Life In 19x19

I recently took the time to create a short, printable explanation of the rules of go based on Senei's Library's page on basic rules. (http://senseis.xmp.net/?BasicRulesOfGo)

This will be used to teach go at JAFAX 18 later this month. I wanted a concise set of rules to have at each board for beginners to get started with the game. However, I was unable to find anything online that fit on a few pages, but also adequately explained some common problems new players have (like not realizing you can capture when the stone you play would have no liberties). "The Way to Go" is very nice, but much too long to have sitting at every board. Most one page explanations don't offer these examples and so players often need the rules re-explained.

If anyone else has found it challenging to find concise, printable go rules, hopefully this can help them. It is meant to be printable in grayscale (I upped the contrast on the diagrams) but I left the board color in the PDF.

Enjoy!

---

Note: Because this is a Japanese culture festival, I explain scoring using territory scoring rules instead of area scoring like on the Sensei's Library page. Also, I added in some of the basic Japanese go terminology (rule of ko, atari).

my favorite is the "Four Simple Rules" from Yutopian

I personally really like your sheet, moyoaji. Simple, concise and clear. It has everything you need in a very small space. A great introduction for beginners, for sure!

xed_over wrote:my favorite is the "Four Simple Rules" from Yutopian

Yeah, that was one of the ones I was able to find, but it seemed to feel complicated for an absolute beginner. I wanted it to be something that you could have sitting next to a board and the player could read it and start playing with minimal additional instruction.

Four Simple Rules is a decent document. I really liked that it showed a full game from start to finish that could basically be demoed with the document, but I didn't want to use it for several reasons:

1. The front full of diagrams looks complex to someone unfamiliar with the game.
2. It doesn't explicitly state that the stones are played on the intersections. This is always the first thing I need to note when teaching someone go because they simply assume it is played inside the lines. This becomes even more complicated if a shogi board is sitting right next to them (as it will be at JAFAX) and that game is played on the same style of board, but in the lines.
3. It doesn't really explain the idea of sharing liberties and its explanation of a liberty is very quick and unclear if you don't already know it.
4. While some terms were good, others seemed to be just random facts. For example, there is a 15 kyu at my go club who didn't know what "fuseki" meant until I told him. To me, the most important terms in basic go are liberty, ko, territory, and stone. If you know those terms you will understand most beginner conversations. I added in "atari" because I wanted to use another common Japanese term that is also understood by most players.
5. The counting method is one I've never seen actually used. It would seem impractical on a larger board and definitely only works for area scoring.

Phoenix wrote:I personally really like your sheet, moyoaji. Simple, concise and clear. It has everything you need in a very small space. A great introduction for beginners, for sure!

Thanks Phoenix!

Your rules completely neglect the escaper crisis. Ignoring it won't make it go away. [tag: sarcasm]

Other than that, very good!

moyoaji wrote:Note: Because this is a Japanese culture festival, I explain scoring using territory scoring rules instead of area scoring like on the Sensei's Library page. Also, I added in some of the basic Japanese go terminology (rule of ko, atari).

I can tell you're trying to avoid the complications of "dead" stones removed without playing, but you're straddling the fence between area scoring and territory scoring, and leaving the player worse off for it.

For example, in your sample endgame position, White would be really stupid to not play in Black's territory. If both players played this out logically to the bitter end, I believe the score would be tied, whereas as scored in the document Black wins by 1.

You could overcome this by just teaching area scoring (my preference for beginners), or teaching AGA rules which allow for counting by territory + prisoners, but are really just area scoring in disguise. The AGA has a one-page rules summary for beginners listed on their site. They also list this cartoon, which would make for a good take-home brochure, as it includes basic issues that any beginner will experience right away.

moyoaji wrote:This will be used to teach go at JAFAX 18 later this month. I wanted a concise set of rules to have at each board for beginners to get started with the game.

That sounds like you are expecting beginners to play beginners.

Note: Because this is a Japanese culture festival, I explain scoring using territory scoring rules instead of area scoring like on the Sensei's Library page.

If beginners will be playing against experience players, fine. But if beginners will be playing beginners, they can get confused about dead stones at the end of the game. Also, since they will be playing go in the US, there is nothing wrong with teaching them AGA rules. By AGA rules beginners playing each other can and should continue play until all stones left on the board are alive. If they later play by Japanese rules, it is easy for them to adjust. In fact, strategy is rarely different between the two forms of go.

