Life In 19x19

In my experience with beginners, I find that they are often obsessed with ending the game at the correct point and not making a single move too many. "Is the game over now? How about now?" They then get hung up on perfecting their skill at recognizing the end of the game (after all, game-ending conditions are part of the rules, right?) with the result that they think they have to acquire 10k-level skills at game-end-recognizing before they can play any games at their current 25k level. Heck, I'm not even always sure when a game is "really over". I much prefer to use area scoring with beginners, and then the answer to all "is this group alive or dead?" questions is just "let's play it out and see".

(It's quite possible that this is more of an issue for adult learners, who might be more uncomfortable with not fully understanding the rules of the game they're playing.)

I teach children mostly, but I also taught adults and I don't really notice them being obsessed with avoiding redundant moves.
Maybe it depends on how much the teacher elaborates on redundant moves?

Ofcourse it's also possible that there is a big difference between the people that I teach and the people thay you teach.
I can imagine that teaching go to a mathematician is not the same as teaching go to a healthcare professional. I have more experience with the latter than the former.

But I think there is always a risk of overteaching (about redundant moves and many other things).
Overteaching will confuse them, make them feel like they do it wrong all the time, make them feel insecure.

So I try to refrain from that. When they need help, I will try to help without going into details that they won't understand yet.
I prefer to let them play as much as possible and leave to them to their own devices to build their confidence.

For example, when there are many unfinished areas and half-dead/alive groups in a novice game and they ask me if the game is finished, I would just point to 1 or 2 locations and encourage them to play on a little bit to clear things up there. When they are both convinced the game is over while there are still some minor loose ends, I may just fix those loose ends for them without any fuss (in a manner that seems fair to me for their level, consulting their opinions about the status of some stones when neccessary) and help them to count the score.

Novices will play redundant moves, but I don't see that as a problem and I don't want them to worry too much about it. Only later, when they have gained some experience and confidence with finishing and scoring games, I will come back to the issue of redundant moves. At that point it will be easier for them to understand the logic.
Still they will keep playing redundant moves, but it will wear off gradually as they gain more experience and become stronger.

I explicitly avoid alerting people to redundant moves, because I want to avoid the sort of obsession with precise game state that I think is very distracting to learners. The reason I prefer area scoring so much is that redundant moves have only an opportunity cost, not an inherent cost, so people (ideally) don't get so hung up on the shame of making explicitly point-losing moves.

But people pick up ideas and attitudes from many sources, not just from me. Anyway, I think the lesson is that everyone has different experiences.

KayaKai wrote:I am mostly curious if i am simply misinterpreting something, because I am seriously considering trying to go to some AGA tournaments if the lockdown ever ends. I want to make sure i am interpreting this correctly. And if i am, it just seems like troll bait to allow that.

Hi,
This is correct. However, I've been running tournaments in France for some years with the french version of the AGA rule, that also uses pass stones and allows free invasions after the neutral points are filled, and I have never seen such a behaviour occurring.
And I agree with Gennan, a troll will troll whatever the scoring rule. In practice, players smart enough to understand that dumb invasions are free under AGA rules are smart enough not to play dumb invasions.

Besides, jlt's note is very true :

jlt wrote:Side note: respond carefully to "dumb" invasions, they can be successful, especially if you think the game is over and lose your concentration.

Bill Spight wrote:In an article in the AGA Journal in the 1970s, when almost everybody in North America used territory scoring, I suggested the use of pass stones, which I called "bookkeeping stones", as a way for people to try out area scoring while using the familiar way of counting the score by territory.

Aaaah ! It was YOU ! You deserve the Nobel prize of go for this !

The question of the best rule is not a matter of trolling or teaching. I agree with Gennan on this point :

gennan wrote:When there is a teacher, I think it's fine for the teacher to use whichever scoring method she feels most comfortable with to teach.

For me, the best rule for the game of go must meet these three requirements:

• It must be clear and complete, so that national go federations around the world can publish it, referees can learn it, and players can understand the referee's decisions.
• It must be easy enough to be understood by novice players when they ask themselves "what does the rule say" ?
• It must be programmable, so that software artificial intelligences can play go and score any game without mistake.

