I'm inclined to agree, but it bothers me to have to explain life and
death before scoring. Life and death therefore become part of the
rules rather than an emergent consequences of the rules . I want to
be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let players loose to
discover things on their own.
I would probably simply use AGA rules, but just about all English
introductory books (e.g., "Learn to Play Go" by Janice Kim and Jeong
Soo-huyn) use the Japanese rules.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 16, 2008, at 7:25 PM, Ross Werner wrote:
Also, I think when teaching beginners Go, the "trust me, you lost
here even though you cannot understand it" approach is a gigantic
mistake no matter which ruleset you are using. Play it out, and
show the beginner exactly why those disputed stones are dead (or
alive). This is possible no matter what kind of scoring you use. If
you're using territory scoring, you will get the exact same
(relative) score unless one player passes multiple times, which
shouldn't happen in a play-out with a beginner who doesn't
understand what is going on.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
