"nchh","Universal ruleset","2010-03-04 17:23:21","I had a short talk with RobertJasiek about universal ruleset on this forum, I keep thinking these days, which ruleset should be universal? what's the basises? \ \ I think all members will agree that the ruleset should be simple, avoid any opinionated prescript, and it's internal uniform, as well as these two principles: \ 1, less dispute \ 2, less procedure \ \ For rulesets, there are three essential differences: \ 1, scoring method \ 2, the last play policy \ 3, suicide policy \ Let's verify the three difference with the two principles. \ \ [b]1, scoring method[/b] \ This is a common situation. \ [go]$$B \ $$ | . . . . . . . \ $$ | O O O O O O . \ $$ | . . . . . O . \ $$ | . X X . . O . \ $$ | . . . . . O . \ $$ +-------------- \ [/go] \ \ We know the black stones are dead, but this conclusion is obtained by consensus. If black insists it's seki and doesn't play anymore, and white doesn't want to put any stone in his territory, then they need a referee. \ \ When using area scoring, this is not a problem, such dispute can be played out on the board. So territory scoring is eliminated, because it violates the principle one. \ \ In seki situation, there is a prescript that whether the eye(s) are counted. \ [go]$$B \ $$ . . O O X X X X X \ $$ O O X X O O O O X \ $$ O X a X . O b O X \ $$ O X X X O O O O X \ $$ O O O O X X X X . \ [/go] \ \ [go]$$B \ $$ +-------------- \ $$ | . X . O X . . \ $$ | O X O O X . . \ $$ | c O d O X . . \ $$ | O O O X . X . \ $$ | X X X X . . . \ $$ | . . . . . . . \ [/go] \ \ In Japanese rules, the prescript is all eyes in seki are not counted. \ In Chinese rules, the prescript is all eyes in seki are counted. \ I don't know what's the basis for the prescripts, obviously here exist a dispute, it also violates the principle one. \ \ But if using stone scoring: \ Black can't fill a stone at A and white can't fill a stone at B, so A and B are not counted. \ But white can fill a stone at C or D, so one of C and D should be counted. \ \ We can see under the stone scoring, the judgment of eyes in seki is internal uniform, there is no opinionated prescript. So both territory scoring and area scoring are eliminated, [b]stone scoring wins[/b]. \ \ [b]2, the last play policy[/b] \ [quote]AGA rules: \ White must make the last move--if necessary, an additional pass, with a stone passed to the opponent as usual. The total number of stones played and passed by the two players during the entire game must be equal.[/quote] \ \ If the original intention of this policy was for this: \ [quote]12) Counting: There are two methods for counting the score at the end of the game. One is based on territory, the other on area. Although players' scores may differ under the two methods, the difference in their scores, and the game result, will be the same.[/quote] \ Then both counting (especially territory counting) already out, no need to do such policy, it violates the principle two. \ \ If people feel it's unfair that sometimes black can play one more move, then increase the komi. \ \ [b]3, suicide policy[/b] \ In this situation, white to play \ [go]$$B \ $$ . . . . . . \ $$ . . O O . . \ $$ . O X X O . \ $$ . O X e X . \ $$ , . O X X . \ $$ . . . . . . \ [/go] \ \ If not allow suicide, the procedure of playing a move is: \ a, judging whether black has liberty (after play)? if no then jump to c \ b, judging whether white has liberty? if no then it's an illegal move and break the procedure \ c, put a white stone on the board \ d, judging whether black has liberty? if no then take black away \ \ If allow suicide, it's: \ a, put a white stone on the board \ b, judging whether black has liberty? if yes then take black away and break the procedure \ c, judging whether white has liberty? if no then take white away \ \ We can see prohibiting suicide is violates the principle two, so suicide should be allowed. \ \ [b]Conclusion[/b] \ So the final combination is: \ stone scoring \ no last move policy \ allow suicide \ \ Some existing theories will not work in this combination, especially for stone scoring." "xed_over","","2010-03-04 17:33:36","put the first $$ line of your diagram on the same line as the initial [ go ] tag, and I think you'll have less trouble with your diagrams.\ \ like this\ [code]\ [go]$$B\ $$...\ \ [/code]" "nchh","","2010-03-04 17:34:22","Thank you!" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-04 23:08:31","Universal is not the same as simplest. You are right that simplest implies stone scoring but strategy differs severely from area & territory scoring. So for a current universal ruleset, stone scoring is not available. \ \ Where do you get the \"less procedure\" principle from? If applied, then we get \"play all out on the board\" but no agreement on removals phase. Fine for me but you won't get rules that would be universally accepted. So what do you mean by \"universal\"? \ \ To mention another aspect: ko rules also have essential differences." "shapenaji","","2010-03-05 00:23:18","Robert: \ \ Stone-scoring strategy differs greatly?\ \ In general, we'd be talking about each side losing 2 points for each group. This could involve some small changes in strategy, (late endgame threats to cut 2 groups are worth 2 points), but nothing major persay...\ \ \ \ I agree that \"Universally Accepted\" rules is probably not something \ that can be achieved by fiat. It would take a popular ruleset being in existence for a long enough period of time that it became commonplace.\ \ \ RE: Ko Rules\ \ SuperKo is very pretty, in the sense that it removes the spectre of \"No Result\". But as you, and others have pointed out, it's not always simple to implement, even if it is elegant.\ \ Traditional ko is simple, but doesn't achieve what it purports to: eliminating infinite repetition.\ \ Occam's razor seems to be useless here, we simply have to decide which is a greater concern: \"No Result games or complicated multi-kos\"\ \ I personally feel we should never shy away from a complicated position, and that by the time someone actually runs into a loop, they will probably be strong enough to work it out, but there won't be universal agreement on this." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 00:57:13","Yes, the \"group tax\" alters strategy greatly; 0 to ca. 10 points difference to area scoring strategy per game is a lot. \ \ Ko rules: superko or no result are not the only possible choices. One can also choose from long-cycle-ko-rules (a bit complicated and inconsistent with area scoring), short-cycle-ko-rules (easy, easily applicable), or basic-fixed-ko-rules (almost easy, very easy long cycle strategy: not starting a long cycle is always correct strategy)." "Tommie","","2010-03-05 01:41:52","I appreciate your clear & concise, simple & straightforward approach, nchh !" "Wildclaw","","2010-03-05 04:35:04","[quote]I think all members will agree that the ruleset should be simple, avoid any opinionated prescript, and it's internal uniform, as well as these two principles:[/quote] \ \ No, I don't agree. Simplicity above everything else is simply a bad idea. You create rules for the game, not the game for the rules. \ \ Personally, I very much prefer rules that allow for quick scoring in a majority of cases while fitting well together with my mental model of size of plays. As such, I like territory scoring as it requires you to count the least in most circumstances. Area scoring using pass stones and territory counting works fairly well also though, so AGA is definitely an option. \ \ [quote] \ In Chinese rules, the prescript is all eyes in seki are counted. \ I don't know what's the basis for the prescripts, obviously here exist a dispute, it also violates the principle one. \ [/quote] \ \ The Chinese principle one is that you control any space on the board that you either possess directly (have a stone on) or completely surround (and therefore indirectly possess). Nothing more, nothing less. Eyes in seki has nothing to do with it. \ \ But that is only explaining the reasoning. The real flaw in your argument comes from claiming that stone counting is simpler/requiring less procedure than Chinese scoring. Something which is simply wrong and backwards. The algorithm for Chinese scoring is much simpler as it doesn't involve having to consider playing further stones in the scoring phase. I can write a computer program that does Chinese scoring in 10 minutes by simply using flood fill on any area that is completely surrounded by a single color. With stone scoring I have to remember leave an adequate amount of eyes, which is far more complicated. \ \ [quote]2, the last play policy[/quote] \ \ Your conclusion about this one fails, because it is directly based upon your previous flawed conclusion. \ \ [quote]3, suicide policy[/quote] \ \ Well, at least this one seems fairly internally consistent, but as I mentioned above, not everyone agree with your original axioms, so the conclusion really doesn't matter for anyone but rule nerds. \ \ [quote]Conclusion[/quote] \ \ I suggest we use the following axioms instead \ \ 1. Rule nerds are annoying. \ 2. Annoying people are best ignored. \ 3. Ignoring is best done actively \ \ From that I draw the conclusion that we should put all the rule nerds into a locked room and throw away the key while the rest of us plays the actual game using perfectly adequate rule systems. \ \ Just joking. But it is a good point to make about the ridiculousness of arbitrary vague axioms that are strategically applied for conclusions that fits an agenda." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 05:18:19","Stone scoring does not even require flood-filling but simply checking the colour of every intersection. Easier for the programs!" "Wildclaw","","2010-03-05 06:55:47","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142838]Stone scoring does not even require flood-filling but simply checking the colour of every intersection. Easier for the programs![/QUOTE] \ \ No, Stone scoring just moves part of the scoring process outside of the scoring phase. But if it looks like a scoring phase and smells like a scoring phase, then it is a scoring phase. \ \ Hiding the procedure doesn't make it any less procedure." "topazg","","2010-03-05 06:57:42","[QUOTE=Wildclaw;142847]No, Stone scoring just moves part of the scoring process outside of the scoring phase. But if it looks like a scoring phase and smells like a scoring phase, then it is a scoring phase. \ \ Hiding the procedure doesn't make it any less procedure.[/QUOTE] \ \ Agreed, and there's no way I want \"makes things easier for programs\" as a virtue that might make a ruleset preferable to another :)" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 07:02:20","Wildclaw, you confuse scoring with game end procedure." "topazg","","2010-03-05 07:26:46","[QUOTE=nchh;142807]When using area scoring, this is not a problem, such dispute can be played out on the board. So territory scoring is eliminated, because it violates the principle one.[/quote] \ \ I don't agree. Either both violate principle one, or neither violate principle one. The dispute can be played out on the board in territory scoring also. The only difference is that it needs to be reverted for the sake of scoring. Sure, the process is therefore more complicated (although frankly, not much), but there is dispute in both cases, and a process for resolution in both cases. \ \ [QUOTE=nchh;142807]In seki situation, there is a prescript that whether the eye(s) are counted. In Japanese rules, the prescript is all eyes in seki are not counted. In Chinese rules, the prescript is all eyes in seki are counted.I don't know what's the basis for the prescripts, obviously here exist a dispute, it also violates the principle one. \ \ But if using stone scoring: \ Black can't fill a stone at A and white can't fill a stone at B, so A and B are not counted. \ But white can fill a stone at C or D, so one of C and D should be counted. \ \ We can see under the stone scoring, the judgment of eyes in seki is internal uniform, there is no opinionated prescript. So both territory scoring and area scoring are eliminated, [b]stone scoring wins[/b].[/quote] \ \ Again, I disagree. Both territory and area scoring have pretty much arbitrary handling of eyes in seki. However, how territory, stones, seki should be counted is fundamentally an arbitrary principle. There is no confusion as to how the position should be scored with eyes in seki. \ \ If they are to be counted, everyone can count that position. If they are not to be counted, everyone can count that position. If they are to be counted on the proviso that they can be safely filled, everyone can count that position. The only difference is that the last situation also requires fundamental reading and life and death understanding - I think there is just as big an argument that this is not a favourable requirement of scoring. \ \ Stating that \"eyes in seki are to be counted if they can be filled in with stones\" is also an opinionated prescript, and within the bounds of the opinionated prescript all three are internally uniform. \ \ [QUOTE=nchh;142807][b]2, the last play policy[/b] \ \ If the original intention of this policy was for this: \ \ Then both counting (especially territory counting) already out, no need to do such policy, it violates the principle two. \ \ If people feel it's unfair that sometimes black can play one more move, then increase the komi.[/QUOTE] \ \ This is a bit of a stretch. The only increase in procedure is \"white must play last\". That means, at most, one extra move in a game. Also, by being reductionistically prescriptive with the axioms to define a \"good\" new ruleset around, you have managed to miss the positive purpose of the AGA system, namely to create an intuitive and procedurally easy counting system at game end (territory counting) with no penalty for playing unnecessary moves in your own territory. Sure, that aspect has positives and negatives too, but your system of evaluation ignores it. \ \ [QUOTE=nchh;142807][b]3, suicide policy[/b] \ In this situation, white to play \ [go]$$B \ $$ . . . . . . \ $$ . . O O . . \ $$ . O X X O . \ $$ . O X e X . \ $$ , . O X X . \ $$ . . . . . . \ [/go] \ \ If not allow suicide, the procedure of playing a move is: \ a, judging whether black has liberty (after play)? if no then jump to c \ b, judging whether white has liberty? if no then it's an illegal move and break the procedure \ c, put a white stone on the board \ d, judging whether black has liberty? if no then take black away \ \ If allow suicide, it's: \ a, put a white stone on the board \ b, judging whether black has liberty? if yes then take black away and break the procedure \ c, judging whether white has liberty? if no then take white away \ \ We can see prohibiting suicide is violates the principle two, so suicide should be allowed.[/QUOTE] \ \ No real complaints here. There is additional complexity with regards to ko fights that this could introduce, but otherwise I don't see the fuss either way on suicide moves. \ \ [QUOTE=nchh;142807][b]Conclusion[/b] \ So the final combination is: \ stone scoring \ no last move policy \ allow suicide \ \ Some existing theories will not work in this combination, especially for stone scoring.[/QUOTE] \ \ I actually think that by making your axioms so simplistic as to preclude a number of the valuable reasons for existing rules to have been put in play, you have reached conclusions that are valid only within a predefined and non-agreed logical context. I think your conclusions for stone scoring are fundamentally flawed, and your conclusion on last move policy as sound but under the basis that your evaluation of it excludes much of the merit that a last move policy was designed for, that may outweigh the values you restricted your initial requirements to. \ \ On the other hand, maybe your intention was to promote debate and disagreement on the subjective value judgements of different scoring systems and rulesets in general :)" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 07:37:32","Territory scoring could be made to rely on exactly one verification sequence (like in Simplified Japanese Rules) but currently it relies on an infinite number of sequences (like in the Japanese 1989 Rules)." "topazg","","2010-03-05 07:39:28","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142856]Territory scoring could be made to rely on exactly one verification sequence (like in Simplified Japanese Rules) but currently it relies on an infinite number of sequences (like in the Japanese 1989 Rules).[/QUOTE] \ \ You mean for group life/death disputes?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 08:09:05","For hypothetical status determinations, dispute or not." "karaklis","","2010-03-05 11:26:37","This is my approach: \ \ 0) Goal of the game is to place more stones on the board than the opponent (stone scoring). \ \ 1) Players make moves alternately, the player with the black stones starts. To balance black's advantage for moving first, both players may agree on a komi (points that are added to the white points in the scoring phase). \ \ 2) A move consists of two steps: \ a) either set a stone on one of the intersections of the board or a pass \ b) remove opponent's stones that have no liberty \ \ 3) It is not allowed to repeat a board position unless the move is a pass \ \ 4) In case of two consecutive passes both players mark dead and living groups. \ a) In case of agreement (which can be expressed by a third pass) the game enters the scoring phase \ b) In case of disagreement the one who marks an opponent's group as dead has to prove that it's dead by resuming the play with setting a stone on the board. If both players have disputed groups, the one who has passed first has to place a stone to capture the disputed group. After setting the stone the game continues as depicted in 1-3. \ \ 5) Scoring phase: \ a) Dead pieces are removed from the board. \ b) Intersections can be filled by the player whose stones surround the intersection. It is up to the player which of these intersection he fills \ c) Each stone on the board counts as one point. The player who has more points (together with komi points as depicted in 1) wins. \ \ Some comments on these rules: \ \ - There is no explicit suicide rule. A player can remove the stones of an opponent's suicidal play with his next move. \ \ - There is no explicit ko rule. This is handled by forbidding position repitition. \ \ - Stone counting: As Robert has pointed out there can be a difference to area/territory counting. However a player who has to make more living groups with the same amount of stones has made less effective play of his stones: making six living groups usually yields in a lot of less points than making one large living group. In the very most cases the number of living groups will be the same or differ by one. Hence the stone counting method is practically the same as area/territory counting. \ \ Did I miss something essential?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 12:23:43","That putting more groups on the board is inefficient is a myth. It happens that one wins with 6 or 7 groups against 1 group under area scoring." "topazg","","2010-03-05 13:18:15","[QUOTE=karaklis;142885]This is my approach...[/QUOTE] \ \ Change it to territory scoring and I smile very happily, I couldn't have made a better system. \ \ Although, you haven't addressed seki issues..." "wms","","2010-03-05 13:39:19","[QUOTE=karaklis;142885]- There is no explicit suicide rule. A player can remove the stones of an opponent's suicidal play with his next move.[/QUOTE]This doesn't make much sense. Look at this:\ \ [GO]$$\ $$ | O O O O O O\ $$ | X X X X . O\ $$ | O . O X . O\ $$-------------[/GO]\ \ Black is alive, right? NOPE! White plays a suicide. Black cannot clear those stones until the \"remove dead stones\" phase of his turn (under your rules). So black must play elsewhere, then remove the three dead white stones...and then white plays in the middle and kills black." "Bantari","","2010-03-05 13:54:15","[QUOTE=karaklis;142885]This is my approach...[/QUOTE] \ \ Very interesting. \ \ Let me share my approach with you all: \ - try to put 5 stones along the same line, horizontall, vertically, or across; \ - whoever does it first, wins! \ \ Simple, elegant, easy to implement and apply. No disagreements, no worry about kos, superkos, and so on. No problems with counting or scoring. No lengthy disputes about the pros and cons of this or that minor quirk in this or that particular wording. No incomprehensible papers on incomprehensible issues, with incomprehensible influence on incomprehensible moves played in incomprehensible game under incomprehensible rules! \ \ Everybody wins, yes? \ I think I am up to something sweet here!" "karaklis","","2010-03-05 14:17:18","[QUOTE=wms;142895]This doesn't make much sense. Look at this: \ \ [GO]$$ \ $$ | O O O O O O \ $$ | X X X X . O \ $$ | O . O X . O \ $$-------------[/GO] \ \ Black is alive, right? NOPE! White plays a suicide. Black cannot clear those stones until the \"remove dead stones\" phase of his turn (under your rules). So black must play elsewhere, then remove the three dead white stones...and then white plays in the middle and kills black.[/QUOTE] \ \ Interesting. Indeed, I missed that. To void these problems, a player should have the possibility to remove the opponent's stones before and after setting a stone. \ \ \ [QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142891]That putting more groups on the board is inefficient is a myth. It happens that one wins with 6 or 7 groups against 1 group under area scoring.[/QUOTE] \ \ Could you point out how often this has happend among the top players? I would love to see/replay such a game. \ \ [QUOTE=topazg;142893]Change it to territory scoring and I smile very happily, I couldn't have made a better system. \ \ Although, you haven't addressed seki issues...[/QUOTE] \ \ I think it is not necessary to explicitly treat seki issues. A group in seki just needs two liberties, the others can be filled. \ \ \ [QUOTE=Bantari;142897]Very interesting. \ \ Let me share my approach with you all: \ - try to put 5 stones along the same line, horizontall, vertically, or across; \ - whoever does it first, wins! \ [/QUOTE] \ I am note sure whether I get your point here. As far as I know you describe the rules of gomoku here. Are you telling that the rules that I have described cannot be identified with go?" "Bantari","","2010-03-05 15:45:38","[QUOTE=karaklis;142899]I am note sure whether I get your point here. As far as I know you describe the rules of gomoku here. Are you telling that the rules that I have described cannot be identified with go?[/QUOTE]\ \ GoMoku? Are you sure?!?\ Bummer...\ \ But... its just a difference of one Moku, which is the same as between area and territory scoring, no?\ \ Its all too complex for me." "shapenaji","","2010-03-05 16:53:01","[QUOTE=Wildclaw;142834]No, I don't agree. Simplicity above everything else is simply a bad idea. You create rules for the game, not the game for the rules. [/QUOTE]\ \ Well, this sounds like an interesting point, except that I have no idea what you mean. This isn't an argument, and no evidence is presented for why this is always the case (which it isn't). \ \ [QUOTE=Wildclaw;142834]\ \ Personally, I very much prefer rules that allow for quick scoring in a majority of cases while fitting well together with my mental model of size of plays. As such, I like territory scoring as it requires you to count the least in most circumstances. Area scoring using pass stones and territory counting works fairly well also though, so AGA is definitely an option.\ \ [/QUOTE]\ \ Well, I don't think there's really any difference between speed of scoring in these different systems.\ \ Japanese Territory scoring is fast, but creates an arbitrary rule for seki.\ \ Area scoring is also fast (and pass stones are unnecessary, unless you want Area scoring to give you the same result as territory scoring. I can't see any reason why these should agree)\ \ Stone scoring is fast, fill in everything you can inside a seki, and then do area counting with a group tax.\ \ Speed isn't the problem with these. I happen to feel that group taxes are nice. But I'd be just as happy with Territory/Area scoring as long as they didn't create a stupid rule for something they call seki.\ \ for example:\ \ [go]$$\ $$ | . . O X O .\ $$ | O O O X O .\ $$ | O X X X O .\ $$ | X X O X O .\ $$ | X X O X O .\ $$ | X X . X O .\ $$-------------[/go]\ \ if I tell you that the black group cannot be captured, how many points of territory does he have?\ \ If the answer is \"Well, it depends on what's happening elsewhere\", then that's stupid. It can't be captured, why should it matter if it's attached to another eye or linked to a white group in seki? \ \ One thing that always attracted me to go was that a living group was a consequence of the rules, not a rule in itself. The japanese rule \"A living group has two eyes\" is redundant and unnecessary." "Bantari","","2010-03-05 17:13:02","[QUOTE=shapenaji;142906] \ [go]$$ \ $$ | . . O X O . \ $$ | O O O X O . \ $$ | O X X X O . \ $$ | X X O X O . \ $$ | X X O X O . \ $$ | X X . X O . \ $$-------------[/go] \ \ if I tell you that the black group cannot be captured, how many points of territory does he have?[/quote] \ \ I see your point, but disagree. \ It is simply insufficient information you give. \ \ I see this criterion as uninteresting, and here is why: \ \ For example, if I show you the situation above and ask - how many points for black here, you'd say: well, it depends on the rest of the board/group/whatever. Under any rules i can think of. What you are talking about is that under some rules you need one additional piece of info (the group is alive), while under others you need two (the group is alive and in seki or not). So its not a qualitative difference, just a quantitative one. But, to answer the question like that, you *always* need some more info about what is going on somewhere else. \ \ I suspect that you can always create a position in which there will be difference between how many pieces of info you need to evaluate them depending on the rules. I also suspect that not always the same set of rules will require more info. \ \ Another example: superko vs. simple ko. \ Under simple ko rule, to answer a question like 'can I take this ko now?' can be answered by giving the last few moves. Under superko rule, you need to give the whole game record, which is an even larger difference than the example you give. But - what does it all mean? And should it be used as a criterion?" "Mef","","2010-03-05 17:28:30","[QUOTE=karaklis;142899]Interesting. Indeed, I missed that. To void these problems, a player should have the possibility to remove the opponent's stones before and after setting a stone. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ If you're going to be adding the extra proviso anyway, might as well keep it how it's always been, and just check for groups of your own that have no liberties at the end of your turn, no? \ \ One other possible effect of having that stone removal stage on the opponent's turn is changing potential superko situations. If you make a move that (under traditional suicide rules) would violate superko by repeating the post-suicide position, it now would not be a violation, because the stone removal would not occur until your opponent's turn." "shapenaji","","2010-03-05 18:09:22","[QUOTE=Bantari;142911]I see your point, but disagree. \ It is simply insufficient information you give. \ \ I see this criterion as uninteresting, and here is why: \ \ For example, if I show you the situation above and ask - how many points for black here, you'd say: well, it depends on the rest of the board/group/whatever. Under any rules i can think of. What you are talking about is that under some rules you need one additional piece of info (the group is alive), while under others you need two (the group is alive and in seki or not). So its not a qualitative difference, just a quantitative one. But, to answer the question like that, you *always* need some more info about what is going on somewhere else. