Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Go» Forums » Rules

Subject: Being a walle with japanise scoring rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joe G
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Say you had a section of the board. For example: you blatantly had 10 intersections in the corner surrounded, and it would be stupid to contest it. But you were playing Japanese, so your opponent sticks a stone right in the middle of it. In this case, you lose three points overall(because it cost you four to kill the fella). What prevents such a cheap move?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joegrimer wrote:
Say you had a section of the board. For example: you blatantly had 10 intersections in the corner surrounded, and it would be stupid to contest it. But you were playing Japanese, so your opponent sticks a stone right in the middle of it. In this case, you lose three points overall(because it cost you four to kill the fella). What prevents such a cheap move?
The "dead stones agreement" phase. After both players have passed, in Japanese rules, both players need to agree on which stones are dead.
With this position below ("."= empty point, X = black stones, O = white stone):
. . . X
. O . X
. . . X
. X X X
X X X X

If black says white stone is dead, and white says it's alive, it's played out in a sideboard. If the white player can live(he can't), the stone is considered alive, and those empty points don't count.
If the white player cannot live, it counts as dead.
The main board is kept the same way.

Then that white stone is removed, and counts as a prisoner, and the empty points are counted.

This usually confuses beginner players, since it's another extra step, and complicates the issue. I usually advise beginner players to play with Chinese rules.
There are very little differences in final score between both, and they're not that relevant for beginner games.

Edit: Looking at that position, no longer sure that it's as clear as I said who'd be dead and who'd be alive. But anyway, the same process happens.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, basically, you don't need to play the 4 moves to capture that stone, you can just leave it there, if you think it's easily capturable.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey Nolin
Japan
Nakamachi, Hiroshima
Hiroshima-ken
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no need to ever capture a dead stone.
If your opponent plays into an area is is not vulnerable, he has given you one extra point. If it is a little vulnerable and you play another stone, then your stone brings things back to zero. If you don't need to play a stone, then each extra stone he plays into that area gives you an extra point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
longagoigo wrote:
Phelanpt wrote:
So, basically, you don't need to play the 4 moves to capture that stone, you can just leave it there, if you think it's easily capturable.

There is no need to ever capture a dead stone.
If your opponent plays into an area is is not vulnerable, he has given you one extra point. If it is a little vulnerable and you play another stone, then your stone brings things back to zero. If you don't need to play a stone, then each extra stone he plays into that area gives you an extra point.
Exactly. I'm not sure how unclear I was, but I was saying the same thing.

You don't need to think about this in chinese style rules, though. Just capture it, and you still don't lose points(or not enough points that it matters for beginners).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe G
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
oh, cool thanks. so you prefer chinese? chinese doesn't take prisoners into account though, does it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joegrimer wrote:
oh, cool thanks. so you prefer chinese? chinese doesn't take prisoners into account though, does it?
It doesn't. Prisoners can be returned to the bowls. You just count stones on the board plus surrounded spaces.

As for preferring it, that's a different thing.
I learned with japanese rules, and it's what I use more, so I'm used to it.

But whenever I teach beginners, I feel it's much easier to explain the game in full while using chinese rules. It's much easier to understand, and by the point the rules make a difference in your games, you already know enough that it's no longer confusing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joegrimer wrote:
oh, cool thanks. so you prefer chinese? chinese doesn't take prisoners into account though, does it?

Well, you don't physically keep prisoners in Chinese play, but the scoring is equivalent for all practical purposes. I.e. Chinese does take prisoners into account, just implicitly. Losing stones hurts you no matter what specific ruleset you are using.

Japanese territory counting: your score = space you surrounded minus your dead stones.
Chinese area counting: your score = space you surrounded plus your stones still on the board.

