Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
At 09:14 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote: ... . I want to be able to give a tiny set of rules and then let players loose to discover things on their own. i have had good luck with just explaining capure by surrounding and starting with 9 handicap stones on a 9x9 board (you can't win and that's a good thing). remove one handicap stone each time they win. you can explain things as they show up in the games (two eyes, ko, seki, etc). you can play many games in an hour, usually getting the handicap down to 3 or 4. this works surprisingly well. thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no matter what ruleset you're using.) The ruleset has to specify a way to resolve disputes. You can't just play it out using any ruleset. So are you teaching informal territory rules with an ad hoc virtual play out, or are you using AGA rules with pass stones? -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
I was planning to teach Japanese rules (because that's what the books
use). I got the sense from the earlier messages in this list that the
virtual playout is not ad hoc.
David Fotland says:
If we disagree on the group status, you get to play first and make
it live.
If you fail to make it live, then we now agree on the status of the
group,
and we restore the position to what it was when we both passed, and
score
it.
Hideki Kato says:
After the end of
game, the players can continue play to check the stones are really
dead, if necessary. This procedure does not affect the score if the
stone are really dead.
(It's not actually clear in this comment whether the playout is
unwound afterward.)
Nick Wedd says:
Your stubborn insistence does not cause a restart of the game (a
resumption, article 9.3). It causes a confirmation phase
(article 10.4), which is unwound after its result has been found.
I must not be looking at the same version of the rules. From http://
www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html (to which the AGA site
links as an explanation of Japanese rules):
Article 9. End of the game
1. When a player passes his move and his opponent passes in
succession, the game stops.
2. After stopping, the game ends through confirmation and agreement
by the two players about the life and death of stones and
territory. This is called the end of the game.
3. If a player requests resumption of a stopped game, his opponent
must oblige and has the right to play first.
Article 10. Determining the result
1. After agreement that the game has ended, each player removes any
opposing dead stones from his territory as is, and adds them to his
prisoners.
2. Prisoners are then filled into the opponent's territory, and the
points of territory are counted and compared. The player with more
territory wins. If both players have the same amount the game is a
draw, which is called a jigo.
3. If one player lodges an objection to the result, both players
must reconfirm the result by, for example, replaying the game.
4. After both players have confirmed the result, the result cannot
be changed under any circumstances.
The commentary on Article 9 can be read to imply that the
confirmation stones are unwound, but the wording moves played not in
accordance with the rules during the period when the game was
stopped is far from clear.
Commentary on Article 9 (end of the game) Clause 3
1. If a player requests resumption...
The game is released from its stopped state and competition resumes.
2. ...his opponent...has the right to play first.
a. If a game is resumed, any moves played not in accordance with
the rules during the period when the game was stopped are invalid
{and are presumably removed from the board. --wjh}
b. Arguments over who plays first are resolved by stating that the
opponent of the player who requests resumption may play first.
3. ...his opponent must oblige...
If the opponent does not see any need to play, he may pass.
I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive
and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass
(because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I
pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Sep 18, 2008, at 7:41 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote:
And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this
manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to
determine
the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no
matter what ruleset you're using.)
The ruleset has to specify a way to resolve disputes. You can't just
play it out using any ruleset. So are you teaching informal
territory
rules with an ad hoc virtual play out, or are you using AGA rules
with
pass stones?