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ Well, my point was that since life is a consequence of the rule of capture and not a rule itself, the only condition should be \"Player A cannot prove that this group is dead\", Extra rules defining certain types of positions which cannot be captured are, as I said before, redundant. \ \ All rulesets have the rule of capture, but only the Japanese ruleset creates special definitions for life: \"two eyes, seki, moonshine, triple ko\" etc... \ \ My point is that lets just keep as few rules as possible and stick with the rule of capture." "Bantari","","2010-03-05 20:45:44","[QUOTE=shapenaji;142917]Well, my point was that since life is a consequence of the rule of capture and not a rule itself, the only condition should be \"Player A cannot prove that this group is dead\", Extra rules defining certain types of positions which cannot be captured are, as I said before, redundant. [/quote] \ \ I call this kind of thinking the 'bible reasoning'. \ The Bible is right because the Bible says so! \ The rule is better because the rules says so. \ \ There is nothing wrong with a subjective rules evaluation... you like this rules better than the other... that's fine. But then you seem to turn around and try to give some seemingly 'objective' and 'logical' reasons for why this particular formulation is objectively better than the other - just because you like it better, this is what it boils down to. I just don't agree with this kind of thinking, that's all. \ \ Rules are like tools. \ You apply this one, you get from A to B. \ You apply that one, you also get to B, but on a different path. \ Which path is better is a matter of preference, that's all. \ \ Other than that, I agree with you. ;)" "nchh","","2010-03-05 22:41:38","[QUOTE=Wildclaw;142834]No, I don't agree. Simplicity above everything else is simply a bad idea. You create rules for the game, not the game for the rules. \ \ Personally, I very much prefer rules that allow for quick scoring in a majority of cases while fitting well together with my mental model of size of plays. As such, I like territory scoring as it requires you to count the least in most circumstances. Area scoring using pass stones and territory counting works fairly well also though, so AGA is definitely an option.[/quote] \ I reply you first for clear my position about this thread, I'm not trying to persuade people to abandon current rulesets, I just want discussing a ruleset which can show the most essence of Go. \ \ Most players are attracted by Go's simple and complex, this contrast is (one of) the most important particularitiy(s) of the game. Trying to simplified Chess-like rules is possibly nonsense, however trying to make Go rules more simple is just like the toppest player trying to carry out more complex thinking, it's significant. \ \ Physicists want a Grand Unified Theory, because they don't want theory relating with some particular cases, though some people still think finding GUT is meaningless. They haven't a common goal, so they can't go a way. \ \ The size of your mental model is not a problem of Go. \ \ [quote]The Chinese principle one is that you control any space on the board that you either possess directly (have a stone on) or completely surround (and therefore indirectly possess). Nothing more, nothing less. Eyes in seki has nothing to do with it. \ \ But that is only explaining the reasoning. The real flaw in your argument comes from claiming that stone counting is simpler/requiring less procedure than Chinese scoring. Something which is simply wrong and backwards.[/quote] \ Your explanation about area scoring is reasonable, area scoring is also internal uniform, no internal contradiction, so both area and stone scoring are candidates. \ \ And I said stone counting is less dispute, not less procedure. \ \ [quote]Your conclusion about this one fails, because it is directly based upon your previous flawed conclusion.[/quote] \ Territory scoring is out, so no need to try to make the result of terriotry and area be same. \ \ A particular case, if the last move (black) is not a dame, then pass a stone to opponent is unreasonable, obviously the last move is not worth one stone. \ [go]$$B \ $$ . . . , . . . . . \ $$ . X X X X X X X . \ $$ . X O O O O C X . \ $$ . X O . O . O X . \ $$ ------------------ \ [/go] \ \ [quote]I suggest we use the following axioms instead \ \ 1. Rule nerds are annoying. \ 2. Annoying people are best ignored. \ 3. Ignoring is best done actively \ \ From that I draw the conclusion that we should put all the rule nerds into a locked room and throw away the key while the rest of us plays the actual game using perfectly adequate rule systems. \ \ Just joking. But it is a good point to make about the ridiculousness of arbitrary vague axioms that are strategically applied for conclusions that fits an agenda. [/quote] \ You are a non-inclusive and arbitrary person, internet is a naturally multivariant world, if you don't like somethinig then keep youself away, the most stupid thing is trying to make oneself annoying. However, I thanks your explanation about area scoring. \ \ My writing speed is low, I'll reply others later." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 22:48:25","karaklis, I do not have top players' statistics on numbers of groups at the game end. Judging from my memory of my own games, greatly different (difference 5+) numbers of groups occur in roughly every 10th or 100th game. Difference 4 (group tax 8) is much more frequent. Since you mention top players, they cry already when a 1 point difference every 500th game occurs due to different rules... \ \ Bantari, to use your own rhetorics, when a long cycle under the basic ko plus some extra rules occurs, whether the game may end can't be answered by looking at only the last two plays. - Bible: In the beginning was the law:) \ \ shapenaji, not only the Japanese but also, e.g. the Korean rules create special definitions for life." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-05 23:38:22","nchh, trying to identify the essence of go by a thought experiment ruleset or set of principles is an interesting objective. Let me try: \ \ - The game is for exactly two players represented by the two colours black and white. \ - The colours have equal rights; therefore either Black or White moves first and then the players alternate moves. \ - Moves are alternating and not simultaneous or spontaneous because it shall be a game of skill and complete information. \ - The game is played on an arbitrary but fixed graph. The grid shape and size 19x19 is given without reason like a seemingly arbitrary but well working physical constant. \ - A stone represents a self-contained object quite like the grid points; therefore stones are played on the grid points. \ - The principle of removal of libertyless stones due to a play is given by divine insight. \ - By this principle, also a player's own libertyless stones are removed. By the principle of alternation rather than simultaneity, stones of one colour are removed first before removal of stones of the other colour is considered. By the same principle, the colour of the first removed stones is the opposing colour. So we have play of a stone of colour A, removal of stones of colour B, removal of stones of colour A, next play of a stone of colour B - alternation of colours! In modern words: suicide is allowed. \ - The game is played on the board. Therefore the only available move type is \"play\". (Principles don't care whether pass-fights can occur. If they can, so be it!) \ - It is a game. Therefore it must be finite. \ - Since the game must be finite, a game end condition is needed. The natural condition is: The player to move cannot move. \ - Since the game must be finite, infinite repetition must be prohibited. The natural condition is: Each repetition is prohibited. Superko. Answering which superko rule is the most natural is more difficult. Since there are no passes, it cannot be a superko variant that refers to passes. It might be a variant that either refers to only the position (as something for that repetition can be assessed) or to the situation (which depends on the right to move next, i.e. also does not depend on passes). I cannot decide between PSK and SSK=NSK (the same when the only move type is play) from principles now. Will have to reflect this some time later. \ - The game must be applicable for humans. Therefore it does not suffice for the game to be finite. Rather the number of moves has to be reasonably small. Here we need an arbitrary, divine extra rule: A player may not play in his two-eye-formation. \ - Scoring, why? We already have a suitable condition: The game end condition. Since the principle is to alternate, the first player violating it loses the game. \ \ Everything else (like komi, splitting of the one ko rule into two or several ko rules, pass, scoring, game end procedures) is not natural but invented to make the game more user-friendly from the view of currently most players." "Wildclaw","","2010-03-06 00:51:46","[QUOTE=shapenaji;142906]Well, this sounds like an interesting point, except that I have no idea what you mean. This isn't an argument, and no evidence is presented for why this is always the case (which it isn't). \ [/QUOTE] \ \ I didn't expect you to agree with me. But that isn't needed. The original poster made a claim that \"I think all members will agree\", which I proved false by disagreeing. I never made any similar claims, because I know very well that different people have different opinions. \ \ As for evidence? Where is the evidence of the original poster. We are talking about arbitrary axioms formed from subjective views. There can by definition not be any evidence. \ \ [quote=shapenaji] \ Japanese Territory scoring is fast, but creates an arbitrary rule for seki. \ [/quote] \ \ The rule isn't really arbitrary at all actually. It comes about as a result of considering territory instead of occupation the basis of the game. Stones forming a seki simply aren't strong enough lay actual claim on any territory. \ \ [quote=shapenaji] \ Stone scoring is fast, \ [/quote] \ \ You forgot the part of filling up pretty much the whole board first, which is the definition of not fast. \ \ [quote=shapenaji] \ then that's stupid. \ [/quote] \ \ This isn't an argument, and no evidence is presented for why this is always the case. \ \ [quote=shapenaji] \ One thing that always attracted me to go was that a living group was a consequence of the rules, not a rule in itself. The japanese rule \"A living group has two eyes\" is redundant and unnecessary. \ [/quote] \ \ The only thing that ever attracted me to go was that it was fun to play. The simplicity of the rules has never been little more than trivia to me. As long as the rules don't start detracting from the game, it makes little difference. \ \ [quote=nchh] \ Most players are attracted by Go's simple and complex, \ [/quote] \ \ Again with the arbitrary claims. That is why I responded to your first post, where you claimed everyone would agree with your axioms. Of course, I can't disprove the \"most players\" statement, since that would require me to randomly poll a large part of the go population. Also, while simple rules may appeal to many, there is nothing that says that even simpler rules would. Especially if those even simpler rules, made the game more tedious to actually play. \ \ [quote=nchh] \ Trying to simplified Chess-like rules is possibly nonsense, \ [/quote] \ \ There are a few special rules in chess that could be removed. The Passant move for example. And then you always have the ending conditions (when will a game result in a draw), that has changed several times through history. \ \ [quote=nchh] \ however trying to make Go rules more simple is just like the toppest player trying to carry out more complex thinking, it's significant. \ [/quote] \ \ No, it is just the same rule bickering that goes on with any other popular game. Go rules nerds may think that they have a purer objective, but they don't. I have seen the exact same discussions played out over the rules of other games." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-06 01:23:07","For which other games have you seen it?" "TMark","","2010-03-06 04:11:23","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142937]For which other games have you seen it?[/QUOTE] \ \ Mornington Crescent? \ \ Best wishes." "Bantari","","2010-03-06 11:37:57","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142928]Bantari, to use your own rhetorics, when a long cycle under the basic ko plus some extra rules occurs, whether the game may end can't be answered by looking at only the last two plays.[/quote] \ \ Exactly my point! \ \ To digress: When I look at the whole rules debate(s), I can't shake the feeling that something is not right. And its not only my incessantly ironical undertones. The question that comes to mind is: Why? Why spend all this energy to fiddle with the rules? It might be possible to devise a 'perfect ruleset' but to get one which people will universally agree to adhere to strictly - I am not sure about that. It might not be possible... \ \ And why do it at all? We all play the game, some of us according to slightly different rules then others, and yet we all not only enjoy it, but also seem to want to continue it indefinitely! If serious disputes occur, during a formal event or such, there usually always is the body of people handling such disputes, and it will not change regardless of which rules you use. For club players it matters even less, I'd say. \ \ 'Lets express it in one rule rather than two' - I understand this sentiment even less. Most players will never care about how exactly the rules are written. As a matter of fact, and I am pretty certain of that, most club players never read any formal written ruleset at all, and chances are - never will. And they constitute the bulk of tournament players. \ \ So I see 'rules researchers' organizing 'rules conferences' and writing 'rules papers' and all that - while the world is still turning the way it always was, and players still play the same game they always played, and I am not sure any new-and-amazing set of yet-again-almost-correct rules will change it. As a matter of fact - I am sure it won't. \ \ This is not to say that the efforts are useless. \ Only that they are, to put it mildly - not all that crucial to the community. \ \ [QUOTE=RobertJasiek;142928]- Bible: In the beginning was the law:)[/quote] \ \ So says the law. ;) \ Its all the same 'bible-defense' - you believe it because it tells you to believe it. \ \ Its called 'leap of faith'. \ Good enough for most religions. \ Is this what we are discussing here?" "Harleqin","","2010-03-06 19:43:59","I am terribly sorry, Bantari, but you arguing with \"leap of faith\" against rule scrutiny is a bit contradictory. Is not this \"leap of faith\" required to blindly follow one ruleset? What makes a person think outside established rules, if not lack of blind faith into these?\ \ Your point of view seems to be subject to the \"fallacy of grey\": that just because not everything is black and white, everything is the same shade of grey, so we may as well stick to what we have and not think about other possibilities.\ \ In german, we call that \"Totschlagargument\", which might be translated as \"killer argument\": phrases that are aimed at killing a discussion, and which can only be countered on a meta level.\ \ So, to get to the subject at hand: what do you believe the best ruleset is, and why?" "shapenaji","","2010-03-06 23:55:26","[QUOTE=Wildclaw;142933]I didn't expect you to agree with me. But that isn't needed. The original poster made a claim that \"I think all members will agree\", which I proved false by disagreeing. I never made any similar claims, because I know very well that different people have different opinions. \ \ As for evidence? Where is the evidence of the original poster. We are talking about arbitrary axioms formed from subjective views. There can by definition not be any evidence. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ You said that you create rules for the game, not a game for the rules. This is a cute phrase, but it has no bearing in reality. Usually I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but jingoistic phrases aren't an argument. Why don't you create a game for the rules? \ \ The original poster posited a pair of premises, and then logically applied each rule to them. Logic does not require evidence. You may disagree with his premises, but he needs no evidence to back up his logic. \ \ [QUOTE] \ The rule isn't really arbitrary at all actually. It comes about as a result of considering territory instead of occupation the basis of the game. Stones forming a seki simply aren't strong enough lay actual claim on any territory. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ What does \"aren't strong enough\" mean? as far as I can tell, neither group can be captured unless one side makes a gross mistake (In both cases the player can make a bad move to put himself in atari). I don't see why a second eye means anything special. \ \ [QUOTE] \ \ You forgot the part of filling up pretty much the whole board first, which is the definition of not fast. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ No, that's unnecessary. You don't need to fill in the board to see what is possible to replace with a stone, hence it's the same as area scoring with a group tax and slightly different seki scoring rules. \ \ [QUOTE] \ The only thing that ever attracted me to go was that it was fun to play. The simplicity of the rules has never been little more than trivia to me. As long as the rules don't start detracting from the game, it makes little difference. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ If you try to build the rules of a game around special cases, you lose the aspect of emergent behavior which creates interesting and unusual gameplay. This is the flaw I see in the Japanese ruleset." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-07 00:03:50","Bantari, in the meantime, rules research has also opened higher level insight of go term definitions. Every player, who wants, can learn from that for his strategy. Concerning the rules study for its own sake, i.e. for explaining the rules, it may be possible for some players to ignore it quite like it is possible for some (other) players to ignore study results on other specialized go fields (like the latest complex Korean joseki findings). Every player can choose what to study for improving their game. That, e.g., you might choose to forgo improving from studying the rules does not prevent others from improving from it. Either is of relatively restricted practical relevance but nevertheless either is very well worth being studied for those who care." "Bantari","","2010-03-07 21:36:14","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143032]Bantari, in the meantime, rules research has also opened higher level insight of go term definitions. Every player, who wants, can learn from that for his strategy. Concerning the rules study for its own sake, i.e. for explaining the rules, it may be possible for some players to ignore it quite like it is possible for some (other) players to ignore study results on other specialized go fields (like the latest complex Korean joseki findings). Every player can choose what to study for improving their game. That, e.g., you might choose to forgo improving from studying the rules does not prevent others from improving from it. Either is of relatively restricted practical relevance but nevertheless either is very well worth being studied for those who care.[/QUOTE] \ \ Yeah... sure... \ And those who care are what?... 1.5 players, statistically speaking?? \ \ Maybe we should start a poll here... how many people think they seriously improved their game by carefully studying the ko article. And by how many levels? 2 grades? 3 grades? Does anybody even studied the article? \ \ Don't get me wrong, Robert. I applaud your efforts. You do something that nobody else does, afaik. Great. But then you seem to turn around and expect that the rest of us should care... well, we do... but maybe not quite in the way you expected. \ \ To me it looks like that: \ You say that a player studying the rules and all the involved trivia can improve his/her strategy. Well, it is probably true. You study the rules for 1 year and improve by 1 stone. But your friend studies something else for the same 1 year (strategy, tsumego, whatever) and improves 5 stones. And then there is the guy who quite Go for a year and he improved by 2 stones!! How about that? \ \ Its all a matter of efficiency. \ And wading through definitions, theorems, and proofs thereof - is not very efficient. \ \ As I said before - scientific method works in science because the result of an individual can be generated using previous results as starting point. In Go - its not possible. You cannot become a pro by taking what Cho Chikun knows and adding an extra definition! It will never be possible. \ \ Why? \ Because a successful player has to know it all - there is no specialization, there is no 'see previous results', and no 'as per theorem #5'. There is no shortcuts... or maybe there are, but they are mostly based on this fleeting quality - intuition. Human brain cannot encompass it all, the discipline is just too vast. Again - its not like science, where you can specialize within a narrow specialization and then specialize within that again. The only mental shortcut we, the Go players, have is to try to 'guess' the result by looking at incomplete data (or data too complex for us to understand) and then compare it against previous results - the intuition! No way around it. This is why the top pros cannot give you a neat little formula explaining why they played this move or that. \ \ You study rules because you like it. Plain and simple. \ Most others would rather play a game..." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-07 23:30:12","Studying rules does not improve playing strength a lot. A bit greater improvement comes from studying many complicated positions used as test examples for rules study. Studying go terms allows a significantly greater improvement. Now you must realize that only rather few terms have been defined formally: E.g., two-eye-formation, eye, life, death, ko, territory. Improving playing strength from that is restricted because \ - these terms are basic, \ - some of these terms help raw beginners more than players already having a rank, \ - a general definition of ko is an improvement for playing practice only in rare games, \ - so far explanations are written more for theoreticians than for practical players (CGT endgame theory or other maths theories have this problem, too). \ This does not prevent improving playing strength from better understanding of terms though: a) Many terms are explained for practical playing in the literature. b) Even the terms above allow a good improvement of playing strength when explained for players rather than for theoreticians. Maybe I will do (b) is some book later. \ \ So far let me give just an example: life. A decade ago, everybody was having difficulties explaining to newbies what life is. Now we know the concept \"possible transformation into a two-eye-formation\", that \"capturable playing under the stones life\" has the two practically important forms nakade capture and snapback, that the concept and the uncapturable / capturable approach are equal etc. With this clear knowledge, beginners have a much easier chance to get a basic life understanding than before. Of course, it is not the math-like definitions of capturable-1 that make them stronger but the knowledge translated into practically applicable form. Rules research has clarified our basic understanding of the go term \"life\" while for practical application one does not have to understand the rules / formal definition level! And what has been your contribution in the meantime? Scepticism and criticism. In the 1990ies, you started with \"cannot be done\" and end with \"was done but is useless\". Nonsense! It is useless only for those who want to perceive it as useless." "matjet","","2010-03-08 00:11:15","To the ideological debate; I think that go draws many of it's players based on having relatively simple elegant rules. If it is possible to make these rules more simple and elegant, then I think it is a good idea.\ \ I was thinking about karaklis's rules of capture and how to fix it without requiring two liberty checks each move (impossible without changing the game significantly), when I came upon RobertJasiek's post above. \ I am very taken with the idea of basing the winner of the game upon who has the last legal* move.\ It requires playing the game to the end where all internal territory is filled, but then there is no need to count any of the stones.\ But then I think, what about komi? Of course, just allow white to pass 6 or 7 times when there is no legal move available to him. This also covers the 1/2 point -> 6.5 komi = 6 passes.\ This is probably an already acknowledged method, but it is the first time I have seen it.\ \ \ To put a modification of RobertJasiek's rules in a clearer form with incorporation of Harleqin's \"double-fixed ko rule\";\ \ \ \ N players (usually 2) agree to play on a board of L*L intersections. After agreeing on the stone colour and move order that each player will take, they agree on the komi(passes, stones not placed on the board) that each will receive. \ \ On their turn, a player X may place a stone of colour X on an empty intersection, if doing so increases the number of their own stones after the move in completed, or they may resign.\ \ If there are any opponent groups with no liberties, they are removed.\ If there are any groups of the player making a move, they are removed.\ If the number of X colour stones on the board has not increased, the move is illegal. \ If there are no legal moves then, if player X has collected less than the number of komi stones agreed at the beginning, the stone may be kept.\ If there is still no legal move, the player has lost.\ \ \ Super ko is covered by;\ \"A play may not leave position A to create position B, if any earlier play has either left position A to create position B or left position B to create position A.\" - From Harleqin. \ [url]http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11258[/url]\ This appears to change the first anomaly of [url]http://senseis.xmp.net/?SuperkoAnomalies[/url], so that it behaves like a normal ko requiring external ko threats.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ The effect;\ Suicide is not allowed because it does not increase the number of stones of the moving player's colour.\ There is effectively a group tax, but go in china used to be played with a group tax anyway.\ eyes in seki DO count, since they provide extra legal moves.\ A player can continue to play legal moves in the opponents territory rather than resign after running out of legal moves in their own territory, but it does not change the outcome of the game. Currently annoying players can legally do this anyway.