Area vs Territory Scoring: Mastering Chinese Go Rules
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- If you play Go online or at a local Go club, maybe you never had to count the score according to Chinese rules. Let's learn the fundamental concepts of area scoring and all the important details to keep in mind. Some of these things actually affect gameplay! So next time you hear that one of your games has to be played with this ruleset, you'll know exactly what to do!
#GoGame #Baduk #Weiqi #Igo #GoMagic #GoLessons #Learning #BoardGame #MindGame #MindSport #TraditionalGame #AncientGame #StrategyGame #ChineseGame #JapaneseGame #GoRules #BoardGames #MindGames #TraditionalGames
Go Magic - A modern platform for learning Go
🌐 gomagic.org
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:00 What’s the difference?
00:01:46 Counting under Japanese rules
00:03:00 Counting under Chinese rules
00:04:21 What about prisoners?
00:05:17 Real board Chinese scoring
00:06:59 Recap
00:08:50 A magical example
I liked the Chinese system when I was learning on my own but I have to admit that it's a better game under the Japanese system, it feel like more of a test of real strategy, including the economics of having to hold territory with minimal forces, being extremely weary of having men captured, "gentlemen's agreements" on where it isn't necessary to play, etc. It's just more subtle and classy, and less like an abstract competitive puzzle, but unquestionably a bit overwhelming for a learner.
very well said =)
When starting out, I started out with Japanese rules. Since prisnors are important in this scoring system, I started obsessing over losing stones and capturing and was unable to see "big picture
many times. I then switched mentally to chinese rules and suddenly my game improved. I no longer was obsessed over losing stones or placing stones over board. The neutral points and life and death situations also became very intuitive.
I would encourage all beginners to start with chinese rules.
Good point! Thank you.
Maybe they should call "casulties" in Chinese rules when they are just losses.
Good point you have.
I much prefer the Chinese rules. The beauty of Go is its simplicity, and they are simpler and more intuitive. I'd love to see more on Ing scoring - I remember it had a neat trick to simplify scoring even more!
Chinese or area scoring is my personal favourite scorning system it’s way simpler and straightforward. The bonus of being able to play out sequences is a great advantage as well. It seems to often be positioned as “the rule set to use for novice players” however it’s a great scoring system and rule set for all levels of play. The reason it’s great for beginners is because it’s more straightforward, simpler and doesn’t penalize you for playing stones “inside” your territory, in my book that’s a great thing. The only so called “cost” is having to fill out the neutral points in the end game however when examined closer the territory scoring system takes a similar amount of time once you take into account the amount of time it takes place all the prisoner stones back in the territory and having to count both sides to get the score. In the end they take a very similar amount of time.
That's exactly the arguments that we considered as well. Thank you!
@@GoMagic Thank you so much for the amazing content : ). Your channel and guidance has really helped me and I’m very thankful. I really enjoyed this lecture, especially the short historical part of this lecture, I’m curious, do you have more historical, story based or legend based lectures coming in future content? It’s surprisingly hard to find really good in depth historical content for Go, it’s really fascinating. As you already know, Go also has so many great proverbs and philosophical depths that can go beyond the game itself there isn’t much content I could find that explores this topic in depth either it’s one of the most beautiful parts of Go, it’s not just a play to win game but it can go much deeper into philosophical realms. Thank you for everything, I’m looking forward to the next lectures! : )
A thing to note for beginners when teaching them: Only after every last dame has been filled, and the game is effectively over, there's no penalty for playing stones inside your territory.
Brilliant presentation and absolutely crystal clear explanation to that mystifying conundrum that all newbies faced at one time or another, but didn’t like to talk about it, as it was all so gobbledegook at the time. This video clip completely cleared that head scratching question that puzzled me so much! Thank you! All your videos show everything so very clearly.
Thank you very much!
Thanks for creating this video! I've been teaching a go class for 12 years, and I've always had difficulty getting beginners to focus on surrounding territory rather than on capturing stones. In many of their games, their bowl tops are overflowing with prisoners captured. At my next class, I plan to teach Chinese scoring and have them return captured stones to their opponents' bowls as soon as the stones are captured. I've always answered the question, "What is the game objective?" with "Whoever controls more of the board wins the game." Counting prisoners blurs this objective, and by doing away with prisoners, my response is more easily understood. I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes next week. By the way, my class is at the Central New York Chinese School, so all the more reason to teach Chinese scoring. Our local go club uses AGA rules with territory counting -- kind of a combination of Japanese and Chinese scoring -- but filling in dame at the end of the game and making it easy for beginners to prove to themselves that a group is truly dead is a benefit of both AGA and Chinese rules.
