9 ms·

So use Tromp-Taylor rules. "A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color." Sorry Japan, but

So use Tromp-Taylor rules. "A player's score is the number of points of her color, plus the number of empty points that reach only her color." Sorry Japan, but Japanese Go rules are a mess and need to be retired.

ig1 13y ago
That's fine unless you want to compete in a tournament that use Japanese rules, or Chinese rules, or AGA rules, etc. Simplified rule sets are fine (as is playing on a 9x9 board), but they don't represent Go as it's generally played.
- lambda 13y ago
  Chinese and AGA scoring rules are essentially the same as Tromp-Taylor, just not expressed quite as concisely. AGA rules actually have a neat hack which makes it so using either area or territory scoring gives you the same result (by making you give an opponent a stone as a capture every time you pass). The reason Japanese counting is so complex is that there are situations where it would hurt you to play it out in order to determine life or death, as you would need to fill in your own territory, so they've developed a whole bunch of special cases to determine life or death for disputed groups without playing it out. Area scoring eliminates this problem, as does the AGA rule of giving your opponent an extra capture every time you pass. Really, if people are having trouble with scoring, just teach them area scoring and tell them to play it out until they can score the game unambiguously.
zokier 13y ago
I'm very novice Go player, but I've only ever played with Japanese rules. Could you (and ig1) explain what's so wrong with them? I don't remember ever thinking that the score counting would be somehow complex or unintuitive.
- lambda 13y ago
  Under Japanese (and Korean) rules, there occur situation in the end game in which it may be difficult to determine whether a particular group is alive or dead, but the player who would need to play in order to play it out and determine for certain may not want to do so as doing so would fill in their own territory, reducing their score. Japanese rules have a variety of special cases to deal with this problem, but most beginners don't know them, and many beginners may not know exactly when to stop (as they are unsure if a group is safe or not), and so may wind up reducing their score in the endgame just because they are trying to make sure a group is safe. Under area scoring rules (Chinese, Tromp-Taylor, AGA, New Zealand, Ing, etc), you count the sum of your territory and your stones on the board, avoiding this problem. AGA has a hack that makes both scoring methods work the same; whenever you pass, you give your opponent an extra prisoner. Here's an overview of the different rulesets: http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  Territory scoring plus dead and captured stones is a bad idea. Contrast: to count by Tromp-Taylor rules, play out and explicitly kill (or agree to remove) all dead stones, fill every empty intersection that only reaches black with black, fill every empty intersection that only reaches white with white, then simply count up black and white stones on the board. Simple ko is a bad idea. Positional superko is much better. Seki complicates things needlessly. Relying on historical rulings, rather than defining unambiguous rules, is a bad idea.

ig1 13y ago

That's fine unless you want to compete in a tournament that use Japanese rules, or Chinese rules, or AGA rules, etc. Simplified rule sets are fine (as is playing on a 9x9 board), but they don't represent Go as it's generally played.

lambda 13y ago
Chinese and AGA scoring rules are essentially the same as Tromp-Taylor, just not expressed quite as concisely. AGA rules actually have a neat hack which makes it so using either area or territory scoring gives you the same result (by making you give an opponent a stone as a capture every time you pass). The reason Japanese counting is so complex is that there are situations where it would hurt you to play it out in order to determine life or death, as you would need to fill in your own territory, so they've developed a whole bunch of special cases to determine life or death for disputed groups without playing it out. Area scoring eliminates this problem, as does the AGA rule of giving your opponent an extra capture every time you pass. Really, if people are having trouble with scoring, just teach them area scoring and tell them to play it out until they can score the game unambiguously.

zokier 13y ago

I'm very novice Go player, but I've only ever played with Japanese rules. Could you (and ig1) explain what's so wrong with them? I don't remember ever thinking that the score counting would be somehow complex or unintuitive.

lambda 13y ago
Under Japanese (and Korean) rules, there occur situation in the end game in which it may be difficult to determine whether a particular group is alive or dead, but the player who would need to play in order to play it out and determine for certain may not want to do so as doing so would fill in their own territory, reducing their score. Japanese rules have a variety of special cases to deal with this problem, but most beginners don't know them, and many beginners may not know exactly when to stop (as they are unsure if a group is safe or not), and so may wind up reducing their score in the endgame just because they are trying to make sure a group is safe. Under area scoring rules (Chinese, Tromp-Taylor, AGA, New Zealand, Ing, etc), you count the sum of your territory and your stones on the board, avoiding this problem. AGA has a hack that makes both scoring methods work the same; whenever you pass, you give your opponent an extra prisoner. Here's an overview of the different rulesets: http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html
JulianMorrison 13y ago
Territory scoring plus dead and captured stones is a bad idea. Contrast: to count by Tromp-Taylor rules, play out and explicitly kill (or agree to remove) all dead stones, fill every empty intersection that only reaches black with black, fill every empty intersection that only reaches white with white, then simply count up black and white stones on the board. Simple ko is a bad idea. Positional superko is much better. Seki complicates things needlessly. Relying on historical rulings, rather than defining unambiguous rules, is a bad idea.