Are Chinese rules easier?

General Go Discussion
1

I have been playing against bots on OGS in Chinese rules, and I find that is pretty easy to beat them if you can just throw a bunch of walls up along the sides of the board.

It feels like Chinese is easier, but I can’t tell if that’s just because I’m playing bots.

I was wondering if there’s a reason why Chinese rules are all bots can do on here, and I guess it’s probably because it’s easier to understand, making it easier to program?

I find that I enjoy Japanese rules and a little more, because I have to care about taking up my own area, so I can’t just blankeylt my territory with stones to dissuade my opponent from playing there.

3 Likes
2

Historically, I believe engines preferred area scoring because it’s easier to code around. (And there are older engines playing on OGS) However, modern engines are capable of dealing with a variety of rulesets, so maybe there is no technical reason preventing OGS from allowing territory scoring in bot games.

Still, results from territory vs area do not differ by much. I imagine any idea that ruleset is easier* would come from an external factor.

*“easier to win”, and “easier to count” are different things - I can definitely see one ruleset being easier to count than the other

4 Likes
3

Area Scoring Rules tend to be harder to abuse vs an opponent who doesn’t understand the scoring phase well

6 Likes
4

The strategy and difficulty of the game does not substantially change between the various common rulesets. Playing unnecessary moves inside your own territory typically loses the same amount of points under either the Japanese or Chinese rules. The only exception is at the very end of the game, after no worthwhile moves can be made elsewhere.

In the middle of the game, it is a mistake to play a needless defensive move inside one’s own territory, since it is as bad as what you lose by giving up sente (i.e., it is as bad as passing) plus losing one point in addition to that. This is even true under Chinese rules, since you are at least giving up the chance to fill a neutral point elsewhere to gain more area.

7 Likes
5

One way to understand scoring is by imagining a theoretically completed board: one where the players filled dame (as usual with area scoring) and then prisoners are also filled back into territories of their color (as usual with territory scoring).

This board includes all stones ever played, and gives the same score as normal (since filling dame doesn’t affect the Japanese score, and backfilling prisoners doesn’t affect the Chinese score).

And now the relation between scoring systems is clear: since stones on the board are equal for both players (or B at most have one extra), you get the same result whether you add them to territories or not. Either way it’s determined by those territories (which already have the prisoners accounted this way).

I think this ultimate board also has beauty and teaching value: with all played stones staying on it, it shows that the only thing the players compete in is how well they have placed those stones.

7 Likes
6

Honestly I don’t see or understand your point between both rules.

Chinese rules have been chosen by programers because they are easier to implement (including the fact that in some complex cases, you don’t have human postulate but have to play it).

1 Like
7

Before I continue, I just want to clear up that when I’m saying Chinese vs Japanese here, I’m really just talking about area vs territory scoring, respectively. I think there are more differences, but I’d be hard-pressed to point them out. :upside_down_face:

I’m having trouble figuring out what I mean, to b honest. It’s just a feeling I get when I’ve played Chinese.

One example is this game: Bot Match

There’s a massive line up the west side, which, in a Japanese scoring system, would just take territory away from your opponent, but here it counts as your own area.

So, that line seems like it’s doubly-effective in Chinese vs Japanese rules.

This is exactly my take on programming it; I can easily figure out in my head how to program the algorithm for scoring under Chinese rules as I understand them.

I’m still struggling figuring out how to implement Japanese scoring rules.

So, maybe part of that feeling is I’m reasonably confident about estimating score in Chinese rules, whereas I still struggle figuring out how much I’m gaining/losing in Japanese rules.

As I’ve said, I’m a very new go player, so, like, I’m probably just talking out of my butt.

The funny thing is, I prefer Japanese rules, in part because they feel more challenging.

8

with Chinese rules 100% of game data is on the board
no need to look at number of captured stones that are placed somewhere outside the board

2 Likes
9

Superko

10

ogs will help me automatically

11

This feeling is wrong. Whatever the choice of rules, the real goal is to occupy more space (including the stones) in both rules.

Now because we play the same quantity of stones we can afford to not include them in the counting (which is the origin of the japanese rules).

I hope it helps you to understand that this string you mention matters in the same way in both rules.

8 Likes
12

@Groin That actually makes a lot of sense.

Thank you!

1 Like
13

Chinese rules are easier to program.
For example eyes in seki don’t count in japanese rules, so one would need to program a seki detection. Also area scoring makes it easier to detect dead stones. You can just require the capture of all dead stones before the game ends and treat everything as alive after.

5 Likes