Patience grasshopper, they will learn L&D in time, the important piece is getting the addictive substance into their veins...

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Uh, yeah, this is what I have been arguing throughout the thread.

And what would you have done with area scoring? Played it out, right?
So why didn't you do the same? It was a teaching game, not a tournament game. And it would be a great way of teaching.

It seems this was the effect of bad teaching and not of scoring method. I mean - really... a 13k player leaving because you cannot explain why something is dead, and you blame it on scoring method? No offense - people have told you many times that you are not the most diplomatic or open-minded person out there, and that your 'bed-side manner' leaves a lot to be desired. I would look there for the explanation for why the guy got miffed, not in scoring method.

In any case - back to the topic - such problem can exist with inept teaching, true, but they usually happen early, while still under the care of the teacher - which means the teacher can explain and adjust. I see absolutely no reason for alienating a student while under the care of the teacher - unless the teacher is really really bad, period! This has nothing to do with a scoring method.

The anecdote I presented illuminates the danger of things going wrong *after* the initial teaching, which is usually much more severe and can lead to much larger problems.

PS>
Look at it like that:
Area scoring might make teaching slightly easier.
For bad teachers - this is a BIG FREAKING DEAL - they can't do otherwise.
For good teachers - it does not matter all that much - they get results either way.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I think that even now most players have never heard of button go.



Could you elaborate? What did/do they find problematic or confusing? Thanks.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The attrition rate for bridge was once very low. Why? Social reasons. Bridge is a very social game. You do not have to be serious about it. If bridge is no longer popular, it is also because of social reasons.



The rules of bridge are godawful. The number of "bridge lawyers" is not small. The rules of chess are more complicated than go rules, as well. That has not stopped either game from gaining players.

Now I learned Japanese rules go from a pamphlet and a friend and I played a game. We did not experience any problem ending the game. But many people who learn without a teacher do have such problems.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The Capture Game!

Then capture 1, capture 2, capture 3, and capture 4. Maybe capture 5. The more stones you have to capture, the more a capture game resembles regular go.

Edit: Besides, the capture game provides a good introduction to the concept of territory. If territories have been settled without a capture, then each player starts filling in territory. The player with the most territory (using group tax) wins. It's probably a good idea to use pass stones with capture N. That equates giving a pass stone with filling territory.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

That's relatively recent. The oldest known scored game records from China appear to use a form of territory scoring. The oldest known description of go rules, also from China, appears to be of a form of stone scoring.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Amen, brother, amen!

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

You have been a dan player for too long.

Eric van der Werf did some research and estimates that 5 kyus make frequent mistakes about status, even leaving unsettled groups on the board for counting in around 2% of games. That means that both players are mistaken.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, I wonder the same thing, because I see that people keep on posting the same arguments that have already been refuted over and over, never acknowledging the standard counterarguments.



I think erroneous comments like "big whoop" over "a point" trivialize just how much an advantage it is. We also have Bantari's claim that beginners making mistakes "change" the score the same as the Japanese rules do, completely getting the issue wrong.



Nobody said you don't have to worry about life & death under area rules. At a minimum, a beginner should be taught how a group with two eyes can't be killed and a few basic life and death shapes. The point is that area rules are simple to understand and let the beginners play complete games and experiment for themselves what is alive and dead, without worrying about rules that make no sense and mysteriously change the score.



The easiest way to gain that basic understanding is by playing games to completion using simple rules instead of being confused about rules and how to end the game. "Lose your first 50 game fast."

I don't know about bridge, but I can tell you that the rules of chess are vastly simpler than the illogical rules of Japanese go, which have the catch-22 that to understand the rules so that you can play, you need and understanding of how to play.



I'm always amazed when I hear stories like this, because when I tried to learn that "dead" stones are removed at the end of the game my mind went, "Whaa?". I wish I had a time machine to observe what actually happened in detail.

Please, then, what is the standard counterargument to:

"regardless of the rules issues, there is a far more important issue in teaching beginners: showing them that it is fun. No amount of theoretical advantage of different rule sets can compensate for enthusiasm and friendliness, for a general willingness to spend time on them and to be patient answering their questions. If you want more players to keep playing, teach yourself how to teach."

Just how many hundreds of "relatively recent" years is that? I read Fairbairn's article on this years ago, and my impression was that the claim was based on assumptions involving scant evidence, and hardly conclusive. Records can be very misleading due to lack of context. As an example, when I looked up a game record from a Chinese tournament, I was quite surprised that the dame moves weren't recorded. An alien race poking through the ashes of our civilization might stumble across that single record thousands of years from now and think dame weren't counted under Chinese rules.

Anyways, it isn't really important, since you can hardly accuse the Chinese of trying to impose "Western thinking" and violating the "spirit of the game" by using area scoring rules, and that was my main point.

