another is to say that at a certain point in the game, both players employ a scoring method to deduce who is leading and will therefore win the game if played until completion. It is at this time that both players agree to quit placing stones.

[Two players filling up their last dame points in their game]

Player 1: "Well, based on my counting, I think I won by 2 points or so, what do you think Player 2?"

Player 2: "Actually, you forgot that we're inside the Joelnelsonb Go Club, where we use a scoring method based on the scoring function g(x, y) = x^2 + 3y, where (x, y) is the coordinate of a stone and g points is given to the player holding the color of that stone. Based on this heuristic, I am actually winning by 3,858 points, if I did my math right.

Player 1: "But what about the empty intersections marking our territories?"

Player 2: "Don't be silly Player 1, Go isn't about territory!"

Player 1: "Oh, you're right! How silly of me, I should have resigned then, good game Player 2!"

Player 2: "Good game Player 1, and don't forget: Go isn't about territory!"

For your sake, I'm just gonna pretend that post didn't just happen. Like, seriously...

Joelnelsonb wrote:For your sake, I'm just gonna pretend that post didn't just happen. Like, seriously...

Oh I'm sorry, do you have a problem with my mathematically sophisticated scoring function? I am just bifurcating the scoring method used from the actual rules of game play. Please try to remember that using a scoring method is simply another strategy and doesn't relate to the rules of the game, and that making territory is really just subjective.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Uberdude wrote:Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The ideas we're talking about are nothing more than fun food for thought. We all agree on how to play Go practically speaking; it's the finer points of theory that are under discussion. I will remind you that my original post pertained to the OP and I was talking about different playing styles and their association with different nationalities. I made a brief comment about the core theory of the different scoring methods commonly used and was attacked

Joelnelsonb wrote:I made a brief comment about the core theory of the different scoring methods commonly used and was attacked

You write statements like "You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think because you are no Go master (nor is anyone living, imo).", dismissive comments to others like "If you can't understand what I'm saying than just disregard the point altogether. It's isn't vital to the point of the post. But you are in fact wrong", quick to point others as being wrong or mistaken, and when I present an example that highlights the absurdity in your "core theory" you "pretend that post didn't just happen" "for my sake" whatever that means. And you're the one who thinks he's being attacked? Next level trolling, I suggest you stop now.

Joelnelsonb wrote:...I will remind you that my original post pertained to the OP and I was talking about different playing styles and their association with different nationalities. I made a brief comment about the core theory of the different scoring methods commonly used and was attacked

This was the original quote that kicked off the tangential discussion, and it seems to be based on an incorrect premise.

Joelnelsonb wrote:Though I can't remember who it was, someone when I first began playing Go mentioned something about the difference in the "Chinese framework game" vs the "Japanese style of attack and defense." ...I personally prefer the "Japanese style" which involves a lot of intricate, contact fighting and usually involves a lot of dead stones from both sides. Compare this to a "Chinese approach" where players emphasize creating safe structures and often build large moyos in an attempt to take more open territory. ...

I personally know of no one that would characterize the Japanese style as being more associated with contact fighting than the Chinese style. In fact, I think most would characterize the Japanese as having the most peaceful attitude toward Go (you get yours, I get mine).

In terms of the Chinese approach, is it possible that when you were new to Go and heard this quote that the person was referring to the Chinese opening - a particular opening which emphasizes making a framework and which can result in a moyo game? This would be the only way that this comment makes sense to me.

Solomon wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote:I made a brief comment about the core theory of the different scoring methods commonly used and was attacked

You write statements like "You can't tell me this is a "inferior" way to think because you are no Go master (nor is anyone living, imo).", dismissive comments to others like "If you can't understand what I'm saying than just disregard the point altogether. It's isn't vital to the point of the post. But you are in fact wrong", quick to point others as being wrong or mistaken, and when I present an example that highlights the absurdity in your "core theory" you "pretend that post didn't just happen" "for my sake" whatever that means. And you're the one who thinks he's being attacked? Next level trolling, I suggest you stop now.

Now, Solomon... no need to be mean or rude
Indeed, I challenged Joelnelsonb's statements right from the start, and we've been trying to understand each other's point of view ever since. And I think mhlepore may have identified another misunderstanding.

No doubt that joelnelsonb is a fine player, and has used his understanding of the game so far to raise himself to a respectable rank (I'm assuming he's SDK, as mentioned in his profile). Helping him to change what we see as misconceptions may not help him improve any faster, but I think it will help his students improve faster.