"Apogee","Question about killing group and living/dead groups at the end of a game...","2007-10-21 03:54:48","[sgf](;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8]AP[CGoban:3]ST[2]\ RU[Japanese]SZ[9]KM[0.00]\ PW[White]PB[Black]AW[cb][db][eb][fb][gb][bc][cc][gc][hc][bd][hd][be][ee][he][bf][hf][bg][cg][gg][hg][ch][dh][eh][fh][gh]AB[dc][ec][fc][cd][dd][fd][gd][ce][ge][cf][df][ff][gf][dg][eg][fg])\ [/sgf]\ \ Ok, so i realize this shape is dead. But one thing i didn't quite get... \ \ lets make up a game. Pretend this is on an imaginary 19x19 board where black is leading. Lets say everything else is decided, and without counting this dead group black is ahead by... 31\ \ \ Now, with this group dead, which is worth 36 points if neither player played in it anymore white wins by 5.\ \ \ My question is this... what if black \"decided\" that the group was alive and wanted to make white \"prove\" it was dead. Now i realize no player would do this, and i wouldn't even consider it. I just want to make sure i understand this completely.\ \ \ So, in order for white to kill this... it would have to be played out like this....\ \ [SGF](;GM[1]FF[4]AP[glGo:1.4]ST[1]\ \ SZ[9]KM[0.0]\ PW[White]PB[Black]\ AB[fg][eg][dg][gf][ff][df][cf][ge][ce][gd][fd][dd][cd][fc][ec][dc]AW[gh][fh][eh][dh][ch][hg][gg][cg][bg][hf][bf][he][ee][be][hd][bd][hc][gc][cc][bc][gb][fb][eb][db][cb]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[fe]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[ed]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[ef]\ ;B[de]\ ;W[ee]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[ef]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[fe]\ ;B[ed]\ ;W[ee]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[ef]\ ;B[fe]\ ;W[ef]\ ;B[tt]\ ;W[ee])\ [/SGF]\ \ So, now white got 36 points if it's just dead at the end of the game. but in the scenario i just played out, white got 38 points\ \ So white gets 2 extra points. HOWEVER white 9 stones captured in order to take it.\ \ So, As i said earlier, not counting this group black was leading by 31. Lets make up a fake score. It's w60-b91 without counting the last group\ \ If it's killed the first way without playing it out like that, white gets 36 points. so now white has w96-b91\ \ thus winning by 5\ \ \ HOWEVER if white had to play the other way. That's worth 9 extra points to black and 38 extra to white...\ \ w98-b100\ \ black wins...\ \ \ So... If there is a disagreement at the end over whether something is dead or not. Which person has to prove that he is correct? Like say someone says a group which has two eyes is dead, it wouldn't make sense for you to have to respond to his moves that try to kill it. So you could just keep passing while he attempts to kill it and giving you points. However, in this case where it's obviously dead, does black still not have to respond except when he wants to and just keep passing while white gives him the extra points he needs to win?\ \ \ \ So, does this not happening only rely on the other player not being a complete douche?\ \ Also, what about the single pieces? if this was possible, couldn't you say \"no, that one piece all alone in your territory is alive\" and make them play to kill it, losing them the few points that they have to play in their own territory.\ \ I've never had anything like this happen ever, and i would never do it to anyone. It just seems like it's something that could be taken as a huge flaw in the game/rules of go. Probably not as big as that since no one would do it, and anyone who did do it would probably be \"ostracized\" from Go World. But this instance might become something that could happen in perhaps a game against someone not as good as you. Perhaps there is a formation someone REALLY doesn't realize is dead and you DO realize it. Do you have to prove it's dead to them, and perhaps lose a few points?" "Bill Spight","","2007-10-21 07:57:43","Aren't you the same guy who said you didn't like Chinese rules?\ \ What you raise is not a flaw in the rules, considering that people did not even bother to write them down for millenia. It is a question that bothers many beginners, however, which is circumvented by Chinese, AGA, and New Zealand rules, which use area scoring. For handling that question by territory scoring, see Ikeda rules, Lasker-Maas rules, Spight rules, and Japanese rules. Sensei's Library ([url]http://senseis.xmp.net[/url]) has a fair amount of material on this question." "xed_over","","2007-10-21 09:04:03","[QUOTE=Apogee] Now i realize no player would do this, and i wouldn't even consider it. I just want to make sure i understand this completely.[/QUOTE] \ oh yes, people (beginners) do this all the time. \ \ [QUOTE=Apogee]So... If there is a disagreement at the end over whether something is dead or not. Which person has to prove that he is correct? [/QUOTE] \ the one who thinks its not dead has to prove that it can live. \ \ otherwise, pause the game. white can then demonstrate the life and death status of the group, then return back to the original position to score the game \ \ [QUOTE=Apogee]It just seems like it's something that could be taken as a huge flaw in the game/rules of go.