Points at the end of a game

[amnal]

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

But what if white simply plays a single stone and says 'that stone is alive'? The rules still need a procedure for black to demonstrate that white is wrong without actually playing the stones and (in territory scoring) losing points.

[Ortho]

I posted this same question as my first question here when I was learning to play and Amnal helpfully responded in that thread too!

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3571

It's an annoying conceptual problem when you are a beginner, but in now about 500 games I am not sure that it's ever actually come up.

[msgreg]

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?

AGA Rules - Rule 10

Disputes: If the players disagree about the status of a group of stones left on the board after both have passed, play is resumed, with the opponent of the last player to pass having the move. The game is over when the players agree on the status of all groups on the board, or, failing such agreement, if both players pass twice in succession. In this case any stones remaining on the board are deemed alive. Any stone or group of stones surrounded and captured during this process is added to the capturing player's prisoners as usual.

I interpret this to mean the onus is on Black to prove he can capture the stones by actually capturing the stones. With pass stones (i.e. if White simply passes each time), Black incurs no penalty to capture the white stones directly. If Black does not capture the stones and each player passes twice consecutively, then the stones are alive. Under this ruleset, there is no hypothetical play.

[amnal]

I interpret this to mean the onus is on Black to prove he can capture the stones by actually capturing the stones. With pass stones (i.e. if White simply passes each time), Black incurs no penalty to capture the white stones directly. If Black does not capture the stones and each player passes twice consecutively, then the stones are alive. Under this ruleset, there is no hypothetical play.

For this reason, I think AGA rules are very nice. When teaching beginners, pass stones are easy to explain since for them it's just some random thing that clearly doesn't change much, but then it's easy to demonstrate both why white's stone would be dead and why there's no need to actually play it out if you already know the result.

[msgreg]

And I should have added "I interpret this to mean that if there is no agreement on the status of particular stones the onus is on Black to prove he can capture the stones by actually capturing the stones." That is, playing it out is only required if there is disagreement.

[xed_over]

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

But what if white simply plays a single stone and says 'that stone is alive'? The rules still need a procedure for black to demonstrate that white is wrong without actually playing the stones and (in territory scoring) losing points.

Yeah, ok. I believe you're correct here and I'm wrong.

This is where the hypothetical play comes in to prove the life and death status.

And where Chinese and AGA rule sets shine, because the hypothetical play becomes unnecessary, its just real play and you don't lose points to prove it.

[shapenaji]

Out here in Eugene, we just had the Oregon Asian Celebration. I think I've done more teaching in the last 2 days than I've done in the last year.

I noticed the following:

1) Teaching territory scoring was useless except in the case of the die-hards (The people who were REALLY interested in the game anyway, and who would wade through any number of obstacles to get there). Every time I tried to introduce it to a more casual player, you'd see the wheels in their head start spinning really fast, and then stall. I'd have to work harder then to get them through it, and it took precious time from teaching more people.

2) Teaching area scoring resulted in near-immediate games of go. The definition of territory was simple, and I'd just say "See this, this is territory, if anyone gets inside, you have the backup from these surrounding stones to go in there and finish them off"

I never had to explain "Oh, well you shouldn't play in there, because you make your territory smaller, you should just know those can be killed"

Instead, I got to say "You shouldn't play in there, those guys can't escape, you can kill them later if you want to, Go out! Explore! Be Bold!"

3) The counting step did require some additional assistance, but at least they GOT to the counting step. They satisfied themselves to the idea that there was nothing left to be gained and were willing to pass. That's less obvious in territory scoring.

[jts]

Ok, that's interesting. So what exactly were you doing - haphazardly deciding whether to explain territory or area scoring on a case by case basis? Starting with territory and switching to area if they weren't getting it? Territory on the first day, area on the second?

[msgreg]

I never had to explain "Oh, well you shouldn't play in there, because you make your territory smaller, you should just know those can be killed"

Instead, I got to say "You shouldn't play in there, those guys can't escape, you can kill them later if you want to, Go out! Explore! Be Bold!"

I agree this whole post is interesting. But it seems to me that you can say the same in AGA rules - territory counting.

Probably the biggest simplification in area counting is that you don't have to further explain "playing there doesn't change the score" by following through with a complicated example that exchanges filling territory points with either pass stones or captured stones. The example you would use in area counting would be far simpler, even though the conclusions and results are exactly the same.

I have already been using the AGA rules. With your post, shapenaji, I'm starting to be convinced to learn how to teach area counting instead of territory counting (as I have been doing). It seems it will make the "how do you know when the game is over" conversation easier.

[shapenaji]

Ok, that's interesting. So what exactly were you doing - haphazardly deciding whether to explain territory or area scoring on a case by case basis? Starting with territory and switching to area if they weren't getting it? Territory on the first day, area on the second?

I started with territory scoring, (Because that's the way I think about the score. I mean, when I play, even under area rules, I'm still thinking of the board in terms of territory + captures, I just assume the rest of it will work out), but after running into barriers, I realized that there was way too much "extra knowledge" needed to determine the end of the game. I started to switch over to teaching area counting, and after getting a lot of positive feedback, just stuck with it.

[shapenaji]

It seems it will make the "how do you know when the game is over" conversation easier.

Yeah, they can finish capturing at the end of the game if they like, but then, once one person starts capturing, and the other isn't making any more moves, it becomes clear that they can just take those extra moves as "played" and just remove the stones.

[Bill Spight]

A couple of comments that I have made before. (This is a perennial topic! )

First, when beginners learn together without being taught by an experienced player, area scoring is plainly superior. And since that is often the case in the West, it is wise to use area scoring.

Second, if you teach the capture game with no passes, territory scoring is the natural transition. That is, you can show that stopping play and counting territory when there are no dead stones will tell you who wins. There is a group tax, but that is a minor point.

[PeterPeter]

Wow. I didn't expect all that. I'm not sure if I'm less confused, or more . Thanks anyway.

At the risk of straying into politics, has there ever been an attempt to set up an International Go Association? This could standardise the rules, as well as coordinate and promote the game internationally, as FIDE does for chess. I don't think it does the game much good if there can be so much uncertainty over the ending of a game.

[jts]

Peter, there's no uncertainty over the ending of the game - area and territory scoring give the same answer both to when the game ends and to what the score is (within one point, most of the time).

What gets confusing, and complicated, are arguments about which way of ending the game is easier to teach new players!

[amnal]

I don't think it does the game much good if there can be so much uncertainty over the ending of a game.

This might be a legitimate point when it comes to teaching beginners, but part of the reason it remains so debatable is that it honestly practically never comes up in anything other than beginner games, and to experienced players there really isn't any uncertainty. Note that the discussion isn't about the actual result, just about how exactly to express it via strict rules language...something that isn't normally necessary for experienced players who are well aware of the possibilities and don't have a problem agreeing on the correct result.

Nevertheless, area scoring basically removes this problems, and modern rulesets like AGA rules totally remove it by making it easy and fair to play out any possible situation and avoiding ambiguity. Ko threats can be removed at the end of the game without losing points, so there's no barrier to solving all of this. Even for beginners, the uncertainty is removed - even if they play it out wrong, at least they can convince themselves *something* should happen .

Edit: And to be completely clear, there is no uncertainty over the end of the game, and your original example has a clear answer (white's stone is dead) even under rulesets we might consider poorly defined. The problem isn't resolving this, it's how best to make this clear, both to a beginner and in rules language.