The official Japanese rule (1989) doesn't match any of these three requirements. For example players can't accept that a group with two eyes is seki if it possesses a dame. That makes the referee's task nearly impossible.
Novice can't use it in order to answer their questions because it makes use of life and death to define the score, and novice players can't tell what's alive and what is dead.
And it is not programmable because it relies on perfect play (or at least on some actual attempts to find correct play) in order to define life and death, which in turn defines the score of a player.

Pio2001 wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:In an article in the AGA Journal in the 1970s, when almost everybody in North America used territory scoring, I suggested the use of pass stones, which I called "bookkeeping stones", as a way for people to try out area scoring while using the familiar way of counting the score by territory.

Aaaah ! It was YOU ! You deserve the Nobel prize of go for this !

Oh, I'm sure I was not the only one to come up with that idea. Robert Maas came up with an equivalent rule for the Lasker-Maas rules. But it is certainly possible that the AGA rule can be traced back to that article.

Anyway, today I am a champion of Button Go, which is a hybrid of area and territory scoring. And again, I am not the only person to have thought of that.

what i dont get about aga rules is the following
take this following position

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c dame problem
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X O O . |
$$ ------------[/go]

if its black to play first, c3, with white c2, and then both pass.
but if white plays first, c2, then black c3. after they both pass, white has to pas yet again giving up a stone.
under chinese rules this extra stone doesn't count.
but under japanese rules it does.
which rule set should we use?

phillip1882 wrote:what i dont get about aga rules is the following
take this following position

$$c dame problem
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X O O . |
$$ ------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c dame problem
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X O O . |
$$ ------------[/go]

if its black to play first, c3, with white c2, and then both pass.
but if white plays first, c2, then black c3. after they both pass, white has to pas yet again giving up a stone.

How is it White's turn?

The purpose of the pass stones in AGA rules, in an even game, is to make the number of stones the same for each side when the score is counted, so that the difference between the territory scores is the same as the difference between the area scores. (I know, because I proposed pass stones in the AGA Journal in the 1970s. ) If White plays first in this position that does not happen, unless somehow White has captured one more stone than Black to reach this position. How did that happen?

Edit: Oh, of course. Black has passed, giving White a pass stone. That's why it is White's play.

phillip1882 wrote:...
which rule set should we use?

Use whatever rule set you agreed on before starting the game.

phillip1882 wrote:what i dont get about aga rules is the following
take this following position

$$c dame problem
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X O O . |
$$ ------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c dame problem
$$ ------------
$$ | . X X O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X . O . |
$$ | . X O O . |
$$ ------------[/go]

if its black to play first, c3, with white c2, and then both pass.
but if white plays first, c2, then black c3. after they both pass, white has to pas yet again giving up a stone.
under chinese rules this extra stone doesn't count.
but under japanese rules it does.
which rule set should we use?

You are asking about AGA Rules so I think that you mean "area counting for area scoring" when mistakenly you write "Chinese Rules" and mean "territory counting for area scoring" when mistakenly you write "Japanese Rules". (Chinese Rules and Japanese Rules do not use pass stones. AGA Rules use pass stones so that both area counting and territory counting determine the area score.)

There are equal numbers of black and white stones on the board.

If it is Black's turn, previously the players have made equal numbers of moves. (If they have made earlier passes, they have made equal numbers of earlier passes and have paid equal numbers of pass stones. If they have made earlier removals, they have removed equal numbers of black and white stones.)

If it is White's turns, previously Black has made one excess move and paid one excess pass stone. (If the players have made earlier passes or removals, the combined net effect would equal that of just observing that Black has made one excess move and paid one excess pass stone.)

If the position is the artificial starting position with Black's turn, this is like having started from the empty board with Black's turn.

If the position is the artificial starting position with White's turn, this does not behave like having started from the empty board with Black's turn. Instead, you confuse yourself when nevertheless assuming to be studying AGA Rules. AGA Rules work, in particular, because Black starts the game and White ends the game so that the players make an equal number of moves throughout the game. Your artificial starting position with White's turn does not work (does not equal area counting for area scoring and territory counting for area scoring) because White starts and ends your artificial game.

Your question what ruleset to use is misleading because you confuse rulesets with counting methods. For AGA Rules, use either area counting or territory counting (you can use either because they equally determine the area score). If, however, your broader question is whether to AGA Rules, Chinese Rules or Japanese Rules, you first need to clarify which Chinese Rules and which Japanese Rules. Next, you should educate yourself about the various rulesets: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html