Hi David, 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. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 13:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > On 1, Jan 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > > > 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. > > and > > On 1, Jan 2007, at 1:08 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > > 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. > > The proposal made by Lukaz is the same as AGA rules. The purpose > is to assure that when a player thinking Japanese is playing against > one thinking Chinese both come to the exact same conclusion. > > But I think that while this is an advantage, it also completely ruins a > primary emphasis of the Japanese rules: efficiency, and efficiency all > the way to the end of the game. > > At one point in this lengthy ongoing discussion, it was noted that it > is not polite to keep playing after the result is already determined. > The Japanese rules do penalize these moves by one player as long > as the other player is knowledgeable enough to see the situation > correctly and simply pass, thereby picking up a point. > > To address Don's point, I respectfully disagree. I reason, with liberal > use of analogy, thus: > > The Chinese rules acknowledge that it takes two eyes to live, and > in a way that to me is similar to the thinking of a military occupation, > sees no value in any more space than that. If the rest of the group > has extra open spaces or if those possible open spaces are filled with > stones (or people) is of no consequence. Perhaps this is a consequence > of living in a society where it is considered the norm for people to be > packed tightly together. > > The Japanese rules also come down to "it takes two eyes ..." but give > credit for the extra open spaces. To me, this is analogous to living in > a city with more parks, or living in a village with more farmland and a > less dense population, and I know that I would take the option with > less crowding and more food production. It mirrors a quality of life > issue very well. > > To bring this back to computer Go and what it implies about the level > of understanding of the game we can attribute to the programs, I will > point to the last round of the recent KGS slow tournament. Look at > the game between SlugGo and MoGo. While I am not trying to say > anything about who won, because the rules were clearly stated to be > Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no > purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are > clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty > clear enough. But the game continued to move 526! All in "invasions" > that were not "reasonable" by human standards, but which are not > costly under Chinese rules. By Chinese rules MoGo wins by 2.5, by > Japanese rules SlugGo wins at move 526 by almost 120. This difference > is due entirely to SlugGo being compensated for Mogo's continuing > the game past the optimal point, and SlugGo recognizing that by > continuing to pass except when required to play on the board to > save something. > > Again, MoGo wins the game and the tournament, but I will ask: to a > human Go player of most any rank above 15k, which program seems > to understand the game better? The emphasis must be upon the word > "seems" because there are not too many changes to endgame details > for MoGo to have passed earlier, so I am not trying to discount that > MoGo took good advantage of several SlugGo blunders in the game. > MoGo earned the win. I am only talking about the perception that a > bystander will have after watching all 526 moves. > > I do think that it is worth noting that a large number of the SlugGo > moves (which at the late stage of the game are really pure GNU Go > moves, so they deserve the credit) are ones that maximize the extra > points that can be had under Japanese rules instead of making moves > that clarify the situation instantly but allow for more throw-in moves > to follow. To me, this exhibits a very subtile understanding of the > game. It also demonstrates that while GNU Go has a switch to set it > to play under Chinese rules, the engine is still "thinking" Japanese > until final counting. > > Where I do agree with Don is that it is much easier to teach the game > to beginners with Chinese rules. So, I will agree with the comment that > it makes sense to think of the Japanese rules as a evolutionary step > from the Chinese rules. Under Chinese rules efficiency is important in > the game until the value of moves goes to zero, and then many moves > on the board continue to have zero value. Under Japanese rules there > is the additional consideration that many of the still legal moves on > the > board have negative value because an aware player should see that this > game is over and it is time to move on to the next game. > > I believe that at some point the computer Go community will also have > to accept that programs which understand the details of Japanese > endgame should get credit for that against programs that do not know > when to just win a won game by passing. > > Cheers, > David_______________________________________________ > 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/
