Life In 19x19

I read that Go rules weren't formally written until the middle of the twentieth century. Also, Go only reached the west at the start of the twentieth century. So really, that's 100 years of playing Go versus thousands of years, I wouldn't talk like you know what you're talking about either.

If you want to score by how many captured stones it's easy, and you can even make stones you haven't captured but only out-gunned a half point. Because you're both putting stones on the board, it doesn't really prove anything if you surround more empty space, the point of the game is to fill space, and take away the other person's stones, not to look at the empty board as if that matters. It's a game, your opponent matters. You say my game is stupid and simple, I say your game is stupid and simple, that's the way people work.

don't think of go as a square. think of it as a circle. as a vortex. think of it as two people drawing on an etch a sketch, fighting for their color to be more.

darWIN wrote:It's a game, your opponent matters. You say my game is stupid and simple, I say your game is stupid and simple, that's the way people work.

Eh... The existence of a unique point of view does not inherently give that point of view value.

If you're really trying to troll us, admitting that was the goal probably didn't help.

skydyr wrote:

Bantari wrote:I feel like in a Fellini movie... not even sure what this discussion is actually about. Certainly not about Japanese vs Chinese vs AGA scoring.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, there was a thread that started there and eventually wandered to where we are now via how to explain scoring to beginners.

Wrong fantasy? This seems more like Discworld than Star Wars! Where's the librarian when you need him(er... it)?

darWIN wrote:You say my game is stupid and simple, I say your game is stupid and simple, that's the way people work.

And that's OK, isn't it? May I interest you in a game of Malkovich tic-tac-toe?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White to play
$$ +------+
$$ | . . .|
$$ | . X .|
$$ | . . .|
$$ +------+[/go]

I didn't read this monster thread, but:

the most intuitive scoring is counting alive stones at the end of the game. This should map to chinese with group tax.

tapir wrote:I didn't read this monster thread, but:

the most intuitive scoring is counting alive stones at the end of the game. This should map to chinese with group tax.

'intuitive'is very subjective.
To me, the most intuitive is counting what you surrounded plus what you captured.

Bantari wrote:

tapir wrote:I didn't read this monster thread, but:

the most intuitive scoring is counting alive stones at the end of the game. This should map to chinese with group tax.

'intuitive'is very subjective.
To me, the most intuitive is counting what you surrounded plus what you captured.

Try to explain it to a beginner. You need a whole concept less (and one that is the origin of many bad habits) and it is much more straightforward in the handling of seki and similar problems I used to wonder about when learning Go with Japanese rules. (If you start learning without guidance from a book and need to explain the rules to a friend to play this is a real problem. If you feel you don't understand you may never start.)

tapir wrote:

Bantari wrote:

tapir wrote:I didn't read this monster thread, but:

the most intuitive scoring is counting alive stones at the end of the game. This should map to chinese with group tax.

'intuitive'is very subjective.
To me, the most intuitive is counting what you surrounded plus what you captured.

Try to explain it to a beginner.

I did. It worked. Without any glitches.
I was taught like that too when I was a beginner, and obviously - that worked too.

Not sure what else to say.

.

tundra wrote:... area scoring, with its disregard for prisoners, reminded me of a callous general, who did not care how many of his soldiers died, as long as the military objective was achieved. Shouldn't there be some penalty for losing stones?

Before the end of the game, you can think of them as crafty POWs like in Hogan's Heroes and your opponent as some kind of inept Colonel Klink. If it helps, that is...

Well I read an article about the rules that said that the earliest written rules of how you win in the tang dynasty of china which was like around 700 AD said that "most stones win" which sounds like most captures to me. and even counting the living stones on the board, the person who captured more pieces would have more living stones.

tapir wrote:the most intuitive scoring is counting alive stones at the end of the game.

How is it "intuitive" that some stones of the same colour are alive and some are not alive?! Intuition tells one that what looks the same is the same: black stones are black and white stones are white.