Re: Commentary on Korean Times Rules Article


"Peter" <pnassar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For an excellent introduction, and very readable account, of the
differences in rules between Japanese & Chinese Go, might I
suggest this link to the Korea Times Go Column (written in English)
- this is article #42, but I would recommend every article in this
series for beginners just learning how to play:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/culture/200604/kt2006042320102565560.htm

Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The article is above average in quality (compared to what else
one finds about rules in the internet) but not excellent. The
diagrams are clear.


The article is authored by a professional player and baduk
professor at Myongji University, Nam Chi-hyung. Though having
a standard appearance perhaps this format is among the better
methods for presenting Go and its Rules to interested parties
who find it -concisely- arranged and -accessible- for reading.



The article says: "all the rules are basically the same". This is wrong.


The operative term was "basically." This is correct.



The rules are mostly different and typically even very different.
One might say that the functions of many parts of the rules
serve similar purposes. However, the article is rather correct with
"the scores calculated by the different rule sets are usually the
same", provided we translate Chinese half counts into full counts, use
proper komi, and tolerate a 1 point difference with the same winner.


It's gratifying that an amateur can verify the work of a professional.



"The only significantly different part is the way of counting territory
when the game ends." There is scope for opinion what would
suffice to be "significantly different", but it is somewhat misleading
to ignore differences about ko rules and - more importantly - game
end phases.


Excessive oversight, either from rules mavens or from referees and
tournament directors, might reduce "fun factors" in Go's playability.



Usage of "counting" leaves it unclear whether scoring definition or
counting mechanics or both are meant.

"The Japanese counting rule takes into account the number of empty
intersections surrounded by the same colored stones and the number of
captured or removed stones; in contrast, the Chinese rule counts the
former plus the number of living stones remaining on the board."

Although this is not false, it is very incomplete and gives a very wrong
impression. The Japanese "counting rule" does not only take into the
mentioned sum but relies on a classification into dead versus alive strings,
into seki versus non-seki strings, into territory versus non-territory
intersections. Hiding all this gives an impression that both rule systems
would equally just form a scoring sum. In reality, the Japanese rules
require much more. Speaking only of "captured or removed" explains
nothing, not to mention what "dead" might be. "dead" is introduced in
commentary on the given diagrams. However, examples are not a
general description of Japanese style rules.


The article's language said "takes into account..." and made no
pretense to comprehensivity w/r/t description of Japanese counting.
The author did not claim that examples are a "general description."



The article then describes Chinese Half Counting to conclude "The
Chinese counting method may look very complicated". Indeed,
presenting the mechanical counting method for Chinese rules while
not going into equal detail for Japanese Fill-in Counting lets Chinese
rules look somewhat more complicated. A nice trick to advertise for
Japanese style rules...


On the contrary, the article was written for an Asian Korean
audience, who will pay lots of attention to what's more complicated.



If the article were fair and objective, then it would go into the details of
what is "alive", "dead", and "territory" under Japanese rules. Of course,
then the author could not sell the same conclusion any longer but would
have to conclude that Japanese rules are very, very much more complicated
than Chinese rules.


Perhaps they are, yet the article's author appears to want new
players to consider that the Chinese rules are more complicated.
An explanatory pedagogy of that approach will be documented later.



The article becomes fairer again when it says: "The Chinese counting
method [...] gives clearer explanations than the Japanese counting
method to certain situations, the ``bent four in the corner,?? [...]".
True. But it is a tiny part of the truth. The article should explain
that and why Chinese rules always give clearer explanations than the
Japanese rules, even in "simple" positions to be scored.


Not in a newspaper for the general public. A newspaper seeks
to increase its circulation, not drown its readers with typofarcicality.



Conluding, the article does give an introduction but fails to explain
the core of the Japanese rules and it is not objective.


I can well understand why a Korean newspaper should be
succinct, and reluctant to explain the core of Japanese rules.



- regards
- jb

-------------------------------------------------------------------
UK: Abstinence Symbols Banned
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=9313
-------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Commentary on Korean Times Rules Article
    ... same", provided we translate Chinese half counts into full counts, use ... "The only significantly different part is the way of counting ... "The Japanese counting rule takes into account the number of empty ... Chinese counting method may look very complicated". ...
    (rec.games.go)
  • Re: And yet more shiao jiao clips
    ... Japanese archipelago were Malay-Polynesian folks. ... Yamato people who were probably Turkish horse culture. ... The peak of Chinese influence was in the Nara period, ... In the Tokugawa period, there was an endless fascination with Chinese ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: What kind of "nationalism" would that be? Korean style?
    ... China should research the anti-Chinese propaganda Corea was fed during ... Chinese Propaganda ... Click here to see how a Japanese wartime propaganda film, ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Wartime Chinese Laborers Sue Japan for Compensation
    ... Wartime Chinese Laborers Sue Japan for Compensation ... rake and a vise made them call out the Japanese names for the antiquated tools. ... As evidence of Japan?s wartime use of forced labor has emerged in recent years, ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Chinese products
    ... Up till the 70s Japanese products were your whipping boys. ... next door the Japanese have a better appreciation of the Chinese ... Let's not forget how huge is the local market in Japan. ... competition is what gets you the take no prisoners "China Price". ...
    (sci.military.naval)
Loading