It went well. I'll be sticking with Chinese scoring -- seems natural for this Chinese School class.
Nice! It makes sense, maybe Chinese scoring is easier for kids actually.
9:30 In your example, the eyes in seki in area scoring also score points, though the result is still the same (white wins by 1.5). To be more precise, in Chinese rules (and area scoring rules in general), all intersections that reach to only one colour score points. Therefore white doesn't even have to fill those false eyes in seki; they already belong to white's area. We don't need any definition for eyes for area scoring.
correct！
I think the general principle of Chinese rule is "proving by playing", without introducing any further rules for special cases. So in the last example, the three "false eyes" should still be counted because the black can't take it or force white to fill it. In Japanese rule Seki's a special case that no points are counted whatsoever.
True. In Japanese rules there are a few situations that one just needs to remember how to treat...
Chinese scoring is usually easier to teach for new players. But I like Japanese as an experienced player, because filling dame points is too much of a hassle 😅
it is a hassle if the computer does the counting, in a real board its almost part of the counting process and it keeps both sides engaged so there is less chance for "misscounting"
You can consider it part of the aesthetic =)
A few years back, perhaps as many as ten, the Die Hard at the U.S. Go Congress was played according to Chinese rules as a means of teaching us how to score a game in the event that prisoners had been thrown back into bowls. I believe that rather than just counting the black territory we actually filled in the black territory with stones before removing the white stones. We then arranged the black stones on the board. Something was mentioned about the fact that handicap stones needed to be taken into account in the scoring.
Ah yes, we forgot to mention handicap cases.
I find Chinese rules to be the most intuitive.
Thanks for filling the content gap! There is so little content about the intricacies of different rulesets.
I have a future video request! Physical board counting techniques! A lot of online players fumble around after the match at a real tournament.
We show how to do it as part of our Go Rules series - ua-cam.com/video/hUU1wZHnb5A/v-deo.html
I prefer to teach novices using Chinese rules. I think novices find it more intuitive and play better than when I initially teach Japanese rules to novices.
I'm not sure how the rule changes affect AI though.
Same. We are novice in the game, and we found that it is difficult for us to know if a certain group is considered "dead", or if we could still build eyes. So we would attempt to make more invasion until we succeed/fail in our attempt.
This would be very unintuitive in the Japanese Rules.
I appreciate that the video conveyed our sentiments.
yeah, Japanese rules might be more elegant when you look ahead but at the beginning they could be annoying too =)
5:50 to 6:10, that time saving trick where your total is the size of the board and you can extrapolate by counting only ONE player's score is the same as OTHELLO.
Thank you for finally explaining this. It's been difficult to find a video simply explaining both systems. Can you do a follow up video that explains the AGA rules? AGA is kind of a combination of the 2.
Hopefully one day we'll do it. 🤞
cristal clear ! many thanks for that video ! :)
I was trained JAPANESE and that is what I am used to. I like that better. It creates strategic situations where having to go inside your own territory for safety to make eyes actually COSTS you something.
That's the reason we like Japanese rules too
Seems to be true, but, if you make a move inside your territory to secure it, you probably will miss one point while closing the neutral points, so it will COST you something.
yes!
Started with Japanese rules in the early 1990s only to later found out that Chinese rules are far more logical and basically better, since it's insane in Japaense rules that you can destroy your own score by moving on your own territory (for example if opponent tries to catch some mistakes in your territory or something).
I think preference for Chinese rules is obvious almost to anyone rational.
Excelent video, thank you for this! Hoping to join Go magic at some point in the near future! (Depends only on wether my son keeps his interest for a little bit longer ^^).
Thank you!
We'll look forward to seeing you and your son 🤗
Great teaching. Thank you. Subbed.
Thank you so much for subscribing! Welcome to the community!
You forgot to tell about superko rule - under Japanese rules, ko is defined like "you can't repeat position from previous move" while in Chinese it's "you can't repeat position at all"
That means that, say, triple ko under Japanese rules is musobi a party without result, otherwise in Chinese rules it's not a thing
ahhhh complications again! =)
Thanks for this. Always wondered why the AI would fill it's own spaces at the end of the game. Now I know !
Maybe worth mentioning that seki is a bit special when using area counting, in that the total amount of points is te size of the board minus the amount of neutral points in the seki. In the example shown, the amount of points available is 80, not 81, because of that not to be occupied point at the upper left side. White has 37 points, Black 43.
