Seeking feedback on printable boards for teaching beginners.

[msgreg]

I'm seeking feedback on two teaching boards that I've created based on materials on the Web and working with some helpful folks at the AGA. The boards are designed to print on a standard (USA) letter size (8.5 inches x 11 inches) and cut square.

I've been using the "First Capture Go" 9x9 board for a few months now and decided to also create a "Stone Counting Method" board with 5x5 and 7x7 boards.

The main link is: http://www.cmgo.org/go-kit

Click the "Free download!" links to read the PDFs.

Post your feedback on either or both boards below!

They are free to download and use for your own teaching as well.

[xed_over]

very nice. clean design, easy to read.

[Phelan]

I like the idea.

[msgreg]

Thank you for the comments! I've modified the rules slightly to make clear that suicide is not a valid move and capturing stones occurs before determining suicide.

Using Dieter's suggested word "creates" (section 11 point number 2):

[my wording] "You can place any stone that itself or as part of a group has or creates (through capture) at least one liberty."

Additional comments and reviews would be welcome!

[msgreg]

I've updated the boards to change the term "group" to "chain" wherever it was used. I've also added a capture example of 2 in the corner on the "stone counting" board.

[oren]

I've updated the boards to change the term "group" to "chain" wherever it was used.

Why did you choose to do that? I usually use the term "group" when teaching, so I'm curious.

[msgreg]

Chain, Unit, or String is apparently used synonymously.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Chain
"groups in go are often made up of several chains that co-operate"

"The Japanese make no difference between stone and chain. Both are called ishi."

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Group

"Informally, a group consists of a number of stones of one colour, hanging together as if effectively connected. They are a functional unit on the board, occupying and influencing a certain area." (note the non-precise use of the word "unit")


In sentences such as "An isolated stone or group of stones is captured when all of its liberties are occupied by enemy stones." (http://english.baduk.or.kr/sub02_02.htm?menu=f12&divL=2) the term is not definitive: the sentence applies with either definition of group.

Even on that same page, "As far as capturing is concerned, a solidly connected group of stones is treated as a single unit" suggests that chain does not equal group. There would be no need to specify "solidly connected group" if there were no such thing as "not solidly connected group". Presumably, a "not solidly connected group" is a group consisting of two or more chains.

All that said, I am still trying to balance readability for beginners with being precise (to minimize later confusion).

Some glossaries do not define chain/unit/string.

http://learnbaduk.com/go-terminology.html
http://www.britgo.org/general/definitions

On my Beginner's Go Glossary, I've also recently made the distinction between chains and groups. And of course the distinction is made on some pages of Sensei's Library.

So perhaps the majority of both boards/tutorials would read correctly if I define both chain and group and revert most of the description of capture to "group" to match most glossaries and tutorials.

[oren]

Ok, it's just different than the terminology as I've learned it. It's interesting to see, but it seems to be more confusing to me.

[msgreg]

but it seems to be more confusing to me.

That's exactly what I'd like to avoid if possible.

The problem is that what I refer to in Connect, is not technically a group.

Connect
Stones of the same color that touch each other along a grid line (not diagonal) form a chain.

Yet it is more common to use "group" in the section on Capture (though usually a "Capture" section does not include the first sentence).

Capture
As long as a stone or a chain is connected along a grid line to at least one empty intersection (called a liberty), it remains on the board. Thus, if a stone or chain becomes completely surrounded by stones of the other color (i.e. "has no liberties"), it is captured and removed from the board. You can place any stone that itself or as part of a chain has or creates (through capture) at least one liberty.

So my problem is that under Connect, I define chain, technically, not a group. But I want to use the more common "group" in the Capture section?

Hmmm....I'm thinking most beginner guides don't distinguish between group and chain. But is that lack of preciseness causing the confusion or is it avoiding even more confusion?

Note that I now do not even use the term "group" so I'm hopeful that it will not confuse beginners.

I'll be testing these guides at our club meetings.

Comments welcome!

[oren]

Hmmm....I'm thinking most beginner guides don't distinguish between group and chain. But is that lack of preciseness causing the confusion or is it avoiding even more confusion?

Personally I think it avoids more confusion. I don't seem to have any problem defining a group of stones and if you take all the liberties of a stone with its group, it get captured. I think "chain" adds a new vocabulary that doesn't add much value to teaching.

[msgreg]

I think "chain" adds a new vocabulary that doesn't add much value to teaching.

On the other hand, defining chain and not mentioning "group" actually doesn't add any terms, technically speaking, it simply replaces an ambiguous term with a non-ambiguous term.

Beginners will learn the definition of "group" later on. Of course, not much later on, but definitely after this one-page introduction. It's also important to note that chain is a subset of group. So whatever applies to a group also applies to a chain. But the reverse is not necessarily true.

I just came back from our club meeting and a beginner who's played maybe 20-30 games was saying that identifying chains as distinct from groups is helping him distinguish alive from dead and eyes from false eyes. While neither of these require the distinction between groups and chains, it was confirming for me to hear from this beginner (perhaps 25-28kyu) that this distinction was very relevant to his current understanding.

Perhaps the increased understanding when using chain occurs because of the definitive "solidly connected groups" whereas other configurations of chains (i.e. "groups") may or may not be solidly connected. In this way chain vs. group distinguishes between "can't be separated" and "needs more analysis".

Still thinking about it...more comments welcome.

[xed_over]

I think adding too much technical precision can cause confusion (especially with beginners).

It may be good for computer programmers or other scientific thinkers, but not necessarily for most common folk.

I think most common folk are okay with fuzzier definitions and "groups" that may or may not be actually connected.

Keep it simple -- even if not technically precise.


The only place I generally try to avoid ambiguities is with the phrase "surround to capture". I usually try to use suffocate instead of surround, because surround can be too ambiguous. (but suffocate can still be a little awkward to explain)

[Chew Terr]

I think 'group' is simplest for new beginners. 'Chain' would have to be defined, but 'group' is intuitive enough to make sense without explanation. At higher levels of knowledge, of course, it may be worth distinguishing, but that's not what we're talking about here.