From: olounela@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Olli Lounela)
Subject: Re: Chinese counting
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:51:17 GMT

In article <0f=BpIm00VBAM_Z15q@andrew.cmu.edu> Victor Lin <vl11+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Well, as far as I know, Ing's counting used in Taiwan
>(with 8 point komi) almost never produces draws.
>
>This is because there are 361 points on the board.
>When sekis don't occur, each of the 361 points belongs
>to either black or white.  The difference (of territories)
>must, therefore, be odd.  With an 8 point komi a draw
>can't happen.
>
>The slim possibility exists, though, when sekis occur.
>Then points can be SHARED by both sides.
>The point is divided up into fractions, depending on
>the color of the stones occupying the neighboring points.
>(eg. On the edges, each point has 3 neighboring points
>with the exception of corners.  If two of the three are
>occupied by black and the other by white, then black
>can claim 2/3 of the point and white 1/3.)

Well, I'm not sure, but last summer I heard that mr. Ing had dropped
the practice of counting fractional points in a seki.  Rumor or not, it
was a common consensus that this is a wise decision (I seem to remember
that there was an agreement this decision merits three cheers...)

>This results in differences in fractions.  The closest
>game that I can recall differed by 1/4 of a point.
>It was a Taiwanese professional game.

That may be, but nevertheless this fractioning system does not guarantee
anything of the kind.  I seem to remember that a 1/120 of a point can be
produced, and if not, lots of other tedious to calculate fractions do
tend to produce (I choose not to remember.  Brrr... the whole thing
brings chill to my spine...).  I would not want to use this thing in
counting, which is actually not a major part of the game anyway, at
least not to me, an amateur. 

How would you like to lose a game on a 1/120 point? I think that is
ridiculous, and a seki is a seki is a seki; no points should be counted. 

Furthermore, in Ing's counting, one has to have a full set of stones, so
in practice one has to have a spare set of stones in case some get lost
in the Real World (well, OK, I know the sets mr. Ing sells have a few
spares, but on the long run, one is going to run out of them).  And yet
another thing, I find that having to fill the board _in_practice_ (not
only in theory) is rather a bit more bother that I want to spend in
counting... 

Even the Chinese method I find slightly worksome and a bit confusing,
but then again, that's OK since the concept of a point of territory is
*much* more comprehensible, especially to the beginners. 

>I have not seen a draw using Ing's counting.  
>I think Ing even offered a reward to the pros
>who came up with a draw during the tournament
>that he sponsors (the Olympic?!) every four years.
>This was, obviously, a way of backing up his claim
>that Ing's counting is the most error-free and logical
>system currently in the world.

What with the prizes mr. Ing sponsors, I find it completely believable
that the pros don't want to produce a jigo (draw)...  it's easy enough
to accept that a pro would not make a draw if (s)he could win big by
winning the game, so this does not prove a thing. 

As per the idea that this tournament might be non-Ing-system tournament,
I frankly just can't bring myself to believe it.  I actually have seen
some (slight :-) evidence that pros also find some of his ideas, should
I say, distasteful. 

>-------------------------------
>Victor H. Lin                  
>vl11+@andrew.cmu.edu      

-- 
	Olli, 3 dan

E-mail: olounela@cc.helsinki.fi           ! .sig still under construction.
Blame me only for any opinions expressed. !  Never you mind, I don't either.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go