Hi Jacques, I think Chinese should be universally adapted, but before you flame me I'll tell you why.
I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese rules. Even though they eventually could have learned to play by Japanese rules, it's not possible for 2 beginners to correctly play and score a game by these rules. And when someone comes along to do it for them, they are horrified by what seems to their limited perception to be gross unfairness. By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are based on some very non-intuitive concepts - that it really does come out the same as Chinese scoring (within a point or two) appears to be magic to the uninitiated. To strong players who are immersed in the Japanese rules, it may seem to be more intuitive and natural, but so is anything that you want to get used to - it's like indenting style in C, and why there is style jokingly referred to as the "one true brace style." If it's not YOUR brace style it somehow seems inferior. I wonder how many GO players have been lost forever because of the Japanese rules? It may not matter to most casual players, you may not care one iota about this, but what's good for the majority is usually good for everyone. The issue of dead stones is a non-issue. I'm not advocating playing games out to the bitter end. CGOS of course does this because it's simple and creates the least amount of problems, which by itself should tell you something. But Chinese rules as played by good players doesn't involve this kind of tedium. I'm not advocating that games be played out to the bitter end and this isn't what the debate is about. Of course it can be argued that Chinese encourages a more extended game, because you get severely punished under Japanese rules for not knowing which groups are dead. But when all things are considered, Chinese rules is better for the game in general. I do feel there is significant snobbery the GO community about this, although I don't claim you are like this. It is as if the Japanese have an elitist attitude where they don't care if the peon's don't understand the rules, it's not for the feeble-minded anyway. I think the fact that Japanese rules is used more than Chinese must be a historical accident. It's been said that if Alien beings ever contacted us, it's likely they would be GO players due to the simplicity of the rules. My guess is that they would play by Chinese rules. Of course I don't expect the world to adapt Chinese rules because Japanese is ingrained. I want to tell you a little about Chess notation in the USA. In the 1970's US players used a different system for recording games called "descriptive notation." You would record moves like N-Kb3 meaning Knight to kings bishop 3. In algebraic that is Nf3 or Nf6 if you are black. It reminds me somehow of Japanese rules in GO, I'm not sure why but maybe because it was traditional and entrenched. Or because it was less explicit, N-KB3 could mean different things depending on the context, like in Japanese you can't always tell who is winning by looking at the board. There was much resistance changing over to algebraic, and a lot of old timers complained loudly. I even heard some threaten to give up Chess. There was a huge emotional attachment and to them algebraic was just insane and crazy. Many seemed to believe it would ruin the game. But a lot of players didn't care - they knew it had nothing to do with the game itself. I was one who quickly embraced it - I just felt it was superior but I didn't care that much. My first chess program had an option to use either notational style. - Don On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:15 +0000, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > David Fotland wrote: > > > >Most of the world plays be Japanese rules, so any commercial program > >must implement Japanese rules. > > I totally agree. > > >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. > > That's interesting. And it confirms my point: the difference is small, > the strategy is the same, but using the ruleset in one's own benefit > some extra points can be won. In either direction. Not more than that. > > And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal > to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew. > > If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer > loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but > they would loose dozens of points. They will frequently loose won > games. Maybe some programs can easily switch from Chinese to > Japanese, but some others may not. Anyway, outside computer go, > people understands go as Japanese. Beginners find it more complicated, > but when they understand, they see its just concentrating on the only > interesting part. A natural evolution of the game. When they are 10kyu > or better they normally agree what is alive and what is not. If they > don't, its probably worth playing out. > > I still think Chinese rules are better today for computer tournaments! > But, of course, without penalizing pass moves. I hope that the day when > computers evolve to Japanese rules as humans did, is near, but that > cannot be forced. It is required that all programs agree when scoring > games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive* > and what is not at that moment. > > When that happens, the credibility of computer-go will increase a lot. > > > Jacques. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