Since both players make the same number of moves (roughly speaking, the difference is at most one except in bizarre cases) those 2 work out equivalently since both players' "dead stones + live stones" are the same. Note that your absolute score doesn't matter, only the difference between the 2 players' absolute scores.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Billy McBoatface
United States
Lexington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
KGS is the #1 web site for playing go over the internet. Visit now!
badge
Yes, I really am that awesome.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To more completely explain Japanase scoring - let's say your opponent plays in your territory. Says his stone is alive even though you know it isn't. He says, "I think it's alive, you have to capture it, that will mean you have to fill in your own territory." That's not quite right!

When both players pass, the game ends. If one player says his stones are alive and another disagrees, you play it out to see if the stones are alive or dead, then take back all the moves that were required to prove life and death. So you play four stones to prove that the one stone on its own is dead, then you take back your four stones and take the dead stone as a prisoner as well. If you weren't able to capture the stones that you thought were dead, then you take back all moves you and your opponent made to prove them alive, and leave the stones on the board.

Once players are past the beginner stage this "play it out, then take it back" isn't needed, they'll 99.99% of the time just agree on what is alive or dead. But it can be complicated, and what I gave is just the summary, there are a few weird corner cases (like how kos work when playing it out). I agree in general with having beginners play by Chinese rules, where filling your own territory to capture "dead" stones doesn't change your score so it can be handle in a much simpler way.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FWIW I find the technique of pass stones (give a stone as a prisoner when you pass), as in AGA rules, to be nicer & cleaner than the Japanese style of "play it out, then undo what you did to prove whether they were dead or alive" (possibly messing up the board if someone doesn't remember exactly what got played in that "after-the-end-of-play" additional playing) (or having to find a second board and recreate the position to play it out). Then there's truly no penalty or need to remember the old board state if there's disagreement about a group's status and one player thinks they don't need to play stones.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
FWIW I find the technique of pass stones (give a stone as a prisoner when you pass), as in AGA rules, to be nicer & cleaner than the Japanese style of "play it out, then undo what you did to prove whether they were dead or alive" (possibly messing up the board if someone doesn't remember exactly what got played in that "after-the-end-of-play" additional playing) (or having to find a second board and recreate the position to play it out). Then there's truly no penalty or need to remember the old board state if there's disagreement about a group's status and one player thinks they don't need to play stones.
I like that too, but it's not as simple or obvious as just using chinese rules, from what I read.

And I don't think I want to start a discussion on rules preference when that has nothing to do with joegrimer's question.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Billy McBoatface
United States
Lexington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
KGS is the #1 web site for playing go over the internet. Visit now!
badge
Yes, I really am that awesome.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, in some cases pass stones done simply can lead to ugly pass fights. Pass stones usually need either to have one player defined as "the last player to move" (which the AGA does) or you need to add some form of button scoring (which is really cool but its own kind of complexity). Chinese rules keep it a bit simpler.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
Scotland
Dundee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
wmshub wrote:
To more completely explain Japanase scoring - let's say your opponent plays in your territory. Says his stone is alive even though you know it isn't. He says, "I think it's alive, you have to capture it, that will mean you have to fill in your own territory." That's not quite right!

When both players pass, the game ends. If one player says his stones are alive and another disagrees, you play it out to see if the stones are alive or dead, then take back all the moves that were required to prove life and death. So you play four stones to prove that the one stone on its own is dead, then you take back your four stones and take the dead stone as a prisoner as well. If you weren't able to capture the stones that you thought were dead, then you take back all moves you and your opponent made to prove them alive, and leave the stones on the board.


Don't really see the point of all this, and playing Japanese scoring at our club we don't do this.

If you're playing something out and neither player is currently passing then every stone you play in to your own space will be matched by a prisoner if it turns out your opponent was mistaken about it being alive. And thus no need to worry about the situation before you began to play it out.

If the invaded player is passing then things carry on. If the invaded player sews it up after all he gets more prisoners as reward for calling the bluff, if he misses a way for the invasion to live he pays the price of less territory. It thus becomes a little more about judgement in cases where games are in the balance: with Chinese or pass-stones there's no real reason not to carry on playing until you're 100% sure.

