On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 13:00 +0000, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> I don't agree on that. If you are used to Chinese
> and watch a Japanese game, you won't see any kind
> of silly moves (assuming they are not silly to a
> Japanese observer).
That's not true. The Chinese player (who has never
heard of Japanese rules) will be confused by the
"foolish" pass moves when the Japanese player
refuses to fill dame. If he insists on his own
limited perspective (like Japanese players often
do) he will consider the Japanese player to be
stupid for not taking those free points.
I would point out that in Chinese, every stone on
the board is territory, even if you define that
to be "wrong."
But it's not just the playing phase, it's the scoring
phase where things are reckoned differently. This
is where there is no right or wrong point of view, but
you must pick one and agree on it.
> The idea is: when there is
> territory to be won, win it. That's the best you
> can do by any ruleset. For strong players, the
> ruleset does not make much difference (some minor
> differences exist even between different Japanese
> rulesets.) When there is no more territory to be
> won, the game is finished, but that not easy to
> understand for weak players. That's why the Chinese
> ruleset indulgently ignores unnecessary moves. Moves
> made when the game is finished don't win anything
> and don't mean anything (neither by Chinese rules).
> They are objective wrong moves.
Yes, from Japanese eyes they are, but from Chinese eyes
they are neutral.
I could just as easily say that if these moves do
nothing, why are they actually penalized in Japanese?
I could say that Chinese is far more logical in that respect
and that Japanese rules are "wrong" because they
unfairly penalize you for moves that don't hurt your
position in any way.
But I'm not going to say that, because I accept that
Japanese rules is a perfectly legitimate way to play
the game. It would really be silly of me to claim
they are "wrong" because they are indulgent about
not punishing PASS moves when there is territory to
be gained.
> Imagine a chess
> game where you give mate, then you capture the
> king and, after that, you still move your pawns.
> If a human does that, its offensive for the
> opponent. If a computer does that, its just wrong.
The chess analogy is wrong. The rules define checkmate
as the LAST MOVE. Game is over. There is nothing left
to resolve.
Perhaps a better analogy is playing out a lost game in
Chess. Perhaps it's Q vs K and the losing side "makes"
the opponent checkmate him. Even in this case the
losing side can hope for an accidental stalemate, which
can happen with naive weaker players who are playing too
fast.
Although some players may express annoyance when a weaker
player continues to play out a lost game, it's generally
understood that it's your right to play out a game as
far as you want. To me, it's far more rude to "pressure"
a weaker player to resign by heavy sighs, rolling your eyes
and demeaning him.
The fact of the matter is that in Chinese, every stone
is territory and in Japanese stones are just a kind of
infrastructure around the territory.
Although I respect both points of view, I don't like
Japanese rules even though I understand them. One big
beef I have with them is that it requires you to track all
the captured stones. The board state isn't just the
board, it's the board and 2 cups full of stones.
Another beef is that if you move into your own territory,
you get "double penalized." Notice how I am coloring
my point of view by Chinese standards? If you have a
good move in Chinese but you instead move into your own
territory, you are punished in a natural way. Japanese
is more heavy handed, you get the natural consequences
of not playing the best move, but then you get slapped
again for "reducing" your territory. From a Chinese
players point of view, this is "wrong" because it's YOUR
TERRITORY to being with! How can I be penalized for
moving into my own territory???????? duhhhh!!!!!
Please pardon me - for just a moment I was being narrow
minded thinking Chinese was the only viewpoint.
- Don
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
