very well said =)

What is the best way to teach myself Go? I bought a kit and also a 9x9 board.

That's exactly the arguments that we considered as well. Thank you!

@@GoMagic Thank you so much for the amazing content : ). Your channel and guidance has really helped me and I’m very thankful. I really enjoyed this lecture, especially the short historical part of this lecture, I’m curious, do you have more historical, story based or legend based lectures coming in future content? It’s surprisingly hard to find really good in depth historical content for Go, it’s really fascinating. As you already know, Go also has so many great proverbs and philosophical depths that can go beyond the game itself there isn’t much content I could find that explores this topic in depth either it’s one of the most beautiful parts of Go, it’s not just a play to win game but it can go much deeper into philosophical realms. Thank you for everything, I’m looking forward to the next lectures! : )

A thing to note for beginners when teaching them: Only after every last dame has been filled, and the game is effectively over, there's no penalty for playing stones inside your territory.

It went well. I'll be sticking with Chinese scoring -- seems natural for this Chinese School class.

Nice! It makes sense, maybe Chinese scoring is easier for kids actually.

Good point! Thank you.

Maybe they should call "casulties" in Chinese rules when they are just losses. Good point you have.

Thank you very much!

Same. We are novice in the game, and we found that it is difficult for us to know if a certain group is considered "dead", or if we could still build eyes. So we would attempt to make more invasion until we succeed/fail in our attempt. This would be very unintuitive in the Japanese Rules. I appreciate that the video conveyed our sentiments.

yeah, Japanese rules might be more elegant when you look ahead but at the beginning they could be annoying too =)

correct！

What makes them not whites territory in Japanese rules. They are fully surrounded by white pieces and not neutral.

We show how to do it as part of our Go Rules series - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nruFZNqLrdTGZXU.html

Ah yes, we forgot to mention handicap cases.

@@GoMagic Handicap or komi?

True. In Japanese rules there are a few situations that one just needs to remember how to treat...

ahhhh complications again! =)

it is a hassle if the computer does the counting, in a real board its almost part of the counting process and it keeps both sides engaged so there is less chance for "misscounting"

You can consider it part of the aesthetic =)

Hopefully one day we'll do it. 🤞

Wikipedia seems to be exaggerating things a bit =)

It's higher than divided line that wikitrashia quite never to be believed.

I hope you're joking =) Cheating is the last thing people want to worry about when they sit down to play a beautiful game of Go.

@@GoMagic Believe it or not, the Chinese switched to area counting in the Ming dynasty (before that the counting rules were the same as the Japanese up to a group tax), when urban populations boomed and Go started to gain mass popularity as a gambling game, so modern scholars actually believe that prevention of cheating is the main motivation behind the switch to area counting in China.

No way! I didn't know that! Anywhere I could read more about this?

@@GoMagic The authoritative book on Go rules history is The History of Go Rules by Chen Zuyuan, where he discusses this, but I'm not aware of any openly available English translation... He considers the ease of cheating the main drawback of territory counting that motivated the switch of rules in China, but does not discuss the effect of urban populations. He does however cite a number of Chinese and Japanese ancient texts that document incidents where results of Go games were decided by hiding stones, sometimes achieved by "stealing and swallowing".

Thanks a lot for this information. We'll try to find and read more about this.🤘

That's the reason we like Japanese rules too

Seems to be true, but, if you make a move inside your territory to secure it, you probably will miss one point while closing the neutral points, so it will COST you something.

yes!

Started with Japanese rules in the early 1990s only to later found out that Chinese rules are far more logical and basically better, since it's insane in Japaense rules that you can destroy your own score by moving on your own territory (for example if opponent tries to catch some mistakes in your territory or something). I think preference for Chinese rules is obvious almost to anyone rational.

​@@TrueNeutralEvGeniusEspecially since they end up the same in the vast majority of cases. Why have special rules where captured territory doesn't count when you can just play out the situation. If some experienced players both see the pattern they can decide for themselves whether to play it out or not.

Thank you! We'll look forward to seeing you and your son 🤗

I don't think the Japanese were trying to make the rules simpler. They probably wanted to make them more sophisticated.

That's what I think too, but there are other opinions =)

From where are you? Where did you learn the Chinese rules?

@@GoMagic I’m in America. I learned the game online, and read a manual from a board I bought. I’m not a very experienced player. I say I teach meaning I teach more than I play because I don’t have friends that enjoy the game and have to teach people every time I try to play.

@@theeightbithero Thanks for your story!

@@GoMagic do you have a video explaining why people think the Japanese rules are superior? Is there an argument beyond tradition? I’d like to know how to explain why there are different major rule changes to newer players when I show them how to play and I warn them that most people in America play Japanese.