Very true, but some generalizations and simplifications always have to be made, otherwise the video becomes too technical...
The problem with Japanese scoring is that it can be ambiguous whether or not stones are alive. This isn't just a problem for beginners, games sometimes need to be decided by a "go tribunal", at least if wikipedia is to be believed.
Wikipedia seems to be exaggerating things a bit =)
It's higher than divided line that wikitrashia quite never to be believed.
I was starting to see the benefit of the Chinese scoring, but now I am confused on both. Do you have a video that talks in depth on scoring? I think I have a lot more to learn than I thought.
In the last example, white filled in the false eyes to ultimately win the game, but why couldn't black take that one remaining eye and capture all of those stones? The same would go for the group of black in the top left corner. So is filling in seki groups an "after-game, pre-scoring" action?
As for Japanese scoring, I was really thrown off by those "false eyes" not being counted. I think I see why they are false (because there is a way to capture it all, so it is not truly two eyes), but I guess I did not realize they were not scorable either.
Oh come on...those false eyes are an incredibly uncommon thing. Don't think of it even for a second. Just enjoy your games. Scoring won't affect it much.
I always teach beginners the simplest ruleset I could come up with: stone scoring, superko, multiple-stone suicide allowed, and no komi.
I think the main advantages for beginners are:
1) No need to define what is territory.
2) No obsession over capturing stones.
I think they are ok playing their first 9x9 games with those rules. When they figure out that they don't need to fill the territory with stones and they can instead do area scoring, they can switch to 13x13 with chinese rules. Later they can switch to 19x19 with japanese scoring.
I learned Chinese rules, and I teach people the Chinese rules. I didn’t know Japanese rules until now.
I think the Japanese rules are a little messy for my tastes. I prefer the Chinese rules.
From where are you? Where did you learn the Chinese rules?
@@GoMagic I’m in America. I learned the game online, and read a manual from a board I bought. I’m not a very experienced player. I say I teach meaning I teach more than I play because I don’t have friends that enjoy the game and have to teach people every time I try to play.
@@theeightbithero Thanks for your story!
@@GoMagic do you have a video explaining why people think the Japanese rules are superior? Is there an argument beyond tradition?
I’d like to know how to explain why there are different major rule changes to newer players when I show them how to play and I warn them that most people in America play Japanese.
@@theeightbithero We believe that when you introduce Go, it is better not to mention different rulesets. Just use your favorite one. Otherwise, it can be very easy to overload newcomers with unnecessary information.
Also, there are two ways in which black could further reduce the score of white by 1 under Japanese rules, in the top right corner, provided white makes a mistake. Whereas, under chinese rules, there would be no change. I think the Japanese rules were made to simplify things with mathematics, but ended up making things worse. It's not always to one opponents advantage in one system or the other. Except, in White's in this case, they make out ahead in either system.
I don't think the Japanese were trying to make the rules simpler. They probably wanted to make them more sophisticated.
AGA rules are not mentioned except briefly at the end. They allow two compatible counting methods (though the score is area based). These rules are used (essentially) in North America, Britain and France, they are very amature friendly, and they have the beauty of requiring an even number of moves by both sides. The passing stones tidying up any difference in counting.
AGA rule hasn't tidied up all differences, the false eyes in seki and filling the last kos (which can be step kos) would still give different results in terms of area and territory scoring. (and not to mention the whole superko issue, that is a whole series of headaches still)
@@countingtls Yes, well you didn't take my meaning. I said the score is area based, and in all the area based rules, sekis are counted. And yes I glossed over superko rules, because they don't come up that often, and even less so in amateur play.
@@haimzamir4361 AGA rule is territory scoring by default and give pass stone (that's how you report the score in AGA rule), and then count points in seki eyes. A hybrid so to speak.
Kos and superkos related issues are way too much to put in a shortish video I agree. But last kos and try to gain extra with filling dame for the last kos do come up in high level amateur play, since it is a valid strategy, and not that hard to understand.
@@countingtls Scoring and counting are different. AGA is not territory scoring, it uses a territory COUNTING method. The score is the moku difference between black and white. This difference is based on strictly area-based rules, with the adjustments of requiring equal moves, and pass stones to reconcile a prevalent territory counting technique, with the an area counting technique but to achieve the area score (in moku) and not the japanese score.