\ \ Edit-probably you can ignore me, upon further research, i appear to have made some assumptions about what research had already been done. I didn't even realise originally that RobertJasiek was the one who invented the fixed ko rule, so maybe I should add another citation of source regarding the super ko's?" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-08 01:36:05","[quote]I think that go draws many of it's players based on having relatively simple elegant rules. If it is possible to make these rules more simple and elegant, then I think it is a good idea.[/quote] \ \ This notion needs to be challenged periodically. It may be interesting to people of a certain cast of mind to devise elegant rules, but the vast majority of people don't have that mathematically inclined cast of mind and feel uncomfortable with a set of rules that requires it, especially when there is a set already widely available that works for them. \ \ [quote]A decade ago, everybody was having difficulties explaining to newbies what life is. Now we know the concept \"possible transformation into a two-eye-formation\", that \"capturable playing under the stones life\"[/quote] \ \ This is another example of what also needs to be challenged periodically. It was only some people of the minority cast of mind who were having difficulties. Millions of people throughout the world over two thousand years have had no practical difficuties at all in learning to play. They would, however, have immense problems understanding ungrammatical gibberish such as \"capturable playing under the stones life\". As to \"possible transformation into a two-eye-formation\", most of us have long been happy with \"can make two eyes\". \ \ If the majority of potential players are put off from playing go because of a supposedly \"elegant\" ruleset that requires such convoluted gibberish, then a universal ruleset is not a good idea, except in a strictly controlled research lab." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 02:24:55","matjet, how is number of stones on the board something simple or derived from a principle? Concerning your usage of double-fixed-ko-rule, a) the name of that rule is doubtful because it suggests \"twice as fixed\" but such has not been indicated yet (better might be \"undirected fixed ko rule\"), b) as you have also realized, about the double-fixed-ko-rule there is almost no research yet, so we cannot be sure yet how it behaves in not studied shapes (contrarily the behaviour of the fixed ko rule is understood pretty well for quite some known shapes)." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 03:15:06","John, almost all players (in Europe) like the idea of Go possibly having simple / elegant rules and advertise with that to beginners, the media or the public. Contrary to the hundreds of players I have heard saying so, I have seen only a very few exceptions incl. you, Nam Chi-hyong (defending the complicated Korean Rules), Sakai Takeshi (defending the complicated Japanese 1989 Rules). Note that almost all proponents of verbal, undefined, unclear, \"common go theory\" Japanese style rules at least prefer the idea of simple / elegant rules. This goes so far that quite some of them tried to justify the idea by \"evidence\" in verbal Japanese style rules like, e.g., by claiming that having seki or bent-4 in the rules at all would be proof of the simplicity. \ \ A \"set already widely available that works for them\"? If this were true, then the set would be available at all! None of the proponents of verbal Japanese style rules has ever written down the rules. It might well be that my approximative texts of verbal Japanese style rules are still the only ones available. Not being available from proponents at all is the contrary of \"widely available\". It is Mornington Crescent in its purest form: Whoever explains the rules first loses. More precisely, some wrote down the trivial rules (alternation, execution of a play, no suicide, basic ko), omitted life (or provided fake descriptions only) and then filled page after page with trivial life examples (groups without inside opposing stones or with one or two lonely opposing stones). Such is then sold as \"rules\" or even as \"complete and yet easily understood by millions within 5 minutes, especially those unpacking the game at home in Western countries\". \ \ Over two thousand years? Prove a) territory scoring was used for two thousand years, b) the game had been the game of go for two thousand years, c) numbers of players before the 20th century! Otherwise the \"millions\" are in recent modern times only, in Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan only, and confronted with territory scoring in only part of these countries. The \"millions\" in Western countries is, eh, somewhat of an exaggeration. And where is the evidence that almost all of those having bought a game set in a Western country were able to play go? \ \ \"people throughout the world [...] have had no practical difficuties at all in learning to play\"? Ah, a historian that has forgotten about centuries of delay when Europe (first region in the world outside Asia) saw a few game sets but could not decipher the rules, not even from your favoured verbal rules concept. \ \ Sorry about grammar. Maybe \"life that is characterized by stones being capturable and allowing playing under the stones\" makes you happier? \ \ For by far too long you have been happy with \"can make two eyes\" because it creates the illusion that you would understand what you are saying and thereby avoids a necessity to explain well the how to the beginner. Beginners have run away when having felt cheated by only hypothetically possible life. Only those having survived this community access test (\"believe me about life or you are out\") you can still see among the \"millions\" of players. \ \ To say it for the hundred thousandth time, elegant rules do NOT need any description (gibberish or not) of life at all. It is you who wants scoring depending on \"life\" in the rules." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-08 03:49:49","[quote]almost all players (in Europe) like the idea of Go possibly having simple / elegant rules[/quote] \ \ We know from long experience that Robert is incapable of seeing the difference, but for most people (who, yes, do want simple rules), simple does not necessarily equal elegant. Only the minority of mathematically inclined people see it that way. For most people simple means easy to understand in almost all practical situations. That leaves some fuzziness in the air, but we know how to cope with that, and most of us seem most comfortable with that approach. On the other hand, for most of us mathematically elegant means hard. \ \ To invent ghosts in Europe who supposedly bought a go set and couldn't learn to play and who outnumber the thousands who do play seems the mark of a man desperate to make an argument. I've only come across one such ghost and he was called Robert Jasiek, who strangely enough claimed he could not learn to play... but did learn to play (though admittedly under a different concept of the games rules from the rest of us). \ \ To quote T Mark's excellent analogy. There are some people in this world who enter the London Underground system and panic when they see the sign \"Dogs must be carried on the escalators\". They exclaim, \"Where am I going to find a dog at this time of night?!\" Most of us use common sense." "Mef","","2010-03-08 04:10:11","[QUOTE=matjet;143169] \ The effect; \ Suicide is not allowed because it does not increase the number of stones of the moving player's colour. \ There is effectively a group tax, but go in china used to be played with a group tax anyway. \ eyes in seki DO count, since they provide extra legal moves. \ A player can continue to play legal moves in the opponents territory rather than resign after running out of legal moves in their own territory, but it does not change the outcome of the game. Currently annoying players can legally do this anyway. \ \ Edit-probably you can ignore me, upon further research, i appear to have made some assumptions about what research had already been done. I didn't even realise originally that RobertJasiek was the one who invented the fixed ko rule, so maybe I should add another citation of source regarding the super ko's?[/QUOTE] \ \ \ Just one thing to note -- By using the \"no legal move\" criterion for deciding the game, there is a pretty significant difference in strategy compared to \"regular\" go (which I'm not sure was your aim). For instance, you say eyes in seki would count because they provide an extra legal move, however, what you must also consider is that by taking advantage of this extra legal move, you open up a whole slew of new legal moves for both players, because once one side captures the other there are a number of new places to play. The exact number of new legal moves for each player that is provided by an eye in seki would depend on the given board scenario. \ \ You also assume that players would play in their own territory before playing in their opponent's territory - this may not be true either. In [url=http://senseis.xmp.net/?NoPassGo]no pass go[/url], your aim is generally to have a larger number of single eyes than your opponent, because solid large blocks of open territory provide little advantage (since both players can play there). No-pass-go is quite an interesting thing in and of itself, but I'm not sure it's the first choice the average person would pick for replacing the traditional Chinese/Japanese/AGA/NZ/Ing rulesets...." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 04:13:10","John, maybe you would like to be the first proponent of Japanese style rules to explain what \"elegant\" shall mean for them if not simple. The closest \"approaches\" so far have been: Sakai: \"Local is beautiful!\" Nam: \"Simplicity is not all!\" rec.games.go: \"Omission of dame is beautiful but I cannot explain why they are filled during counting!\" So it should be very easy to explain elegance at least a tiny bit better. Can you?" "hanekomu","","2010-03-08 04:14:47","In mathematics, group theory is elegant but I wouldn't mention it to a child who is just about to venture into adding and subtracting. \ \ So I tell beginners little lies. I tell them the most basic things about making two eyes and don't even mention \"bent-four in the corner\". (I'm not a rule expert, so I couldn't tell them all the edge cases even if I wanted to.) \ \ Universal rules (not just in Go) can be elegant, but they often require a level of abstraction that a beginner just doesn't have." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 04:20:11","Mef, yes. Presumably pass fights were entirely overlooked as an available strategy in \"ancient\" times. Nowadays we also do not like them, except for study fun for its own sake. So, for getting human-liked rules, we need to introduce a) some scoring method, b) the second move type pass (or its informal averbal equivalent), c) a game end condition depending on successive passes." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-08 06:34:55","[QUOTE=Mef;143184]Just one thing to note -- By using the \"no legal move\" criterion for deciding the game, there is a pretty significant difference in strategy compared to \"regular\" go (which I'm not sure was your aim).[/QUOTE] \ \ Yes, if you use the no legal move criterion, then to get a strategy like regular go you want to have something like Berlekamp's rule of returning a captured stone as a move. See the book, [I]Mathemacial Go: Chilling Gets the Last Point[/I], by Berlekamp and Wolfe." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-08 06:44:32","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143172]It was only some people of the minority cast of mind who were having difficulties. Millions of people throughout the world over two thousand years have had no practical difficuties at all in learning to play.[/QUOTE] \ \ Yes, but they had people to teach them. It is much more difficult to learn from a book or pamphlet. I bought a small go set and learned to play from the accompanying pamphlet. However, the first person I met in the U. S. who had also bought a set had never learned to play because he and his friend who also tried to learn could not figure out how to end the game. Without somebody to explain things, a lot of people have problems with that. :(" "TMark","","2010-03-08 07:54:00","[QUOTE=Bill Spight;143197]Yes, but they had people to teach them. It is much more difficult to learn from a book or pamphlet. I bought a small go set and learned to play from the accompanying pamphlet. However, the first person I met in the U. S. who had also bought a set had never learned to play because he and his friend who also tried to learn could not figure out how to end the game. Without somebody to explain things, a lot of people have problems with that. :([/QUOTE] \ \ This is an important point, and very little to do with the rules. Recognising that there is nothing of more value to play, or that one player has lost too much and must resign, is extremely difficult to explain to a beginner. The experienced player can scan the board and say that there is nothing more; the person who has just learned will have no idea. I think that more people are lost to the game because they cannot understand that than are ever deterred by a lack of precise rules covering every imaginable situation, on and off the board. \ \ Best wishes." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-08 10:17:01","[quote]John, maybe you would like to be the first proponent of Japanese style rules to explain what \"elegant\" shall mean for them if not simple. [/quote] \ \ Robert, you often say you want more discussion of rules, but you do not seem to realise that it is you who often makes discussion impossible, often through unnecessary intransigence but just as often through your deceitful twisting of other people's words. I have no recollection of ever being a proponent of Japanese style rules, and am not even sure I would know what would mean. You personally know I have taken no such stance, as witnessed by various factual contributions I have made on rules. My contributions to the BGA's debate on adopting AGA rules is one I know you are familiar with. \ \ You are also deceitfully trying to put words into my mouth by pretending that I am advocating Japanese rules should somehow be judged as elegant. My whole point is that the concept of mathematical elegance should be banned for rules explanations for ordinary people. For this I want elegance replaced entirely by common sense. The current, highly workable situation, whether Japanese, Korean or Chinese, does very nicely in this regard for a vast number of people. \ \ If your rules research comes up with a set of mathematically elegant rules that can also be just as easily applied by the vast majority of people with no mathematical training, I would embrace such rules, too. But so far, as with the example of super ko, all such efforts have ground into the sand. \ \ I do note, by the way, that every now and then you do make an apparent concession towards the need for simplified presentations of rules for the majority, but from actions such as your stance on the dispute with Mero I judge that you are not really sincere on this. I think you are just taking the cynical approach that such concessions are necessary for the masses only until they see the light and the Revolution succeeds. If you were sincere about it, you would be applying common sense, and then of course the Mero-type dispute would not arise. \ \ Bill, the argument that we may have no-one to teach us verbally and so we need written rules seems strangely superficial for you - true only up to a point. If the way to remedy the lack is to produce rules full of phrases like capturable-1, solecisms such as invariation and averbal, and general gobbledygook, it's almost as if you are saying the way to cure a headache is to perform a lobotomy. In any case, since the verbal teachers do succeed and their methods are the ones presented in books, if the books fail it's most likely the writer who's at fault, not the method and not the rules. As it happens, I don't even think the writers do a bad job. I suspect the difference lies in the fact that we take a more leisurely approach when we learn from a friend or parent, and there is a lot of practice between each stage of learning. With a book, however, we seem to expect to learn the game in two minutes and then be ready to take on the world. Spending a fortnight on a book instead of five minutes probably produces similar results to verbal tuition." "Bantari","","2010-03-08 10:31:19","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143217]I suspect the difference lies in the fact that we take a more leisurely approach when we learn from a friend or parent, and there is a lot of practice between each stage of learning. With a book, however, we seem to expect to learn the game in two minutes and then be ready to take on the world. Spending a fortnight on a book instead of five minutes probably produces similar results to verbal tuition.[/QUOTE] \ \ I think the difference is that when learning from a teacher you have somebody to immediately play with, test the understanding, and clear up the confusing points. And that this somebody has the knowledge to help you - he is already a player, after all. \ \ Learning from a book only implies that either there is nobody to play with or that everybody is in the same boat - a complete newbie. So there is nobody to explain the confusing points and they might become even more confusing rather than cleared up. \ \ This might suggest a different approach to book teaching than to in-person teaching. However - I am *sure* that the pseudo-math and convoluted and often made-up language which seems to give pleasure the rules researchers is an even worse way! The solution could be a common-sense explanation followed by many examples, with maybe some strict(er) wording as additional resource, but also in common language using common sense. \ \ Other than this - I fully agree with you." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 10:42:48","My first go game had been bought in a department store and the rules booklet in the box with its Japanese style rules was bad enough: game aim and scoring were totally unclear. Neither I, my friend, my mother nor my otherwise very cute teachers could make any sense of it. At that time, I was roughly 10 years old and had had ca. 6 years of playing many different board games and learning them by myself from the rules booklet. So it was clearly the go rules booklet's fault in combination with the Japanese style rules. Apparently the game box publisher had not understood the rules, either. \ \ Then I was not a rules freak or whatever of any kind. Just a regular player of many board games. So completeness or precision of rules, as TMark suggests, and the like was nothing to be thought about. I simply expected the rules to explain how to play and what the game aim was but the booklet did not explain properly. \ \ Now imagine area scoring instead. The publisher would have understood it. The booklet would have said something like: \"The winner occupies or surrounds more intersections.\" And I would have readily been able to apply it. Even if I had gotten the box at the age of 4 (when I had learnt chess and the like). Surrounding as a concept is easy enough to understand just visually." "Bantari","","2010-03-08 11:00:28","Few comments. \ Sorry to mush it up like that into one post. \ \ [B]1. About the difficulty of learning Go 10 years ago.[/B] \ \ Well... I don't know. I learned Go almost 30 years ago, and have had no difficulty whatsoever. Neither did anybody else who learned around the same time from what I have seen. Since then, I have been teaching people to play a lot, also without difficulties, and have observed others to teach as well. Never seen anybody who would use anything even resembling the 'precise math approach' Robert seems to suggest. \ \ It might be different when learning from books and pamphlets, hard to tell. It might be that Go is just not intuitive enough in certain aspects to be explained well in a pamphlet, no matter what language you use. Still, even if this was a problem 10 years ago, today - with the wide availability of internet and all its resources - the issue just has to be much less significant. \ \ [B]2. About the 'simplicity of rules' as advertised by teachers to newbies[/B] \ \ I have seen this claim made, and even made it myself a lot. But never ever by pointing to a 'elegant' rules text and saying 'there!' I do not think that this is what players mean when they say that the rules are simple and elegant. What is meant by that is that the basic ideas - surround, make two eyes, whoever has more points wins - all the stuff you tell beginners in the first 'round' - this is all pretty easy to understand. By the time they get to the more confusing parts - they are usually hooked, you are there to guide them, and life is peachy. \ \ [B]3. End of game confusion[/B] \ \ This seems to be a problem for most beginners to grapple with - when to pass, when to end the game. Sure - rules can be introduced which lets them play to the bitter end, after each group only has two eyes and no more, or whatever - but this can and will put people off... making moves like that, sometimes hundreds of them. What a silly game... \ \ I guess we might just have to live with the fact that it is a confusing concept and leave it at that. If some beginners find themselves in such situation and are absolutely unable to figure it out, I am not sure what to say... ever heard of the internet? But joking aside - I think the idea of presenting the rules with mathematical precision just to satisfy absolutely every confused beginner would maybe save the few who would otherwise never learn - but it would also put off the many who would otherwise learn. There is no 'golden rule' which would satisfy everybody - since we are all different. \ \ As a matter of fact, I am not sure even japanese style rules with territory counting are a big problem here. Sure, people get confused about status of groups, I did when I was a beginner, but so what? They just play it out, right there and then, and see what happens. If they lose the game this way - they learn something and next time they might know better. or not, in which case they learn some more. Unless you really want to force people to play to the very last 2 eyes, I see no alternative to somehow learning to recognize live groups and agreeing on that. \ \ Come to think of it - playing everything out does not prevent beginners from making grave mistakes and completely distorting the result with respect to the position when experienced players would have passed. Same thing - learning experience. There is no shortcuts for that. \ \ Reminds me of when I was learning chess... The rules said something like ' a draw is declared if not enough material is left on the board to mate' or some such. Elegant, precise, yes? And yet I had to go through a few games against my mom when we played with just two kings on the board - for quite a few moves. We did it twice, and then we learned. it took longer to figure out the K+N vs K, but this too was learned. The point is that no matter what - the beginner will have to learn certain things which can be confusing." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 11:50:25","John, during the BGA rules dicussion you spoke in favour of Japanese style rules, or this is what I understood from your contributions to that discussion. It is nice to hear that now you have changed your mind. (You were and are also against superko.) Thank you for clarifying that you do not support Japanese style as being elegant. \ \ Now you write: \"My whole point is that the concept of mathematical elegance should be banned for rules explanations for ordinary people. For this I want elegance replaced entirely by common sense. The current, highly workable situation, whether Japanese, Korean or Chinese, does very nicely in this regard for a vast number of people.\" Mathematical elegance is a combination of simplicity, completeness and greatest efficiency of presentation and used to characterize some propositions, proofs or stuctures of mathematical objects. When explaining rules to ordinary people or players, one does not need to explain mathematical elegance at all. It is often easier to explain rules to them if those rules are (relatively) simple and complete. Therefore it is important for rules to be simple and complete. Simple means less to explain and understood earlier. Complete means that the beginner never finds reason to doubt \"But what if...?\", i.e., also completeness supports faster explanation and understanding of the rules. It is common sense that newbies want to play as soon as possible and they want to play the real game and not some pretended fake. Every newbie I have seen was like that. Impatient or disappointed if he had to wait or was shown only some similar game. You ask for common sense so much, so why do you object to simplicity and completeness? The allow common sense explanations of the rules! \ \ The Japanese or Korean situation makes common sense explanation much more difficult. There the common sense is not the rules (after centuries there are still difficulties of writing them down) themselves but the social context in the countries Japan or Korea of an easily available \"teacher\" (friend or family member) of how to play. \ \ Outside the go playing community, Japanese style rules are not made of common sense objects. Life, death, seki on the go board are not any for non-players. Contrarily, stones, stone colour and regions surrounded by stones of only one colour (like a fence around a garden) are common sense objects that will be understood even by non-players and even if you change the grammar or the words describing them. \ \ Common sense wording of rules (but, maybe to your displeasure, with a consistent usage of terms rather than with arbitrary every day language) somebody else and I have written in German. (I do not recall now if they have superko.) \ \ I guess you would dislike not only superko but also the long cycle rules (relying on numbers of removed stones during a cycle) and the basic-fixed-ko-rules (with their too abstract reference to left and reached positions). But what is your opinion on the short cycle rules (cycle with 2 or 3 plays is prohibited, longer cycles let it be a tie), which Geoff Kaniuk invented? Surely every common sense person can count up to 3! BTW, I do not consider the Japanese long cycle rule common sense because its \"if the players agree\" does not explain in common sense terms that the intention is to rely on numbers of removed stones during a cycle (the intention is so well hidden that I was 3 kyu before I noticed it). Common sense is that rules express rather than hide what they mean. \ \ I know you disagree about superko but actually I also think that superko agree to common sense: \ \ - Common sense wants to avoid useless repetition and superko does do that. \ - Long cycle strategy may be difficult but common sense tells us: \"Who cares? It is so rare that in practice the extra difficulty is negligible.