@@theeightbithero We believe that when you introduce Go, it is better not to mention different rulesets. Just use your favorite one. Otherwise, it can be very easy to overload newcomers with unnecessary information.

What is American rules?

@@SpiritAnimalGO Its just like japanese rules but main difference is when you pass you give your opponent a prisoner stone and just like chinese rules on the occasion of disagreement player that think the stones dead should show it on the board

Does everyone in the US play according to these rules?

@@GoMagic These rules pertain at tournaments in US, Canada, France, Britain when under the auspices of their national go associations, but it doesn't preclude other tournaments under Japanese or Chinese rules, and certainly non-tournament play anything goes including not clarifying which rules pertain altogether. All of us who learned Japanese rules, will likely keep playing those. But AGA rules are really lovely.

Very true, but some generalizations and simplifications always have to be made, otherwise the video becomes too technical...

Thanks for taking the time and writing these precise calculations!

In Chinese rules, seki is counted a bit differently. In seki, where both players have groups that are alive but can’t capture each other, the shared liberties are not counted as territory for either player. However, all stones on the board-including those in seki-are counted towards the total score.

Oh so I need to fill-in seki territory as much as possible until very last move, interesting... Thanx!

Thank you so much for subscribing! Welcome to the community!

AGA rule hasn't tidied up all differences, the false eyes in seki and filling the last kos (which can be step kos) would still give different results in terms of area and territory scoring. (and not to mention the whole superko issue, that is a whole series of headaches still)

@@countingtls Yes, well you didn't take my meaning. I said the score is area based, and in all the area based rules, sekis are counted. And yes I glossed over superko rules, because they don't come up that often, and even less so in amateur play.

@@haimzamir4361 AGA rule is territory scoring by default and give pass stone (that's how you report the score in AGA rule), and then count points in seki eyes. A hybrid so to speak. Kos and superkos related issues are way too much to put in a shortish video I agree. But last kos and try to gain extra with filling dame for the last kos do come up in high level amateur play, since it is a valid strategy, and not that hard to understand.

@@countingtls Scoring and counting are different. AGA is not territory scoring, it uses a territory COUNTING method. The score is the moku difference between black and white. This difference is based on strictly area-based rules, with the adjustments of requiring equal moves, and pass stones to reconcile a prevalent territory counting technique, with the an area counting technique but to achieve the area score (in moku) and not the japanese score.

@@haimzamir4361 Man, you sound like splitting hair. (you may argue it is based on the idea of area scoring, but the reported results as "scores" can definitely be either ones, just by default it is a territory counting score, which can be negative numbers since it is territory minus prisoners, and wouldn't make any sense in "area counting score") Just go check the AGA rule, and you will find it specified what it considers territory and what is considers area (they are both defined in the AGA rule). And the default is to use "territory counting" to score, and mentioned what should be done when choosing "area counting" to score (especially when it is handicapped). And unlike other area scoring, you generally don't have to fill dame by default. The spirit is to reconcile the difference. Ask most players, they would simply say AGA rule allow both counting methods (you can choose to report territory score, or area score) with the addition of the last play, when choosing territory score.

Yes, these eyes cannot be forcefully removed but they still meet every definition of a false eye...

Well, that's the way rules work. 😔 Not intuitive at all in this situation.

Yup, exactly!

Yeah we were just thinking about that...seems complicated

Thanks a lot for your suggestions! It sounds a bit too hard to be explained to a beginner though.

It is funded by our platform gomagic.org.

Нам тоже нравится, но не у всех всё так гладко =)

and yes...this is shocking =(

The reason for the 7.5 vs 6.5 is this: Komi was set for a while at 5.5. Black winning percentage was still too high. So Japan adjusted komi up to 6.5. China adjusting to 6.5 would not have an impact, because in Japanese scoring, there could easily be a difference of only 1 moku, but it Chinese scoring it is very rare. The smallest difference in scores--except with a rare form seki shape with a single neutral point--is 2 moku. So China moved straight up to 7.5 to even up the percentage of white wins. 7 is probably the most reasonable value for both, but leads to ties.

@@haimzamir4361 Thank you, this makes sense. Just to check, I slightly alter the examples mentioned in another post here, only looking at area counting. Apparently the two critical positions are A. and C. And yes, here you see that only the 2 points komi jump from 5,5 to 7,5 has an effect. Disregarding the seki possibilities. 9x9 board, positions ready to count, by area counting. A. 30 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 7 points. * A1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better. * A1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins. * A1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins. * A1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins. B. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 6 points. * B1. Area counting: Black 45 points, White 36 points, Black is 9 points better. * B1a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins. * B1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins. * B1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins. C. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 13 points, white territory 7 points. * C1. Area counting: Black 44 points, White 37 points, Black is 7 points better. * C1a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins. * C1b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins. * C1c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.

