David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets.
You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure. What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the actual truth of the situation. Japanese makes you gamble, and penalizes you for being wrong. It makes your opinion about the situation become a factor in the final result instead of the board position and your play leading up to it. I'm not saying that is BAD, but it's what makes the two rule-sets different. It's distasteful in my opinion because I would rather focus on how I got to that position and the quality of my play. But now it's like I also have to take a little test AFTER the game is technically over, a test that could give me a win I don't deserve. I think it's better to focus on the quality of the moves during the game, and not also have to deal with the gamesmanship after the game. I would say that Japanese would appeal to the right brain, Chinese to the left brain. And I'm left brained so maybe that explains it. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:30 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional > advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a > natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being > more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see > that advantage as dropping more rapidly than you do as the > level of play of the weaker player reaches some level ... perhaps > at 5k or so it is effectively zero. > > I think that your comment about being forgiving of ignorance > is the most important point at this time, and looking forward: > how forgiving do we want to be with our programs? While the > desire is biased towards getting more people programming > Go engines, then forgiving ignorance and tolerating weak play > is good because it lowers the barriers of entry for new programs. > But at some point in time it is also a good idea to raise the bar > up to standards of acceptable human play. > > I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise > the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. > > Cheers, > David > > > > On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > > > I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese > > is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules > > and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you > > agree on what they are. > > > > And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it > > give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger > > player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and > > will effectively get an advantage for it. At higher levels > > this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. > > > > It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a > > group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just > > keep passing and rack up points against a player who does > > not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, > > and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor > > a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and > > very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker > > players.) > > > > In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is > > given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw > > he keeps the title. I guess it is done out of respect > > for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese > > rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose > > on the weaker player. > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