Pete.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BTW, what does "being a walle" mean? I guess "walle" is a typo for something but I have been unable to figure it out...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Harrison
United States
Fisher
Illinois
flag msg tools
So long ...
badge
... and thanks for all the fish.
Avatar
mb
russ wrote:
BTW, what does "being a walle" mean? I guess "walle" is a typo for something but I have been unable to figure it out...

I remain subscribed to this thread to find exactly this out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pjclinch wrote:
wmshub wrote:
To more completely explain Japanase scoring - let's say your opponent plays in your territory. Says his stone is alive even though you know it isn't. He says, "I think it's alive, you have to capture it, that will mean you have to fill in your own territory." That's not quite right!

When both players pass, the game ends. If one player says his stones are alive and another disagrees, you play it out to see if the stones are alive or dead, then take back all the moves that were required to prove life and death. So you play four stones to prove that the one stone on its own is dead, then you take back your four stones and take the dead stone as a prisoner as well. If you weren't able to capture the stones that you thought were dead, then you take back all moves you and your opponent made to prove them alive, and leave the stones on the board.


Don't really see the point of all this, and playing Japanese scoring at our club we don't do this.

If you're playing something out and neither player is currently passing then every stone you play in to your own space will be matched by a prisoner if it turns out your opponent was mistaken about it being alive. And thus no need to worry about the situation before you began to play it out.

If the invaded player is passing then things carry on. If the invaded player sews it up after all he gets more prisoners as reward for calling the bluff, if he misses a way for the invasion to live he pays the price of less territory. It thus becomes a little more about judgement in cases where games are in the balance: with Chinese or pass-stones there's no real reason not to carry on playing until you're 100% sure.

Pete.
Pete, I can't answer this post adequately in a single sentence, and it's already more rules discussion than I'd like, so I won't. But there is a reason for that playing things out in another board phase. The person to whom you're replying has had to implement several rulesets for go in a server, and is likely more aware of it than you.
With that said, I'll link to senseis page that explains it better once I get to the pc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not finding a concise explanation or example in senseis, actually. I definitely remembered something there, and I'm not coming up with specific examples now. :/
But the playout phase is necessary in cases where there are disputes over whether an invading group is dead or not. If there is no agreement, forcing players to play it out and keeping the board at the end once it's agreed makes a difference to playing it out in another board, or rewinding the game back.

The problem is that you're not considering something in your post:
pjclinch wrote:
wmshub wrote:
To more completely explain Japanase scoring - let's say your opponent plays in your territory. Says his stone is alive even though you know it isn't. He says, "I think it's alive, you have to capture it, that will mean you have to fill in your own territory." That's not quite right!

When both players pass, the game ends. If one player says his stones are alive and another disagrees, you play it out to see if the stones are alive or dead, then take back all the moves that were required to prove life and death. So you play four stones to prove that the one stone on its own is dead, then you take back your four stones and take the dead stone as a prisoner as well. If you weren't able to capture the stones that you thought were dead, then you take back all moves you and your opponent made to prove them alive, and leave the stones on the board.


Don't really see the point of all this, and playing Japanese scoring at our club we don't do this.

If you're playing something out and neither player is currently passing then every stone you play in to your own space will be matched by a prisoner if it turns out your opponent was mistaken about it being alive. And thus no need to worry about the situation before you began to play it out.

If the invaded player is passing then things carry on. If the invaded player sews it up after all he gets more prisoners as reward for calling the bluff, if he misses a way for the invasion to live he pays the price of less territory. It thus becomes a little more about judgement in cases where games are in the balance: with Chinese or pass-stones there's no real reason not to carry on playing until you're 100% sure.

Pete.
The two bolded sentences cover the cases where neither player is passing, and where the invaded player is passing, but there's one more case: The invading player is passing, and the players still disagree on whether it's alive or not. If the invaded player continues to play to show it's dead, and there is no rewinding, he's losing points.