Just to be complete, the same examples for territory counting. 9x9 board, positions ready to count, by territory counting. A. 30 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 7 points. * A2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 7 points, Black is 7 points better. * A2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins. * A2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins. * A2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins. B. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 14 points, white territory 6 points. * B2. Territory counting: Black 14 points, White 6 points, Black is 8 points better. * B2a. Komi 7,5 points, Black wins. * B2b. Komi 6,5 points, Black wins. * B2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins. C. 31 black stones, 30 white stones, black territory 13 points, white territory 7 points. * C2. Territory counting: Black 13 points, White 7 points, Black is 6 points better. * C2a. Komi 7,5 points, White wins. * C2b. Komi 6,5 points, White wins. * C2c. Komi 5,5 points, Black wins.

True, but that's the kind of subtlety that only strong players appreciate. When someone learns the rules, it's okay not to even think about this

@@GoMagic It should be intuitive for a beginner if put out simply, rather than a sublety. The goal of the game is to control a larger part of the board than the opponent. If you consider something a definite territory of yours, you already control it. Therefore play elsewhere, even just to occupy a neutral area with 1 more stone. 1 is infinity times more than 0. So, it should be equally intuitive in both area and territory scoring. Territory scoring: Timmy play a move, pick -1 instead of 0 or more. Area scoring: Timmy play a move, pick 0 instead of +1 or more. If there were a beginner who had difficulty understanding the similarity of these, i would refuse to teach them. 😀

That's what we think. Many people see it differently =)

You're partially right, but playing unnecessary moves is bad even by Chinese rules - while you're doing it, your opponent is making big moves.

wish it was that simple!

Surprisingly, there are just as many people admiring the Japanese rules as hating them... but they are indeed a bit challenging for a beginner.

It is the "ancient Chinese rules" that applied group tax (less of "bonus", but more like "punishment/reductions" with every independent groups). You can apply "group tax" to territory scoring as well (the earliest "territory-like rule" also has "group tax"). It is the ultimate "proving each stone can stay on the board" principle (alone side the most important "equal number of moves" principle).

not anymore though, right?

@@countingtls The ancient chinese rules applied until pretty recently. They are also responsible for the artifact of Japanese rule of not counting eyes in seki. IOW, Japan received territory counting method from China including group tax, but apparently lost the group tax, but it survived in seki counting.

@@haimzamir4361 Ya, even to early 20th century, ancient rules still were used. But over the thousands of years, ancient rules evolved, and historically, Chinese culture influence a vast area. There were not just one "ancient Chinese rule", and there were no central organization to enforce any "standard", they naturally varied across area and throughout time periods. It would be more accurate to call them, principles then some rules set in stones. The earliest principle we know of was the "stone scoring principle" (子多為勝), which was repeated over and over in ancient texts. And it was the source of why no seki points, no stone on an intersection, no score, simple as that. And for quite a long time, this play to fill the board principle (called 兩溢 in ancient texts) was the only choice, but players with higher strength quickly realized they didn't have to fill, and can still "count" the score reliably when both sides know it is pointless to throw in stones that cannot survive. Hence, we got the first "historic" scoring principles - "停道" that we have records from the Tang Dynasty China. It essentially counts the "roads" (called 路) after backfill (it also didn't require filling dames), where roads are what we called territory today minus the "eye space". The road scoring was neither area scoring nor territory scoring, but trying to separate the "road" with the "stones that were played" (called 著, and when you add them to "roads", you got the old stone score). But since they also apply the "equal moves principle" (the first word of the principle - 停, meant "equal" in ancient Chinese), so they would simply compare the "road score" and say one side wins by how many roads (勝幾路). It was this equal move principle that first got lost sometime in history (not sure before or after it was spread or introduced to Japan, likely there were still interactions between Japan, Korean and China that influence each other), and then the exclusion of eye space got removed again in ancient Japanese scoring (but it was left behind in later Ming Dynasty rules/principles as group tax, and group tax later became a bit "weird"). The last principle to develop was the half-counting (every intersection has to belong to one side, and the one has more than half of the board wins), and we know records during Ming Dynasty didn't always use this, but started to become the mainstream in Qing Dynasty game records (and it was after half-counting, we start to see points counted in seki, since every intersection has to belong to someone, if they are an odd number of shared liberties, then they will need to be split half-and-half) The history and evolution of game rules/principles for Go, even the variations of them (like ancient Korean Baduk, ancient Tibetan Go, shape rearranging games in North-west China and Central Asia), are all very fascinating and deserve their own videos.