[/QUOTE] \ or (as Bill suggests), use chinese rules so that prisoners don't count - then the score won't change regardless of who does the proving first." "eligo","","2007-10-21 09:26:14","[QUOTE=Apogee]... \ Also, what about the single pieces? if this was possible, couldn't you say \"no, that one piece all alone in your territory is alive\" and make them play to kill it, losing them the few points that they have to play in their own territory. \ \ I've never had anything like this happen ever, and i would never do it to anyone. \ ...[/QUOTE] \ \ I once played a somebody online who just wouldn't believe that his lone stones in my territory were dead. \ \ He insisted that they were alive, so we started to play it out. To my shame I have to admit I didn't have enough patience (It can take a while on a 19x19 board to kill all those single stones...) and I finally resigned, just to get away from that game... :o" "Apogee","","2007-10-21 09:49:01","[QUOTE=xed_over] \ the one who thinks its not dead has to prove that it can live. \ [/QUOTE] \ \ How do you prove something can live? you have to make two eyes? And in making those two eyes, what if the other player doesn't match your every move? it's the same thing, you lose out on a few points, right? \ \ \ \ [QUOTE=xed_over] \ or (as Bill suggests), use chinese rules so that prisoners don't count - then the score won't change regardless of who does the proving first.[/QUOTE] \ \ That's true. But it seems to me that the chinese rules changes some things about the game(for instance, a huge chunk of living stones with only 2 points for eyes would be worth a whole lot more in the chinese rules, right? Like perhaps a dango that survived.) So i'd rather stick with japanese rules. \ \ \ Anyways, i just wanted to get a basic idea of what would happen in this situation. At the same time of making this post i also asked in a demonstration on KGS. Rowurboat and... another person answered me. \ \ They said that in a real life game you just demonstrate that it's dead, then go back to the first shape where it was disputed. But since you can't very easily do this online, they said if it happened online they would just call an admin. \ \ \ Anyways, thanks for the answers." "flOvermind","","2007-10-21 09:51:33","[quote]the one who thinks its not dead has to prove that it can live.[/quote] \ \ No, the one that says it's dead has to prove it can be captured, thus making the first move. The one saying it's alive has to prove that by not letting them be captured. If there is no further defending move necessary, I don't need to make a move. On the other hand, if the opponent doesn't want to make a move, he's not going to be able to capture stones ;) \ \ Assuming the one claiming life would have to prove it, how would you do that? If I insisted your group with two eyes is dead, how would you prove it's alive? \ \ [quote]Do you have to prove it's dead to them, and perhaps lose a few points?[/quote] \ \ With territory scoring rules, you have to play it out on a second board, and the group is considered dead in the original position if it was captured on the second board. The score is then calculated from the original position, not from the result of playing it out. That's because, as you noticed, playing out life and death may alter the score. \ \ With area scoring that's not an issue, there the score is not altered by playing out life and death, so you can just resume playing in case of a disagreement. It's still annoying, but at least it can't affect the result." "Apogee","","2007-10-21 09:57:39","[QUOTE=flOvermind]No, the one that says it's dead has to prove it can be captured, thus making the first move. The one saying it's alive has to prove that by not letting them be captured. If there is no further defending move necessary, I don't need to make a move. On the other hand, if the opponent doesn't want to make a move, he's not going to be able to capture stones ;) \ \ Assuming the one claiming life would have to prove it, how would you do that? If I insisted your group with two eyes is dead, how would you prove it's alive? \ \ \ \ With territory scoring rules, you have to play it out on a second board, and the group is considered dead in the original position if it was captured on the second board. The score is then calculated from the original position, not from the result of playing it out. That's because, as you noticed, playing out life and death may alter the score. \ \ With area scoring that's not an issue, there the score is not altered by playing out life and death, so you can just resume playing in case of a disagreement. It's still annoying, but at least it can't affect the result.[/QUOTE] \ thanks, that just confirmed that exact answer i got from rowurboat on kgs =)" "flOvermind","","2007-10-21 10:08:37","[quote]But it seems to me that the chinese rules changes some things about the game[/quote] \ \ The chinese rules change only the way seki is scored. But if you have no seki on the board, there is a maximum difference of one point between area and territory score. \ \ This is assuming no player passed before the end of the game. (This is usually true when there is no dispute about life and death. Of course, a \"wrong\" pass loses more points with area scoring than with territory scoring...) \ \ Both players have played the same number of moves (with at most one move difference when black plays last, that's where the maximum difference of one point comes from). \ \ So (stones on the board) + (captured stones) is equal for both players. That means: \ \ (W stones) + (W prisoners) = (B stones) + (B prisoners) \ or (W stones) - (B stones) = (B prisoners) - (W prisoners) \ \ area score = (W territory) + (W stones) - (B territory) - (B stones) = \ = (W territory) - (B territory) + (W stones) - (B stones) = \ = (W territory) - (B territory) + (B prisoners) - (W prisoners) = \ = (W territory) + (B prisoners) - (B territory) - (W prisoners) = territory score \ \ [quote]or instance, a huge chunk of living stones with only 2 points for eyes would be worth a whole lot more in the chinese rules, right?