Also, by territory rules the line on p. 3 that says the the winner is the one who controls more of the board is incorrect under Japanese scoring.

If you are going to have beginners play each other, why not take a hint from the Japanese and have them play the Capture Game?

PaperTiger wrote:

moyoaji wrote:Note: Because this is a Japanese culture festival, I explain scoring using territory scoring rules instead of area scoring like on the Sensei's Library page. Also, I added in some of the basic Japanese go terminology (rule of ko, atari).

For example, in your sample endgame position, White would be really stupid to not play in Black's territory. If both players played this out logically to the bitter end, I believe the score would be tied, whereas as scored in the document Black wins by 1.

Actually, in the example position B could go so far as ignoring the first stone W played (unless W played A5 or B4), reply to W's second play, and end at B+2.

Different topic: I have trouble believing that any explanation of Go that involves the phrase "pass stones" could be easier than an explanation without it.

After having taught 12 children aged 11-13, I sat back and
remembered what went not so well. The most difficult thing
was, so I felt, that there was always the need to explain
the basics again and again with respect to some special
situation. With 12 children that is not really managable.
Well it was an interesting course and we all had fun, but
next time I will do better, I said to myself.

One question is quite difficult to answer. Children often
ask: "Are we finished now?" If there is some big eye in the
corner you might be tempted to say: "No, this can be killed."
But this is unfair if both children see the situation as
settled.

I found a solution, which keeps the children playing.
I simply say now: "Play as long as you can. The last one who
is able to play is the winner."
So in the case of a big eye for White, Black will play inside
instead of resigning. The answer to "are we finished?" simply
is: "Who's turn is it? Can you find a move?".

I love this, because you need only the idea of "what are dead
stones?". Dead stones are to be removed and it is not allowed
to create dead stones (suicide is not allowed).

The nice thing is: children will soon enough regard the value
of safe territory, as you will never be able to make the last
move inside the enemies territory. The idea of "territory" comes
in as a helpful idea for achieving the goal of making the
last possible move.

Please believe me: I told this to an 11 year old boy and his grandma.
I played two games with the boy on 9x9 and his third game was
against his grandma.
As his grandma was a total newbie and he was now an expert
I persuaded him to give 4 handicap on 9x9 to his grandma.
They were happily (and funnily) playing and after the boy
resigned there were still 5 points where his grandma could have played.

They agreed to count this as "won be grandma with 5 points".

Next week I will be told what other games they have been playing
in the meantime.

You will say: "No, that's impossible! There must have been situations
where more advice was necessary."

Right you are. There is just one more rule I told them:

Never play two tickling moves in a row.

A "tickling move" is one where the capturing stone could be
captured immediately. Yes, that's the Ko situation. But I
prefer the word "tickling move". They accepted this definition
for a move like that which is a bit funny and awkward.
It seems natural to not allow a tickling move as answer to
a tickling move. In this way you have told them what a Ko is
and how to handle it - without mentioning a technical and
foreign term like "Ko".

I was told that this kind of rule simplification is related
to the "Strasbourg rules".
I just wanted to share my (positive) experience with this
very restricted rule set.

More test cases will follow, and I believe that 7x7 might be even
better for very beginners.

Cheers,
Rainer
(GoChild GoRo with 1766591 points)

Bill Spight wrote:That sounds like you are expecting beginners to play beginners.

There will be instructors who know the game present to teach new players, but the rules will be available for reference and to look at if the instructors are busy. However, ideally, new players could play against each other right away. The goal is to let people experience playing traditional Japanese games (go, shogi, and mahjong).

Bill Spight wrote:Also, by territory rules the line on p. 3 that says the the winner is the one who controls more of the board is incorrect under Japanese scoring.

I don't feel this is incorrect. The winner is the one with the most territory - the one controlling most of the board. Yes, prisoners count as well, but they are much less important. Go is a game of territory, first and foremost, not a game of capturing. And, in almost all cases, territory and area scoring for a game gives the same result, so controlling more of the board is still correct practice even with territory scoring.

---

PaperTiger wrote:I can tell you're trying to avoid the complications of "dead" stones removed without playing, but you're straddling the fence between area scoring and territory scoring, and leaving the player worse off for it.

