Life In 19x19

xed_over wrote:

jts wrote:Does anyone teach beginners to count zi?

If by "zi" you mean the difference in the number of empty intersections or occupied stones from your opponent -- I call those "points".

Right, so that's not zi. Half that number (the difference between your area and half the board) is what you calculate with Chinese scoring. (I'm not trying to be pedantic, I don't care whether you call these points or zi - just trying to distinguish between two different ways of counting with area, neither of which I've seen used to teach beginners the game.)

jts wrote:Does anyone think it's easy to count up ~180 stones plus territory per side?

Its really easy when done in units of 10.
Set aside one stone for every 10 units, and if you have more that 18 of those, you win.

This is quite a nice example for anyone who's never done it before:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChineseCountingExample

That's how you count zi. Watching someone count zi is like watching a street hustle. Teaching someone to count zi is like teaching an easy magic trick - although Tim, at least, says he does it with beginners after a few weeks of playing the game. -- Is "units of ten" referring to the method you use to keep track of the territory when counting zi, or when counting up the entire board (stones and territory) in a sort of bastardized territory counting? (That's why I asked a two-part question - if you teach a beginner to count area, you need to do one or the other, and I'm not sure which one people think is so easy for beginners.)

I'm confused by your question. I count out the board just like the Chinese counting example linked to above. I do this from the first game onward with new players because it's what I'm personally comfortable with. "Zi" isn't a counting method; it referes to the difference between the count and half the scorable intersections on the board.

The "units of ten" just means that you divide territory and stones into groups of ten. You can place one stone on the side of the board for every ten points while counting. It's just a method of remembering what the count is at for the sake of ease. It's especially useful when trying to remember how much area (i.e., territory) black has before you start counting up stones.

jts wrote: if you teach a beginner to count area, you need to do one or the other, and I'm not sure which one people think is so easy for beginners.)

as demonstrated in that example, you do both (at least that's how I learned it)

just like in territory counting, rearrange your open territory into groups/multiples of 10 -- adding or removing stones from your bowl as necessary to make the count even.

then clear all the white stones off the board and arrange remaining black stones into groups of 10.

then count how many 10s you have total.

edit: Tim and I are saying the same thing
Its late and I really should be going to bed now anyway

Tim C Koppang wrote:I'm confused by your question. I count out the board just like the Chinese counting example linked to above. I do this from the first game onward with new players because it's what I'm personally comfortable with. "Zi" isn't a counting method; it referes to the difference between the count and half the scorable points on the board.

The "units of ten" just means that you divide territory and stones into groups of ten. You can place one stone on the side of the board for every ten points while counting. It's just a method of remembering what the count is at for the sake of ease. It's especially useful when trying to remember how much area (i.e., territory) black has before you start counting up stones.

Sorry, I think my question must have been poorly phrased. The traditional method for counting with Chinese scoring gives a result in zi. That's all I meant by "counting zi". You definitely use this method, I think Xed_over is saying that's what he uses. This is the method I don't think you can teach someone the first time they play (and I think you agree?)

This isn't the only way you could do area scoring, if you agreed with me that counting the board in the Chinese style is a skill you have to learn, but wanted to have a beginner score area anyway. You could also just try to directly count all the stones and territory you have. This is conceptually simple, but much more likely to lead to counting errors than territory scoring (I think we agree on this too?)

jts wrote: This is the method I don't think you can teach someone the first time they play (and I think you agree?)

sure you can.

jts wrote:This isn't the only way you could do area scoring,

the only other method I know of is to use Ing's fill-in counting.

edit: oh, or you could count both black and white, instead of just one or the other.

jts wrote: You could also just try to directly count all the stones and territory you have. This is conceptually simple, but much more likely to lead to counting errors than territory scoring (I think we agree on this too?)

This is exactly what we're doing, but by rearranging, we eliminate the counting errors.

same as with territory scoring.

jts wrote:Sorry, I think my question must have been poorly phrased. The traditional method for counting with Chinese scoring gives a result in zi. That's all I meant by "counting zi". You definitely use this method, I think Xed_over is saying that's what he uses. This is the method I don't think you can teach someone the first time they play (and I think you agree?)

