I think in general, chinese is better, simply because it allows free placement of handicap stones. 8 handi game gets lot more fun as black, if you make 4 shimaris instead placing those stones on starpoints.
When playing on real board, i prefer japanese, cause then both players need to put equal effort on counting the score, instead having one person to do all the work, like with chinese rules.
I feel that if you teach a beginner the stuff in which Chinese and Japanese (or any other ruleset) rules differ, you’re clearly not teaching the right stuff at the right time. Surely it’s better not to confuse starting players with points in seki, bent four or filling dame, and in practice they are not really needed to determine the winner of the game if it’s clear.
I’m pretty sure you could easily be a 10k without ever bothering to learn the rules beyond territory / area scoring
Poker has always been supreme among card games in America. I believe Scarne did a survey confirming this, but it should be obvious anyway, because the traditional “husband’s night out” was a poker night, not a bridge night. The difference was that bridge had an organized aspect that poker lacked in the old days. I also think it is obvious that the commercialization of poker (or at least a mutant form called Texas Hold 'Em), with it high-profile, so-called world championship, as well as the lucrative possibilities of online play, is what has eaten away at the following that bridge once had. I played tournament bridge in my youth, accumulating several master points along the way, and I never met anyone who had trouble with scoring.
Where did you read the intention to explain both ruleset and their difference to a full beginner?
I think the post you mentioned simply pointed out that what could make a rule more attractive.
I really like the Japanese attempt to provide an esthetic rule trough the centuries, a rule which allow the 2 players to process the counting together, which will keep the boundaries played and so facilitate the review later, a rule which can you make counting only the emptyness…
It’s indeed esthetic but it has always been more and less working and then confusing as soon as something a bit complex happens. It’s much harder to explain it as to say: we will count all what is yours or mine.
Now @Skurj post in my idea was not to say you have to explain both rules to a full beginner, but some interesting trend of less interest regarding esthetic side but simplicity in another game.
I think Chinese rules is a lot easier than Japanese rules. When i want to invade a group, I can do it freely in Chinese games than in Japanese do to that if i do try to invade, i will stress over the rest of the game trying to either make up for a sure lose or making a move that wont end me right there. GO is already stressful enough. And Japanese rules are kind of brutal to anyone who loses a group because 1 little stone can change the score immensely. That’s my belief.
Well, you really can’t invade with Chinese rules either. If your invasion is gote, your opponent can make more points by playing elsewhere. The point loss in Japanese rules is accounted for in the Chinese ruleset by the invasion stone dying at the end of the game. And if it’s sente, then the points that you lose with your prisoners are accounted for by the opponent responding in his own territory
What I’m trying to say, is that it’s not useful to teach technicalities in a ruleset to a beginner. Say I’m teaching Japanese rulesets to a friend who is new to go, then I will explain how to capture, that the game is scored by adding territory and prisoners together, explain that you can’t recapture ko and I will show them what eyes are and how a group is alive. Then just start playing.
If for some reason a seki comes up, I explain at that point that the territory in seki is considered worthless, if a bent four comes up, I explain that it’s dead by the rules (and show how it’s dead), etc. If I would explain that before actually trying to play the game, I will have lost a potentially interested new player.
There’s no reason to become derogatory here. I feel that explaining how a reckless invasion costs points is the same in both rulesets: your opponent can gain the initiative, and secure more points elsewhere. And as long as you’re making moves that require a response, the scoring will be equal.
I got you %.
And of course a lecture on the rules is off topic for a presentation of the game.
That was not the object of @Skurj post for me.
Now it’s interesting debate showing 2 schools.
In the first, you agree with the sophistication, you accept it because it looks like fair, it could become rash but no worry if this is the case we will tell you. And it will be so much better like that because it’s esthetic and convenient.
Then there is the other school in which you do understand all from the start, you feel you will never be cheated even if it sounds stupid because weiqi players are nice. And if something weird happen you can experiment on your own
Just 2 schools.
It’s interesting that I would put myself in the first school when teaching, but in the second when learning. I clearly remember learning about the en-passant rule in chess for the first time during a game, which felt a lot like my opponent was just making up a rule.
Free placement of handicap or not is another very good example of the 2 schools.
You place freely in Chinese but what beginners forget is that high handicap is seldom played in China.
Then the placement in Japanese is maybe not optimal for “easyness” to win but it’s interesting to teach the way to use influence as early as possible. It does make high handicap games more attractive to play in this sense.
But of course you may feel to get like a bit “cheated” and prefer to find a better start on your own.