I disagree that in Chinese rules a player can afford to play unnecessary defensive moves inside his territory. If you play an unneccessary move inside your territory while there are still dame points, you will lose points under Chinese rules, because your move has no value, but your opponent will fill a dame which has value. So the only way you can play inside of your territory in Chinese rules whithout losing points is to do it after all dame points are filled. You would have to postpone your potentially neccessary defensive moves until all damepoints are filled, which is usually too late if there really was a threat. My conclusion is that there is hardly any difference between Chinese and Japanese rules in penalizing unneccessary defensive moves inside you territory. There is only one useful moment under Chinese rules where you can play an unneccessary defensive move whithout losing points: just after your opponent filled the last dame. Playing defensive moves after your opponent passes would cost nothing in Chinese rules, but i don't see any usefullness in this.
Dave ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: zondag, december 31, 2006 6:34 pm Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Interesting problem > People who play by Japanese rules fill the dame before passing and > scoring.Professional game records leave those moves out since they > are irrelevant, > but if you go to a club and watch people playing, they usually > fill the dame > before passing. Sometimes you will see a verbal agreement that > the game is > over and both players will fill dame at the same time. > > A strong chinese player using chinese rules will pick up a point > or two > during the dame filling stage when playing a strong japanese > player. The > Chiense player will choose earlier moves that gain a later dame > point that > the japanese player will think have no benefit over other moves. > > Japanese rules has the minor advantage that they penalize plays > into your > opponent's terrioty that are not answered, so it is more risky in > Japaneserules to make an unsound invasion at the end of the game. > Chinese rules > tolerates making these invasions and making safety moves to ensure > aen enemy > group is dead, or even taken off the board. This is why computer > competitions like chinese rules. Japanese rules make the game more > difficult. > > Chinese rules have the advantage of being more elegant. Disputes > over group > status can be played out. Japanese rules require agreement on > group status, > and there are rare situations that are very difficult to resolve. > > Most of the world plays be Japanese rules, so any commercial > program must > implement Japanese rules. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 7:08 AM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Interesting problem > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