Well, sort of. I suppose you're right. I count out the board for the first few games, but I do make sure that the new player understands what I'm doing. I explain why we only need to count Black's score, for example, and how we need to count territory plus stones. I teach counting by example, in other words. I've never had a new player complain that the counting method is too complex. Once they understand what I'm doing, they are okay with the method.

This isn't the only way you could do area scoring, if you agreed with me that counting the board in the Chinese style is a skill you have to learn, but wanted to have a beginner score area anyway. You could also just try to directly count all the stones and territory you have. This is conceptually simple, but much more likely to lead to counting errors than territory scoring (I think we agree on this too?)

I agree that you could use another counting method, but I'm not sure it would be any easier. Again, the important thing is to let the new player know what your are doing and why you are doing it. Moving the stones around to count them isn't magic, but just a method to make things easier.

xed_over wrote:

jts wrote: if you teach a beginner to count area, you need to do one or the other, and I'm not sure which one people think is so easy for beginners.)

as demonstrated in that example, you do both (at least that's how I learned it)

just like in territory counting, rearrange your open territory into groups/multiples of 10 -- adding or removing stones from your bowl as necessary to make the count even.

then clear all the white stones off the board and arrange remaining black stones into groups of 10.

then count how many 10s you have total.

I understand how to do it, xed_over. I'm asking if you teach beginners to count this way. (There are other options. You could count for them, like Tim. You could do an area count without taking stones on or off the board and destroying the position, which I don't think anyone does, but wouldn't require teaching anyone a special method for counting the board. Or you could have them fill in the territory with prisoners and count the remaining territory, which new players have no problem with.)

Jts, don't you count up territory for new players when teaching the game? It's not like they know the territory counting method from the start, right? How is that any different from what I'm doing?

Also, keep in mind that your original question had do do with scoring systems, not counting methods. I think the area scoring concept is easy for new players to grasp even if the Chinese counting method takes an extra step to learn -- and which I still think is fairly straightforward to learn, even for new players.

Another interesting point: I think it's easier to teach new players not to concentrate too much on capturing when using area scoring. If prisoners go back in the bowls instead of onto the lids, then there is no visual reminder of captures. And this can make it easier to get the new player to focus on developing area instead of capturing. Just a thought.

Tim C Koppang wrote:Jts, don't you count up territory for new players when teaching the game? It's not like they know the territory counting method from the start, right? How is that any different from what I'm doing?

Also, keep in mind that your original question had do do with scoring systems, not counting methods. I think the area scoring concept is easy for new players to grasp even if the Chinese counting method takes an extra step to learn -- and which I still think is fairly straightforward to learn, even for new players.

No, of course I don't count for them. We each fill in the prisoners and count up our territory. I may even have them go over mine to make sure I did my arithmetic right. Then if they want to play another beginner (or even, wishful thinking, someone outside a go club) they can do it without hand-holding. I tell them what the score is based on at the beginning, and we count it up together at the end.

I wouldnt be surprised if you've taught go to far more people than I have, but the fact that you assumed one simply can't learn how to score a game of go without playing it several times confirms me in my views. Go is a game with simple rules. It is not hard to learn how to play a legal game. Every brand new player should be able to go home and play a game with his roommate.

I agree that how you get a beginner to understand the goal of the game, what scoring rules you use, and how you count can be different; but in practice area scoring requires a counting system that will count the stones on the board, and that is either unwieldy, or requires a special technique.

I'm sure you've taught more new players than me (only a handful). However, I think this may be a difference in our attitude towards teaching more than any details of a particular counting method. If I were to teach Japanese counting, I'd probably do it for the new player too the first time. I'm not teaching in a club setting where the players are going to go off on their own right away. I'm teaching one-on-one at home with players who I know will play me a few games in a row. That means I have some time.

As for area scoring, I really don't think it's as difficult as you seem to believe. It's just territory plus stones. The new players all get that concept. Once I demonstrate how the counting is performed, they all seem pretty confident. And since only one person counts in area scoring anyway, it just makes sense that I do it the first time we play.