\" \ - It is common sense to avoid rules that are almost never applied. Superko avoids a superfluous long cycle / no result rule. \ \ Yes, superko is \"mathematical\", but then already the go board is! Endgame is. Reading ahead is. Go is a mathematical game. Like it or not. This does not mean that one would have to tell all the \"0 and 1 bits\" to the beginners; it suffices to explain superko by means of the basic ko shape example with the words \"Repetition is prohibited!\" and thus the ko rule is explained naturally within seconds by common sense words. \ \ The only thing that really is not common sense about superko is its strange name... But you can speak of the No Repetition Rule, if you prefer that phrase, quite like one can speak of the No Self-Removal Rule (to avoid the artificial, non-common-sense term \"suicide\")." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-08 11:57:48","Bantari, unguided beginners like to play everything out, then invade and give atari everywhere and again play everything out. It is only some advanced players that suspect beginners might see a problem (\"boring game\") there." "Hicham","","2010-03-08 12:25:17","My first experience with go was a babysitter when I was 9. She didn't have any clue about how the game worked and we just were putting some stones on the board. Still the game left a lasting impression on me. \ \ I 'rediscovered' the game ten years later in a book with 100 games in it. Learning just by the rules was not as easy as it could have been where the rules written and explained better. We messed up capturing as we thought you checked your own liberties first, because suicide was forbidden. This meant that one eye was enough and our first few games where very strange as yo ucan imagine.\ \ On one hand the rules where very simple, but on the other it was annoying that some of those rules where too simple to work with as a raw beginner and there were a couple of arbitrary rules which irritated me as a beginner and still do.\ \ For me the most useless rule was the suicide rule as it doesn't add anything:(. What is the point of this rule? Especially for a beginner? If you really want this, this could be solved by forbidden same board positions. This way you get rid of silly suicides and allow 'interesting' suicides.\ \ I also hated bent four as a beginner as it didn't make sense. When I understood the explanation I got a strong dislike for Japanese rules:mad:, which took away from the pure logic of the rules that attracted me. Japanese Rules only make sense when you understand that they are in effect twisted Chinese rules to make counting territory instead of area possible. \ \ When explaining the game to beginners often the key moment is when they ask why certain stones are dead. When you explain that they cannot live, some clever ones rightly ask why the opponent does't lose points for capturing. This quickly gets too complicated for raw beginners, as you either have the choise of explaining the reason behind that rule (which can degenerate into the difference between Chinese and Japanse rules for clever students) or just use your authority as the 'master' which I find intellectually the wrong thing to do.\ \ IMO rules should be easy to understand, logical and have no (or very few) exceptions. I remember teaching beginners and when I had the group play against one another one of the games produced a triple ko:eek:. These first times were asking me what they were supposed to do as they got stuck. Cases like this should be covered in the rules and as much of the complicated theoritical problems as well. The rule should be clean and simple.\ \ I have a feeling a lot of the people who dislike talking about 'better' rules or not using territory scoring are people who learned the game by playing with stronger players. This is a completely different experience as learning on your own. Maybe times have changed with the internet as prime learning spot.\ A lot of the people who don't want to talk about not using Japanse rules seem to be doing it from a conservative standpoint, 'it works for me and for most people, so the problem is not with the rules but with the rules nerds'. Most of the people who dislike complicated rules are not maniacs like Robert (or experts if you prefer;)), but just regular players who like logical rules without strange constructions. (Or are Chinese:D).\ \ I can understand not caring about the rules. But why not care about the rules on one hand, but care when people want to see if they can make it better for the beginners and for the people who care about 'clean' rules.\ \ I dislike rules that are written in a language that is not a natural language. I think rules should not be written in the same way as mathemitcal theories or technical manuals.\ \ I like New Zealand rules as they are what I am looking for in rules: logical, simple and no special cases. (I am sure some people can invent special constructions that give problems, but I have trouble understanding those constructions)." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-08 12:37:12","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143217]Bill, the argument that we may have no-one to teach us verbally and so we need written rules seems strangely superficial for you - true only up to a point.[/QUOTE] \ \ Well, that's not exactly what I am saying. I am pointing out a problem that may be worst in the U. S., simply because population density is low. People often must fend for themselves with inadequate material. \ \ The rules problems in go are concentrated in the area of the end of the game, if you consider that the ko rule is aimed at producing an endable game. :) For beginners who learn on their own, area rules are good, because there are fewer end of game problems. There is a simple reason for that. Play normally ends later than with Japanese rules. \ \ As for the need for written rules, the Japanese discovered that for themselves, considering the confusion surrounding the Segoe-Takahashi 10,000 year ko dispute. It turns out that even the Japanese pros were unsure about ending play. One question that arose was whether Takahashi had an obligation to play or not. Could the game end with the ko unresolved? The custom had been for the ko to be resolved, but when Takahashi refused to do so, confusion reigned. \ \ Ing articulated the principle that life and death were to be decided by play, even if he apparently relinquished the idea at the end. (See the 1996 rules.) Now the Japanese rules, as well as the Ikeda rules, Lasker-Maas rules, and Spight rules, all have a potential or actual encore for deciding life and death. The Ing rules do, too, even though they are area rules. Ikeda, Lasker-Maas, and Spight rules use area style rules in the encore to decide life and death, while the Japanese rules use special rules that preserve most of the special rulings of the Japanese 1949 rules. \ \ As for the future, I think that it lies in some form of Button go, a synthesis of area and territory scoring. The recent Olympiad in China used such rules. :)" "xed_over","","2010-03-08 12:39:09","[QUOTE=Hicham;143234] Japanese Rules only make sense when you understand that they are in effect twisted Chinese rules to make counting territory instead of area possible.[/QUOTE]\ hahahaha... this is probably true!" "Harleqin","","2010-03-08 12:50:28","Very well written post, Bill! \ \ [QUOTE=Bill Spight;143236] \ As for the future, I think that it lies in some form of Button go, a synthesis of area and territory scoring. The recent Olympiad in China used such rules. :)[/QUOTE] \ \ I agree. The changes I would propose for those rules are really only of cosmetic nature." "pwaldron","","2010-03-08 13:29:36","[QUOTE=Bill Spight;143236]Well, that's not exactly what I am saying. I am pointing out a problem that may be worst in the U. S., simply because population density is low. People often must fend for themselves with inadequate material. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ There's certainly some truth to this. On the other hand, I can't think of a single rules dispute in a North American tournament. We must be doing something right. :)" "shapenaji","","2010-03-08 13:39:52","[QUOTE=pwaldron;143242]There's certainly some truth to this. On the other hand, I can't think of a single rules dispute in a North American tournament. We must be doing something right. :)[/QUOTE] \ \ Well, it could be that by the time players get to a tournament, they've already made peace with the rules, which could mean we're losing a lot of players to the confusing rules. \ \ I've met a lot of people who have tried out the game after buying it at a games store, and, without exception, they did not pick up the game for any length of time unless they had prolonged contact with someone who had experience with it. \ \ The most common explanation I hear for this, from them, was that although it seemed interesting, they couldn't figure out how to finish the game, and some of the rules (often ko) were confusing." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-08 13:44:00","[quote]You ask for common sense so much, so why do you object to simplicity and completeness? [/quote] \ \ See, Robert, you've done it again. Where have I objected to simplicity and completeness? \ \ I believe you think I am objecting to simplicity because I am objecting to your concept of simplicity = mathematical elegance. In normal life simplicity means something else. I am for it. To me Japanese rules are simple enough (easy concepts such a territory with handy, everyday similes such as life and death). Flawed, but simple enough and perfectly serviceable in practice (as e.g. kgs shows). \ \ I have never objected to completeness as far as I know, but to satisfy you I will pose one obvious objection - overkill. I am looking at the official rules of baseball at the moment. It is quite daunting, as these rules are actually quite a large book, quite unlike the situation with go. They are not even complete, really: there is no definition of a bunt, even though there is a rule that a foul bunt with two strikes on the batter is out. This lacuna does stop thousands of baseball games happening all over the world every day, because people apply common sense. They \"know\" what a bunt is. Now the fact that this tome of baseball exists does not mean every baseball fan or player reads it. I'd be surprised if even 1 per cent did. There are even major league players and commentators who are hazy on some of the rules. Yet that in now way prevents the 99% from enjoying their games of baseball. So, in that sense, completeness is not necessary. Completeness is really only necessary for referees and umpires. \ \ As to you detecting that I have a preference for Japanese rules, I think what you have detected is merely my preference for being lazy. Most games are played that way and the endgame procedure is shorter, and I'm used to it, but the way I would put it is that they are, for me, a habit, not a preference. I was swayed by the arguments in the BGA debate to express a mild theoretical preference for AGA rules as a tool for beginners, but that doesn't mean I use them. Laziness wins every time. \ \ I've made another point many times before, but maybe hicham has missed it, namely that few of us who speak up against (usually) Robert are actually against rules research. I would say that our objections fall into three areas, obviously in different degrees according to the writers. \ \ One area is the present one, namely the notion that rules have to be mathematically elegant or logical. There is no \"have to\" about it. It might be interesting. It might be useful in various cases (e.g. computers). It might be desirable as a personal preference. But the evolution of go so far shows that it is not actually necessary. The objection comes about only when certain rules mavens tell us that this approach is indeed necessary. \ \ Another area where objections arise is when a rules fanatic goes to extremes in his application of rules. The Mero-Jasiek case is an example. The objection here is basically because most people prefer common sense to extremism, and treat go as a means of creating friendship or fellowship, but it can seem to be about other things because the extremists often use wierd arguments to defend their positions (though I suspect they are not defending their positions as much as defending their own egos). \ \ Yet another area of objection is when some rules mavens (not all, I hasten to add) make ignorant, arrogant or xenophobic statements about Oriental rulesets and by extension Oriental people. The objections here are manifold: ignorance, arrogance and xenophobia are just the beginning. One important objection has been that the undiplomatic or harrassing manner in which so-called \"discussion\" of rules has sometimes been carried out can cause offence (in fact, it has caused offence). This matters to the rest of us because it affects friendship and sponsorship. This is not saying that Oriental rules are in any way ideal. But (a) the various points can be made diplomatically and (b) if the Oriental listener still chooses not to be interested, his choice should be respected. \ \ A more tenuous area of objection is the sheer volume and prominence of rules debates and the possible detrimental effect this may have on general perceptions of the game in the same way that I have never tried bridge because I have the perception that partners are often beastly to each other. I do not call for a reduction in the volume necessarily, but I do think it would be a good idea if GD had a separate category for rules so that the prominence could be kept within moderation." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-08 15:48:23","[quote]As for the need for written rules, the Japanese discovered that for themselves, considering the confusion surrounding the Segoe-Takahashi 10,000 year ko dispute. It turns out that even the Japanese pros were unsure about ending play. One question that arose was whether Takahashi had an obligation to play or not. Could the game end with the ko unresolved? The custom had been for the ko to be resolved, but when Takahashi refused to do so, confusion reigned.[/quote] \ \ Bill, a little bit of varnish here, perhaps? The incident took place in 1928 and the rules were not written down until 1949, so it's a bit of a stretch to imply a real cause and effect. Obviously there was a tenuous line that can be drawn in retrospect, not least because the incident prompted a spate of articles by the Kyoto Group of go mathematicians and others. But I would wager that for every mathematical purist that was irked, hundreds of ordinary fans were delighted to read about the conflict as a piece of journalism, and so the net effect on go's popularity was actually quite positive. \ \ \"Confusion reigned\" also seems like journalistic hyperbole. It was just one game after all, and the next such incident was 1948. \ \ And note that neither of the players chuntered on about the adjudication afterwards, unlike Jasiek-Mero. It was the Japanese rules mavens who kept the pot boiling." "Bantari","","2010-03-08 15:59:10","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143230]Bantari, unguided beginners like to play everything out, then invade and give atari everywhere and again play everything out. It is only some advanced players that suspect beginners might see a problem (\"boring game\") there.[/QUOTE] \ \ No. \ Beginners like to play as long as it is fun. \ \ As long as they see possibilities or suspect there might be some, they will play and play - regardless of the rules. But eventually they run out of steam... maybe not in every game, but enough... then they want to know if its ok to simply pass and count. Telling them 'no, you need to play it all out, until bitter end' is rather cruel. \ \ Observe some beginners in the club next time. \ They either play until self-atari no matter what, or they want to pass and count, sometimes too early, no matter what. Its the 'no matter what' that I wish to emphasize here! Beginners will do beginner things regardless of what paperwork you toss at them." "Bantari","","2010-03-08 16:15:06","[QUOTE=shapenaji;143244]Well, it could be that by the time players get to a tournament, they've already made peace with the rules, which could mean we're losing a lot of players to the confusing rules.[/quote] \ \ I hear this argument over and over. \ But never is there any solid background for that. \ \ From my observation, most of the people showing interest in learning Go do learn it and stay with it for quite a while. And when somebody quits, they quit for other reasons than the complexity of rules. \ \ We all know beginners who stayed with Go and those who quit after a while. So I leave examples to your own memories. \ \ [QUOTE=shapenaji;143244]I've met a lot of people who have tried out the game after buying it at a games store, and, without exception, they did not pick up the game for any length of time unless they had prolonged contact with someone who had experience with it.[/quote] \ \ The same goes for each game, I'd say, regardless of the complexity of rules. I never picked up chess until I had friends who played serious chess, same with Go, same with bridge, same with poker, same with... every game I ever seriously tried. Even if I was aware of the games before, and for many had complete sets and rules descriptions... there was not enough interest. \ \ Take checkers, for example. \ I have a set, I have rules, but since nobody I know is into it, chances are, I keep playing Go instead. It would be highly misleading to claim that I do not play checkers because the rules are badly written. Same goes for all the oriental variants of chess, and a lot more... \ \ I think that to get into a game on any serious level, there needs to be a whole infrastructure around it accessible to a person - because this is what generates interest! \ \ A perfect example is from the infernal HnG - Hikaru did not get interested in Go until he met Akira and went to tournaments and saw how 'intense' people are, saw that there is depth in the game. I bet he had access to very easy rules and even teaching of advanced player (Sai), and yet he needed more to spark his interest." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-08 16:52:50","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143260]Bill, a little bit of varnish here, perhaps? The incident took place in 1928 and the rules were not written down until 1949, so it's a bit of a stretch to imply a real cause and effect. Obviously there was a tenuous line that can be drawn in retrospect, not least because the incident prompted a spate of articles by the Kyoto Group of go mathematicians and others.[/QUOTE] \ \ Yasunaga's rules, the \"Go Constitution\", was published in 1932, directly as a result of that incident. Unlike Moonshine ko, 10,000 year kos are not all that infrequent. And the enigmatic ruling that \"White won but Black did not lose\" was correctly perceived as a political non-ruling. This was not a question of one or two points, or of the life or death of a single group. Takahashi simply refused to settle the ko and nobody knew whether the game was over. (If the game were counted, Segoe had clearly won.) Any pro game that ended with a 10,000 year ko could spell trouble. :)" "Bill Spight","","2010-03-08 17:26:04","[QUOTE=Hicham;143234]Japanese Rules only make sense when you understand that they are in effect twisted Chinese rules to make counting territory instead of area possible.[/QUOTE] \ \ Except that historically it appears that territory scoring came before area scoring. ;) \ \ [QUOTE]When explaining the game to beginners often the key moment is when they ask why certain stones are dead. When you explain that they cannot live, some clever ones rightly ask why the opponent does't lose points for capturing. This quickly gets too complicated for raw beginners,[/QUOTE] \ \ I used to explain it this way. If you are forced to capture dead stones, then your opponent could take away territory from you simply by placing a dead stone inside your territory. (IOW, the concept of territory would be different, and you would be playing a different game.) \ \ BTW, I have become a fan of starting beginners out on the capture game, with no passes, so that the winner either captures a stone or leaves the opponent with no legal play (except to put himself in atari). Aside from being a simpler game with a well defined end, it has a concept of territory that is almost identical to that of regular go. \ \ Suppose that you reach a point where all the dame have been filled. Now each player starts filling in his own territory. The first player to commit self-atari loses. Note that you can count the game instead of filling in territory. :) Every group needs two points to live, so you have a group tax. \ \ The oldest known form of go scoring is territory scoring with a group tax. Coincidence? :)" "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 17:34:24","I agree with the idea of stone scoring as simpler and easier to understand and basically in all ways better for beginners. The problem of strategic implication to group tax is stunningly simple to resolve: simply [b]refund[/b] the tax. :) Award two extra points for each group (defined, if we really need to, as maximal set of same-colour strings isolated by opposite-colour strings from all other same-colour strings). And when the seeming arbitrariness of the point bonus gets questioned, you get to justify it by explaining the two-eyes concept, if it hasn't already been figured out. \ \ [QUOTE=Bantari;143266]I hear this argument over and over. \ But never is there any solid background for that.[/quote] \ \ The \"solid background\" here consists of the very same anecdotal evidence from shapenaji that you go on to respond to. \ \ [quote]Take checkers, for example. \ I have a set, I have rules, but since nobody I know is into it, chances are, I keep playing Go instead. It would be highly misleading to claim that I do not play checkers because the rules are badly written.[/quote] \ \ You're mixing up cause and effect all over the place here. There aren't any arguments that checkers rules are ever \"badly written\" AFAIK. \ \ The claim is that set + friends + bad rules -> no adoption because of bad rules. Your counter is that set + good rules + no friends -> no adoption, clearly not because of bad rules. Well, so what? \ \ If people are willing to pay money for a set for a 2-player game, it's because they have *someone* in mind as a regular playing partner. That other person's skill level ought to be irrelevant. \ \ [quote]I think that to get into a game on any serious level, there needs to be a whole infrastructure around it accessible to a person - because this is what generates interest![/quote] \ \ And understandable rules are a part of that infrastructure. In traditional practice, those rules come from more-skilled players, given orally. But there's no reason it needs to be like that. \ \ [QUOTE]A perfect example is from the infernal HnG - Hikaru did not get interested in Go until he met Akira and went to tournaments and saw how 'intense' people are, saw that there is depth in the game. I bet he had access to very easy rules and even teaching of advanced player (Sai), and yet he needed more to spark his interest.[/QUOTE] \ \ But Hikaru didn't buy a goban; he discovered one. It makes a huge difference. Buying the goban implies a pre-existing interest. Hikaru obviously had none." "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 17:51:10","[QUOTE=TMark;143202]This is an important point, and very little to do with the rules. Recognising that there is nothing of more value to play, or that one player has lost too much and must resign, is extremely difficult to explain to a beginner. The experienced player can scan the board and say that there is nothing more; the person who has just learned will have no idea. I think that more people are lost to the game because they cannot understand that than are ever deterred by a lack of precise rules covering every imaginable situation, on and off the board. \ \ Best wishes.[/QUOTE] \ \ On the contrary, it's everything to do with the rules. Badly written rules can fail to convey, for example, that \"pass\" is a legal move, or that the game ends if neither player wishes to make a move. Or, for that matter, that giving up is also legal. After all, when was the last time you saw someone resign at Monopoly? \ \ The idea that the game is ended by agreement (either explicitly, or implicitly via passing) is a novel one - which is exactly why the rules must talk about it explicitly. \ \ It's also been suggested that many beginners fail to understand the rule of ko, depending on how it is written. It is not as though a large percentage of people (especially, would-be board-game players) are fundamentally too stupid to understand the rule of ko; the problem is with the presentation. \ \ Similarly, badly written rules can fail to convey that capture of opponents' stones is considered before capture of one's own stones (there is no particular need to make even single-stone suicide illegal, as long as you take it into consideration for the purpose of ending the game). And if this part isn't understood, the ko rule is moot, because the players can't understand the legality and/or effects of each play in the ko." "Bantari","","2010-03-08 18:02:36","[QUOTE=Zahlman;143274]The \"solid background\" here consists of the very same anecdotal evidence from shapenaji that you go on to respond to.[/quote] \ \ But none has been given, anecdotal or not. \ Other than Robert's I could not learn by myself...' \ \ Still, it does not matter if both sides have only anecdotal evidence. I am not pushing for any changes on the basis thereof. \ \ [QUOTE=Zahlman;143274]You're mixing up cause and effect all over the place here. There aren't any arguments that checkers rules are ever \"badly written\" AFAIK. \ \ The claim is that set + friends + bad rules -> no adoption because of bad rules. Your counter is that set + good rules + no friends -> no adoption, clearly not because of bad rules. Well, so what?[/quote] \ \ Not really. \ The argument given is that Alone + BadRules = NoPlayer. \ My counter example was that Alone + GoodRules = NoPlayer as well. \ It is to show that the deciding factor is 'Alone', and thus one cannot claim that the fact that not many people learned Go by themselves is due to BadRules. \ \ [QUOTE=Zahlman;143274]And understandable rules are a part of that infrastructure. In traditional practice, those rules come from more-skilled players, given orally. But there's no reason it needs to be like that.[/quote] \ \ Fully agree with that. \ My point is that 'understandable rules' and 'mathematically precise' rules as Robert suggests are not necessarily one and the same. I oppose the claim that mathematical precision and elegance is what constitutes good rules from which people can learn the game. \ \ [QUOTE=Zahlman;143274]But Hikaru didn't buy a goban; he discovered one. It makes a huge difference. Buying the goban implies a pre-existing interest. Hikaru obviously had none.