From: fred@dickens.com (Fred R Stearns)
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:39:12 GMT
Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan26.004136.28008@news.acns.nwu.edu> jzy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Yu) writes:
>In article <9301221630.AB00981@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> osman@hannah.enet.dec.com ("Eric, dtn 235-8439, DSG1-2/D8  22-Jan-1993 1130") writes:
>>
>>I think it's great that  <GDH3@psuvm.psu.edu> has compiled complete rules.
>>However, I have some corrections and suggestions.  First, here's the ones
>>s/he posted:
>> 
>>7. The object of the game is to form unkillable groups that
>>occupy more of the board than your opponent's groups.
>> 
>>And now for my comments:
>>
>>7)	Wrong object!  The object isn't to to occupy more of the board with your
>>	groups than your opponent's groups !  The object is to get more points.
>>	Remember, points are prisoner's plus *empty* space that you own because
>>	your opponent can't make an unkillable group there.
>>
>>	For example, imagine a hypothetical game where lots of the board is
>>	filled with live black *stones* but white has more territory and less
>>	stones.  White wins, even though black has occupied more of the board
>>	with his groups.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>/Eric
>
>Could this be a difference in the scoring rules?  In my experience, if we
>use Chinese scoring rule, then the winner is the one who gets more points
>(intersections) *on the board*, regardless of prisoners.  Eric's example
>can be possible if we use Japanese rule -- which makes me feel that this is
>a drawback of Japanese rule. :-)
>
>Imagine a general leading his troops going to a war.  In the war, he
>sacrificed many of his soilders for some important positions on the battle
>field.  At the end, despite losing more lives, he gained more land.  Was he
>a loser or a winner? :-)
>
>Regards,
>Jim Yu
>--
>Go isn't everything.  Go is the only thing.           -- zhuge
>

Assuming that nobody passes during the game and only at the end
of the game and that both players play the same number of stones,
then Chinese scoring vs Japanese scoring give the same
"difference" in score.  That is, black's score minus white's
score is the same for both methods.

Let:

Eb - be the empty intersections surrounded by black.
Sb - be the number of black stones on the board.
Pb - be the number of black stones that white has taken prisoner.

Ew - be the empty intersections surrounded by white.
Sw - be the number of white stones on the board.
Pw - be the number of white stones that black has taken prisoner.

N  - be the number of stones played by either white or black.

Then by Japanese rules the difference in score is: (Eb - Pb) - (Ew - Pw)
and by Chinese rules the difference in score is: (Eb + Sb) - (Ew + Sw)

But, Sb + Pb and Sw + Pw are both equal to N, or "Pb = N - Sb"
and "Pw = N - Sw".

So, substitute:

(Eb - Pb) - (Ew - Pw)  -> by japanese rules
(Eb - (N - Sb)) - (Ew - (N - Sw)
(Eb + Sb - N) - (Ew + Sw - N)
(Eb + Sb) - (Ew + Sw)  -> by chinese rules



But,

It is more important to stress to new players (see the subject
line and title of the rules) that they make territory and protect
their stones, than to encourage them to capture the enemies
stones.  While it is exciting to capture a large group of enemy
stones, you will lose more games than you win if this is your
major goal during your games.  If you can live just a little
bigger than your opponent, you will win.

The possibility of capturing stones simply provides the threat by
which you attempt to direct your opponent towards your goals. 
And it is also the factor which should prevent you from being too
aggressive.  You must find the proper balance between aggressive
play and defensive play which will allow you to overcome your
opponent, if only by a few points in the end.  It is better to
win by a few points than to lose by 50 points because you are too
aggressive and your plans to capture a large group of stones
backfire. 
-- 
Fred R. Stearns -- fred@dickens.com
Everything's a kludge!