If you wish to discuss this further, let me know by geekmail, or create another thread.
Otherwise, this discussion is getting too far away from the newbie question that started it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
Scotland
Dundee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Ah, see what you mean. I have never had the misfortune to play someone who can't grasp whether their group has two eyes or not after a brief natter, or who would try and argue that sort of advantage. If I did I think I'd resign and go and play someone worth the time of day!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pjclinch wrote:
Ah, see what you mean. I have never had the misfortune to play someone who can't grasp whether their group has two eyes or not after a brief natter, or who would try and argue that sort of advantage. If I did I think I'd resign and go and play someone worth the time of day!
It's called teaching beginners. :|
You should try it eventually, but hopefully with a different attitude.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Thibodeau
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pjclinch wrote:
Ah, see what you mean. I have never had the misfortune to play someone who can't grasp whether their group has two eyes or not after a brief natter, or who would try and argue that sort of advantage. If I did I think I'd resign and go and play someone worth the time of day!


You always knew how to play?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
Scotland
Dundee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
fardoche wrote:
pjclinch wrote:
Ah, see what you mean. I have never had the misfortune to play someone who can't grasp whether their group has two eyes or not after a brief natter, or who would try and argue that sort of advantage. If I did I think I'd resign and go and play someone worth the time of day!


You always knew how to play?


Certainly not! The "after a brief natter" and "or who would try and argue that sort of advantage" clauses above are quite significant.

If one or both parties are unsure of the status of stones and they're worth the time of day as human beings both will want to resolve questions (which still arise for me, especially when it comes to sekis) sportingly. And resolving them sportingly, allied to a faint grasp of arithmetic, has always been enough to avoid said misfortune.

Thinking more about it in my personal experience, the "brief natter" phase may well involve temporary stones on to the board, but it's always been a collaborative exercise to resolve a misunderstanding, not a confrontational one to press an advantage.

And in such an atmosphere I prefer Japanese scoring because those awkward will they/won't they invasions near the end of a close game need a bit more thought about response (or lack thereof).

Pete.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You misunderstand. There is no atmosphere of arguin for advantage in the above. There is genuine rules confusion. See question in the OP? Try and teach beginners Japanese rules, and you'll run into it a lot.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also, still relevant:
Phelanpt wrote:
And I don't think I want to start a discussion on rules preference when that has nothing to do with joegrimer's question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Clinch
Scotland
Dundee
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Phelanpt wrote:
You misunderstand. There is no atmosphere of arguin for advantage in the above. There is genuine rules confusion. See question in the OP? Try and teach beginners Japanese rules, and you'll run into it a lot.


But I do, and I don't... (teach Japanese rules to beginners, from young children up, and (not) run in to it a lot).

If there is no atmosphere of arguing and the invader has a grasp of both arithmetic and fair play they will readily concede the unfairly gained points without formal requirements of pass stones or Chinese scoring, is my experience.

Pete.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phelan
Portugal
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pjclinch wrote:
Phelanpt wrote:
You misunderstand. There is no atmosphere of arguin for advantage in the above. There is genuine rules confusion. See question in the OP? Try and teach beginners Japanese rules, and you'll run into it a lot.


But I do, and I don't... (teach Japanese rules to beginners, from young children up, and (not) run in to it a lot).

If there is no atmosphere of arguing and the invader has a grasp of both arithmetic and fair play they will readily concede the unfairly gained points without formal requirements of pass stones or Chinese scoring, is my experience.

Pete.
This confuses me. Are you saying that you teach japanese rules to beginners, let them play by themselves, and rarely have to intervene and explain why stones are dead?
Because if so, you may be a much better teacher than myself, or have better students.
It usually takes the people I teach one game or two(at least) where dead stones are inside someone's territory, and me explaining why they're dead, for them to understand why they don't need to be captured.
Usually I need to play it out and then rewind, while the players watch, and give examples of dead and alive groups.
They're only able to start doing it by themselves after a few games, and there's still doubts when it gets more complicated.
If you really don't understand how there could be rules confusion from new players in their first games, and why reducing that confusion is a good thing, you have a pretty different teaching experience from me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.