Easy. Playing the game is fun. That's easier for beginners to do with simple to understand rules. We were explicitly told by the thread starter about their frustration on how to end the game (quoted twice now), he even resigned rather than score it. You were told about people who walked away from the game for years because it didn't make sense to them. Is that fun?

You would really prefer using area scoring rules over having an enthusiastic and friendly teacher willing to spend time and answer question? You really think the rules issue is that important?



Did you even look at his game? There was zero issue there with the rules.



I've also heard about people walking away because they learned are rules that were not being used by their opponents, and about people walking away because the teacher was incredibly rude.

How is it that those things are not an issue to you?

Unnecessary.



It was not meant to be a teaching game, but a serious game (club game, where each player just tries his best to win). In a serious game, I play seriously and I hope my opponent does so, too.

If then my opponent turns out to lose badly, I discuss or explain to him strategy and mistakes after the game. It does not matter whether my opponent is a beginner, equally strong or stronger. If he wants to learn and I can give him some advice, I do so. AFTER the game. NOT DURING the game and not by faking the game by playing weakly intentionally.



Of course. (And my opponent would have understood perfectly why his stones were dead, without any further explanation needed.)



1) Because we were using Japanese rules, which do not provide the possibility of playing it out in an area scoring manner.

2) Because the incident happened before I started to become a rules expert. At that time, I was not aware of the playing out area style method yet, nor of the relation between different scoring systems.



It was neither, see above.



Yes. (If I had known this way and if my opponent had accepted it.)



No. The teaching (explanation of dead stones) was fine, but the position was tactically too complex for the missing patience of my opponent. Recall that he passed too early, so he must have been under the illusion of a) having alive stones, b) maybe having killed all my stones (but the expression of his face lets this seem unlikely), c) a finished game. So his opinion on the final position started with completely wrong premises, which he was not willing to abandon quickly. Therefore, 5 or 10 minutes of sequence showing for LD analysis could not be enough to convince him. Before he even started to admit to himself having had wrong premises, his impatience won, and he left.



I could, and started to do, but I could not complete it within the 5 or 10 minutes, because the sitation was tactically too complex. As I have said, the position was pretty much open, like a middle game position, in which I just barely killed everything, but very much room for movement and aji was still available. Something like a whole board life and death problem in the middle game for 3 dans.



Maybe also because it dawned upon him that his life and death understanding was totally off in that game.



Forget the student and teacher terminology. It was..., see above.



1) "The teaching" was "the scoring", i.e., the determination of the life and death at the game end. Since we disagreed, we needed to clarify the status.

2) Clarifying LD status, in case of disagreement under Japanese rules, requires analysis of sequences, as I did. I showed relevant sequences, and where my opponent did not understand something, I showed additional, more detailed sequences. This is not bad scoring (scoring, not teaching), but perfectly suitable scoring.

3) As you can now understand, it had indeed nothing to do WITH scoring, because it WAS the scoring itself!

4) A different scoring method (area) would have simply let us played it out in only ONE sequence.



Or MUCH easier, as in the case above.



There is no way a good teacher can show 200 sequences on the board within 5 or 10 minutes, so that a beginners understands everything. The teacher (or here: the scoring opponent) needs more time.

Is it impossible for an enthusiastic and friendly teacher to teach people using area scoring rules? I don't understand your argument.

My argument is:

Area scoring rules have some advantage when teaching beginners, but it is far more important to be friendly, enthusiastic and patient when teaching, and it is also more important to make sure the beginner learns the rules that he will be playing with against others.

That is all.

I am really stunned that there are people who think using area rules is more important than either of the other two issues, especially the first one.

There's a very good chance that the person teaching will be enthusiastic and friendly without any discussion regardless of the rules being taught, so it is off-topic. On the other hand, there's a very good chance that a beginner will be perplexed by the logic of Japanese rules and have trouble playing games against other beginners.

While it is a concern that players will encounter trouble if others around them use a different ruleset, I'm more concerned that a beginner won't get past the logical and practical hurdle of Japanese rules. There are also some ways to alleviate this. If you're teaching a class and having beginners play each other, then they can all be using the same simple rules. If you want to learn to play against a friend or family member, it is more important to be taught easy to learn rules.

If there is an expectation of club play, then it is easier for experienced club players to learn area scoring than it is for a beginner to learn Japanese rules. Play down to their level. Isn't that what you were admonishing Robert about? I also think you need to at least mention the Japanese rules, and say you aren't teaching them because they are best learned after some experience with Chinese-style rules.

And finally, the way to make progress on this issue is to acknowledge the problem and work to fix it. The AGA changed. The BGA changed. KGS runs their tournaments under AGA rules. Trying to trivialize the problem isn't helping.

When Bantari says "status is determined long before the last dame is filled," he doesn't mean that the groups are settled long before the last dame is filled, he means that when there is an unsettled group on the board after the last dame was filled, it was not the last dame that caused the status to be unsettled: usually it was a stone placed five, twenty, even 100 plays earlier.