@@haimzamir4361 Man, you sound like splitting hair. (you may argue it is based on the idea of area scoring, but the reported results as "scores" can definitely be either ones, just by default it is a territory counting score, which can be negative numbers since it is territory minus prisoners, and wouldn't make any sense in "area counting score")
Just go check the AGA rule, and you will find it specified what it considers territory and what is considers area (they are both defined in the AGA rule). And the default is to use "territory counting" to score, and mentioned what should be done when choosing "area counting" to score (especially when it is handicapped). And unlike other area scoring, you generally don't have to fill dame by default. The spirit is to reconcile the difference.
Ask most players, they would simply say AGA rule allow both counting methods (you can choose to report territory score, or area score) with the addition of the last play, when choosing territory score.
If you balance how many steps both player played, then the score is the (almost) same. In the example, B played one more step, W should play one more. (Then the score will be W win 1)
Yeah we were just thinking about that...seems complicated
An important advantage (other than better resolution of impasses, easier to code into computers etc.) of Chinese rules is the prevention of cheating: let's say you are playing as black, under Japanese rules you can hide white stones in your sleeves and sneakily add them to your captured stones to steal a few points, while with Chinese rules that doesn't work.
I hope you're joking =)
Cheating is the last thing people want to worry about when they sit down to play a beautiful game of Go.
@@GoMagic Believe it or not, the Chinese switched to area counting in the Ming dynasty (before that the counting rules were the same as the Japanese up to a group tax), when urban populations boomed and Go started to gain mass popularity as a gambling game, so modern scholars actually believe that prevention of cheating is the main motivation behind the switch to area counting in China.
No way! I didn't know that! Anywhere I could read more about this?
@@GoMagic The authoritative book on Go rules history is The History of Go Rules by Chen Zuyuan, where he discusses this, but I'm not aware of any openly available English translation... He considers the ease of cheating the main drawback of territory counting that motivated the switch of rules in China, but does not discuss the effect of urban populations. He does however cite a number of Chinese and Japanese ancient texts that document incidents where results of Go games were decided by hiding stones, sometimes achieved by "stealing and swallowing".
Thanks a lot for this information. We'll try to find and read more about this.🤘
Seems like Chinese overall has just like 2 or 3 basic rules, and Japanese adds a whole bunch of complications.
Are false eyes never counted towards the final score? I'm trying to figure out why they're in seki in the last example. White doesn't seem to be at risk of losing his pieces if he places in any of those 3 spots, and black isn't allowed to play any of them.
**edit**
I think I figured it out. As I understand it, true and false eyes themselves aren’t part of the strict ruleset, just a property of the strategy of playing.
Seki though does have specific rules for scoring. From what I understand, because either player taking the one spot beneath the top-left black group would end with their own group being captured, those 2 groups are in seki. But that seki extends to every group that would be captured in subsequent turns if either player took that one spot, which is why the entire white section there is also part of the seki, since white taking that one spot below the black group would end with that whole area of white groups getting captured by black.
Yup, exactly!
I prefer Chinese rules.
interesting
9:07 Can someone explain why these three “false” eyes are not true eyes? There does not seem to be a way for black to forcefully rid of these “false” eyes. Moreover, the Seki does not seem to be present unless the three false eyes are filled by white, in which case it is clearly disadvantageous for either side to continue. But, the game ends before this point (white does NOT fill the false eyes, which is most sensible), so, to me, it seems that white should be awarded 4 territory points and black 1 territory point on the left side of the board. I’d appreciate if someone could highlight my misunderstanding here. Thanks.
*Edit: I am assuming Japanese rules apply here.
Yes, these eyes cannot be forcefully removed but they still meet every definition of a false eye...
Great video, thanks! Though, while playing in your own territory under Chinese rules makes you not "lose" a point, it can make you waste the opportunity to get a point (by playing dame) or waste the opportunity to get multiple points (by expanding your territory and/or reducing the territory of your opponent). Playing in your own territory is still a net-loss, in regards to the final game result, if there are still points to gain on the board. Imagine the board is nearly finished, only dame left. You play in your own territory and then your opponent plays a dame. It will reduce the points of the game result for you if you were leading and it will increase the points of the game result for your opponent if you were behind. If the game is currently "B wins by 10" it will then be "B wins by 9". Depending on the board state and the current game result, it can lose you the game to play in your own territory (if your opponent gains points with the next move).
True, but that's the kind of subtlety that only strong players appreciate. When someone learns the rules, it's okay not to even think about this
@@GoMagic It should be intuitive for a beginner if put out simply, rather than a sublety. The goal of the game is to control a larger part of the board than the opponent. If you consider something a definite territory of yours, you already control it. Therefore play elsewhere, even just to occupy a neutral area with 1 more stone. 1 is infinity times more than 0.
