# The way of counting points has a hidden significance?

Counting points has                                                       a hidden, deep significance?

When we count the points with the Japanese method, we play trying to possess more territory than our opponent.
If we count the point with the Ing method, we try to become able to put more stones of the goban.
With the first method, we look after possession.
With the second method, we mind evolving. (If we consider Wei Qi as an evolutionary model, each move represents an evolutionary step and survive (win) who is able to evolve at least one step more.)
Therefore, I advance the working hypothesis, that the Ing way of considering Wei Qi is the more efficient and consequently I believe, that adopting this attitude, a player would improve his skill as strategist
Is anybody willing to start this experiment?

Iâ€™m sorry, I donâ€™t understand how and why the Ing rules would be superior to Chinese or Japanese rules.

1 Like

Recently I have been thinking about ancient chinese rules with scoring by filling all dame (not eyes) so group tax would be in place. I wonder why they quit using that kind of stuff. It seems really nice. I do remember that I disliked it the first time I heard about it. Maybe that has something to do with my own evolution

1 Like

How we see counting is up to the person not the method. Besides, both methods look to win by points so what does it matter? â€śPossessing territoryâ€ť is just a word attached to it. If we were to play some online game where you â€śattackâ€ť another player, you can say that you are merely using your character to take away points from another character. And when their points are low enough, they are removed from play. I agree that your attitude about a game changes how well you play, but the premise isnâ€™t right.

The following is partly based on a paper about the history of Go rules I read, the other part being mostly guesswork:

I think it went like this. In the beginning Go was scored by number of stones of your color on the board. I.e. stone counting. This is super simple and nice, but it also mean you get to bore yourself by putting tens of stones mindlessly on the board after the game is done. Of course you shouldnâ€™t put too many, you still need to live. Hence the group tax. All groups has two eyes in the end.

Then people decided that you could just agree to end the game when everything was settled, you could even agree that certain groups were dead without capturing them if it was obvious. Then you just count your territory as your score in addition to stones. Now you have more or less Chinese rules. At this point the group tax doesnâ€™t arise naturally from the rules anymore and is removed.

Then people get tired of having to count all those pesky stones, and realize that since generally both players play the same number of stones anyways, you can just count territory, and subtract prisoners. Now you have approximately Japanese rules.

The problem with this is that sometimes you donâ€™t play the same amount of stones* (when black plays last, and when somebody plays after a pass). Therefore you add rules that white must play last, and you have to give your opponent a pass stone when you pass. Now you have AGA rules.

*This is a bigger problem than it might seem. Now you canâ€™t just settle a game by playing to the end anymore, as that would make you loose points. The Japanese rules solve this by trying to define when stones are dead and when they are alive (other rule sets does not do this. In other rule sets there are only stones on the board. Alive and dead are concepts not directly required by the rules, just like sente and gote). In my opinion the makes Japanese rules a bit of a mess.

I donâ€™t see that the counting method has any affect on the play of my game, or how I think during the game. (Well, in most cases, at least.)

Mr,. Ing claimed the advantage of Ing counting was efficiency. He claimed that a study showed it took less time to count using his method.

To play aiming at territory is a less efficient strategy, that aiming to be able to do more moves. See: â€śGo as an evolutionary modelâ€ť: Europian Go Congress in Koenigswinter, Germany.(1975)

Because they have an evolutionary significance