[/QUOTE] \ \ Really? \ If I had a penny for each game I bought and then disliked - I'd have at least $1.23 now! Quality of the attached pamphlets was seldom the issue. Neither was pre-existing interest. Many people are willing to try many games, and they cannot know if they will like it or not before they try. \ \ Now, I do not disagree that it is better when rules are written clearly and well, but again - this does not imply mathematical precision. And certainly not the common-in-science definition-theorem-proof-and-another approach. \ \ My feeling from most of such discussion is that on one side we have people saying '[I]rules need to precise and complete and exact and elegant and simple and ... or we are doomed[/I]' and on the other people saying '[I]use common sense, give examples, and do not worry too much about mathematical precision and completeness[/I].' Historically - the 'common sense' approach has proven to work fine, or we would not have all the pro players and nobody would even know how to play Go. On the other hand - we still do not have any beginner-accessible rules which would satisfy the purists. \ \ All I say is - so what? \ I simply do not see the world coming to an end because we do not have/use precise and elegant rules." "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 18:11:35","[QUOTE=Bantari;143225]Few comments. \ [B]3. End of game confusion[/B] \ \ This seems to be a problem for most beginners to grapple with - when to pass, when to end the game. Sure - rules can be introduced which lets them play to the bitter end, after each group only has two eyes and no more, or whatever - but this can and will put people off... making moves like that, sometimes hundreds of them. What a silly game...[/quote] \ \ What you're missing is that [b]all[/b] rules [b]do[/b] let them play to the bitter end. Territory scoring simply has the quirk that you are actually penalized, even after dame have been filled, for doing so, if opponent passes where possible. This is bad for beginners because it means they don't get the chance to see \"dead\" things for themselves. \ \ No matter what rules you give to the beginners, they will either - depending on some combination of how you present the rules, and their personality - try utterly hopeless invasions constantly, or mistakenly interpret invadable regions as \"territory\". The second is IMO worse, because the extreme form of the first simply wastes time, whereas the extreme form of the second leads to misconceptions about what plays are legal. I have had to field questions or correct misconceptions many times from beginners who suspected or thought that it was not legal to play in a region completely surrounded by the opponent's stones. \ \ And that, in turn, can start a chain reaction of WTF. Sometimes they imagine that completely surrounding the opponent's stones captures them, even if they have liberties - so as the preserve the invariant that stones are never surrounded by the opponent. This in turn leads to arguments about what \"surrounded\" means, because there is no reason why one side of a group should be the \"inside\" and the other side the \"outside\". In short, they are left with no understanding at all. I've actually seen words like \"surround\" casually used to describe removal of all liberties, which exacerbates the problem. \ \ No. We [b]must[/b] allow beginners to \"waste each others' time\". This is how they internalize and begin to understand the concepts. It is not a waste at all. And it's another reason to teach them on small boards, which has many other practical advantages. \ \ [quote]I am not sure what to say... ever heard of the internet?[/quote] \ \ I certainly hope they have the presence of mind to search for \"go rules\" and not simply \"go\". ;) \ \ [quote]But joking aside - I think the idea of presenting the rules with mathematical precision just to satisfy absolutely every confused beginner would maybe save the few who would otherwise never learn - but it would also put off the many who would otherwise learn. There is no 'golden rule' which would satisfy everybody - since we are all different.[/quote] \ \ Who said anything about \"mathematical precision\"? \ \ [quote]Unless you really want to force people to play to the very last 2 eyes, I see no alternative to somehow learning to recognize live groups and agreeing on that.[/quote] \ \ [b]Voluntarily[/b] playing to the last 2 eyes is exactly the easiest way to learn, short of being taught. And rules cannot and should not try to teach. \ \ Of course, we should say \"playing to the last safely fillable places\" or something like that, because of seki. Talking about \"eyes\" here reflects a cognitive bias away from thinking about many of the very situations that require clarification in the first place. ;) \ \ [quote]Come to think of it - playing everything out does not prevent beginners from making grave mistakes and completely distorting the result with respect to the position when experienced players would have passed.[/quote] \ \ So? That is their prerogative. Nothing prevents a chess beginner with a Queen and King vs. a lone King from failing to mate, either. \ \ [quote]The point is that no matter what - the beginner will have to learn certain things which can be confusing.[/QUOTE] \ \ Which is exactly why we have to let them try." "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 18:20:47","[QUOTE=Bantari;143276]The argument given is that Alone + BadRules = NoPlayer. \ My counter example was that Alone + GoodRules = NoPlayer as well. \ It is to show that the deciding factor is 'Alone'... \ \ If I had a penny for each game I bought and then disliked - I'd have at least $1.23 now! Quality of the attached pamphlets was seldom the issue. Neither was pre-existing interest. Many people are willing to try many games, and they cannot know if they will like it or not before they try.[/quote] \ \ Well... if you are buying games when 'Alone' is in effect, you are a sucker. If 'Alone' is not in effect, and you are giving the game a fair try, then either it fundamentally doesn't appeal to you, or it hasn't been effectively sold to you. \ \ If it doesn't fundamentally appeal to you, then nothing can be done. But if it hasn't been effectively sold, the set-seller has failed. And the rules distributed with the set, I argue, are crucial to that selling effort. \ \ [quote]My feeling from most of such discussion is that on one side we have people saying '[I]rules need to precise and complete and exact and elegant and simple and ... or we are doomed[/I]' and on the other people saying '[I]use common sense, give examples, and do not worry too much about mathematical precision and completeness[/I].'[/QUOTE] \ \ That does seem to be the core of it. The problem is that \"common sense\" is not so common. We need to be clear and accurate, for example, when we define (or allude to) liberties (in the simple sense of spots adjacent to a string of stones); we can't just expect ordinary English words like \"surround\" to do the trick, because they are incredibly ambiguous. But neither do we need to define 'string', 'group' etc. with mathematical rigor. \ \ It is probably worth giving examples of moves that are legal, in cases where common misconceptions might rule them out." "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 18:39:07","[QUOTE=Mef;143184]there is a pretty significant difference in strategy compared to \"regular\" go (which I'm not sure was your aim). For instance, you say eyes in seki would count because they provide an extra legal move, however, what you must also consider is that by taking advantage of this extra legal move, you open up a whole slew of new legal moves for both players, because once one side captures the other there are a number of new places to play.[/quote]\ \ Not all eyes in seki are \"essential\". He proposes that the non-essential eyes are worth points, because they can be filled without endangering the seki.\ \ He allows people to self-atari their groups, but that is allowed anyway. In no-pass-go, it prolongs the game, but doesn't enable a player to win who would otherwise lose, since it simply gives the opponent more safe places to play.\ \ The only real strategic difference is that no-pass go effectively enacts a group tax.\ \ (EDIT: Sorry, there is also the restriction that Bill Spight mentions; captures need to be worth points. It's possible that you were thinking about this and that this whole post is therefore irrelevant :) )\ \ [quote]You also assume that players would play in their own territory before playing in their opponent's territory - this may not be true either. In [url=http://senseis.xmp.net/?NoPassGo]no pass go[/url], your aim is generally to have a larger number of single eyes than your opponent, because solid large blocks of open territory provide little advantage (since both players can play there).[/QUOTE]\ \ No; if it's territory, you will eventually kill and capture the opponent's group, and recover the space. It may offer the opponent a very long period of alternating play, but eventually the space will transform into one-space eyes for you, and can never transform into one-space eyes for the opponent.\ \ Or do you claim there is a winning strategy for Black to move on, say, this 5x10 board?\ \ [go]\ $$ ---------------------\ $$ | X X X X X O O O O O |\ $$ | X . . . X O . . . O |\ $$ | X . X X X O O . . O |\ $$ | X . X . X O . O . O |\ $$ | X X X X X O O O O O |\ $$ ---------------------\ [/go]\ \ Or is there some minimum size of \"territory\" that you imagine is required to make a difference?" "Zahlman","","2010-03-08 18:46:53","[QUOTE=Wildclaw;142933]The rule isn't really arbitrary at all actually. It comes about as a result of considering territory instead of occupation the basis of the game. [b]Stones forming a seki simply aren't strong enough lay actual claim on any territory.[/b][/quote]\ \ I assert that that judgement is arbitrary." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 00:34:31","John, your preferances are becoming much clearer now. \ \ I agree that GD should have its own rules forum. In all go discussion places, rules is a popular enough topic for that. E.g., [url]www.dgob.de[/url] became better structure by getting a rules forum. \ \ Japanese rules on KGS I do not perceive as working well in practice. There are too many problems related to dame. Things could be improved: Scoring should be done by flood-filling, not by attempting to let the computer work out life and death. Removals should require clicking by both players; thereby accidents and cheating would be reduced. \ \ From the view of players, completeness for go rules can be achieved very easily - unless one wants territory scoring. Then completeness can become so detailed that I understand your perception of it looking like an overkill. At the same time, Japanese style rules contain things of overkill nature already before rules experts start to study them more: \ \ - excluding territory from sekis \ - using three or more ko rules instead of only one ko rule \ - relying on hypothetical, perfect play on a per string / per group basis instead of only one move-sequence by the players to clarify life on the whole board \ - official Japanese rules: using more than one type of life \ - official Japanese rules: adding complicated game ending procedures plus tournament rules extras \ \ If the historically evolved rules had been reasonable (applicable also by beginners without much guidance and applicable to almost all positions without complicated interdepence between position and the rules), then (except for research or computer go) there would be a much smaller motivation to ask for the rules used for practical play to be logical. Since the evolved rules were unreasonable though, a clear reference of an ideal of how to get reasonable rules was asked for. This does not mean though that actually used rules texts would have to be as strictly logical as the preceding model rulesets found by rules experts. (E.g., nobody requires maths annotation in a practically used ruleset.) There is still a too great influence towards carelessly written rules though. So long, frequent reference to the ideal of logically consistent rules is necessary. Otherwise heavy flaws would find their way into new rules easily. One such example is unintended pass fights (like in AGA style rules without White to pass last rule). It is relying on logic that prevents such mistakes. \ \ The famous dispute did not show extremism. Extremism would be stopping to play go because of unclear rules or disliking of Ing playing material. \ \ Common sense applied to the Mero-Jasiek dispute could have led to very different interpretation and behaviour. E.g., one common sense approach suggested by many as such was to not apply the rules because they could not be understood reasonably well. E.g., another common sense approach is to apply the valid rules however unpleasant one might find them quite like one applies tax laws although one never likes them. \ \ Rules freaks extending their view from the Oriental rules to the Oriental people in general are rare. I recall only one such person, and even then it was unclear whether he meant it for real or as a motivation: Bill Taylor. \ \ You like to criticise Western style rules discussions because of their, as you call it, impolite and undiplomatic nature. My opinion: factual discussions are about facts - not about guessing who might or might not perceive them as polite or impolite. When the facts are that an Asian ruleset or a rules commentary by an Asian author contains lots of flaws, then this should be discussed and pointed out clearly. If there is nothing to praise because essentially an entire text consists of flaws, then the author(s) of the text have to bear the factual criticism. If they can't, then they should not have created the text in the first place. And if they do not learn but continue to claim that their text would be very good, then they have to live with continued criticism. Maybe that does not fit the mythical description of East Asian culture - never to criticise authorities and always to balance criticism with an at least equal amount of praise. But that does not matter. Factual discussion and open speech in general is one of the key achievements of human rights. It turned the mediaevel age into the new age. If wrong perception of politeness were to override factual discussion, we would still be in the mediaevel age." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 00:40:29","Hicham, triple ko in a newbies' game? Wow! Do you recall more details? \ \ Bill, the WMSG Rules still ask for some further research related to kos at the game end. It would make some happier if there existed a simpler applicable solution than my highly formalistic external ko definition as an explanation of the supplementary ko rule. I have made dozens of attempts to find something but still it looks more like an easier solution does not exist or like the strategic side effects would have to be accepted." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 00:45:50","Bantari, the \"bitter\" end is the \"sweet\" end! It is sweet to capture stones - not bitter. At the game end, it is also longer if one should perceive the acts of informal removals to occur in just one instance (but I perceive this as unrealistic; playing on to take liberties is also fast). \ \ What I have said about beginners is based on my observations of them. \ \ Also your experience with (not) quitting beginners due to too complex rules differs from mine or Hicham's. \ \ Infrastructure around a game is not needed to have excited beginners playing it (provided they understand the rules)." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 00:56:23","Bill, 10000 kos at the game end (!) are rare. Or can you provide some more game examples? I have not even seen the one so far that you mention. Is there an SGF somewhere? \ \ During recent years, there appears to have been some new findings about the history of territory, stone, area, Korean scoring. What is the current consensus and due to which sources? \ \ Territory scoring with group tax? What is known about that and how exactly did it work?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 01:06:08","Bantari, it is not mathematical precision and elegance per se that beginners learn the rules from but both aspects as a background behind the design of the rules let them be more easily understood by the beginners." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-09 05:24:08","[quote]Yasunaga's rules, the \"Go Constitution\", was published in 1932, directly as a result of that incident.[/quote] \ \ Bill, care to elaborate? I don't see what you are adding. I already said the 1928 incident led to a spate of articles. In fact Yasunaga's first resulting article was in 1929 in Kido. Or maybe you are under the msiapprehension that Yasunaga's Constitution had some kind of formal status? It was just another article. \ \ [quote]The famous dispute did not show extremism. Extremism would be stopping to play go because of unclear rules or disliking of Ing playing material.[/quote] \ \ Robert, no, extremism is claiming a win for a minor infraction of a procedure which was designed not to determine a winner on the basis of pernickety reading of rules texts but simply to clarify which stones are meant to be removed. The referee acted correctly by resuming the procedure and ensuring it was properly carried out. Neither in go nor in general jurisprudence does infraction of a law, let alone a mere procedure, automatically lead to the guillotine. \ \ [quote]You like to criticise Western style rules discussions because of their, as you call it, impolite and undiplomatic nature. [/quote] \ \ Robert, your old trick of inventing other people's words. I have never criticised western style rules discussions and don't even acknowledge the concept, though I have contributed more than most to rules discussions in the west, which is a rather different thing. I do criticise things like impolitness, harassment and arrogance, and would criticise these even if they were shown by Orientals. None of these attributes is necessary for a factual discussion. Your belief that a certain New Zealander is the only one to show certain attributes in rules discussions is not one shared by various \"victims\". \ \ [quote]10000 kos at the game end (!) are rare. Or can you provide some more game examples? I have not even seen the one so far that you mention. Is there an SGF somewhere? \ \ During recent years, there appears to have been some new findings about the history of territory, stone, area, Korean scoring. What is the current consensus and due to which sources? \ \ Territory scoring with group tax? What is known about that and how exactly did it work? [/quote] \ \ Robert, I'm astonished that you are unaware of this easily available information yet claim to be the world's leading rules expert. I do hope it's not a belated and cynical attempt to claim some humility. \ \ For those who might believe that I am somehow gainst sane discussion of rules, let me list some of the items I have posted on the New In Go site [url]http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/NewInGo.htm[/url]. \ \ Item 15 Tibetan go \ Item 33 The Tale of Genji (new insights in to ancient rules including group tax) \ Item 37 The rules debate (new evidence on ancient rules) \ Item 51 Sunjang baduk \ Item 54 Early rules (this gives the complete text of Yasunaga's Constitution and also Shimada's Perfect Rules of Go) \ Item 61 French rules (on the BGA's AGA rules debate) \ Item 67 Triple trouble (on a triple ko). \ \ These are available free. There is much more on the GoGoD CD, especially a long item on rules incidents. There is also much more there on sunjang baduk and Tibetan go, and of course all the relevant games are in the database. There is also material such as my clarification of the incorrect western understanding of the Go-Iwamoto incident (not dispute) in Slate & Shell's Final Summit (and of course some of the New In Go items are available in The Go Companion). \ \ That corpus is a fairly substantial contribution to rules discussion. It is factual and I do hope it has been made with no impolitemess, arrogance or harassment, or inventing other people's words." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 06:41:28","John, what you call a trick is my attempt to get clear statements from you. If you had expressed more clearly what you mean before, then I would not need to motivate you to clarify. \ \ You use \"impolitness, harassment and arrogance\" without stating the context clearly. So I still do not know well what exactly you are referring to. Apparently my guessing does not help. \ \ I do not check every webpage every day, so I overlooked some of your previous years' contributions. In particular, I have only just noticed the rightframe of your webpage; on my vertical screen, it appears as 1mm narrow; so before I must have overlooked it. Thank you for pointing out your rules history articles! \ \ I have never claimed to be the world's leading expert on pre-1949 rules history. Probably I am the leading expert on modern rules. \ \ GoGod is nice, but it is a bit of an overkill to purchase every update. Wouldn't it be possible to offer just the texts in it separately?" "Bill Spight","","2010-03-09 07:57:30","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143344]Bill, care to elaborate? I don't see what you are adding. I already said the 1928 incident led to a spate of articles. In fact Yasunaga's first resulting article was in 1929 in Kido. Or maybe you are under the msiapprehension that Yasunaga's Constitution had some kind of formal status? It was just another article.[/QUOTE] \ \ It was not just another article, as you point out in \"New in Go\" #57: \"[I]t was the first attempt to codify the rules of go in writing. It was triggered by the famous 10,000-year ko problem of 1928 in a game between Segoe Kensaku and Takahashi Shigeyuki.\" You go on to say, \"It is interesting that not only does Shimada follow Yasunaga's style and terminology, later rules theorists such as Kaise Takaaki did too. Yasunaga's Constitution really was mould-forming.\" \ \ I really do not understand where we differ. :confused: \ \ ---- \ \ BTW, you also say this: \"Whatever else this Draft did, it legitimised discussion of the rules and was probably the source of the immensely useful shorthand of three passes to end a game.\" \ \ When I proposed my end of play rules, I ran into a good deal of opposition from the idea that two consecutive passes end play. My rules ended play with three consecutive passes, under most circumstances. Later I was delighted to find the three pass rule in Yasunaga. Who else took the idea up?" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-09 08:15:03","[quote]I really do not understand where we differ. [/quote] \ \ Bill, probably we are not differing. It's just that I thought you were implying that there was an early official response to the incident." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-09 08:28:32","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143363]Bill, probably we are not differing.[/QUOTE] \ \ What a relief! :)" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 09:26:19","Bill, didn't Robinson / Olmsted also suggest a form of superko with 3 passes? Then we have Ing, who extended the 3 to a procedurally \"symmetric\" 4 so as to allow pass as a ko threat. In some of my experiment rulesets, I have copied the idea. But from a POV of value theory, I suppose your rules are the most fitting, although I have not really verified that yet. I do not think though that value theory should guide practical rules but that value theory must be altered to fit actually used rules. Concerning \"botton go\" a la WMSG Rules, I am still not sure about the best practical solution but my general preference for practical playing rules has been to favour simplicity of the rules (two are better than three successive passes) over greater mathematical elegance within some specific theory system." "wms","","2010-03-09 09:56:36","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143320]Japanese rules on KGS I do not perceive as working well in practice. There are too many problems related to dame. Things could be improved: Scoring should be done by flood-filling, not by attempting to let the computer work out life and death. Removals should require clicking by both players; thereby accidents and cheating would be reduced.[/QUOTE]\ Robert, I'm surprised that somebody as precise as you would be so confused on what \"in practice\" means.\ \ There have been 36,411,941 games played on KGS as of now. About 90% of them use the KGS version of Japanese rules. That makes over 30,000,000 games played, and the number of unresolved rules issues in all those games is well under 1,000, perhaps as low as 100.\ \ I provide that as extremely strong evidence that in fact, the KGS version of Japanese rules works incredibly well IN PRACTICE." "Fedya","","2010-03-09 10:26:01","[QUOTE=wms;143381]Robert, I'm surprised that somebody as precise as you would be so confused on what \"in practice\" means.[/QUOTE] \ It seems to mean precisely what he wants it to mean. That may or may not be what everybody else understands it to mean, but we're all wrong. \ \ [QUOTE]There have been 36,411,941 games played on KGS as of now. About 90% of them use the KGS version of Japanese rules. That makes over 30,000,000 games played, and the number of unresolved rules issues in all those games is well under 1,000, perhaps as low as 100. \ \ I provide that as extremely strong evidence that in fact, the KGS version of Japanese rules works incredibly well IN PRACTICE.[/QUOTE] \ In reading the [URL=http://godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11273]latest thread on the Jasiek-Mero dispute game[/URL], there was a link to the [URL=http://senseis.xmp.net/?DisputeMeroJasiek%2FDiscussion]Sensei's Library page on it[/URL], where Jasiek is on record as saying he'll play out a game where he only has a one in a million chance to win: \ \ [quote]RobertJasiek: Of course, you can make my basic line of argument more complicated by also considering other aspects, of which resignation is one. Resignation is a right - not a duty. Every player has his own resignation style. Mine is roughly: \"Don't resign when chances to win are still greater than 1:1,000,000. \ \ {...}[/quote] \ By that regard, 100 disputes in 36 million games is worryingly common. \ \ On the other hand, what does that make 10,000 year kos out to be?" "Bill Spight","","2010-03-09 12:38:03","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143377]Bill, didn't Robinson / Olmsted also suggest a form of superko with 3 passes? Then we have Ing, who extended the 3 to a procedurally \"symmetric\" 4 so as to allow pass as a ko threat. In some of my experiment rulesets, I have copied the idea. But from a POV of value theory, I suppose your rules are the most fitting, although I have not really verified that yet.[/QUOTE]\ \ If you are evaluating a ko position before the end of the game by play, then stopping play after two consecutive tenuki does not necessarily produce an accurate evaluation. (OC, tenuki lifts a ko or superko ban, so this does not strike people as strange). Stopping play after three consecutive tenuki does work, however.\ \ [QUOTE]I do not think though that value theory should guide practical rules but that value theory must be altered to fit actually used rules.[/QUOTE]\ \ The relevance of value theory is that a score is a value. Also, both traditional and current mathematical methods of determining value rely upon play. And there is a trend in the rules towards resolving scoring questions (such as life and death) by play (actual or hypothetical). Value theory allows scores to be determined by play in the same way as values earlier in the game. OC, such consistency is not necessary, but, IMO, it is desirable. :)\ \ Earlier I mentioned the use of tenuki in evaluating positions. That assumes an idealization. On a real board, tenuki that produce accurate evaluation may not exist. Instead, we use idealized tenuki that have the right properties. It does not hurt to call such tenuki passes. :) The extension to scoring is obvious. To find the score via play passes should lift ko or superko bans, and a two pass rule should not end play. :) Other end of play rules are not guaranteed to produce scores in a consistent manner to values earlier in the game.