So, it should be equally intuitive in both area and territory scoring. Territory scoring: Timmy play a move, pick -1 instead of 0 or more. Area scoring: Timmy play a move, pick 0 instead of +1 or more. If there were a beginner who had difficulty understanding the similarity of these, i would refuse to teach them. 😀
For clarity reasons I would like to distinguish between area counting or territory counting, komi of 7,5 points or 6,5 points, and Chinese rules or Japanese rules. I do this by showing 3 slightly different positions.
9x9 board, positions ready to count, by area counting and territory counting.
A. 30 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 7 points.
* A1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better.
* A1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* A1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* A2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 7 points, Black is 7 points better.
* A2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* A2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* Chinese rules: A1a, White wins.
* Japanese rules: A2b, Black wins.
B. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 6 points.
* B1. Area counting: Black 45 points, White 36 points, Black is 9 points better.
* B1a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins.
* B1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* B2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 6 points, Black is 8 points better.
* B2a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins.
* B2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* Chinese rules: B1a, Black wins.
* Japanese rules: B2b, Black wins.
C. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 13 points, white territory 7 points.
* C1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better.
* C1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* C1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* C2. Territory counting: Black 13 points, White 7 points, Black is 6 points better.
* C2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* C2b. Komi 6,5 points, White wins.
* Chinese rules: C1a, White wins.
* Japanese rules: C2b, White wins.
So, only when White made the last meaningful move, either by filling the last neutral point or by answering a threat when Black filled the last neutral point, there can be a different winner when applying the Chinese rules or Japanese rules. This, with disregard of the different types of seki, which alters the results.
Thanks for taking the time and writing these precise calculations!
Is it impossible for the same game to have a different winner when counted under different rules?
It is possible but incredibly rare. So don't worry about it. =)
I started playing Go a mont ago and I learned the japanese counting. I know it's a little bit more "complicated", but I dont think is that much complicated that newbies cannot learn it easily. On the other hand, having to be really careful when making moves inside your own territory adds a depth to the game that I find it makes it so much better. And I don't like the "play and find out" mentality of chinese rules. I think there's something beautiful of ending sooner because you realize you've lost. The feel of japanese rules is just a better experience for me.
That's what I think too, but there are other opinions =)
American rules are best for beginners in my opinion just like chinese rules you can play out situations and also its territory based so its easy to adjust when playing online
What is American rules?
@@SpiritAnimalGO Its just like japanese rules but main difference is when you pass you give your opponent a prisoner stone and just like chinese rules on the occasion of disagreement player that think the stones dead should show it on the board
Does everyone in the US play according to these rules?
@@GoMagic These rules pertain at tournaments in US, Canada, France, Britain when under the auspices of their national go associations, but it doesn't preclude other tournaments under Japanese or Chinese rules, and certainly non-tournament play anything goes including not clarifying which rules pertain altogether. All of us who learned Japanese rules, will likely keep playing those. But AGA rules are really lovely.
Я учился по японским правилам. Вполне подходит и для новичков тоже. Нет никаких проблем.
Нам тоже нравится, но не у всех всё так гладко =)
Can you explain why komi is so high?
It balances the game. Of course, on 9x9 komi would be a little bit smaller. On 19x19 board Chinese komi is 7.5 and Japanese is 6.5. Back in time there was no komi, but throughout history white got bigger and bigger komi to balance the game.
@@GoMagic Seems a bit high though? 7 points just for moving first.
Well, people like that and games are pretty balanced. Otherwise it would be harder for white
Wouldnt the chinese rule be harder to master?
Like both rules getting captured just -1 points basically. But the japanese rule encourages offensive plays, while chinese rules encourages defensive plays.
One trys to defend without sacrifices
One trys to attack with casualties
That's what we think. Many people see it differently =)
iam Still very new to GO... but going back to my First Games ..i would propably Win under Chinese Rules because i had literally no Territory ..but alot of Area XDD
Haha that's a good one!
🐙
In your first example, Black gets 1 extra point with area counting because he filled in the last neutral point. Had White filled the last neutral point, area counting and territory counting would have given the same result. 50% chance for Black or White to fill the last neutral point. Komi being either 7,5 points or 6,5 points because of this issue doesn’t make sense, is quite probably not true.
and yes...this is shocking =(
The reason for the 7.5 vs 6.5 is this: Komi was set for a while at 5.5. Black winning percentage was still too high. So Japan adjusted komi up to 6.5. China adjusting to 6.5 would not have an impact, because in Japanese scoring, there could easily be a difference of only 1 moku, but it Chinese scoring it is very rare. The smallest difference in scores--except with a rare form seki shape with a single neutral point--is 2 moku. So China moved straight up to 7.5 to even up the percentage of white wins. 7 is probably the most reasonable value for both, but leads to ties.