-Jeff
___
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/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
- Original Message From: Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute. The point of the continuation play is to prove the alive or dead claim. Each side must play out the position until both sides agree on the state of the stones. This may require playing until the stones have two eyes and are unconditionally alive or else playing until the stones are captured and removed from the board. The point of this continuation is not to arrive at a new final board position and score, but to reach an agreement about the status of stones in the original final board position. If the stones were actually unsettled this can get quite messy. Ben. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
I understand this method, I just don't see where the (translated) Japanese rules explain such a method. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Ben Shoemaker wrote: - Original Message From: Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute. The point of the continuation play is to prove the alive or dead claim. Each side must play out the position until both sides agree on the state of the stones. This may require playing until the stones have two eyes and are unconditionally alive or else playing until the stones are captured and removed from the board. The point of this continuation is not to arrive at a new final board position and score, but to reach an agreement about the status of stones in the original final board position. If the stones were actually unsettled this can get quite messy. Ben. ___ 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/
RE: Teaching Go (was Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japaneserules)
When I teach beginners, I use area scoring on 9x9 until they are advanced enough to understand territory scoring without disputes (which usually does not take very long). Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Peter Drake Verzonden: do 18-9-2008 6:14 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japaneserules) 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 08:54 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: I was planning to teach Japanese rules (because that's what the books use). Most of the books say nothing at all about how to handle disputes. They teach an informal territory ruleset. That's a major flaw in the books that should not be repeated. I don't think it matters at all if you teach area scoring rules, since pretty much everything taught in the books can be applied to area scoring. I think you should teach both area scoring and territory scoring. Area scoring first because it is simple and can be played without agreeing to dead stones, and territory scoring once they have some games under their belt. Show that they are essentially equivalent to within a point. I got the sense from the earlier messages in this list that the virtual playout is not ad hoc. The earlier messages appear to be a mix of informal Japanese rules and official 1989 rules, the latter being the tortured details. David Fotland talks about an informal procedure where you play it out and then restore, but this is not practical and also doesn't really work, which I've debated on this list before: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-March/005019.html Nick Wedd is talking about the 1989 rules (tortured details), which if you're teaching beginners I recommend running away from at light speed. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules. For context, this is for a class I'm teaching next semester on Games in Society. It's a section of Exploration Discovery, the college's freshman seminar. Here's the syllabus: http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ED.html I may just follow Kim and Jeong's pedagogical lead and let the students experiment with pieces of the rules before trying to play a complete game. The computer scientist's instinct is to lay down a terse and elegant set of rules and then deal with the consequences of those rules, but perhaps that is a bad thing when teaching. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: I think you should teach both area scoring and territory scoring. Area scoring first because it is simple and can be played without agreeing to dead stones, and territory scoring once they have some games under their belt. Show that they are essentially equivalent to within a point. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules. Ok, then play some 9x9 games with area scoring rules as Dave Devos suggested. I was making the same suggestion. Don't hit them with both rules at the same time, but make sure to choose the right set to start with! I may just follow Kim and Jeong's pedagogical lead and let the students experiment with pieces of the rules before trying to play a complete game. It's ok to teach unconditional life or simple life and death first, but once you get beyond that you need to be able to end and score the game, and beginners just can't do that easily with territory scoring and an agreement phase. I tried to learn with Kim's Learn to Play Go, and I was absolutely confused and frustrated when it came to end game scoring. The computer scientist's instinct is to lay down a terse and elegant set of rules and then deal with the consequences of those rules, but perhaps that is a bad thing when teaching. You need foundations to build on. One foundation is life and death; however, life and death is just a simple consequence of the capturing rule. The other foundation is the score at the end of the game. Having an easy way to score let's the beginner experiment with what is alive and what is dead, what is true territory that cannot be invaded. An informal agreement phase with rules that punish a player for trying to play it out is a detriment. Nobody is advocating that you give noobs Tromp-Taylor and letting them figure it out. Just don't give them territory rules with dead-stone agreement as a first ruleset. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:15 -0700, Ben Shoemaker wrote: - Original Message From: Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute. The point of the continuation play is to prove the alive or dead claim. Each side must play out the position until both sides agree on the state of the stones. This may require playing until the stones have two eyes and are unconditionally alive or else playing until the stones are captured and removed from the board. The point of this continuation is not to arrive at a new final board position and score, but to reach an agreement about the status of stones in the original final board position. If the stones were actually unsettled this can get quite messy. That's what really irks me about the playout rule. First of all, the idea is that the play-out has the ONLY purpose to settle the dispute and when it's finished you score the original position. I have some questions about that: 1. What if you still disagree and claim that you simply mis-played the play-out?I have been completely assured that this exercise is not considered part of the game, only part of the SCORING of the game. Therefore, if either player thinks he misplayed the play-out, it should be replayed until everyone is satisfied, right? The goal here is not to see who is better, but to find the truth. 2. Before the play-out phase, do you calculate both possible scores then go by the one that the play-outs indicate was correct? Or do you try to reconstruct the original position?What if several groups are in question or there are subtle interactions? How do you integrate that back into the score from the original disputed position? It seems real messy to me to view this as part of the scoring procedure and not part of the game. - Don Ben. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