\ \ \ [QUOTE]Concerning \"botton go\" a la WMSG Rules, I am still not sure about the best practical solution but my general preference for practical playing rules has been to favour simplicity of the rules (two are better than three successive passes) over greater mathematical elegance within some specific theory system.[/QUOTE]\ \ Would you consider the simpler one pass rule to be even better? ;)\ \ Anyway, I think that Button Go is the wave of the future, and besides, I like it. :)" "Bantari","","2010-03-09 13:51:04","[QUOTE=Zahlman;143279]Well... if you are buying games when 'Alone' is in effect, you are a sucker. If 'Alone' is not in effect, and you are giving the game a fair try, then either it fundamentally doesn't appeal to you, or it hasn't been effectively sold to you. \ \ If it doesn't fundamentally appeal to you, then nothing can be done. But if it hasn't been effectively sold, the set-seller has failed. And the rules distributed with the set, I argue, are crucial to that selling effort.[/quote] \ \ So is the box and the place the box is placed in the display window. \ So? \ \ My argument is not that the quality of rules is not important. \ My argument is that from that fact that not many people can be found who have learned Go without any infrastructure other than the attached pamphlet cannot be derived that 'we lose many players due to bad rules'. \ \ The argument that 'we lost people due to bad rules' might still be true, but it needs to be supported in a better way that by saying that not many people learned Go without help of established players. \ \ I am not sure how to explain it any better to you. \ \ [QUOTE=Zahlman;143279]That does seem to be the core of it. The problem is that \"common sense\" is not so common. We need to be clear and accurate, for example, when we define (or allude to) liberties (in the simple sense of spots adjacent to a string of stones); we can't just expect ordinary English words like \"surround\" to do the trick, because they are incredibly ambiguous. But neither do we need to define 'string', 'group' etc. with mathematical rigor. \ \ It is probably worth giving examples of moves that are legal, in cases where common misconceptions might rule them out.[/QUOTE] \ \ We seem to agree on the above, mostly." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 14:09:47","wms, you misinterpret statistics. That you get to see only a small number / percentage of disputes under KGS-Japanese Rules has several causes: \ \ - quite some players do not know the rules well \ - above 50% of those scoring mistakes that I watched as a kibitz (once every 50th or 100th game?) were not noticed by the (mostly high dan) players, who clicked Done and quit the game \ - only very few players are aware of the official dispute resolution procedure (and probably a lot fewer would know how to handle rare shapes procedurally correctly in CGoban) \ - above 50% of the players being aware of the official dispute resolution procedure choose not to fight the dispute but prefer to start a new game (they rather accept losing rating points than spending time on clarifying a dispute) \ - a significant percentage of games (once every 30th or 50th game in the 5d range, the more the weaker the players are, at least down to the low dan range) is affected by escapers / cheaters, who use any chance available to them as a fake excuse to start doing nonsense; rules difficulties are the most welcome as a \"perfect excuse\"; so what was a rules problem is suddenly overridden by escaping / cheating \ - roughly every 20th to 70th game, an opponent becomes angry about the player's dame filling; most angry opponents pass in between (this already qualifies pretty well as a rules problem because the player knowing the scoring bugs cannot just join passing but is right to fill the dame), a smaller percentage of angry opponents escapes as a protest against the dame filling (especially when being behind by positional judgement) or starts complaining or insulting \ \ So proper statistics should result in something like (modest estimate) KGS-Japanese Rules problems at least every 100th game. This gives over 300,000 games. Your statistics are wrong by a factor 300 to 3,000 at least." "Bantari","","2010-03-09 14:10:36","Zhalman, I feel we are getting into tangential issues here which I have not intended to go into here. What I am arguing against here is the following:\ \ 1) [B]Rules need to be precise, complete, and mathematically elegant.[/B] In particular, I do not see any solid data to support a statement that we lose many beginners due to bad rules. This also goes to what I understand is Robert's position on the rules. Especially the 'mathematical elegance' and the way I think Robert understand 'precision' and 'completeness' is what I object against.\ \ 2) [B]Rules need to define the end-of-game without ambiguity[/B]. In particular - rules which force players to play until bitter end (yes - I meant to say 'forced' rather than 'let' in my post). It is another implied point for 'we lose so many beginner due to poor rules'.\ \ 3) [B]Rules set which has less rules is better[/B]. In particular - rules which explain life with one sentence rather than two are better. This is what started me going in this debate, I think.\ \ I do not fully agree with any of the above 3 statements.\ \ From what you write, I guess that we actually agree on more than is apparent, only my sometimes unclear use of the language makes things confusing. Sorry about that." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 14:13:02","Fedya, I resign earlier than James Kervin. Maybe this gives you a better idea than the wild guess 1:million." "Bantari","","2010-03-09 14:20:08","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143323]Bantari, the \"bitter\" end is the \"sweet\" end![/quote] \ \ Duly noted. \ From the Mero episode it is clear that what many consider 'bitter' you might consider 'sweet' - like rules disputes. \ \ [QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143323]What I have said about beginners is based on my observations of them. \ \ Also your experience with (not) quitting beginners due to too complex rules differs from mine or Hicham's.[/quote] \ \ I almost feel like starting a poll, lol. \ I hate polls. \ \ Different teachers have different experiences. \ But I feel that you might blame the quality of the rules for the quality of the teacher. \ At least - if your teaching tries to follow the same strict and unyielding reasoning that you display here. \ \ [QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143323]Infrastructure around a game is not needed to have excited beginners playing it (provided they understand the rules).[/QUOTE] \ \ I never said it was. \ Just that if a beginner quit, and there are multiple factors which might have caused it - it is a misinformation to present one specific factor (the quality of rules) as the only important one just because it fits into somebody's agenda." "Bantari","","2010-03-09 14:25:54","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143325]Bantari, it is not mathematical precision and elegance per se that beginners learn the rules from but both aspects as a background behind the design of the rules let them be more easily understood by the beginners.[/QUOTE] \ \ Any concrete proof for that claim? \ \ From my experiences, beginners doing just fine getting hooked on the game and continuing playing it for years after being taught some form of Japanese-style rules, for example. Or any other rules I have vaguely understood and tried to teach. \ \ Underlying mathematical precision and elegance *might* help, but possibly the same results can be achieved without such strictness. \ \ If the number of players in Asia and the popularity of the game there is not just a ficticious faery-tale - lack of rules like the ones you quest for is not really a big obstacle. \ \ Its all I am saying." "Zahlman","","2010-03-09 14:51:30","[QUOTE=Bantari;143403]The argument that 'we lost people due to bad rules' might still be true, but it needs to be supported in a better way that by saying that not many people learned Go without help of established players. \ \ I am not sure how to explain it any better to you.[/QUOTE] \ \ What, then, would you take as valid evidence for the claim?" "Harleqin","","2010-03-09 15:09:38","Can we agree on that there should be written rules that, if everyone follows them, ensure fair resolution of play?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 15:10:58","Bantari, rules disputes are not sweet but different. \ \ My teaching: I try not to overlook mistakes of the pupil. In that sense: strict. Else nothing like rules analysis. But you would enjoy my lists of reasons. Where ordinary teachers would offer at most one, I prefer to list, e.g., five. No, not lists of details - but lists of major reasons. \ \ Proof for simpler rules being better understood by beginners? Example: For the ca. 10 years that the Simple Rules were available, only one or two beginners needed to ask. This is much less than what I have seen for various more complicated rules." "Zahlman","","2010-03-09 15:17:29","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143406] \ - roughly every 20th to 70th game, an opponent becomes angry about the player's dame filling; most angry opponents pass in between (this already qualifies pretty well as a rules problem because the player knowing the scoring bugs cannot just join passing but is right to fill the dame), a smaller percentage of angry opponents escapes as a protest against the dame filling (especially when being behind by positional judgement) or starts complaining or insulting[/QUOTE] \ \ I think the other observations, in particular this one, are prone to selection bias. We are talking about problems with the KGS implementation of Japanese rules, after all. I am sure it is much rarer than this for opponents to \"become angry about the player's dame filling\" because it is unusual for there to be a large number of dame in a close game, and very unusual for one player to start filling dame, [b]knowing that the rules are the KGS implementation of Japanese rules[/b], unless s/he has reason to believe it might force opponent to play teire. But since you are one of the players who does so out of habit (as you also select one of the other rulesets out of habit), naturally you would see the phenomenon more often. \ \ If you see these things happening in your games, I should think it says more about people's unwillingness to deal with your particular attitude towards rules in general. Many people escape - or resign - just to get away from someone who is argumentative about something they cannot understand, believe to be nonsense, or just plain do not wish to argue about. \ \ Further, while a genuine rules problem might be taken as an excuse for escaping, so might anything else, up to and including the escaper's false understanding or deliberate misinterpretation of the rules. Most escapes do not happen during the scoring phase. \ \ In short, I am not convinced that the rules-implementation itself can be faulted for any significant fraction of that behaviour. In my over 7 year history on KGS I cannot recall ever getting into a serious argument about the rules." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-09 23:03:08","\"My particular attitude towards rules\" is to apply them. Very particular indeed:( The problem is that KGS itself does not apply the rules but creates stupid nonsense related to dame and teire. From another POV, the problem is that the KGS programmer expects people to fill all the two-sided dame (so that all teire will be filled) but most players don't under KGS-Japanese Rules. \ \ It can never be right to score wrongly and unpredictably. Such turns a game where 1 point more decides the winner into a game where 1 point plus-minus some randomizer decides the winner. This violates the spirit of the game to be a contest of skill only. Not only does it produce wrong winners for single games but furthermore it reduces the reputation of the game, which is threatened to be perceived as some game with imprecise outcome. It is like scoring correctly, then drawing 1 of 30 cards of which one invokes a die, then possibly throwing the die as a score modifier. \ \ Go is not meant to be a game of luck!" "Harleqin","","2010-03-10 05:49:31","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143443]\"My particular attitude towards rules\" is to apply them. Very particular indeed.[/QUOTE] \ \ That goes into my quote collection. :)" "Bantari","","2010-03-10 13:27:50","[QUOTE=Zahlman;143415]What, then, would you take as valid evidence for the claim?[/QUOTE] \ \ Almost anything, really. \ Numbers, research, even a poll, probably. \ \ Let me summarize the situation as I see thus far: \ \ [B]1)[/B] I never heard anybody other than Robert claiming that they 'could not possibly learn Go due to bad rules' - although admittedly the sample is skewed since I am talking to people who *did* learn Go. To be fair - I do not know many who learned from a pamphlet, or even tried to, so this point might be shaky. I would welcome more input here, but to make it meaningless we would have to poll people who quit learning Go. \ \ [B]2)[/B] The claim that \"I cannot teach Go due to bad rules\" I have also heard pretty much only from Robert and maybe one or two others - and from observation I do not have a very high opinion of his teaching abilities (no offense Robert), his mind seems to be just working differently than your average beginner - and even when he tries to explain stuff to Go enthusiasts like us - he is often irritating more people than not. \ \ [B]3)[/B] I hear people arguing for this or that rules set as better for teaching, but the field seems to be pretty much divided - although maybe skewed slightly towards rules incorporating area-scoring. \ \ Mostly argument is given that area scoring enables beginners to try things out without losing points. My personal opinion is that I am not sure if this is so good - the penalty for trying hopeless stuff can be a strong motivator prompting beginners to try to first figure out what is plausible and what not - and this speeds the learning process. But I acknowledge that the opposite is also valid opinion. \ \ To points 2 & 3: \ Additionally, from all my years as a student and a teacher I have realized that while there are bad books out there (and bad Go rules) - the failure to teach properly is most often due to bad teaching rather than bad books. I have had teachers doing a great job with bad books, and crappy job with good books. I don't see why the same cannot be said about teaching Go. After all, many dumb people learned it, including me, so it cannot be impossible or even that hard with the rules we commonly use. \ \ [B]4)[/B] My personal experience shows me that it is not very hard to teach Go even using japanese-style rules, and I never had anybody serious quitting on me for the lack of good rules. The same goes for everybody I have personally talked to about that. I have taught Go in 5 countries and in 4 languages, so it cannot be only a local phenomenon. I do not think that I am an exceptionally good teacher, maybe average at best. \ \ So, this is pretty much where I stand. \ Most of the above is just personal opinions and observations, but that goes for both sides of the fence. I understand that I cannot convince nobody by just my personal opinion. The same goes in reverse, of course. Thus - I asked for anything more than opinions, evidence or even solid indicators on a more-than-personal basis. Lacking thereof - we are all just having a friendly exchange of opinions, with no expectations and no strings attached, yes? \ \ Personal opinions of an overwhelming majority of Go players would also probably convince me, or at least make me rethink my position - but I do not see any such majority." "Javaness","","2010-03-10 14:08:35","I have never given anyone a copy of the rules when I taught them. So far nobody I have taught has quit because they could not understand how to play. I have taught them all something close to Japanese Rules. \ \ Whether or not people can (for example) learn to play Go better from NZ rules as opposed to Japanese rules seems to be pure speculation to me. It would not be particularly hard to test out reality here - but nobody i know of has ever done that. Until somebody does I dismiss such claims as Robert's.\ \ My father (a man of above average intelligence) failed to learn how to play Scrabble correctly - the rules provided in the box were good - yet he misapplied them! \ \ My intuition is that people who claim they failed to learn Go because of the quality of rules they were given actually failed because they could not find an experienced player to show them how to play." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-10 21:38:00","Bantari: \ \ (1) \ \ This proves that you have not read all rec.games.go articles carefully!:) There have been several reports by different players that they have experienced or witnessed third persons' experience to have stopped playing go forever or for up to ca. 5 decades because of bad rules. \ \ A poll will be tough because you would have to interrogate also the non-playing populations. \ \ (2) \ \ I have never said that I could not teach go because of bad rules. I have said that I saw somebody (who called himself 13k, so I thought: Not a raw beginner any more.) running away whom I beat by controlling the entire 13x13 and then, when he objected and asked, tried to explain to him why under Japanese style rules his stones were all dead (I did not even enter any rules aspect directly; he ran away when I started to explain a string connection problem of his stones). \ \ I have said that I have much greater difficulties teaching Japanese style rules to beginners (requires at least hours) than teaching simple rules (requires about 5 to 15 minutes, depending on the pupils). \ \ What you call me being irritated is often my much greater interest in a precise understanding. \ \ (3) \ \ It can be a failure of bad teaching INSTEAD of bad books IF the teaching is done by a teacher at all rather than directly by the book. Else the bad teaching inside the book is also responsble. \ \ (4) \ \ Maybe you are a gifted teacher of raw beginners. I have also seen a teacher of beginners (J?rgen Mattern, record Europen Champion, who managed to let on average over 50% not come again after the first few weeks already. But rules was only part of the cause.) and heard of similar teaching at universities experiences by others. Strong part of the reason may be though that many students first don't know what go is about, and when they find out realize it is not their game. Who manages to keep almost 100% of previously raw beginners for months?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-10 21:46:54","Javaness, as has been reported by others, there have been some chess players who came to go clubs and then left because of the ambiguous Japanese style rules. \ \ \"learning go\" is different from \"learning the go rules\"! If your aim is to teach only the rules, then it takes 5+ minutes with area scoring but hours or (depending on the pupils) weeks with territory scoring. If your aim is to make 15 kyus out of the newbies, then life and death and reading sequences therein are necessary anyway; so you could pretend better to have explained also verbal Japanese style rules by then." "Javaness","","2010-03-11 13:12:10","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143559]Javaness, as has been reported by others, there have been some chess players who came to go clubs and then left because of the ambiguous Japanese style rules.\ [/QUOTE]\ \ The story is not very well elaborated. Crucially, the actual explanations given and their manner is not detailed. I have yet to meet a Chess player who quit because he did not like the ruleset.\ \ In general I notice that Go players are sometimes quite rude or condescending to Chess players when introducing the game to them.\ I have met Chess players who avoided Go because of this.\ \ So overall, not convinced at all here." "shapenaji","","2010-03-11 13:22:39","Unless someone can make the argument that making the rules more precise will somehow scare away players, I don't see the harm in doing away with an ambiguous ruleset like the japanese one. \ \ To be honest, the method of scoring is less important as you get stronger, you can play with whichever. So lets make a ruleset for the beginners, not for the people who \"know that this \"a\", \"b\" and \"c\" are dead\"." "Bantari","","2010-03-11 13:37:57","[QUOTE=Javaness;143620]The story is not very well elaborated. Crucially, the actual explanations given and their manner is not detailed. I have yet to meet a Chess player who quit because he did not like the ruleset. \ \ In general I notice that Go players are often quite rude or condescending to Chess players when introducing the game to them. \ I have met Chess players who avoided Go because of this. \ \ So overall, not convinced at all here.[/QUOTE] \ \ I fully agree with the above. \ \ I have seen chess players avoiding or even dismissing Go after being explained the rules but it was never because of the rules themselves - it was usually because of how different Go is from chess, and how that fact disappointed their expectations. The biggest hurdle I have seen when teaching Go to chess players was the idea of 'agreeing' to end the game. Say what, there is no mate, mate? The confusion is usually easily dispelled by drawing a comparison with 'agreeing to a draw' in chess - you need some experience to make such decision, and so in Go. \ \ Another confusing point is usually related to the question 'So, all pieces move the same?' ;) \ \ As a matter of fact, I think that at a beginner level, chess rules are much more complex and harder to assimilate than Go rules. Think about it - in chess, everything is a 'special case'. This piece moves like this, that piece moves like that, this one can jump over other pieces while that one cannot, this is what happens if this piece reaches the and of board while that happens when that one does the same, you can castle now but not now, this piece can move backwards while this one cannot... geesh... \ \ I have seen potential chess players being discouraged from playing chess because of all that. But so what? Such is the game, that's all there is to it. Not everybody has to like it. And it really has nothing to do with the rules being 'badly written' or 'not clear enough', in most cases. \ \ And then you see Go players complaining when you need two sentences to describe seki rather than one. \ \ All in all, I think that Go players are pretty spoiled when it comes to rules. \ Compared to chess players, bridge players, and so on..." "Y Nishi","I agree...but","2010-03-11 13:59:26","[QUOTE=Bantari;143623] \ As a matter of fact, I think that at a beginner level, chess rules are much more complex and harder to assimilate than Go rules. Think about it - in chess, everything is a 'special case'. This piece moves like this, that piece moves like that, this one can jump over other pieces while that one cannot, this is what happens if this piece reaches the and of board while that happens when that one does the same, you can castle now but not now, this piece can move backwards while this one cannot... geesh... \ \ [/QUOTE] \ \ What you say here is true, but, in my opinion, the issue you refer earlier in your post - \"how does the game end\" - trumps go's advantage in simplicity for the beginner. \ \ Yes, a chess learner has far more hurdles in his path - but he sees the finish line very clearly. \ \ The go learner may easily avoid breaking the rules, the path to the finish line is clear, he just has no idea where it is." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-11 14:02:10","[quote]Unless someone can make the argument that making the rules more precise will somehow scare away players, I don't see the harm in doing away with an ambiguous ruleset like the japanese one. [/quote] \ \ In essence this has already been done. The Americans have devised AGA rules, and the French and British have copied them. The New Zealanders actually use their own rules, too, I believe. \ \ The argument is against the sort of precision Robert Jasiek has in mind, which splits into two parts. One is \"mathematical elegance\" which, if undiluted, is objectionable to lots of non-mathematically inclined players, even established ones. The other is pedantic legalese (though that might be an overly polite name for ungrammatical jargon written by a non-native speaker with a pepper-pot full of hyphens)." "Koch","","2010-03-11 14:07:43","[quote=john fairbairn;143628]the other is pedantic legalese (though that might be an overly polite name for ungrammatical jargon written by a non-native speaker with a [b]pepper-pot full of hyphens[/b]).[/quote] \ \ :)-:)-:)" "shapenaji","","2010-03-11 14:42:51","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;143628]In essence this has already been done. The Americans have devised AGA rules, and the French and British have copied them. The New Zealanders actually use their own rules, too, I believe. \ \ The argument is against the sort of precision Robert Jasiek has in mind, which splits into two parts. One is \"mathematical elegance\" which, if undiluted, is objectionable to lots of non-mathematically inclined players, even established ones. The other is pedantic legalese (though that might be an overly polite name for ungrammatical jargon written by a non-native speaker with a pepper-pot full of hyphens).[/QUOTE] \ \ Well, right you are, AGA rules serve as a very good universal ruleset (and I happen to like them). I think Japanese rules tend to be taught to beginners in the US though. They're the ones which seem to appear most in commercial versions of the game, and hence they tend to be the first ones that beginners ever see... which I think is unfortunate." "Bantari","","2010-03-11 15:26:48","[QUOTE=Y Nishi;143627]What you say here is true, but, in my opinion, the issue you refer earlier in your post - \"how does the game end\" - trumps go's advantage in simplicity for the beginner. \ \ Yes, a chess learner has far more hurdles in his path - but he sees the finish line very clearly. \ \ The go learner may easily avoid breaking the rules, the path to the finish line is clear, he just has no idea where it is.[/QUOTE] \ \ Correct. \ \ Which is exactly part of my argument - each games has hurdles, some more, some less, some different than others... It is good to try to minimize these hurdles, but (a) I don't believe they will ever be eradicated, and (b) I disagree with the fact that such hurdles prevent people from learning/playing/enjoying the game - in the large scheme of things. \ \ The fact that chess has MORE HURDLES *but* Go has THIS OR THAT PARTICULAR HURDLE is neither here nor there, imho." "Tommie","J?rgen was a good teacher","2010-03-11 16:25:57","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143558]\ (4)\ \ (...) gifted teacher of raw beginners. I have also seen a teacher of beginners (J?rgen Mattern, record Europen Champion, who managed to let on average over 50% not come again after the first few weeks already. But rules was only part of the cause.) \ [/QUOTE]\ Robert, the implied statement here seems to be that J?rgen was/(you find) a bad teacher, while your argumentation pivots in all threads about rules.