Anyway, I don't have anything against territory scoring. I can count using either method. It's just a matter of what I learned first.

jts wrote:

Tim C Koppang wrote:Jts, don't you count up territory for new players when teaching the game? It's not like they know the territory counting method from the start, right? How is that any different from what I'm doing?

Also, keep in mind that your original question had do do with scoring systems, not counting methods. I think the area scoring concept is easy for new players to grasp even if the Chinese counting method takes an extra step to learn -- and which I still think is fairly straightforward to learn, even for new players.

No, of course I don't count for them. We each fill in the prisoners and count up our territory. I may even have them go over mine to make sure I did my arithmetic right. Then if they want to play another beginner (or even, wishful thinking, someone outside a go club) they can do it without hand-holding. I tell them what the score is based on at the beginning, and we count it up together at the end.

I wouldnt be surprised if you've taught go to far more people than I have, but the fact that you assumed one simply can't learn how to score a game of go without playing it several times confirms me in my views. Go is a game with simple rules. It is not hard to learn how to play a legal game. Every brand new player should be able to go home and play a game with his roommate.

I agree that how you get a beginner to understand the goal of the game, what scoring rules you use, and how you count can be different; but in practice area scoring requires a counting system that will count the stones on the board, and that is either unwieldy, or requires a special technique.

I find that it's much harder to explain the hypothetical playout at the end of the game to beginners than it is to explain area scoring to beginners. In fact, since the Go culture around me uses territory scoring, I sometimes tell beginners to play it out if in doubt(with no mention of hypotheticals), even if it means they may lose points doing so.
Hypothetical play confuses them, and I think it's more important to get them playing to the end as soon as possible.
As for "going home and playing a roommate", I usually have a pamphlet with simple rules and a full game example they can use as reference. I doubt most beginners can learn the rules and go home to play with no reference.

I've been meaning to switch into teaching just area scoring, and adjusting our main play rules to something like the AGA rules, that can work with both ways of scoring(as I understand it).

Phelan wrote:I've been meaning to switch into teaching just area scoring, and adjusting our main play rules to something like the AGA rules, that can work with both ways of scoring(as I understand it).

The AGA rules refer to Area Counting and Territory Counting.
Rule 12
The AGA ruleset is designed with "pass stones" and "white moves last" to get the same result regardless of the Counting method. But I don't think the result of AGA Territory Counting gives the same result as Japanese Territory Scoring.

The British Go Association ruleset comparison table refers to the AGA rules as Area Scoring with either Area or Territory Counting. While the Japanese ruleset, distinct from all others in the table, uses Territory Scoring.

Just a clarification of terminology I hope this helps the discussion.

msgreg wrote: But I don't think the result of AGA Territory Counting gives the same result as Japanese Territory Scoring.

Sure it does. It was designed to do exactly that.

You're making a distinction between "Counting" and "Scoring" that doesn't need to exist. I use those terms interchangeably. Even the BGA link you referenced links both to the same explanation.

I realize that "Scoring" refers to what is being scored/counted. And "Counting" refers to how it is counted/scored. But for the purposes of this discussion, I consider that distinction to be irrelevant, and doesn't change the end result.

edit: but let's start a new thread for that discussion

PeterPeter wrote:So, if White does play inside the group, what is the procedure? Is the onus on White to prove he can live there, or on Black to prove he can kill?

To answer Peter's question directly, I believe the onus is on White to prove he can live there.

And since black can ignore most of the threats in this specific example, he can still play to actually capture the invading stones and come out ahead, in spite of losing point(s) to do so.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc black move 12 at a
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . 0 9 1 3 5 7 a X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X X X X X X X X X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Before the invasion, its (W:0, B:8, result 8-0 = B+8)

Since black can pass for moves 2,4,6 and 8, white is losing one point for each play (+4 to black). Black answers with (net zero: +1 to black, -1 from black). White must either pass or play elsewhere for 11, so Black now plays the otherwise unnecessary move at a to capture 5 white stones (which I've already counted above as +5 to black; so net -1 to black)

B+8+4+0-1 = B+11
(black has 6 points of territory, and 5 white prisoners)

Black comes out ahead.
(since no white territory has been displayed, instead of subtracting white's prisoners from white's score, algebraically we can just add them to black for the same score difference)