[/quote] \ \ Locally, yes. But for all these stones, the opponent will have played somewhere else, and got points for these stones as well, plus any points he got from actually doing something with these stones. \ \ The individual score of one player is of course different between area and territory scoring, but the score difference is the same (+- 1 point)." "Bill Spight","","2007-10-21 11:45:18","[QUOTE=Apogee]How do you prove something can live? you have to make two eyes? And in making those two eyes, what if the other player doesn't match your every move? it's the same thing, you lose out on a few points, right?[/QUOTE]\ \ There are a number of ways to deal with this. I myself do not like taking plays back, it's too easy to mess up. Check out those different pages on SL, where things are explained in some detail.\ \ But briefly, if you claim that something is alive and you go first, you just pass, handing over a pass stone. (If you have to defend, how can you say it's alive?) Now your opponent tries to kill. If he passes without killing, he is admitting that the stones are alive. (If you are online and the server can't handle pass stones, place a stone on some irrelevant part of the board. If there is no place you can safely play, keep track of the passes and adjust later.)" "ross","","2007-10-21 12:10:03","I've written up a discussion of this topic on my \"Computer Go\" wiki (since, although as you point out no human player is likely to dispute the status of obviously-alive or obviously-dead groups, computer programs very well might): \ \ [url]http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Computer_Go/Tromp-Taylor_Rules#Discussion[/url] \ \ The relevant part to your question is this bit (since you're using territory-scoring rules): \ \ [quote][b]Japanese rules[/b] \ \ After two consecutive passes, disagreements must be settled by further play, much like Chinese rules. However, since this may alter the score of the game under territory scoring, the board position that existed at the end of the two passes must be copied to a second board, and the disputed position resolved on that board. The resultant state of any disputed group(s)—alive or dead—is then applied to the group on the original board, and the second board discarded. \ \ [b]Potential Problems:[/b] \ In addition to the problems with the Chinese rules solution, it is inconvenient to duplicate the board position in order to play out disputed positions. Most computer programs are not designed to do this sort of dispute resolution, and most protocols are not designed to support it.[/quote]" "Apogee","","2007-10-21 13:19:04","ah, i see =)" "funkyj","","2007-10-21 21:47:07","[QUOTE=Bill Spight]Aren't you the same guy who said you didn't like Chinese rules?\ [/QUOTE]\ \ Call me a curmudgeon but this sounds like a trolling question to me. The guy could simply be new to Go but stating that you don't like chinese rules in one post and the following up by starting a thread on the topic that points out one of the areas in which chinese rules work better for newbies (most rule sets work fine for experts) is rather suspicious. \ \ On the other hand, trolling to make people spin their wheels about rules minutae is not particularly harmful." "Bill Spight","","2007-10-21 22:52:11","To be fair, Apogee said that he liked Japanese rules better. I don't think he's trolling. :) \ \ Besides, these questions have already been dealt with adequately, and they are questions that beginners have. It's good to bring them up from time to time, so that beginners can find the answers." "Apogee","","2007-10-22 05:23:40","Yeah, never said i dislike chinese rules, just said i liked the japanese rules more. Even stated some reasons such as \"i started learning on japanese rules\"" "JamieDad","Chinese Rules question","2007-10-22 20:05:54","What is standard Komi now under Chinese rules? I think its now 7.5 (with an extra 1 to compensate for potential extra move black has at the end (?))...is that right? so that under area counting black needs to get to 185 (ie higher than 180.5 + 7.5/2) to win?" "Apogee","","2007-10-25 06:05:26","Hey, concerning this topic, i just read a tutorial that said if something like this were to come up, you play it out. However, neither player can pass. For instance, in this case while white is proving he can kill it, black has to continue playing on the board, either in his own territory(taking up points of his own, but only 1 for every one that white plays) or in white's territory giving white 1 point for every point white plays. \ \ So, with that, the score would be the same at the end of checking whether a group is alive or dead =)" "flOvermind","","2007-10-25 07:41:05","No, the score would not be the same. \ \ With this method, if one of the players is really stubborn and wants to play out the status of every single stone, this would be equivalent to no-pass go, which is in turn equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax." "Bill Spight","","2007-10-25 08:54:28","[QUOTE=flOvermind]No, the score would not be the same. \ \ With this method, if one of the players is really stubborn and wants to play out the status of every single stone, this would be equivalent to no-pass go, which is in turn equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax.[/QUOTE] \ \ It is no pass go with prisoner return that is equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax. \ \ For those who may not know, prisoner return is giving back a captured stone as a move instead of playing a stone on the board. The group tax means subtracting from the score the points needed for a group to live. For independently live groups that is two points. \ \ For more on no pass go see the Sensei's Library pages. ([url]http://senseis.xmp.net[/url])" "ross","","2007-10-25 14:49:03","[QUOTE=flOvermind]No, the score would not be the same. \ \ With this method, if one of the players is really stubborn and wants to play out the status of every single stone, this would be equivalent to no-pass go, which is in turn equivalent to territory scoring with a group tax.[/QUOTE] \ \ I don't think so, because the group tax only applies if you don't count the two eyes as points at the end of the game. In this case you could still play out every group to the very end, but you'd count the two eyes as points." "Harleqin","","2007-10-25 15:27:13","Well, if you say \"no one may pass\", you have to think to the end: At some time, one of the players will have to fill in his own eyes, killing himself. That is the player who has more territory, [u]not[/u] counting the necessary eyes (so there is, in effect, a group tax; this is called stone scoring).\ \ The way to do what you want (territory counting, but playout possible), is to either make the playout virtual, or to give pass stones." "Apogee","","2007-10-25 22:04:50","[QUOTE=Harleqin]Well, if you say \"no one may pass\", you have to think to the end: At some time, one of the players will have to fill in his own eyes, killing himself. That is the player who has more territory, [u]not[/u] counting the necessary eyes (so there is, in effect, a group tax; this is called stone scoring). \ \ The way to do what you want (territory counting, but playout possible), is to either make the playout virtual, or to give pass stones.[/QUOTE] \ \ we were not talking about scoring the entire game. This was about whether a specific group came under scrutiny, where one player was going to force another player to prove it's dead. So while one player is playing moves to prove it's dead(thus reducing their own score) the other player is playing moves in their own territory(so that they are both evenly reducing the score in an attempt to prove that it's dead) \ \ basically it means if you say something is dead, and the other player says it's alive you cannot pass while the other player is proving it is dead. Was not talking about how to score the game, just in regard to proving life/death at the end of a game. \ \ Once both players are convinced it's either dead/alive they can stop playing pieces again." "funkyj","","2007-10-25 23:24:13","[QUOTE=Apogee]we were not talking about scoring the entire game. This was about whether a specific group came under scrutiny, where one player was going to force another player to prove it's dead. So while one player is playing moves to prove it's dead(thus reducing their own score) the other player is playing moves in their own territory(so that they are both evenly reducing the score in an attempt to prove that it's dead)\ \ basically it means if you say something is dead, and the other player says it's alive you cannot pass while the other player is proving it is dead. Was not talking about how to score the game, just in regard to proving life/death at the end of a game.\ \ Once both players are convinced it's either dead/alive they can stop playing pieces again.[/QUOTE]\ \ In official AGA rules you must give your opponent a stone (prisoner) when you pass. 2 consecutive passes ends the game (or does it? :D). What you are describing is more or less using pass stones during the verification phase. Yes, this will allow you to determine life/death status without changing the score of the game." "DudeG","","2007-10-25 23:30:54","Actually, I think white has to pass last. So if black plays, white passes, black passes, white would have to pass again to end the game." "funkyj","","2007-10-26 00:10:09","[QUOTE=DudeG]Actually, I think white has to pass last. So if black plays, white passes, black passes, white would have to pass again to end the game.