4 ms·

Sorry this is mostly way over my head, but perhaps you can explain something to me that puzzled me when I looked at go 50 odd years ago now. (Please note, I ab

Sorry this is mostly way over my head, but perhaps you can explain something to me that puzzled me when I looked at go 50 odd years ago now. (Please note, I absolutely do understand life requires two eyes, and why that is so, but my knowledge doesn't extend much further than that). So hypothetically, if we get to the point where play normally stops, why can't I put a stone into my opponent's territory? I am reducing his territory by 1 point. So he will presumably object and take my "dead" stone off, first restoring the balance and then penalising me one point by putting the newly captured stone in my territory. But can't I insist that he actually surrounds the stone before he takes it off? That would take four turns (I would pass each time) costing him 4 points to gain 1. There must be a rule to stop this, but is it easily formally expressed? Or is it a) Complicated or b) Require some handwaving ?

dragontamer 2y ago
> So hypothetically, if we get to the point where play normally stops, why can't I put a stone into my opponent's territory? I am reducing his territory by 1 point. So he will presumably object and take my "dead" stone off, first restoring the balance and then penalising me one point by putting the newly captured stone in my territory. But can't I insist that he actually surrounds the stone before he takes it off? That would take four turns (I would pass each time) costing him 4 points to gain 1. There must be a rule to stop this, but is it easily formally expressed? Or is it a) Complicated or b) Require some handwaving ? There are multiple scoring systems (American, Chinese, and Japanese and a couple of others). * In Chinese scoring, stones do NOT penalize your score. So they capture your stone and gain +1 point, and lose 0 points. * In American scoring, passing penalizes your score. So you place a stone (ultimately -1 point), they place 4 stones (-4 points), but you pass a further 4 points (4x passes == -4 more points). This ends with -4 points to the opponent, but -5 points to you. Effectively +1 point differential. * In Japanese scoring, the player will declare your stone dead. Because you continue to object the players play it out. Once it has been played out, time is rewound and the state of the stones will be declared what both players now agree (ie: I need 4 stones to kill your stone, if you keep passing I'll kill it). --------- So your question is only relevant to Japanese scoring (in the other two systems, you fail to gain any points). And in Japanese scoring, there is the "time rewind" rule for post-game debate. (You play out positions only to determine alive vs dead if there's a debate. This is rarely invoked because nearly everyone can instinctively see alive vs dead). IE: In Japanese scoring, the game has ended after both players have passed. Time "rewinds" to this point, any "play" is purely for the determination of alive vs dead groups. In all three cases, playing out such a position is considered a dick move and a waste of everyone's time.
- billforsternz 2y ago
  Than you, a longstanding mystery (for me) solved!
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    Amusingly, the endgame ritual is the same for all styles. You play every good move. Then you traditionally play the neutral moves (+0 points to either player) to make counting easier. Then the game ends as both players pass. In Chinese, American, or Japanese scoring, this process works to maximize your endgame score.
- zahlman 2y ago
  Thanks - I've had to do basically this exact explanation countless times before. It'd be nice if there were an obvious place to refer people for this info. That said, when I teach beginners I teach them Chinese scoring and counting. If they understand the principles it'll be easy enough to adapt later, and it doesn't change strategy in a practical way. They can play it out without worry, it makes more sense from an aesthetic standpoint ("you're trying to have stones on the board and keep them there, or have a place to put them later" - then you only have to explain that you still get points for the eyes you can't fill). It's also IMX faster to score on 9x9: you can shift the borders around (equally benefiting both players) to make some simple shapes and easily see who has the majority of the area and you aren't worrying about arranging territories into rectangles.

dragontamer 2y ago

> So hypothetically, if we get to the point where play normally stops, why can't I put a stone into my opponent's territory? I am reducing his territory by 1 point. So he will presumably object and take my "dead" stone off, first restoring the balance and then penalising me one point by putting the newly captured stone in my territory. But can't I insist that he actually surrounds the stone before he takes it off? That would take four turns (I would pass each time) costing him 4 points to gain 1. There must be a rule to stop this, but is it easily formally expressed? Or is it a) Complicated or b) Require some handwaving ? There are multiple scoring systems (American, Chinese, and Japanese and a couple of others). * In Chinese scoring, stones do NOT penalize your score. So they capture your stone and gain +1 point, and lose 0 points. * In American scoring, passing penalizes your score. So you place a stone (ultimately -1 point), they place 4 stones (-4 points), but you pass a further 4 points (4x passes == -4 more points). This ends with -4 points to the opponent, but -5 points to you. Effectively +1 point differential. * In Japanese scoring, the player will declare your stone dead. Because you continue to object the players play it out. Once it has been played out, time is rewound and the state of the stones will be declared what both players now agree (ie: I need 4 stones to kill your stone, if you keep passing I'll kill it). --------- So your question is only relevant to Japanese scoring (in the other two systems, you fail to gain any points). And in Japanese scoring, there is the "time rewind" rule for post-game debate. (You play out positions only to determine alive vs dead if there's a debate. This is rarely invoked because nearly everyone can instinctively see alive vs dead). IE: In Japanese scoring, the game has ended after both players have passed. Time "rewinds" to this point, any "play" is purely for the determination of alive vs dead groups. In all three cases, playing out such a position is considered a dick move and a waste of everyone's time.

billforsternz 2y ago
Than you, a longstanding mystery (for me) solved!
- dragontamer 2y ago
  Amusingly, the endgame ritual is the same for all styles. You play every good move. Then you traditionally play the neutral moves (+0 points to either player) to make counting easier. Then the game ends as both players pass. In Chinese, American, or Japanese scoring, this process works to maximize your endgame score.
zahlman 2y ago
Thanks - I've had to do basically this exact explanation countless times before. It'd be nice if there were an obvious place to refer people for this info. That said, when I teach beginners I teach them Chinese scoring and counting. If they understand the principles it'll be easy enough to adapt later, and it doesn't change strategy in a practical way. They can play it out without worry, it makes more sense from an aesthetic standpoint ("you're trying to have stones on the board and keep them there, or have a place to put them later" - then you only have to explain that you still get points for the eyes you can't fill). It's also IMX faster to score on 9x9: you can shift the borders around (equally benefiting both players) to make some simple shapes and easily see who has the majority of the area and you aren't worrying about arranging territories into rectangles.