I'm not really trying to avoid it, I just wanted to keep the document concise. There will be players there to teach the new players, but this gets them started. If you notice, it isn't included on the Sensei's Library page. If I were to update this document, this would probably be the thing I'd want to add the most. Not sure where it could fit without going to 4 pages, but I guess that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (I liked that the document could be just 2 pages if you didn't include the capturing examples, so one page double sided).

PaperTiger wrote:For example, in your sample endgame position, White would be really stupid to not play in Black's territory. If both players played this out logically to the bitter end, I believe the score would be tied, whereas as scored in the document Black wins by 1.

Now, I'm only a 9 kyu player, but I'm not sure how the score could change under any rule set. Yes, white has 2 possible forcing moves against the stone on the left side, but black can simply respond. If white peeps, black fills, and then white has a dead stone in black's territory. Under territory scoring, this is -1 to both black and white, but black still wins by 1. Under area scoring, this is +0 to both sides. Even with AGA pass stones, black passes white a stone (-1), then white plays the dead stone (-1), black fills (-1), then white passes (-1), black passes (-1), and white passes again (-1). The result is black wins 3-2 under AGA territory scoring. Not sure what I'm missing.

PaperTiger wrote:You could overcome this by just teaching area scoring (my preference for beginners), or teaching AGA rules which allow for counting by territory + prisoners, but are really just area scoring in disguise. The AGA has a one-page rules summary for beginners listed on their site. They also list this cartoon, which would make for a good take-home brochure, as it includes basic issues that any beginner will experience right away.

Well, I wanted to teach the Japanese rules. Also, every go club in West Michigan uses territory scoring.

If you notice, that one page AGA document has a glaring error. It says the boards are 9x9, but they are 10x10! I considered using that document until I saw that (and, again, I felt the full board positions were intimidating to new players).

I like that cartoon a lot. (That was one I hadn't found in my online search) However, it is quite long. Yes, it could be a good take-home thing, but the goal was simple handouts to have at the boards.

---

GoRo wrote:After having taught 12 children aged 11-13, I sat back and
remembered what went not so well...

Cheers,
Rainer

I think this method of learning would be fantastic for beginners. I'll try to remember this when teaching go to anyone new (child or not) because learning when to stop and what can or cannot be killed is something I think everyone struggles with. I once caught something in a game that a 5 dan missed at the very end (he said the group was dead, but it was actually seki after a few moves - he was a little surprised when I showed him). I have looked back at old games I played (our club sometimes takes pictures of the final position) and laughed at something both players missed because we were both too tired to keep playing. Thank you for posting this, GoRo.

GoRo wrote:I found a solution, which keeps the children playing.
I simply say now: "Play as long as you can. The last one who
is able to play is the winner." [..] They were happily (and funnily) playing and after the boy resigned there were still 5 points where his grandma could have played.

They agreed to count this as "won be grandma with 5 points".

This is essentially stone scoring.

moyoaji wrote:I'm not really trying to avoid it [the complications of "dead" stones], I just wanted to keep the document concise. There will be players there to teach the new players, but this gets them started.

I think ignoring essential rules in the name of conciseness is a bad idea, teachers or no.

If you notice, it isn't included on the Sensei's Library page.

It's not included there because they use area scoring, where it is not needed. The difference between territory rules and area scoring rules is that it does not cost you points to remove dead stones via play under area scoring, which makes them particularly suitable for beginners ("when in doubt, play it out").

If I were to update this document, this would probably be the thing I'd want to add the most. Not sure where it could fit without going to 4 pages, but I guess that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (I liked that the document could be just 2 pages if you didn't include the capturing examples, so one page double sided).

Sorry, but "dead" stones under Japanese rules are a can of worms, as has been discussed to death here and elsewhere. It's a decades-old issue, and that's why the AGA uses area scoring with pass stones to allow for territory counting. The problem is beginners have no intuition about what is dead or alive, but the Japanese rules very much depend on this intuition.

Now, I'm only a 9 kyu player, but I'm not sure how the score could change under any rule set. Yes, white has 2 possible forcing moves against the stone on the left side, but black can simply respond. If white peeps, black fills, and then white has a dead stone in black's territory. Under territory scoring, this is -1 to both black and white, but black still wins by 1.

The rules, as you've defined them, do not talk about "dead" stones. A single stone erases all the points. Once you admit to stones being virtually dead without playing, you've opened the can of worms.

Well, I wanted to teach the Japanese rules. Also, every go club in West Michigan uses territory scoring.

