On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:01 +0000, Tom Cooper wrote:
> At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Don, I can see that chinese rules let a player try a speculative
> invasion inside his opponents territory at the end of the game
> without risk, but you seem to be saying more than this. Could
> you give a 5x5 example or two please? I had heard that in some
> sense, chinese rules require more sophisticated understanding
> for perfect play.
>
> It might be best to construct
> the example by playing a pretend game so that each player has
> played the fair number of stones.
+ + O + O O # # +
+ + O + O O # # +
+ # O O O O O # #
+ # + O O # # # +
+ # O O # + # O +
+ + O # # + # + +
+ O O O # + + # +
# O O # # # # + +
+ O O O # # # + +
Here is an example from 9x9 which illustrates a key
conceptual different in the rule-sets. I admit this is a
rather trivial example but it illustrates what I need to
say.
In the diagram, black has a chance to make a live group but
only if white plays stupidly. Although this is a trivial
example, we might imagine a much more interesting example
where it's not so clear, or where the better player has
a real chance to make this group live.
In such a situation, Japanese is more about gambling skill,
"can I get away with it?" The strong Japanese player is
inhibited for trying to take advantage of his extra skill.
The Chinese player can apply his skill to such a position
without being penalized if the opponent is able to defend.
Now imagine that diagram is played out more, so that there
are no chances to save groups - there is a point in any
game, where the game is conceptually over and a strong
player can compute what the exact score should be using any
unambiguous rule-set.
With Chinese rules, when the game is LOGICALLY over, the
ACTUAL result will be the same as the LOGICAL result.
With Japanese rules the game might be LOGICALLY over but the
actual OUTCOME is needlessly delayed. In other words
Japanese rules gets very petty about what happens AFTER the
game is LOGICALLY over - the point where good players know
what the result SHOULD be. Chinese rules is more
intellectual about that - it doesn't care about things that
are not important - Japanese is juvenile about this.
That's why in my opinion Chinese rules are superior. They
give more scope for skill, once a game is logically
decided it's OVER and it doesn't place juvenile emphasis
on what should be non-issues. Japanese is very petty about
what happens AFTER the game is logically over and to me this
isn't GO, it's poker.
I wold point out that this is not a virtue, it is is a
necessity designed to make the scoring come out right. It
wasn't designed purposely to punish you for not passing.
- Don
> Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