i've read suggestions along the lines of teaching capture go first. this should get a lot of the life-and-death intuition under the belt (plus should help learn counting liberties). s. On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:12 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: Eventually, sure -- but I'd like them to have a few games under their belts before I bring up the issue of different versions of the rules. Ok, then play some 9x9 games with area scoring rules as Dave Devos suggested. I was making the same suggestion. Don't hit them with both rules at the same time, but make sure to choose the right set to start with! I may just follow Kim and Jeong's pedagogical lead and let the students experiment with pieces of the rules before trying to play a complete game. It's ok to teach unconditional life or simple life and death first, but once you get beyond that you need to be able to end and score the game, and beginners just can't do that easily with territory scoring and an agreement phase. I tried to learn with Kim's Learn to Play Go, and I was absolutely confused and frustrated when it came to end game scoring. The computer scientist's instinct is to lay down a terse and elegant set of rules and then deal with the consequences of those rules, but perhaps that is a bad thing when teaching. You need foundations to build on. One foundation is life and death; however, life and death is just a simple consequence of the capturing rule. The other foundation is the score at the end of the game. Having an easy way to score let's the beginner experiment with what is alive and what is dead, what is true territory that cannot be invaded. An informal agreement phase with rules that punish a player for trying to play it out is a detriment. Nobody is advocating that you give noobs Tromp-Taylor and letting them figure it out. Just don't give them territory rules with dead-stone agreement as a first ruleset. -Jeff ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
Right, that brings me to my other option: 1. explain the AGA rules myself (probably territory counting, but with no need to recognize dead stones because of the pass stones) 2. have them play for a few days, giving additional advice and explanatiions; during this time, they'll learn to recognize obviously dead stones 3. talk about different rule sets 4. give them a book to read If I do this, maybe Kim Jeong (volume 1) isn't the book to use, since it's mostly about the rules and very simple strategy (ladders). I suppose I could use the first volume of Graded Go Problems for Beginners, although it doesn't really EXPLAIN strategy or talk about history, the Go community, and so forth the way Kim Jeong's very friendly book does. Davies' Life and Death certainly makes one stronger, but it focuses on a specific area of the game. Any other suggestions for books? Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: Ok, then play some 9x9 games with area scoring rules as Dave Devos suggested. I was making the same suggestion. Don't hit them with both rules at the same time, but make sure to choose the right set to start with! ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 15:15 -0400, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: You need foundations to build on. One foundation is life and death; however, life and death is just a simple consequence of the capturing rule. I think the way I learned worked beautifully. I learned with Tromp/Taylor rules on 9x9. I had no concept of life and death of course (because I was a beginner) and there were many situations where I tried to defend clearly dead groups or even groups that were unconditionally alive even though I didn't need to defend them. It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had heard of and even understood it from a book, but it was still rather abstract to me until I actually experienced it for myself. Only when it actually happened did the light bulb go off and I said to myself, this 2 eye thing really is a big deal. That's the beauty of Chinese style rules and scoring. You don't need to understand any advanced concepts in order to start playing and you can do this without any level of confusion and discouragement. - Don signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Dailey wrote: It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had heard of and even understood it from a book, but it was still rather abstract to me until I actually experienced it for myself. Only when it actually happened did the light bulb go off and I said to myself, this 2 eye thing really is a big deal. That bulbs comes on much faster (for most people) if they are guided towards the light ... like with the methods explained by others in this thread (eg. capture stones/groups at corner/side/center) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 13:06 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Dailey wrote: It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had heard of and even understood it from a book, but it was still rather abstract to me until I actually experienced it for myself. Only when it actually happened did the light bulb go off and I said to myself, this 2 eye thing really is a big deal. That bulbs comes on much faster (for most people) if they are guided towards the light ... like with the methods explained by others in this thread (eg. capture stones/groups at corner/side/center) Yes, teachers are crucial if you want to make advancement in any field. In this case my only teacher was the Tromp/Taylor rules and some books on GO (and web related help.) So I had to figure this one out for myself. But it wasn't painful because I think I stumbled on the right approach for getting started. - Don Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:15 -0700, Ben Shoemaker wrote: - Original Message From: Peter Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really can't see in here what we do if I say my stones are alive and you say they're dead, I request resuming the game, you pass (because you don't want to fill in your own territory), and then I pass. The game has ended again, and we still have a dispute. The point of the continuation play is to prove the alive or dead claim. Each side must play out the position until both sides agree on the state