[/QUOTE] \ \ yes, you are correct. AGA rules require white to pass last. This is to make the area counting and territory counting reconcile exactly. \ \ There are two ways to go about reconciliation: [LIST=1] \ [*]tweak the territory counting to match the normal area counting result \ [*]tweak the area counting result to match the normal territory result \ [/LIST] \ \ The AGA chose the former. Of course you can use any rules you like in your own games. Using pass stones, a 2 pass rule and requiring an even number of plays during the verification phase is an easy to use rule set that solves all the traditional japanese rule problems. (No, I refuse to bring up the problem of pass fights)." "Bill Spight","","2007-10-26 00:35:35","Lasker-Maas rules use a neat trick to settle life and death questions at the end of regular play. Play with captured stones. :) If a play reduces your territory by one point, it also reduces the number of captured stones your opponent has by one; net result 0. This way you do not have to require each player to make the same number of plays." "Harleqin","","2007-10-26 03:19:51","[QUOTE=Bill Spight]Lasker-Maas rules use a neat trick to settle life and death questions at the end of regular play. Play with captured stones. :) If a play reduces your territory by one point, it also reduces the number of captured stones your opponent has by one; net result 0. This way you do not have to require each player to make the same number of plays.[/QUOTE] \ \ Giving a prisoner back is effectively the same thing as pass stones! \ \ --- \ \ [quote=Apogee] \ we were not talking about scoring the entire game. This was about whether a specific group came under scrutiny, where one player was going to force another player to prove it's dead. So while one player is playing moves to prove it's dead(thus reducing their own score) the other player is playing moves in their own territory(so that they are both evenly reducing the score in an attempt to prove that it's dead) \ \ basically it means if you say something is dead, and the other player says it's alive you cannot pass while the other player is proving it is dead. Was not talking about how to score the game, just in regard to proving life/death at the end of a game. \ \ Once both players are convinced it's either dead/alive they can stop playing pieces again.[/quote] \ \ But then, how do you formalize when to stop playing? The player ahead on stone counting can be convinced (and he would be right!) that any two-eye group of his opponent is dead if no-one may pass. \ \ So, instead of saying \"you shall not pass\", say \"when passing, pay a stone\" which has exactly your desired effect. \ \ --- \ \ Please bear in mind that this discussion is not new at all. I have some links to sites about go rules: \ \ - Most official rules can be found here: [url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/[/url] \ \ - Ikeda Toshio's work, from 1968-1969: [url]http://gobase.org/studying/rules/ikeda/[/url] \ \ Ikeda's work is a real eye-opener. \ \ - Robert Jasiek's site has a lot of material: [url]http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html[/url] \ \ I think that Robert's most important work is his model of how the Nihon-Kiin rules of 1989 are (or might be) meant: [url]http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html[/url] \ \ - A collection of \"beasts\": [url]http://www.goban.demon.co.uk/go/bestiary/rule_challenge.html[/url] \ \ - A bestiary for ko rules: [url]http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/bestiary.html[/url] \ \ - My own proposal for \"pure\" territory rules: [url]http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?action=display;board=9;threadid=2010;start=60#msg133953[/url] \ \ This is the original german version, I have attempted a translation, but that's on sensei's library, which is down for maintenance at the moment. Take a look at [url]http://senseis.xmp.net/?Harleqin[/url] when it is back up." "Apogee","","2007-10-26 07:53:10","[QUOTE=Harleqin]Giving a prisoner back is effectively the same thing as pass stones! \ \ --- \ \ \ \ But then, how do you formalize when to stop playing? The player ahead on stone counting can be convinced (and he would be right!) that any two-eye group of his opponent is dead if no-one may pass. \ [/QUOTE] \ I think you are not understanding this topic. I was not talking about territory counting or anything like it. We were talking about playing, the game ends, both players passed. One player disagrees on whether something is dead or not. So a player has to prove it's dead, and in order not to make the other player not lose points in proving it's dead, the player who says it's alive must also keep playing. \ \ \ The no passing allowed was only for during when white is trying to kill that group. Not the whole game. As soon as both players can agree that the disputed group is either alive or dead they can stop player. What that rule told me is that the other player has a choice, they can play OR they can give a stone. Both amount to the same thing." "Bill Spight","","2007-10-26 08:19:20","[QUOTE=Apogee]I think you are not understanding this topic. I was not talking about territory counting or anything like it. We were talking about playing, the game ends, both players passed. One player disagrees on whether something is dead or not. So a player has to prove it's dead, and in order not to make the other player not lose points in proving it's dead, the player who says it's alive must also keep playing.[/QUOTE] \ \ I can assure you, from previous discussions that I have had with him, that Harleqin understands the topic quite well. It is not a new topic, and has been well researched and discussed over the years. \ \ [QUOTE]The no passing allowed was only for during when white is trying to kill that group. Not the whole game. As soon as both players can agree that the disputed group is either alive or dead they can stop player.