Life In 19x19

Hello.

I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, simple, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

The question could be rephrased as such:
If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?
Or if you don't believe in God:
If all the super-advanced extraterrestrial civilizations of the whole Universe wanted to make a Cosmic Go Tournament, what scoring system would they use?

Note that I am not asking what is the most commonly used scoring system, nor am I asking what scoring system do you personally use.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Alcadeias wrote:Hello.

I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

The question could be rephrased as such:
If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?
Or if you don't believe in God:
If all the super-advanced extraterrestrial civilizations of the whole Universe wanted to make a Cosmic Go Tournament, what scoring system would they use?

Note that I am not asking what is the most commonly used scoring system, nor am I asking what scoring system do you personally use.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Nether, an omnipotent being wouldn't play go since that being would completely understand the game.

Alcadeias wrote:If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?

1:0

Double Button Go.

Forget about Japanese or Chinese because such rules are more complicated than basic territory or area scoring rules.

Universe tournaments would use scoring requiring as little data transfer as necessary and therefore no-pass go (the first player without legal move loses). God can use any scoring system.

Most natural: Depends on how natural is defined.

Most instinctive: I do not have the slightest idea.

Simplest: no-pass go is the simplest scoring system but does not lead to the simplest strategy. (But you ask for the simplest scoring system, so who cares about strategy.)

Most logical: Bad question, because every scoring system can be made logical, and there is no "more logical" between "logical" and "logical".

Most intuitive: To start with, the scoring must take place only on the board itself. Territory scoring and pass stone add ons for area / stone scoring drop out. Secondly, scoring must depend on colour only, not on (life and death) status of stones because the visual colour aspect is "intuitive" while different status for the same colour is "unintuitive". Thirdly, most of one thing is more intuitive than most of two things, therefore stone scoring is more intuitive than area scoring. IMO, visual perception is more intuitive than rules-dependent illegality of moves, so stone scoring is more intuitive than no-pass go; others might perceive this differently.

Most elegant: Depends on how you define "elegant".

For simplicity, play until there are no more legal moves and then count each side's stones on the board.

This tacks on a lot of trite moves at the end of the game, which nobody sincerely wants. Half of the game could be what happens after yose!

tentano wrote:For simplicity, play until there are no more legal moves and then count each side's stones on the board.

This tacks on a lot of trite moves at the end of the game, which nobody sincerely wants. Half of the game could be what happens after yose!

yeah, I'd start from here, and even go as far to say, why stop? just keep playing (and capturing), until the one with the most stones on the board wins.

but soon, you'll realize that most of the moves will be pointless and not actually affect the final outcome of the game.

so you might naturally decide to agree to stop the game at the point where the outcome is no longer being affected, and just count everything from there -- stones on the board, plus empty territory. That is, in fact the idea of the game -- the one who controls the most area of the board, wins.

but then you might take that to the next logical shortcut, and save yourselves some time by counting only the empty territory minus the captures. Afterall, its algebraically the same thing. But this shortcut introduces some potential problems, that the previous method didn't have, namely: 1) having to keep track of prisoners, 2) playing in ones own area can adversely affect one's own score. So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

xed_over wrote:So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

Tim C Koppang wrote:

xed_over wrote:So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

Holmganga.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmgang

i personally really like aga's scoring system, as whether you count area or territory you get the same score.

Tim C Koppang wrote:

xed_over wrote:So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

But learning to be able to correctly judge the possibilities for life (outright, seki, ko) is and important part of learning the game.

It is an illusion to think that using a scoring system that always has a well defined result means you got to the correct defined result. Perhaps a different order of filling in the result would have been seki, not death, etc. You got an answer, but was it the right answer from the point of view of each player. A different order of filling in might have resulted in a different answer.

Perhaps an example is needed?

What about an annihilation goal (first to capture all enemy stones wins)? I'm pretty sure it's essentially equivalent to No-Pass Go, but I'm wondering whether it's exactly the same, that is, whether perfect play with from the final position of an Annihilation Go game until the game is also finished by No-Pass Go rules will always yield the same result.

Anyway, it's probably an improvement on No-Pass Go, as it makes the boring final phase of the game a bit shorter.

luigi wrote:What about an annihilation goal (first to capture all enemy stones wins)? I'm pretty sure it's essentially equivalent to No-Pass Go, but I'm wondering whether it's exactly the same, that is, whether perfect play with from the final position of an Annihilation Go game until the game is also finished by No-Pass Go rules will always yield the same result.

Anyway, it's probably an improvement on No-Pass Go, as it makes the boring final phase of the game a bit shorter.

What is your criterion for winning? Only your own stones on the board? Then Black plays a stone on an empty board and wins.

Other than that, it does sound like no pass go.

tentano wrote:For simplicity, play until there are no more legal moves and then count each side's stones on the board.

This tacks on a lot of trite moves at the end of the game, which nobody sincerely wants. Half of the game could be what happens after yose!

xed_over wrote:yeah, I'd start from here, and even go as far to say, why stop? just keep playing (and capturing), until the one with the most stones on the board wins.

but soon, you'll realize that most of the moves will be pointless and not actually affect the final outcome of the game.

so you might naturally decide to agree to stop the game at the point where the outcome is no longer being affected, and just count everything from there -- stones on the board, plus empty territory. That is, in fact the idea of the game -- the one who controls the most area of the board, wins.

but then you might take that to the next logical shortcut, and save yourselves some time by counting only the empty territory minus the captures. Afterall, its algebraically the same thing. But this shortcut introduces some potential problems, that the previous method didn't have, namely: 1) having to keep track of prisoners, 2) playing in ones own area can adversely affect one's own score. So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Tim C Koppang wrote:Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

Well, then, you keep on playing.

What xed_over is talking about is equivalence scoring, so if the point at which you stop play and agree on dead stones comes after a Black play, White gives up a stone as a prisoner, so that the number of stones on the board during counting is the same for each side. And don't forget the group tax!

Bill Spight wrote:

luigi wrote:What about an annihilation goal (first to capture all enemy stones wins)? [...]

What is your criterion for winning? Only your own stones on the board? Then Black plays a stone on an empty board and wins.

No, because then Black hasn't captured all enemy stones. He hasn't captured any.

(This goal is used in the Redstone Go variant.)