@@haimzamir4361 Thank you, this makes sense.
Just to check, I slightly alter the examples mentioned in another post here, only looking at area counting. Apparently the two critical positions are A. and C. And yes, here you see that only the 2 points komi jump from 5,5 to 7,5 has an effect. Disregarding the seki possibilities.
9x9 board, positions ready to count, by area counting.
A. 30 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 7 points.
* A1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better.
* A1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* A1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* A1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
B. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 6 points.
* B1. Area counting: Black 45 points, White 36 points, Black is 9 points better.
* B1a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins.
* B1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* B1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
C. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 13 points, white territory 7 points.
* C1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better.
* C1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* C1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* C1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
Just to be complete, the same examples for territory counting.
9x9 board, positions ready to count, by territory counting.
A. 30 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 7 points.
* A2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 7 points, Black is 7 points better.
* A2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* A2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* A2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
B. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 6 points.
* B2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 6 points, Black is 8 points better.
* B2a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins.
* B2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins.
* B2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
C. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 13 points, white territory 7 points.
* C2. Territory counting: Black 13 points, White 7 points, Black is 6 points better.
* C2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins.
* C2b. Komi 6,5 points, White wins.
* C2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.
The Japanese rule can be adjusted (not sure if it's already adjusted) to always provide the same result as the Chinese rule:
1. Make sure white always plays the last move, and
2. The opponent gains a point every time one passes a move.
In the last example, white can then fill up the 3 empty intersections as if the game is played under the Chinese rule. Black will either have to place his stone in his own territory, in white's territory, or pass 3 moves, all resulting in losing 3 points. Black ends up losing by 1.5 points just like in the Chinese rule.
Let's explain why this makes the Japanese rule the same as the Chinese rule: let's first assume all pieces played by both players survive, meaning none of them gets captured or become prisoners. Then both players will have an equal number of stones on the board provided white makes the last move. Then whether counting both territory and stones or just counting territory does not affect the difference in the score. For fillable neutral points, if there are an odd number of them, black will fill up the last one forcing white to give 1 point to black by either playing in white's own territory, in black's territory (and becoming black's prisoner), or passing the move (and black gains 1 point for that). That corresponds to black being able to fill up 1 extra neutral point more than white when there are an odd number of them, giving black 1 extra point more than white under the Chinese rule.
For prisoners and capture pieces, each of them results in one side having 1 less stone on board than his opponent, resulting in 1 point loss under the Chinese rule, which corresponds to 1 point loss for every captured piece under the Japanese rules.
Also, this fixes the problem of losing points when eliminating Ko material from your territory (which under the Chinese rule doesn't): After filling up all neutral points, each time one plays in his own territory to eliminate his Ko material, his opponent also has to give up 1 point (similar to the previous example of filling neutral points), keeping the difference in score unaffected.
Thanks a lot for your suggestions! It sounds a bit too hard to be explained to a beginner though.
Tibetan rules?
No need to make it that fancy =)
Day 2 of being confused at Go rules.
Why do you not count the eyes? Are they not your territory?
That's the tricky thing about seki. It's always counted as entirely neutral, even if Black and White both have one eye, those eyes are not counted as points because these groups are involved in seki.
In my opinion Go should just deside globally which rules to use, just use japanese always everywhere. It would reduse confusion in long run. Compared to chess it has only one rule set
wish it was that simple!
I prefer the simplicity of Chinese rules
Captured stones ARE important in Go Chinese rules as well.
Started with Japanese rules in the early 1990s only to later found out that Chinese rules are far more logical and basically better, since it's insane in Japaense rules that you can destroy your own score by moving on your own territory (for example if opponent tries to catch some mistakes in your territory or something).
I think preference for Chinese rules is obvious almost to anyone rational.
the object of the game is to get the most stones on the board,,, this is the correct way to explain go to someone
That makes Go sound a bit like Jenga=))
Yes, stone scoring is the most elegant version of the game, and the most straightforward and intuitive way to explain Go to a beginner. I usually start with introducing stone scoring, and after that, modern Chinese area scoring ("those eyes that you had to leave give points too"). Territory scoring in Japanese rules can thereafter be introduced by the notion that it's a "shortcut/approximation" to area scoring that usually leads to the same or almost the same results (but with loads of annoying complications as in Japanese rules).