of the stones. This may require playing until the stones have two eyes and are unconditionally alive or else playing until the stones are captured and removed from the board. The point of this continuation is not to arrive at a new final board position and score, but to reach an agreement about the status of stones in the original final board position. If the stones were actually unsettled this can get quite messy. That's what really irks me about the playout rule. First of all, the idea is that the play-out has the ONLY purpose to settle the dispute and when it's finished you score the original position. I have some questions about that: 1. What if you still disagree and claim that you simply mis-played the play-out?I have been completely assured that this exercise is not considered part of the game, only part of the SCORING of the game. Therefore, if either player thinks he misplayed the play-out, it should be replayed until everyone is satisfied, right? The goal here is not to see who is better, but to find the truth. This is a good question. There are two views, both seem to me entirely reasonable: 1.) The confirmation is done by a player strong enough to know, or to be able to find out, the true status of the disputed group or groups. If no such player is available, it is investigated by the players themselves, with assistance if available, and taking moves back and trying various lines until they are sure of the answer. 2.) The confirmation is done by the players themselves, without taking moves back, and possibly with the game clock running. I have done my best to find an authoritative opinion on which is correct, but failed. If you ever find one, I hope you will let me know. A problem with (2) is that the rules for the confirmation phase are different from the rules for the game itself, and have the pass-for-ko rule. Few dan players know of the existence of the pass-for-ko rule, and even fewer understand it, so it is unreasonable to expect weak kyu players to apply it correctly. However my attempts to decrypt James Davies' English translation of the 1989 Japanese rules tend to favour (2). 2. Before the play-out phase, do you calculate both possible scores then go by the one that the play-outs indicate was correct? Or do you try to reconstruct the original position?What if several groups are in question or there are subtle interactions? How do you integrate that back into the score from the original disputed position? There shouldn't be any subtle interactions. A group is dead if it can be captured [A]. Can be captured means, with the attacker playing first. So it is possible for two adjacent groups both to be dead. When there are adjacent dead groups, both (all) are left on the board, and can play no part in surrounding territory. It seems real messy to me to view this as part of the scoring procedure and not part of the game. For the 1989 Japanese rules as translated by Davies, and the official commentary on them likewise translated, and some unofficial remarks by a few European players, see http://www.weddslist.com/j1989/index.html Nick [A] without the capture enabling the play of a new uncapturable stone; but that exception does not affect the point. - Don Ben. ___ 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/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)
A few responses; my apologies in advance for the length. Jeff Nowakowski wrote: On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 21:39 -0700, Ross Werner wrote: And, of course, once a beginner understands life and death in this manner, playing out disputed groups is the most natural way to determine the life-or-death status of a group. (And, I submit, the best way no matter what ruleset you're using.) The ruleset has to specify a way to resolve disputes. You can't just play it out using any ruleset. So are you teaching informal territory rules with an ad hoc virtual play out, or are you using AGA rules with pass stones? I teach informal territory rules with virtual play out. However in practice, I should note, the difference between territory rules with *actual* (not virtual) playout and area rules with actual playout ends up being identical. The only exception is the ridiculous invasion scenario that started this thread--that's the only case that I have seen in which the virtualness of the playout matters. Don Dailey wrote: 1. What if you still disagree and claim that you simply mis-played the play-out? ... The goal here is not to see who is better, but to find the truth. With my version of informal territory rules with virtual playout, the mis-played play-out stands, just as it would in a non-virtual area-scoring play-out. The purpose is not to find out the truth, in my opinion--the purpose is to finish an unfinished game, just like it is in area-scoring play-out. The only purpose of pass stones or the virtual-ness of the play-out is if one player passes multiple times, to preserve the correct score in the ridiculous invasion scenario. 2. Before the play-out phase, do you calculate both possible scores then go by the one that the play-outs indicate was correct? Or do you try to reconstruct the original position? When teaching beginners, I reconstruct the original position after the play-out, if one player passed multiple times during the play-out. (It is always trivial in these cases.) If there were no extra passes, the score is the same either way, so it doesn't matter which you do. What if several groups are in question or there are subtle interactions? The multiple-group dispute case is the only case where this gets tricky. If this were a thread about the best way to resolve disputes generally, assuming a combative opponent (such as someone who disputes all stones, regardless of whether this is an annoying human player or a naive computer player), then I would not suggest territory scoring as the best approach. However, this is a thread about teaching beginners, and in those cases, it seems to me that it is always true that either (a) only a single group is disputed, or (b) both players make an equal number of passes. Jeff Nowakowski wrote: David Fotland talks about an informal procedure where you play it out and then restore, but this is not practical and also doesn't really work, which I've debated on this list before I recall the discussion, but I don't recall (and looking over the posted thread doesn't bring to mind) being convinced of its impracticality. Are you speaking only of the combative opponent, multiple-group-dispute scenario? If so, then I agree that playout-and-restore is impractical. But in all other scenarios (e.g. combative opponent single-group-dispute), I think virtual playout is a perfectly reasonable procedure. Pass stones are probably superior for things like tournament or online play, but I find that the logic of playout-and-restore is easier for beginners to understand when the inevitable question of why can't I play a single stone in your territory and insist that you capture it, gaining me four points? comes up. YMMV. ~ Ross ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