Then teach "Japanese" rules with pass stones, the AGA rules. The big hurdle is to get them playing in the first place. Once they get some games under their belt then they will be in a position to understand Japanese rules. It's certainly an improvement to what you have now, which completely ignores an essential issue on how to end the game and score it.

PaperTiger, I still don't follow.

Under area scoring, knowing if a group is alive or dead is just as important. In fact, with the explanation given on Senesei's, it would be even worse! Not only would white take away a point from black, but white would gain a point by having the stone let on the board.

The specific cases of 4-bent in a corner and whatnot are rare in games for beginners and, frankly, not that important. So they think the group is alive in their 2nd game ever. So what? If they keep playing, someone will teach this to them.

The important thing to teaching go is getting the person to start playing. Discussions about life and death and rule sets and scoring can come later. First, they need to see how this game can be fun and interesting. I chose to adapt the Sensei's page because it does that.

I know that there are many discussions about how area scoring is better, but in almost all cases it works out exactly the same as territory scoring. The sample game is one of them (unless you're reading something I'm not).

moyoaji wrote:PaperTiger, I still don't follow.

Under area scoring, knowing if a group is alive or dead is just as important. In fact, with the explanation given on Senesei's, it would be even worse! Not only would white take away a point from black, but white would gain a point by having the stone let on the board.

Under area scoring, "When in doubt, play it out." In response to White plunking a "dead" stone down into Black's territory, Black just captures it, and the score remains the same. This is the key. If Black captures under Japanese rules, he has lost points. That's why Japanese rules require agreement, at least by any Japanese rules in ordinary usage.

The specific cases of 4-bent in a corner and whatnot are rare in games for beginners and, frankly, not that important. So they think the group is alive in their 2nd game ever. So what? If they keep playing, someone will teach this to them.

Unfortunately, they will encounter trouble in their first game, because they will logically and logistically have trouble with rules that require intuition about what is alive and dead. Trying to fix this by having a teacher hover over them and dictate what is alive or dead is a poor substitute for just letting them play on their own under simple rules that don't require intuition about life and death.

The important thing to teaching go is getting the person to start playing.

Yes, I agree completely, and that's the position I've been arguing.

Discussions about life and death and rule sets and scoring can come later. First, they need to see how this game can be fun and interesting.

You can't see how a game is fun or interesting if something as basic as ending and scoring the game is opaque.

I chose to adapt the Sensei's page because it does that.

And there's a reason that the Sensei's page uses area scoring. "When in doubt, play it out."

I know that there are many discussions about how area scoring is better, but in almost all cases it works out exactly the same as territory scoring. The sample game is one of them (unless you're reading something I'm not).

You haven't defined what a "dead" stone is that can be removed without playing, so your rules are not Japanese rules. I just followed the logic of your rules, as any beginner would.

PaperTiger wrote:"When in doubt, play it out." You haven't defined what a "dead" stone is that can be removed without playing, so your rules are not Japanese rules. I just followed the logic of your rules, as any beginner would.

If you "play it out" under Japanese rules the score is still the same.

Move 1 is black pass.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ------------
$$ | 5 2 3 . . |
$$ | X 4 X X X |
$$ | O X X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ ------------[/go]

Black has lost 2 points by playing in his own territory, but has captured 2 white stones as well. The score is the same. But perhaps a beginner would not see . It is a more advanced move.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ------------
$$ | . 2 4 5 . |
$$ | X 3 X X X |
$$ | O X X X O |
$$ | O O O O O |
$$ | . . . . . |
$$ ------------[/go]

In this case, Black has still killed 2 stones. White cannot challenge this as any move he makes is either suicide or removing a point from his side of the board. Black does not need to capture at A5. By the rule of "when in doubt, play it out" white loses because black can simply pass forever and never lose (he has 2 eyes). I even did this once against a friend of mine who didn't want to stop. I commanded almost all of a 9x9 board and then made sure both of my groups had 2 eyes. After this, I got up from the table and told him every move from that point on for me was a pass for me and that he could play as many legal moves has he wanted. I had won no matter what he did.

However, let's say the beginner does want to capture. The result is a tie. But I say again, so what? So they end up with a tie in their first game instead of a win they deserved. As long as they play a second game then the first game has served its purpose.

I have heard you should lose your first 100 games of go. If you don't, it means you aren't pushing your limits and aren't learning. Your goal in your first games is not to win, but to learn. Winning comes later.

This is not a tournament. Frankly, who wins and who loses doesn't even matter.