\ \ I object to your statement by mine: I had J?rgen as a teacher for beginners (I was 15 kyu at the time) in one course (in the FU - Freie Universit?t Berlin) too - and I liked it very much! I evaluate him a good teacher. \ Later I enjoyed him even more in the famous Souterrain, where he would play anyone in the 9H range. Good teacher!\ \ [QUOTE] Strong part of the reason may be though that many students first don't know what ...[/QUOTE]\ ... interests them most?\ \ Ever enrolled in Taekwondo, Salsa, Go, French etc. at the same time? Realizing that you cannot go to 37 hours of lectures,\ 15 hours of practica,\ doing homework,\ buy food, cook, eat, live, love, sleep etc.\ AND all of the activities together?\ \ \ [QUOTE] ... and when they find out realize it is not their game. \ [/QUOTE]\ 50 % remaining students for (almost) free courses (in universities) is so normal.\ \ [QUOTE]\ Who manages to keep almost 100% of previously raw beginners for months?[/QUOTE]\ \ Yes, I wonder too.\ _______________________________________________________________________________________________\ [B]Returning to the subject of the thread:[/B]\ the [B]4 simple rules[/B] of Go [B]are enough[/B] to keep me and many people attracted to the game, enjoying it so much.\ \ I wanted to attach your own WORD document with the 4 rules to this thread, unfortunately for this time to no avail.\ \ 4 Rules are enough to enjoy. :)" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-11 23:39:04","Javaness, Bantari, unfortunately I do not have all links to earlier reports (here chess players leaving quickly) readily available. The reports by third persons were given though. \ \ John, I do not have one and only one sort of precision in mind for rules. Research rulesets like J2003 or Olmsted Rules require very high precision. Rulesets for practical playing require a lower precision. That I still ask for some minimal degree of precision for them does not mean that I would ask for the highest possible degree. \ \ Grammar is extended within specialized language. Research rulesets use annotation, terms and grammer that you maybe call ungrammatical but that follow a specialized, not everyday grammer. E.g., consistent usage of hyphens allows easy distinction of terms from other words or phrases. E.g., capturable-2 is easier to write and read than \"type II of a string that is capturable\" or \"a string that is capturable of the type given by local enviroment, where this phrase has to be understood as a term\". \ \ Rules by their nature are already pedantic: They are supposed to be always applied within their scope of contents. Coexistence of several rules requires being more pedantic because the mutual relation of the rules must be considered. Official rulesets with many exceptions and details are pedantic in themselves even before somebody writes a commentary. E.g., official Ing rules are so pedantic to introduce \"a hundred\" new terms. A commentary that ignores the degree of details of the original rules might avoid being pedantic but fails to do its job (it replaces commenting by wishful thinking)." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-11 23:55:23","Tommie, J?rgen was very good at making those newbies that he did not motivate to leave before ca. 14.5 kyus within ca. 2 weeks. He was strong at tactics but his tactical joy was by far above the pupil's heads (e.g., he would offer his book, which is suitable for 3 dans, to the newbies; or he would put too difficult life and death problems on the board). Above 14.5 kyu, his teaching was much weaker. E.g., during all the years I attended his university lessons, about all he could teach about strategy to me was: \"Strategically you are weak!\" He was right with that, but I had to find out the why by myself later as a 3 dan. He could not teach strategy well at all. Also, a different club's teacher (5 kyu at that time) made me stronger from 14.5 to 10 kyu very quickly by just one insight: \"You do not learn from your mistakes at all!\" A simple advice that J?rgen had not been able to teach.\ \ He was a great entertainer while teaching; attending his lessons or playing there was always fun. But this does not make him a great teacher. He played everybody in the clubs; ok, if you call that teaching, fine - but I rather mean verbal teaching and showing variations in between the games.\ \ Few of his pupils survived in the go community but maybe this is general for all teachers?\ \ (And rules he could not teach at all, except saying that there would be many different rulesets...)" "Tommie","J?rgen","2010-03-12 15:07:24","[B]getting OT to title of thread:[/B]\ \ [QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143677]Tommie, J?rgen was very good at making those newbies that he did not motivate to leave before ca. 14.5 kyus within ca. 2 weeks.[/QUOTE]\ \ I do not understand your comment completely, sense however intended cynicism about J?rgen. Am I correct?\ \ I consider this unnecessary unfair and self-righteous. \ \ [QUOTE] He was strong at tactics [/QUOTE] EGF 6d, self-taught top of the European players, correct.\ \ According to J?rgen himself, qualified as 'peasant' style by a Japanese prof, although he also got the comment once that he would be a good runner. That was the generation with few more (EN literature than Go Review).\ \ [QUOTE] ...but his tactical joy was by far above the pupil's heads [/QUOTE]\ \ [QUOTE] (e.g., he would offer his book, which is suitable for 3 dans, to the newbies;[/QUOTE] \ I am not sure whether you are able to notice things like that:\ he had a constant shortage of money, living on dole in a simple flat, borrowing money from many, bringing his guitar to the pawnshop, seeling Go books (this must have been before your time; my Go Reviews are from him) etc.\ Yes, he sold everything, also his super-complicated book.\ \ Hence the reason is: [B]being poor, not being a poor teacher.[/B]\ Do you understand the reason? \ \ [QUOTE] ... or he would put too difficult life and death problems on the board).[/QUOTE] \ I have not seen your problems can not judge this.\ \ For me being 15k at the time, the (strategic) problems were indeed challenging. I did my homework meticulously though and will never forget the smiles of J?rgen and Joachim (2-3d) when I presented my solution, worked out in detail and well-reasoned, [I]but one of the original stones was missing.[/I] !\ (Hence, the result was wrong, but the thought process useful).\ \ BTW, I still have some of those exercises, they are very useful, teaching and seem to stem form magazines and books.\ \ Of course, problems intended for a 5k could be unrealistic for a 15k. And, yes, it is a fact that those courses were not uniform in strength (20k to 3d).\ \ [QUOTE]Above 14.5 kyu, his teaching was much weaker.[/QUOTE] \ Not sure what you mean.\ Do you mean, that for the range 14k to 4d his teaching was even worse than you alleged above?\ \ [QUOTE]E.g., during all the years I attended his university lessons, about all he could teach about strategy to me was: \"Strategically you are weak!\" He was right with that, but I had to find out the why by myself later as a 3 dan. He could not teach strategy well at all.[/QUOTE] \ Fair enough, after all feelings are said to be [I]true[/I] (by definition).\ Understanding teaching/learning as a kind of communication, \ I imagine a certain [B]difficulty to communicate-listen[/B] (pl. notice the hyphen; btw, should it be the other way round?).\ \ [QUOTE]... one insight: \"You do not learn from your mistakes at all!\" A simple advice that J?rgen had not been able to teach.\ [/QUOTE]\ Sounds like a perpetuum mobile. \ [B]S.o. can not learn from mistakes -> that makes the player stronger???[/B] :confused: \ [FONT=\"Comic Sans MS\"]A [COLOR=\"Blue\"]non-working, non-advice which J?rgen did not give\ is allegedly displaying a lack of teaching ability?[/COLOR] \ [/FONT]\ Reminds me of one of the very first and the last scene of the very funny movie [URL=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_Hustle\"]Kung-Fu Hustle[/URL]. I do not want to give you more of a spoiler - enjoy!\ [IMG]http://shopbase.finetunes.net/shopserver/BinaryCacheServlet?albumid=1112624348203&datatype=fc300[/IMG]\ \ [QUOTE][B]He was a great entertainer[/B] while teaching; [B]attending his lessons or playing there was always fun[/B].[/QUOTE] \ That [I]IS[/I] a great compliment.\ Can we do that? Can you do that?\ \ [QUOTE]But this does not make him a great teacher.[/QUOTE] \ Ohh ...\ \ [QUOTE]He played everybody in the clubs; ok, if you call that teaching, fine - but I rather mean verbal teaching and showing variations in between the games. [/QUOTE]\ It's such a long time ago for me, I am not sure anymore.\ My experiences with him can differ greatly from yours.\ My feelings are like this that he would have liked to explain in great detail if I asked him.\ \ [QUOTE]Few of his pupils [U]survived[/U] in the go community but maybe this is general for all teachers?[/QUOTE]\ ... and pupils.\ What is the argument? (You like arguments, they should be true, and you are right)\ \ [QUOTE](And rules he could not teach at all, except saying that there would be many different rulesets...)[/QUOTE]\ [B]Go has so few rules (4), [/B]\ I am done in less than 3 minutes.\ After 60 seconds I can tell any beginner 'Let's play!'.\ I esp. tell nobody about ko (or life) but let them discover themselves. Of course I try to go for jigo or let them win. \ \ Often the last sentence or statement is the most important one for the person saying it or should convince the other.\ \ Your last statement [QUOTE]... rules he could not teach at all ...[/QUOTE] has no value for me.\ \ Come on, you have a university degree - mathematics, I guess.\ Rules are just there to be acknowledged. You do not need your intelligence to study or teach RULES. \ What is possible within the 4 rules is all the fun about. Go is NOT double accounting!" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-12 22:59:28","Tommie, his teaching lessons also included small talk about his personal problems (being jobless, ill, not getting a visa to attend the WAGC due to his illness, a different German player possibly attending the WAGC instead of joining his protest etc.) and his record EGC success. All this we already learned during about the first two weeks. It is not the kind of thing most newbies want to hear; they rather expect to be taught the game and nothing but the game because they want to play it. The newbies talked among themselves also about J?rgen's personal talk about himself and most did not like it and to those of us who remained there it became clear that a significant number of those leaving during the first two weeks did so because of disliking the too personal talk. Those newbies who didn't mind or found his personal experience interesting stayed longer or permanently. \ \ But every newbie that stayed for at least ca. 2 weeks would then be ca. 14.5 kyu. \ \ I do not think that J?rgen was quite as poor as you might think: He got federal support for being jobless plus earned a good amount (he told me how much) for holding the go lessons at university. He became poor nevertheless due to going to the casino. So I am very well aware of him being poor in practice. But trying to sell his 4 or 5 personal book reference copies for DEM 10 each to newbies (rather than established players) would hardly have provided noteworthy income. He also donated really interesting books to the Berliner Go Association for that he could have got more money more easily if he had wanted to. No, I really think that the motivation for selling his own book for too small a price that he wanted to have readers with that he could talk a lot about tsumego and he wanted the newbies to appreciate difficult tsumego as soon as possible. (At other occasions, he spoke of the problems in Hatsuyoron as diamonds or would put some too difficult go or chess problem on the board in a club, hoping for others to join a solving session. The myth is that he solved some Hatsuyoron problems before breakfast.) \ \ The too difficult problems for us newbies in ca. week 3 were like 2x3 empty intersections in the corner leading to an exceptional behaviour compared to 2x3 placed elsewhere. We newbies did not want to solve such too difficult problems but rather play. \ \ His teaching (the go teaching, not the personal talk aside) from total beginner to 14.5 kyu was apparently very good because almost all other clubs I have seen would have permanent 30 kyus. J?rgen made EACH staying player a ca. 14.5 kyu within ca. 2 weeks. Impressive! \ \ But his teaching of kyu players 14.5 kyu or stronger was very much weaker! During the ca. 3 years when I attended his lessons / university playing club, some other player with the nickname \"Omar\" and I were the strongest improving players of the players starting as his newbies during those years. We did not improve due to J?rgen's teaching but mainly due to books: Do not read any books and we would stay at the same rank. Read a book and either of us would improve by, say, a rank. Therefore I so sure that J?rgen's teaching was almost useless to us above 14.5 kyu. (Not entirely useless of course and attending his club was a great joy, but joy does not mean strength improvement.) \ \ The not explaining of \"Strategically you are weak!\" was definitely his failure as a teacher: Each time I would ask: Why? Where am I weak strategically? What should I do differently? He could not answer those questions, although a good teacher should always be able to answer them and do it. \ \ Sigh. Staying at 14.5 kyu for a somewhat long time, I did not learn from my mistakes because the principle possibility that one might learn from one's mistakes at all had avoided me. As soon as someone suggested to me that I should learn from my mistakes, I then improved to 10 kyu within 4 months by myself because I applied learning from my mistakes at all. I.e., since that advice that I got at 14.5 kyu I am able to improve from learning from my mistakes (as far as I understand them) very well. (From 9 kyu to 3 dan within 17 months by applying book knowledge to correct my mistakes.) Very clearly, it was J?rgen's fault as a teacher not having been able to teach strategy above newbie guidelines a la \"corner-side-center\" well. \ \ He was always willing to answer questions but some things he simply could not answer well or at all: strategy or rules questions. (Of course, different rulesets are not needed for newbies, but J?rgen came up with that topic by himself during the first few weeks saying: \"I have professional Japanese, WAGC - they are also different and I need to read them again before attending the next WAGC !!! - , Chinese and Ing Rules at home. If you are interested, I will bring them next time and explain.\" As you might guess, of course I was interested, but he never fulfilled that promise. My curiosity was born though. Having to wait until 2 years later when the Go Player's Almanac came out only increased it.)" "karaklis","","2010-03-12 23:19:33","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;143677]Above 14.5 kyu, his teaching was much weaker.[/QUOTE] \ \ Yeah, there must be a serious cut somewhere between 14.6 and 14.4 kyu. Must be exactly at 14,438030792556722183... because this is 3*e+2*pi." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-13 02:56:20","When entering my first tournament as a 14 kyu, I played 1:4. This means I was a weak 14 kyu. I beat most 15 kyus though, so I was stronger than 15 kyu. Therefore I was in between 14 and 15 kyu: 14 1/2 kyu, or abbreviated 14.5 kyu. Since every newbie in J?rgen's lesson at that time was about at that strength, we all were about 14.5 kyus. \ \ Under good circumstances, I can estimate ranks with about +-0.1 precision, but in the mentioned case, it was meant only as a symbolic precision fairly in between 14 and 15 kyu." "John Fairbairn","Even 2,389.43 years ago...","2010-03-13 05:00:02","Enigmatically in connection with a certain Daruma troll, sorry - doll - of our acquaintance, I was reminded of a passage in Zhuang Zi's Inner Books. \ \ Readers of this delightful work (it's the one that contains such famous stories as Zhuang waking up from a dream that he was a butterfly unaware of whether he was the Zhuang Zi who had had the dream or a butterfly dreaming it was Zhuang Zi) will no doubt recall a passage about Confucius and his favourite pupil Yan Hui. \ \ In this alleged story, Yan, with a view to applying what he sees as virtue and wisdom, tells Confucius he wants to go to the chaotic state of Wei and sort it out. He said the rules of the state were not being applied properly, and they were having special trouble with the endgame of every activity, with everyone very unsure if they would live or die. Many did die, and many more had their human rights abused. \ \ But Confucius scoffed at Yan and said he would end up getting his head chopped off. He went on (using here Burton Watson's useful translation): \ \ [FONT=\"Comic Sans MS\"]Virtue is destroyed by fame, and wisdom comes out of wrangling. Fame is something to beat people down with, and wisdom is a device for wrangling. Both are evil weapons - not the sort of thing to bring you success. Though your virtue may be great and your good faith unassailable, if you do not understand men's spirits, though your fame may be wide and you do not strive with others, if you do not understand men's minds, but instead appear before a tyrant and force him to listen to sermons on benevolence and righteousness, measures and standards - this is simply using other men's bad points to parade your own excellence. You will be called a plaguer of others. He who plagues others will be plagued in turn.[/FONT]" "ferl","","2010-03-14 00:06:37","That was very deep and wise , John ! \ But has the addressed the wisdom to grasp it ?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-14 03:09:19","Every 9p?" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-14 06:08:14","[quote]This Robert-bashing is getting real old, and it's from the same people over and over again. [/quote] \ \ It's hardly Robert-bashing. More like GD bashing by him. He has made 950 posts here, significantly more than me or most other people, and he also makes or has made very many similar posts on rec.games.go, the German and British forums, and on Sensei's Library. \ \ Because he is so persistent, it is important to keep resisting the perversions he advocates, either to avoid giving newcomers the wrong impression about the game, to avoid giving long-playing friends and sponsors a bad impression about western players in general, or to avoid influencing impressionable young people into thinking it is socially acceptable to try underhand tricks that exploit either rules flaws or other people's trusting nature. He may not actually intend these results, but they happen and they are sad for what he himself has described as an \"overwhelming majority\" of people who oppose his way of playing the game. By so blatantly ignoring them, he is effectively calling 99% of the go-playing population stupid morons, so we are entitled to speak up. \ \ He claims to love rules analysis but he actually gives the subject a bad name, and that is sad also for those of more temperate nature who also love that very worthy subject. It is also sad because it irritates people and makes them overlook his own genuine contributions. \ \ I do believe, as friendly advice, that it would be in his own best interests to ensure he does not fall into the trap of thinking he is Galileo or Gandhi and to ask himself why so many people prefer to play and talk about the trivial game of go in a more socially cohesive way. If he can't understand the reason, then he should at least accept they feel that way and act accordingly." "Harleqin","","2010-03-14 07:59:28","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;144005]it is important to keep resisting the perversions he advocates, either to avoid giving newcomers the wrong impression about the game, to avoid giving long-playing friends and sponsors a bad impression about western players in general, or to avoid influencing impressionable young people into thinking it is socially acceptable to try underhand tricks that exploit either rules flaws or other people's trusting nature.[/QUOTE] \ \ Robert does not advocate underhand tricks. He advocates rules that do not allow such." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-14 08:00:50","John, I have not said that an overwhelming majority of people would oppose my way of playing the game - I have said something like that an overwhelming majority of those players having stated their opinion had a different opinion from mine concerning interpretation of the Ing 1991 Rules with respect to their application to the particular dispute. Since you don't like being misquoted, it is maybe appropriate that you also don't misquote others. \ \ Having a differnt opinion is not the same as \"blatantly ignoring\" those with a different opinion. \ \ Your expressed opinion that I would be \"effectively calling 99% of the go-playing population stupid morons\" is treating me in a way that makes one wonder whether your behaviour is any better than what you, according to your opinion, describe about my behaviour. If you want to play a moral instance, be morally correct! \ \ If 950 posts about different topics was GD-bashing, then what about those members with more posts? If defending is bashing, then do mean that defense is not a right? \ \ Making many posts is first of all making a huge contribution. \ \ I am persistent? Sure. Quite like you. Being persistent is nothing negative. It is a sign of strong opinion or of being able to make huge contributions. \ \ ? do not provide \"perversions\". Filling dame under area scoring is good strategy - that is pretty much the opposite of perversion. What is wrong is rather the quests by some for not filling dame when it is strategically correct and for blaming the opponent for a player's mistake. Such misguides also newbies. \ \ What is giving sponsors bad impression? Factual discussions about rules and tournament systems? Sponsors should be delighted about the degree of factual insight in such (e.g., Western) discussions. \ \ I do not support rules \"tricks\" - what I support is careful and, where necessary, detailed rules application and simplification of rules so that those liking to go into details have the same rules interpretation as those disliking it. Since you mention young players: Also they profit from simplified rules!" "TMark","","2010-03-14 08:27:24","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;144011] \ ? do not provide \"perversions\". Filling dame under area scoring is good strategy - that is pretty much the opposite of perversion. What is wrong is rather the quests by some for not filling dame when it is strategically correct and for blaming the opponent for a player's mistake. Such misguides also newbies. \ \ [/QUOTE] \ \ Not strategy, only endgame tactics. Strategy can be applied to overall vision in using joseki and fuseki and similar parts of the game, but not to filling dame at the end of the game. Please use the right terminology. \ \ Best wishes." "Javaness","","2010-03-14 08:44:14","[QUOTE=TMark;144018]Not strategy, only endgame tactics. Strategy can be applied to overall vision in using joseki and fuseki and similar parts of the game, but not to filling dame at the end of the game. Please use the right terminology. \ \ Best wishes.[/QUOTE] \ \ I think that even tactic applies too high a degree of intelligence to the act." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-14 08:47:15","TMark, if you like, \"tactics\". But it can also be described in terms of strategy expressions like \"Play dame before passing!\". Calling it tactics rather has the reading ahead of specific variations in mind." "Javaness","","2010-03-14 09:02:56","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;144023]TMark, if you like, \"tactics\". But it can also be described in terms of strategy expressions like \"Play dame before passing!\". Calling it tactics rather has the reading ahead of specific variations in mind.[/QUOTE] \ \ Strategy refers to whole board plans \ Tactics refer to local traps or aji \ The wikipedia article on Go doesn't see the difference between these sadly. \ \ Dame filling, i'm not sure of the word for this. Mundane perhaps. To call it strategic is to disregard the integrity of the English language." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-14 10:08:47","Javaness, tactics and strategy are a continuum. Then strategy is used with different meanings. One emphases overview planning without knowing the details, another comes from game theory view and is about the union of all decision choices, yes another is about describing in terms of guidelines." "Harleqin","","2010-03-14 11:07:32","[QUOTE=Javaness;144022]I think that even tactic applies too high a degree of intelligence to the act.[/QUOTE] \ \ It is quite astonishing then that so many fail at it." "Javaness","","2010-03-14 11:20:50","[QUOTE=Harleqin;144054]It is quite astonishing then that so many fail at it.[/QUOTE] \ \ Once people are aware of the properties of a ruleset, and are alert enough to notice it is being used, I think that not many fail at it. So I would say it is quite predictable and logical." "simpkin","","2010-03-14 16:08:31","[QUOTE=Javaness;144025]Strategy refers to whole board plans \ Tactics refer to local traps or aji \ The wikipedia article on Go doesn't see the difference between these sadly.[/QUOTE] \ \ The beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that people who see problems with it can fix it themselves ...." "tealeaf","","2010-03-14 16:35:08","[QUOTE=Javaness;144025]Strategy refers to whole board plans \ Tactics refer to local traps or aji \ [/QUOTE] \ \ Humphrey Lyttelton put it best (paraphrased): \ \ \"Strategy refers to high level, long term plans. Tactics refer to small, white mints.\"" "LindseyK","","2010-03-15 04:21:52","Goodness, this thread is like death. After reading through the first 12 pages, I just want to hit someone. \ \ Anyways, the only point I find worth making is in response to that talk a while back about some people being unable to learn the rules from a pamphlet easily, and so never getting around to it. \ \ I'd like to point out that whether this is a 'problem' or not is relative to one's point of view. Some things just require a teacher, [I]and some might consider this a positive attribute[/I]. Take martial arts, for example... A book just isn't going to do it. \ \ The reason verbal rules are so vastly preferred is that they work with the mind as it is meant to work, i.e., they rely on intuition and pattern recognition. For the vast majority of people, that is far preferable to a set of rules that can be consciously ground through to reach a definite conclusion. \ \ The mathematically minded will be the majority that will prefer something more solid, more concrete. But for the rest of us, learning Go is best done like learning a language... we just want to get it without thinking too much. Sure, there are always the fetishists out there who love to learn all the specifics of the grammar systems employed, but the majority are utterly turned off by that. \ \ What I love about Go is the intuition element that is inescapable... as opposed to, for instance, Chess, where intuition is insufficient, and the highest players are all math prodigies. Chess can be fun with other beginners for me, but to seriously learn chess sounds ridiculously boring, because the path to excellence in Chess consists of memorizing long strings of openings... \"grammar,\" if you will. \ \ \"Verbal\" rules are preferred because they aren't concrete. Most peoples' minds handle fluid, intuitive information better than something concrete anyways. \ \ That's just how it is. It is a little messy, but our cognitive abilities are a little messy too. As is language. As are martial arts. \ \ K" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-15 04:30:20","[quote]Strategy refers to high level, long term plans. Tactics refer to small, white mints.