It is possible but incredibly rare. So don't worry about it. =)

Oh come on...those false eyes are an incredibly uncommon thing. Don't think of it even for a second. Just enjoy your games. Scoring won't affect it much.

Haha that's a good one!

You're right! Under Chinese scoring, after filling all empty points in your territory, you can rearrange the stones to see if they cover more than half of the board. It's a straightforward method to determine the winner.

@@GoMagic Thanks :) Seki make it more complex, but I think it's generally quite good method.

That's the tricky thing about seki. It's always counted as entirely neutral, even if Black and White both have one eye, those eyes are not counted as points because these groups are involved in seki.

That makes Go sound a bit like Jenga=))

Yes, stone scoring is the most elegant version of the game, and the most straightforward and intuitive way to explain Go to a beginner. I usually start with introducing stone scoring, and after that, modern Chinese area scoring ("those eyes that you had to leave give points too"). Territory scoring in Japanese rules can thereafter be introduced by the notion that it's a "shortcut/approximation" to area scoring that usually leads to the same or almost the same results (but with loads of annoying complications as in Japanese rules). As an additional benefit, both stone and area scoring can better instill the correct idea for a beginner that Go is first and foremost about dynamics of stones and groups, and not about passively "surrounding territory" as starting with territory scoring might suggest. Therefore, the beginner can immediately start playing with a good mindset.

@@kyyyni well said, while it doesn't take much time to learn japanese scoring, stone scoring is much simpler to explain to strangers on the street and also yes, i'm 7k and i play to put the most stones on the board,, not surround the most territory,,, although they are the same exact thing :)

It's a matter of taste I think =)

Agreed 😂😂, I hate this in japanese rules too

It balances the game. Of course, on 9x9 komi would be a little bit smaller. On 19x19 board Chinese komi is 7.5 and Japanese is 6.5. Back in time there was no komi, but throughout history white got bigger and bigger komi to balance the game.

@@GoMagic Seems a bit high though? 7 points just for moving first.

Well, people like that and games are pretty balanced. Otherwise it would be harder for white

No need to make it that fancy =)

Japanese rules have, probably as a historical legacy, effectively a group tax for groups in seki, but at the same time there's no group tax for groups not in seki. I'd consider that inconsistency to be inelegant. Better to either have full group tax (as in "ancient Chinese" rules) or no group tax at all (as in modern Chinese rules).

@@kyyyni I just don’t like group tax, it’s a concept that is difficult to plan for, it is fairly artificial in my eyes. To me, the beauty lies in the control, it doesn’t matter whether you occupy a point, or control it in a way that the opponent cannot occupy or control it. In this respect, stones on the board and territory are the same, how you handle it to get more of both than the opponent is up to you.

@@paulbloemen7256 Nothing artificial about the group tax at all, since it didn't start as any kind of tax. Originally the game was all about how many stones could you put on the board. Near the end of the game, the loser would be running out of safe places to put stones that could live, while the winner still had moves. Of course you wouldn't fill in the last two eyes in any group. When you count up the stones, you don't count the eyes. Then of course, it would be too tedious to play all those extra stones, so you would still have what is effectively stone counting, but counting all the territory minus two necessary for eyes. Then territory counting developed from there, still with the "tax", and it was a convenience to use the territory + prisoners as a proxy for territory + stones. This is the the game as it came to Japan. The tax fell by the wayside except in the case of seki. The beauty of the group tax incentive it created for do or die fighting, vs some relatively placid games where opponents just chip away at each other trying to get ever so slightly more.

@@haimzamir4361 Thanks, yes, I know how the game started. I don’t quite see how the tax issue is involved in seki. It most of the time is about a black and white group with insufficient eyes not being able to kill each other: where is the tax?

@@paulbloemen7256 There are different kinds of sekis. One would be a seki where no group has eyes and share a pair of dame. But another seki shape has one-eyed groups and a single shared dame. The eye is counted as as part of area, but not counted as Japanese territory, even though the group is alive in seki, and the eye is an empty point surrounded by a live group. This is the remnant of the tax in japanese rules--for single eyed shapes in seki.

What didn't you understand? Feel free to ask, and we'll do our best to help you out!

You just gotta try playing under Chinese rules a couple of times...it becomes more clear

🤔

That's what it seems like, yes

А что вообще это за претензия? Ребята снимают для англоговорящих зрителей.

@@brieanna854 А Вы кто? Основатель гомейджик?

Мы всегда делаем русские сабы, но нужно время на перевод. Через какое-то время появится! =)

@@GoMagic Вот это другое дело. Спасибо.