Very interesting point. But as @mikhail.trusfus suggests, I suspect it all comes down to something like this…
For experienced savvy players, Japanese and Chinese scoring will typically produce the same outcome.
But for newbies (like myself) trying to wrap their heads around how to handle optimal endgame hygiene, you could screw yourself over a bit:
E.g., assume there are no more genuinely productive points to fill, but you’ve got open terrain within your own territory… My understanding is that (a): If playing Chinese scoring, go for it and fill those points just to be sure but (b): under Japanese scoring, you’ll penalize yourself for doing so.
And so, the need to “know better” therefore makes a difference in the game’s outcome.
So, then for a newbie, that’s an additional skill to be developed - one that an advanced player would likely take for granted. My interest in Japanese scoring (with bot AI play) was to impose the proper discipline on myself.
In any event, I now understand that Japanese scoring is not an AI bot option on OGS for various reasons. No complaints. Just trying to learn the various ropes.
Please don’t be afraid to fill points you are unsure about under Japanese rules if you are not confident. The overall scoring in points is not the goal.
Let’s imagine a position where only neutral points are left, and there is a weakness in blacks position, like a cut, where it’s unclear if black needs to defend once the outside liberties (being the neutral points) run out.
Also lets say that there is an even number of neutral points. So regardless of who plays a neutral point first, both players can get half.
So unlike with Japanese rules, with Chinese rules black can defend without losing a point.
But this is a very minor subtle difference in my opinion, and I agree with what others wrote.
Learning when you need to play inside a territory to fix a weakness is actually big part of the game. Not just for end-game purposes, but all thru the game. You’ll learn to see when you have to add another move for protection, and when position is settled so that you can play elsewhere for some more profit ^^
But its the same with both rulesets, you should always play elsewhere whenever you can. Playing inside your own territory should always be reserved for cases where you “absolutely need to add another stone there for safety”
Honestly this is
1 completely off topic. Even more because OP is a beginner and as something else to study as the differences between the ways of counting
2 It’s a complete cultural bias. Both ways have a similar efficiency because you have much more flexibility in arranging the stones in Chinese and regular rectangular shapes are much easier to count as more tortuous shapes resulting from counting only territories.
IMHO what could be interesting is to understand why these rules give the same result, why we put back the prisoners or not, these sort of things. But this can wait anyway to have more understanding of the game.
No worries! These points are inter-related, so not terribly OT.
I learn a lot by reading books that are well over my head (and yes, even getting trounced by those self-righteous bots).
As an old dog, I’ve learned many new tricks as the result of frustration and feeling somewhat overwhelmed. When too comfortable, I’m probably not learning much of value in life.
TBH, returning prisoners, counting captives + the ground they stand on, consolidating stones before counting for cleaner rectangles… these all make good sense (and are clever scoring devices) to this noob.
Thanks for the suggestion. I do recall seeing GoQuest pop up during a previous search on the Google Play Store but the eye candy (and Android permissions required) were unattractive. The reviews complaining about the intrusive advertisements weighed on me too. I was drawn strongly to OGS instead (for obvious reasons).
But if that’s where many of the 9x9 noobs are hanging out, perhaps I’ll take a more serious look. Cheers.
Correct, and I applaud your desire to improve your skill to not play unnecessary defensive moves inside your territory. I prefer this “sharpness” aspect of Japanese rules. It is rare for such a situation to occur and the game to be so close that it makes a difference, but it does very rarely. Here is such an example, if my opponent defended those cuts inside his territory he would lose by half a point, so he passed and dared me to find something working inside: if I couldn’t he would win by half a point, if I find anything inside I win. It was a hard problem, but I found a working sequence and won the game. A much more thrilling and satisfying ending than him just lazily defending without reading if anything inside actually worked and winning anyway. OGS Honinbo 2011 (Main Class), Round 1 Group 1
@Uberdude Fascinating that your endgame hung on the balance of this technical scoring quirk. Will take a closer look at your game link. Thanks for sharing.
Needless to say, I won’t likely encounter a similar cliffhanger (and my live-game counting skills need some sharpening before I’d even know!) but it’s encouraging to hear that my grasp of such possibilities is reasonably sound.
Now… back to getting whooped by the opponents, regardless of who’s keeping score.
It’s a really nice problem, one variation ends in a beautiful double snapback, and the setting just makes it even better. I wrote an article for the British Go Journal about it. I used to be able to reconstruct it from memory, that’s probably faded after all these years!
I definitely agree with your reservations, especially before they added the ability to subscribe to remove ads, but it is a consistently fast way to get fast 9x9 games, for better or worse