\" [/quote] \ \ Spot on! But for non-natives, this is from Sorry, I Haven't A Clue, the radio programme that spawned Mornington Crescent. So there is a go connection. Tactics = Tictacs, but unlike the infamous Imperial Mints they are the wrong shape to use as go stones. So, the full 6 for artistic impression but maybe only 4 for technical perfection?" "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-15 04:43:06","LindseyK, almost all games (abstract or not, suitable for intuition or not) available for purchase come with their rules and almost all have rules that almost all newbies of those games understand. Therefore that go is different does not depend on intuition but on tradition. If a game box contains simple rules, then every newbie has the choice between learning from the rules, disregarding the rules and learning go by intuition by himself (really?!), disregarding the rules and seeking a teacher. If the game box omits simple rules, then quite some newbies used to learn a new game from the rules in the box drop out. \ \ Verbal rules are disliked for the same reason that you mention for them being liked: not being concrete. \ \ Note that also rules, strategy and planning use a language (even a very expressive one). Language for strategy and planning works as well when go has written rules as it works when go is used with verbal rules." "TMark","","2010-03-15 07:22:41","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;144154] \ Verbal rules are disliked for the same reason that you mention for them being liked: not being concrete. \ \ [/QUOTE] \ \ Disliked by whom? Please give concrete examples and statistics. :-) \ \ Best wishes." "Harleqin","","2010-03-15 08:05:23","Whoever said that having clear, exact, written rules would be any obstacle for intution?" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-15 08:18:29","[quote]Whoever said that having clear, exact, written rules would be any obstacle for intution? [/quote] \ \ I don't think anybody would say quite that, but many would say that if they are clear only to people with mathematical training or a certain cast of mind, exact to the point of pedantry, and written at great length, then there are quite a few hurdles to overcome." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-15 08:54:03","TM, I don't always have statistics, lists of names or URLs, sorry." "Tommie","definitions of tactics & strategy","2010-03-15 09:29:23","[QUOTE=Javaness;144025]Strategy refers to whole board plans \ Tactics refer to local traps or aji \ [/QUOTE] \ \ My definitios would be: \ Strategy = deals with more long term results than \ tactics = short term results \ \ Therewith, aji could be in either category \ \ Googling gives: \ [B][U]tactic[/U]:[/B] \ - a plan for attaining a particular goal \ - detailed maneuver to achieve objectives set by [B]strategy[/B] \ - relating to military operations that are smaller or more local than [B]strategic[/B] ones \ \ Seems to me that filling dame after [COLOR=\"Sienna\"]50 moves of knowing it will end in a 20-30 point loss[/COLOR] \ is as much an epic, [B]'strategic' fight[/B] for the win \ as it would be a [B]'tactical' measure to steal the game result [/B] sheet from the tournament director. \ \ Both terms do not fit. \ \ [FONT=\"Comic Sans MS\"](Ooh, am I in the Universal Ruleset thread, the Mer?-Jasiek video thread, tho Ko-PASS-fight thread? I have lost overview ... )[/FONT]" "Mef","","2010-03-15 10:03:28","[QUOTE=Tommie;144205]My definitios would be: \ Strategy = deals with more long term results than \ tactics = short term results \ [/QUOTE] \ \ \"Tactics\" is when a stone you play still looks good 5 moves later \ \"Strategy\" is when a stone you play still looks good 25 moves later \ \ Of course both of these terms are different from when your [i]opponent[/i] plays a stone that still looks good 25 moves later, that being of course \"Bad Luck\" (=" "Harleqin","","2010-03-15 11:47:58","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;144183]I don't think anybody would say quite that, but many would say that if they are clear only to people with mathematical training or a certain cast of mind, exact to the point of pedantry, and written at great length, then there are quite a few hurdles to overcome.[/QUOTE] \ \ Well, great! The only misunderstanding seems to be that you think clear rule texts would have to look like what Robert produces. This is not the case, rather on the contrary. In fact, if simple go rules were widely accepted, almost any go player would be able to write them down in his own words without mistakes and unambiguously." "TMark","","2010-03-15 12:00:36","If it were that easy, it would have been done already. \ \ Best wishes." "LindseyK","","2010-03-15 13:11:49","Sure, almost all games may come with written rules, but that doesn't mean all of them are easily understand in such a way. Most games available for purchase have nothing of the intricate depth of go--that's just a simple fact, as someone who has lived for a year with a board game collector having over 100 board games from all over the world (read: me) can tell you--and so are simple enough to be understood by means of rules. \ \ But most games are designed through rules, and so writing them is simply part of the process of designing the game. Go obviously is not this way; we went for hundreds, thousands of years without clearly written rules. Trying to, in reverse, design rules based on 'principles' will be as convoluted as doing so for martial arts: you will notice helpful things, but the core of something as vast and as variable as body movement is beyond clear concise statements and principles. At some point, you just have to feel it. \ \ Further, I never said 'go by intuition and learn by himself'. I meant intuition in the context of observation and teaching. I teach people Go IRL who have never seen the game on a regular basis here at my university, and I never really have to explain the complexities of what makes a large group alive. I just explain the principles of the game, show basic two-eye life, and have them watch a game, then try. \ \ They just stop asking questions. They start understanding things they were never taught. It's intuition. \ \ Verbal rules are much more often liked for that reason than they are disliked... as I said, if you would realize the full context of how you quoted me, verbal rules are only disliked by a small minority of math-minded people. \ \ I didn't understand what you meant by \"rules, strategy and planning use a language (even a very expressive one).\" As someone who actively participates in language learning and language instruction, however, I can tell you from experience on both sides that people learn languages verbally, and written systems are secondary. An understanding of the grammar is absolutely unnecessary for an ability to use them, as natives rarely have more than the faintest ideas of how their language works. \ \ And that last sentence is exactly my point. You can \"know\" go without having complex rule sets to make a science out of what is really an intuitive system, developed from abstract principles. \ \ To come full circle, Go isn't a game derived from rules. Go is 'the game of numbers', the physical response to math and music, and from it we are trying to understand what rules ultimately govern the system our inner mind innately comprehends. \ \ Study rules, fine, try and deduce what is happening there. We have acoustic physics and musicology too. But don't impose it on the rest of us; plenty of the world's finest musicians had no idea how sound waves interacted, and they got along just fine. (I daresay the rules of scales would have gotten in the way of the best Jazz artists.) \ \ K" "Harleqin","","2010-03-15 20:15:10","[QUOTE=TMark;144230]If it were that easy, it would have been done already.[/QUOTE]\ \ The writing is not the problem. I'll just do it now, at four o'clock in the morning, off the top of my head:\ \ -----------------------\ Go is a game played by two players. The goboard has a grid of 19 by 19 lines, forming 361 intersections. One player has an unlimited supply of black stones, the other an unlimited supply of white stones.\ \ In the course of the game, the stones are placed on the intersections of the board. The liberties of a stone are empty intersections directly neighbouring it along a line. Stones of the same colour are connected if they are direct neighbours along a line of the grid. Groups of connected stones count their liberties as a whole. Groups without liberties are removed from the board, as specified later.\ \ The game starts with an empty board. One black stone, called \"button\", is placed beside the board. The players alternate turns. Black begins. A player can either play or pass on his turn. Playing is placing a stone of his own colour on an empty intersection, then removing all opposing groups without liberty (if any), then removing all own groups without liberty (if then any). A play may not recreate any position previously created by a play of that player. Removed stones are called prisoners and kept separately by the player of their opposing colour. Passing is handing a stone as a prisoner to the opponent. Whoever plays the first pass of a game takes the button (which Black would then return to his supply, and White add to the black prisoners).\ \ Whenever a player passes, his opponent may initiate an agreement about a possibly abbreviated scoring procedure, in which the final unavoidable captures (if any) would be summarily executed out of turn. This discussion does not count as a turn and does not affect the turn order. As long as the players cannot agree, they have to play on. When an agreement is reached, it is executed. If it is then White's turn, he has to pass a last time, in order to make the number of moves of each player equal.\ \ The final score of a player is the number of empty intersections his stones enclose minus the prisoners of his colour. The player with the higher score wins. A tie is possible.\ \ Black's advantage of playing first may be compensated by adding a number of points agreed on before the game. This so called \"komi\" is customarily around 6 points. A difference in strength can be made up for through adjusting komi, and through letting the weaker player take the black side and make more than one play on his first turn.\ -----------------------\ \ I am sure that the above can be significantly improved. I challenge anyone calling himself \"go player\" to write down what he believes the rules should be.\ \ In any case, writing clear rules is not a problem, when compared to getting others to accept them." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-15 23:16:25","LindseyK, all the hundreds or thousands of games that I learned from its box rules I could learn to play (on beginner level, of course) easily, except go. Which other games come to your mind that you could not readily play after reading the rules once or twice? \ \ Nobody disputes the strategic / tactical depth of go, but this depth has nothing to do with learning to start playing go from the rules in a game box. \ \ \"Feeling the rules of go\"? Sorry, but you just can't feel whether go has stone, area, territory or Ikeda scoring! You also can't feel a No Result treatment of long cycles. Feeling does not tell you whether go should have a suicide or no suicide rule. Etc. \ \ When you explain the principles of the game, which are they, i.e., which do you explain and which not? \ \ We won't find out by guessing whether verbal rules are more often liked or disliked because of a relation to your style of intuitive teaching. \ \ Language used for rules, strategy etc.? It includes go terms etc. like \"liberty\" or \"attack\". \ \ People learn go language from literature, verbal teaching or both. Some learn better from literature, others better from verbal teaching, most yet much better from relying on both. \ \ Explicit understanding of grammar may be relatively unimportant for go language but functional understanding (\"attack is a term that is applied to, e.g., groups\") and structural understanding (\"aji and thickness and both strategic concepts, i.e., in general strategic planning should detect and then take into account them\") are important, although some may perceive this explicitly while others might do it implicitly. What I want to say here: go language is much more than a heap of words. \ \ If you, as you claim, know go without knowing its rules, then how do you apply it to non-obvious cases like 1000-year-ko? Even more importantly, how do you let all go players feel it your way? As history has shown, there is no universal feeling for non-obvious cases! There is not even a convincing explanation why Japanese style rules exclude territory from asymmetrical sekis. This cannot be felt naturally; a natural feeling would be that territory is what is empty and surrounded visually; such is consistent with all other territories. \ \ Go is a game of rules: history has made great efforts to change key scoring rules. That go is a game of rules does not mean that you could not try to become strong at it with the attitude of a musician. Imposing rules on you? Not more than you want to impose absence of rules on us." "RobertJasiek","Simple Area Rules by Principles","2010-03-16 02:48:31","As has been suggested, rules can also be taught as principles. If the non-player does not know anything yet, then the list of principles is much longer. If he knows already the basics, then we can restrict ourselves to a short list of principles, see further below. I have not proofread the lists carefully yet, but you get the basic idea. Area scoring does not need any reference to life and death, simple rules do not need optional game ending phases or aids. \ \ Simple Area Scoring Rules Expressed by Principles \ \ - The playing material consists of a board and stones. \ - The board is a 19x19 grid of lines and their intersections. \ - The game is for two players. \ - There are the two colours black and white. \ - Each stone is identified by one of the colours. \ - Each intersection either is empty, has a black stone on or has a white stone on. \ - The grid lines connect intersections. \ - The board's intersections are divided into regions. \ - A region consists of the connected intersections of the same type. \ - A region is surrounded if all adjacent intersections have stones of the same colour on. \ - One player uses the black stones while the opponent uses the white stones. \ - Black starts the game. \ - The game starts from the empty board. \ - The players have alternating turns. \ - A player having the turn makes either a play or a pass. \ - A play consists of up to three steps: \ -- The first step puts one stone on an empty intersection. \ -- The second step removes the stones of any surrounded region of the opponent. \ -- The third step removes the stones of any still surrounded region of the player. \ - A play may not recreate any earlier division into regions with the same types. \ - The game ends with the players' successive passes. \ - At the end the player with the higher number of his stones on the board plus empty intersections surrounded by his stones wins. \ \ \ Informal core principles only: \ \ - Black starts from the empty board. \ - The players alternate moves. \ - A move is either a play or pass. \ - A play puts one stone of the player on an empty intersection. \ - Surrounded strings are removed; opposing strings first. \ - A play may not create repetition. \ - Successive passes end game. \ - The winner is the player with the greater sum of his stones on the board and empty intersections surrounded by his stones." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-16 03:00:20","Harleqin, I for one don't think your rules are at all clear, and I have the advantage of already playing go and knowing some about the debates over rulesets. I could never learn go from your rules. \ \ That you think they are clear illustrates why the mathematically inclined have so much trouble getting the non-mathematicians among us. Just writing in plain English does not solve the problems. \ \ Reducing the underlying concepts as much as possible may lead to mathematical elegance but it also borders on reductio ad absurdum. \ \ Most people need to know **why** they are being asked to accept something. Even in such a trivial situation where a close friend comes up to you and says, \"Sit down, I'm going to show you something\", your first reaction is almost certainly not to sit down but to say, \"Why?\" \ \ It is therefore important for a go newcomer to know **first** e.g. that go is a game about territory. It is entirely irrelevant to say that territory cannot be defined until boards, intersections, liberties, groups, captures etc have all been defined. Territory can be understood by analogies. The human brain is very, very good at things like that. Thinking this way creates a frame of reference. We can then understand e.g. that we need to create lines of stones to surround territory, and we can again fall on the useful analogy of walls. The analogies continue: eyes, life, death. We fill in the details about capture later. \ \ A clear set of rules is, for most of us, one which skilfully uses analogies to create understanding. \ \ As a matter of fact, I believe that the mathematically inclined have mostly also learned to play go this analogue way. It is only later that they come to try to apply the theorem or algorithm based methods, but that's arsy-versy. \ \ I note, too, that even in computer programming, which has more than the average share of the mathematically inclined, there has been a major attempt to use analogies: objects, inheritance and so on. Even there the pure algorithmic approach has been found wanting. \ \ The real starting point is not the chain created by the point, the line,the intersection, the board, the stone, etc. It is the human brain. A very flawed tool, but one which does many remarkable things that defy logic." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-16 03:25:52","I do not think that analogies are needed, but I agree that it is a good idea for a common language rules text to introduce aims or purposes before stating a related rule. \ \ - The aim of the game is to control more of the board than the opponent. [This aim works for stone or area scoring; territory scoring needs a different motivation.] \ - The purpose of the prohibited repetition rule is to prevent useless, endless repetition. \ - The purpose of removals is to make the game more dynamic. \ - The purpose of passes is to provide a means to end the game. \ Etc." "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-16 03:53:54","[quote]I do not think that analogies are needed, but I agree that it is a good idea for a common language rules text to introduce aims or purposes before stating a related rule.[/quote] \ \ It may be possible to get by without analogies in some cases, but I think you need to make the case first. I also think you would find it hard to make the case. It would be even harder, I suspect, to claim that a non-analogy is better (caution: not in any mathematical sense) than the analogi version. Just about every activity I can think of is littered with anaologies, similes and metaphors, or even embedded metaphors and similes (e.g.a boxer who can dance like a butterfly, fly like a bee). We seem to have evolved thinking that way. \ \ You personally may not want analogies. Do remember others do." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-16 07:13:53","I suppose, informal rule texts can be aimed at different readerships. E.g., if you wrote a fairy tale and wanted to describe go there, then some mythical analogy might be called for:) In rules written for everybody though, analogies can easily distract the reader and mislead his thoughts to something unrelated to confuse him." "Bill Spight","","2010-03-16 07:16:34","[QUOTE=RobertJasiek;144285]LindseyK, all the hundreds or thousands of games that I learned from its box rules I could learn to play (on beginner level, of course) easily, except go. Which other games come to your mind that you could not readily play after reading the rules once or twice?[/QUOTE] \ \ Contract bridge. Baseball. :)" "CarlJung","","2010-03-16 07:30:30","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;144305](e.g.a boxer who can dance like a butterfly, fly like a bee)[/QUOTE] \ \ [B]Sting [/B]like a bee. \ [SIZE=\"1\"]Yes, I realize I'm not contributing to the discussion.[/SIZE]" "John Fairbairn","","2010-03-16 07:36:43","[quote]In rules written for everybody though, analogies can easily distract the reader and mislead his thoughts to something unrelated to confuse him. [/quote] \ \ Yes, but that is not necessarily an argument for no analogies. Given the background that people seem, on the whole, to use analogies in most activities as a matter of preference or even, possibly, of biology, it is more simply an argument for more skilful analogies. In go, eyes,life, death, etc seem to have done a fairly good job, but they can maybe be bettered, especially for certain audiences. The idea (from Taiwan, I believe) of nets and fishes instead of walls and weak groups for children is one such case \ \ Addition: It just occurred to me that the territory and captures analogies in go are pretty old. Almost two millennia, at least. Below is an extract from Ma Rong's Rhapsody, where almost every line is a metaphor or simile we'd still recognise in go today. \ \ This offers profit, which will accrue, \ It offers time to consolidate. \ But covet captures with plain greed, \ And he instead will smash your walls. \ Once dykes are breached, the floods will ne'er cease \ But flow on and on and far and wide. \ Or, feint to the side and break his lines \ So as to catch him by surprise, \ Then press him tight towards the central force - \ His men in droves will unprotected run. \ Then, having brought his lines to a parlous state, \ You may neatly chisel out hole by hole \ And consume the territory inside, \ Likes rats enjoying sacks of corn. \ ." "RobertJasiek","","2010-03-16 08:08:49","Life and death are not necessary for rules unless one really wants to exlain Japanese / Korean rules very closely. (As strategic go terms, they are very good.)" "Bill Spight","","2010-03-16 08:24:34","[QUOTE=John Fairbairn;144302]Harleqin, I for one don't think your rules are at all clear, and I have the advantage of already playing go and knowing some about the debates over rulesets. I could never learn go from your rules.[/QUOTE] \ \ The idea of learning a game except the simplest from its rules boggles my mind. \ \ [QUOTE]Most people need to know **why** they are being asked to accept something. Even in such a trivial situation where a close friend comes up to you and says, \"Sit down, I'm going to show you something\", your first reaction is almost certainly not to sit down but to say, \"Why?\"[/QUOTE] \ \ You're a hard man, John. ;) \ \ [QUOTE]It is therefore important for a go newcomer to know **first** e.g. that go is a game about territory.[/QUOTE] \ \ Agreed. There is a reason why commercial game pamphlets start off saying what the object of the game is. :) \ \ [QUOTE]It is entirely irrelevant to say that territory cannot be defined until boards, intersections, liberties, groups, captures etc have all been defined. Territory can be understood by analogies. The human brain is very, very good at things like that.[/QUOTE] \ \ Agreed. :) \ \ [QUOTE]A clear set of rules is, for most of us, one which skilfully uses analogies to create understanding.[/QUOTE] \ \ Agree, in a trivial way. Analogy and metaphor pervade language. A clear set of rules must be precise, which analogies are not. It is the requirement of precision that introduces difficulty into the rules. Precision requires covering rare and unusual situations. \ \ This is why the idea of asking beginners to learn to play by reading the rules strikes me as absurd. The rules have to answer questions that the beginner may never face, ever. Often, as we have seen in the history of go, there are arguments for and against those answers. With no experience of the game, how can the beginner grasp such arguments? The rules are written by the winners of the arguments. They do not include the arguments in the rules, nor the reasons behind the rules. \ \ IMX, most people who play games do not know the rules. Only referees, tournament directors, rules lawyers, and rules makers do. \ \ Do beginners ask why? Yes and no. In baseball, a runner is out if he is tagged by the ball. Why? I never asked. It's just part of the game. Go is a game of territory, but captured stones also count. Why? I never asked, until a few years ago, when I saw a possible connection. No beginner has ever asked me that, either. The rules do not explain why, either. \ \ Now, we know that beginners do ask why dead stones can be removed without capture. Why do they ask that? I think that does not have to do with the rules, but with how they were initially taught. They were originally told that each point of territory and each captured stone is worth one point. (That is not what the rules say, BTW.) If they were initially told that each dead stone is worth one point, then the question would not arise, any more than the question arises for captured stones. (OC, the question of what makes a stone dead would arise, but beginners need to know that, anyway. :))" "Bill Spight","","2010-03-16 10:24:22","[QUOTE=Harleqin;144276]One black stone, called \"button\", is placed beside the board. . . . Passing is handing a stone as a prisoner to the opponent. Whoever plays the first pass of a game takes the button (which Black would then return to his supply, and White add to the black prisoners).[/QUOTE] \ \ Interesting idea for implementing the button. :) However, the first passer can simply hand the button to the opponent, instead of handing over a stone and taking the button. That's a little simpler, I think. :) \ \ [QUOTE]In any case, writing clear rules is not a problem, when compared to getting others to accept them.[/QUOTE] \ \ Amen to that! ;)" "Harleqin","","2010-03-16 10:46:06","John, that writeup was not meant as a rules explanation for beginners, nor as a rule text to be used as such, but as a demonstration of how I believe the rules should work (note that I don't say \"should be written\"). I think that every literate go player should be able to do that, in his own words, with his own mind. A beginner might not have all the insights, and therefore omit some things. However, advanced players should possess a complete concept of the rules. \ \ This is what my text was supposed to show: my complete concept. I am confident that, based on my concept, I am able to consistently decide any even contrived rules question that possibly might arise. \ \ With regard to an introductory text for beginners, I completely agree that it would be prudent to carefully write, explain, and illustrate each rule as it is presented, then show some examples, and perhaps even put little tests of understanding into the text at sensible intervals. I don't know how one would produce such a text without a complete concept."