As an additional benefit, both stone and area scoring can better instill the correct idea for a beginner that Go is first and foremost about dynamics of stones and groups, and not about passively "surrounding territory" as starting with territory scoring might suggest. Therefore, the beginner can immediately start playing with a good mindset.
@@kyyyni well said, while it doesn't take much time to learn japanese scoring, stone scoring is much simpler to explain to strangers on the street
and also yes, i'm 7k and i play to put the most stones on the board,, not surround the most territory,,, although they are the same exact thing :)
I don't understand.😢
What didn't you understand? Feel free to ask, and we'll do our best to help you out!
This is easily the most confusing part to me
You just gotta try playing under Chinese rules a couple of times...it becomes more clear
For me the only downside in Chinese scoring is that you have to fill the "neutral" points. Basically the end game is made even longer this way and you have to worry about filling them after you made every move that gives you score under Japanese rules.
Also prisoners not giving any points is truly unsatisfying.
And counting territory by putting all the prisoners on opponents territory on the other hand feels really good.
What makes me really sad is that Chinese rules seem to be considered mostly for kids. Like, come on, some people just prefer less punishing way of playing. Besides, the other player gets free move either way. Wouldn't you like it if your opponent preferred to play inside because theу are unsure AND it costs nothing so it's more attractive? Professionals wouldn't notice a difference anyways because they are strong and have a very subtle reading skills to see if they need an additional defensive move or not.
You're partially right, but playing unnecessary moves is bad even by Chinese rules - while you're doing it, your opponent is making big moves.
also chinese rules gives bonuses for connected territories...think about it :)
It is the "ancient Chinese rules" that applied group tax (less of "bonus", but more like "punishment/reductions" with every independent groups). You can apply "group tax" to territory scoring as well (the earliest "territory-like rule" also has "group tax").
It is the ultimate "proving each stone can stay on the board" principle (alone side the most important "equal number of moves" principle).
not anymore though, right?
@@countingtls The ancient chinese rules applied until pretty recently. They are also responsible for the artifact of Japanese rule of not counting eyes in seki. IOW, Japan received territory counting method from China including group tax, but apparently lost the group tax, but it survived in seki counting.
@@haimzamir4361 Ya, even to early 20th century, ancient rules still were used.
But over the thousands of years, ancient rules evolved, and historically, Chinese culture influence a vast area. There were not just one "ancient Chinese rule", and there were no central organization to enforce any "standard", they naturally varied across area and throughout time periods. It would be more accurate to call them, principles then some rules set in stones.
The earliest principle we know of was the "stone scoring principle" (子多為勝), which was repeated over and over in ancient texts. And it was the source of why no seki points, no stone on an intersection, no score, simple as that. And for quite a long time, this play to fill the board principle (called 兩溢 in ancient texts) was the only choice, but players with higher strength quickly realized they didn't have to fill, and can still "count" the score reliably when both sides know it is pointless to throw in stones that cannot survive.
Hence, we got the first "historic" scoring principles - "停道" that we have records from the Tang Dynasty China. It essentially counts the "roads" (called 路) after backfill (it also didn't require filling dames), where roads are what we called territory today minus the "eye space". The road scoring was neither area scoring nor territory scoring, but trying to separate the "road" with the "stones that were played" (called 著, and when you add them to "roads", you got the old stone score). But since they also apply the "equal moves principle" (the first word of the principle - 停, meant "equal" in ancient Chinese), so they would simply compare the "road score" and say one side wins by how many roads (勝幾路).
It was this equal move principle that first got lost sometime in history (not sure before or after it was spread or introduced to Japan, likely there were still interactions between Japan, Korean and China that influence each other), and then the exclusion of eye space got removed again in ancient Japanese scoring (but it was left behind in later Ming Dynasty rules/principles as group tax, and group tax later became a bit "weird"). The last principle to develop was the half-counting (every intersection has to belong to one side, and the one has more than half of the board wins), and we know records during Ming Dynasty didn't always use this, but started to become the mainstream in Qing Dynasty game records (and it was after half-counting, we start to see points counted in seki, since every intersection has to belong to someone, if they are an odd number of shared liberties, then they will need to be split half-and-half)
The history and evolution of game rules/principles for Go, even the variations of them (like ancient Korean Baduk, ancient Tibetan Go, shape rearranging games in North-west China and Central Asia), are all very fascinating and deserve their own videos.
by the way, the game can be completely read on the board under the chinese rules. It's by far more elegant. The unnecessary japanese rules is something that hurt the entry of new players. Even the old stone scoring was better! Just for what? Win more time at the end? I really don't understand. The game itself is simple in rules, why make things complex with a lot of wannabe efficiency? That's my beginner opinion that almost quitted because I had a hard time trying to learn japanese scoring by myself, luckily I was wanting so bad to learn that I tried one more time with chinese rules later on.