[/QUOTE] \ \ That rule for stopping play is incorrect for territory scoring. Each player must make the same number of plays or passes during the decision phase." "kex","","2007-10-26 09:40:24","[QUOTE=Apogee] I was not talking about territory counting or anything like it. We were talking about playing, the game ends, both players passed. One player disagrees on whether something is dead or not. So a player has to prove it's dead, and in order not to make the other player not lose points in proving it's dead, the player who says it's alive must also keep playing.[/QUOTE] \ \ And this is _exactly_ about counting. Life and death of specific groups is not significant, if you do not want to count. \ \ The problem in this thread is not that people do not understand, but that people understand too well. This is no longer a beginner discussion, unfortunately, although it is in such a subforum. \ \ As for the original question, the easy solution of proving if something is alive is making two eyes, or an eyespace that can always be cut in two. Or making a seki. If you think that playing just a single stone or a one-eye group on an opponent's area means that it is dead, you can just remove it. If the invader claims it is alive, it does not matter if (s)he cannot prove that it is alive by making a second eye, or showing that it is a seki. The finer point here is of course the killing stone inside a nakade shape - is it alive - but that is already going too precise for this kind of a thread. Beginners typically lose more like by 170.5 points instead of 0.5. \ \ Normally this really is not a problem in a game. \ \ If you really want to go for mathematical precision, the discussion soon gets out of hand (and I already see some hints about that in the air :) )" "Bill Spight","","2007-10-26 10:19:03","[QUOTE=kex]And this is _exactly_ about counting. Life and death of specific groups is not significant, if you do not want to count.\ \ The problem in this thread is not that people do not understand, but that people understand too well. This is no longer a beginner discussion, unfortunately, although it is in such a subforum.[/QUOTE]\ \ Yes, the discussion should not get out of hand. :)\ \ Many beginners do not experience this problem. For those who do there are simple remedies. First, if you play at a club or otherwise can ask an experienced player, ask for help. If you can't do that, the simplest thing is to play by AGA or New Zealand or French or Chinese rules, that use area scoring. If you want to play by territory scoring, play by Lasker-Maas or Ikeda or Spight rules, which provide for play in an encore phase to settle such questions.\ \ If you want to get into the whys and wherefores of different rule sets, there is plenty of material available on the web and in books." "xed_over","","2007-10-26 11:35:00","[QUOTE=Bill Spight]Many beginners do not experience this problem.[/QUOTE]\ do you mean \"the problem of disagreeing on the life and death of a group\" and \"how to resolve it\"?\ \ I think many beginners [I]do[/I] experience this problem, but most don't realize that's its usually not important -- i.e., the score is not close enough to matter (who plays first when resolving)\ \ Mostly beginners are just learning that playing in one's own territory loses them points (by Japanese rules, which most are probably playing by), and so now they've realized that there is a potential game losing problem when there is a life and death status dispute.\ \ I see beginners asking these questions over and over, and have yet to see a simple and satisfying answer (one that beginners can feel they understand), because in the cases where the score has been close (and there have been those for beginners), then it does matter who plays first to prove the status -- especially in the case where they might have been wrong about the status.\ \ And what about cases where it actually is a dead shape, but mistakes while playing it out allow it to live?\ \ Beginners should probably always play it out - and should use Chinese counting :) (or the other ones you mention too :) )" "Bill Spight","","2007-10-26 12:56:04","[QUOTE=xed_over]Beginners should probably always play it out - and should use Chinese counting :) (or the other ones you mention too :) )[/QUOTE] \ \ When beginners play beginners (which seems to be the norm online and in the West), they should use area scoring: French, New Zealand, AGA or Chinese rules. And at least at first, they should play everything out until all remaining stones are alive. \ \ Later they can move to Button Go. (I think that the future of go is Button Go, which reconciles the two major camps, but I'm not holding my breath. ;))" "nazgulnarsil","","2007-11-16 01:28:11","this thread has been very helpful. it was one of my main unanswered questions about the rules of go. I have a very hard time with learn as you go style and felt frustrated by my lack of understanding over what happens with disputed dead stones.\ \ area scoring is much easier for beginners as you can play until everything has been resolved without affecting scoring.\ \ edit: basically i agree with xed."