Surprisingly, there are just as many people admiring the Japanese rules as hating them... but they are indeed a bit challenging for a beginner.
As a beginner I find the Japanese rules very annoying to play with, because they semi-incentivize playing hopeless invasions deep in enemy territory. When someone plays a hopeless invasion, as long as you defend with the same number of stones, the score hasn't actually changed, and it was a risk worth taking for the invader; if you mess up the defense they might get to live, and if you don't no harm was done. So the only way to punish hopeless invasions is to know EXACTLY how many stones you need to kill the invasion, and otherwise passing to earn the extra points. Which is so nerve wrecking when you're bad at the game, you have to sit back and let them build and build, pass once too many and the opponent suddenly lives due to a trick you didn't see.
I'm sure this is a total none-issue in higher levels of play, but for beginners that have to deal with whatever nonsense other beginners try on them, the Japanese rules makes it a far more blood-thirsty and punishing game.
It's a matter of taste I think =)
Agreed 😂😂, I hate this in japanese rules too
The Japanese rule on seki is too facile, just stating that there are no points in seki. It could have stated that there are points in eyes and false eyes. In the example here, both Black and White have one eye in seki, so these cancel out. But Black cannot take advantage of the 3 white false eyes, so they should be counted for White, the Japanese seki rule really robs 3 points from White. If one side has two groups with one eye which are connected by a false eye, that false eye is counted as 1 point. In the, seldomly occurring, two headed dragon group, that two headed dragon has only two false eyes, yet they are counted as 2 points. So why not in seki? Here, the Chinese rules are superior to the Japanese rules, you could call the Chinese rules more fair.
Japanese rules have, probably as a historical legacy, effectively a group tax for groups in seki, but at the same time there's no group tax for groups not in seki. I'd consider that inconsistency to be inelegant. Better to either have full group tax (as in "ancient Chinese" rules) or no group tax at all (as in modern Chinese rules).
@@kyyyni I just don’t like group tax, it’s a concept that is difficult to plan for, it is fairly artificial in my eyes. To me, the beauty lies in the control, it doesn’t matter whether you occupy a point, or control it in a way that the opponent cannot occupy or control it. In this respect, stones on the board and territory are the same, how you handle it to get more of both than the opponent is up to you.
@@paulbloemen7256 Nothing artificial about the group tax at all, since it didn't start as any kind of tax. Originally the game was all about how many stones could you put on the board. Near the end of the game, the loser would be running out of safe places to put stones that could live, while the winner still had moves. Of course you wouldn't fill in the last two eyes in any group. When you count up the stones, you don't count the eyes. Then of course, it would be too tedious to play all those extra stones, so you would still have what is effectively stone counting, but counting all the territory minus two necessary for eyes. Then territory counting developed from there, still with the "tax", and it was a convenience to use the territory + prisoners as a proxy for territory + stones. This is the the game as it came to Japan. The tax fell by the wayside except in the case of seki.
The beauty of the group tax incentive it created for do or die fighting, vs some relatively placid games where opponents just chip away at each other trying to get ever so slightly more.
@@haimzamir4361 Thanks, yes, I know how the game started. I don’t quite see how the tax issue is involved in seki. It most of the time is about a black and white group with insufficient eyes not being able to kill each other: where is the tax?
@@paulbloemen7256 There are different kinds of sekis. One would be a seki where no group has eyes and share a pair of dame. But another seki shape has one-eyed groups and a single shared dame. The eye is counted as as part of area, but not counted as Japanese territory, even though the group is alive in seki, and the eye is an empty point surrounded by a live group. This is the remnant of the tax in japanese rules--for single eyed shapes in seki.
Chinese rules are easier for beginners
That's what it seems like, yes
А на родном русском никак нельзя было? Хотя бы сабы.
А что вообще это за претензия? Ребята снимают для англоговорящих зрителей.
@@brieanna854 А Вы кто? Основатель гомейджик?
Мы всегда делаем русские сабы, но нужно время на перевод. Через какое-то время появится! =)
@@GoMagic Вот это другое дело. Спасибо.
You are teaching Japanese rules? Oh, man ...