Comments (3)
Very similar to the difference between Japanese and Chinese rules.
Stone scoring is like Chinese rules minus 2 points per independently living group, as well as no points for territory in sekis. This is the mathematically more elegant ruleset due to being equivalent to just saying both players should fill up their territories except for 2 eyes with as many stones as they can, and then the person who has more stones is the winner (and in modern times we would also adjust it with a komi, requiring black to have more stones by some minimum margin). But my understanding is that there is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence, that this form of scoring was ever used historically. In particular, there is some linguistic mentions of such a scoring being used, but no actual surviving game records to support and confirm it, so whether it was actually used is, to my non-expert knowledge, not entirely clear because translating ancient Chinese is not trivial and without game records it's at least arguable if the interpretation of ancient writings is correct.
Ancient-territory is Japanese rules minus 2 points per independently living group. So unlike stone scoring, filling dame with stones is not worth points, for example, because it doesn't increase the surrounded territory. In this case, my understanding is we have relatively clear evidence that this form of scoring, or something very close to it was in fact used historically, because there are a few surviving game records with recorded results that are consistent with this and not consistent with stone scoring. Unlike stone-scoring, however, there isn't such a mathematically clean way to express the scoring like "fill up all the territory and count the number of stones on the board".
from katago.
Yes, I agree.
Ancient rule is mathematically equivalent to stone-scoring, but no evidence says it was based on stone score. We created a rule
called "Natural rule", which clearly say that the score is the number of stone. This is also called "Population score".
Stone scoring is like Chinese rules minus 2 points per independently living group, as well as no points for territory in sekis. This is the mathematically more elegant ruleset due to being equivalent to just saying both players should fill up their territories except for 2 eyes with as many stones as they can, and then the person who has more stones is the winner (and in modern times we would also adjust it with a komi, requiring black to have more stones by some minimum margin). But my understanding is that there is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence, that this form of scoring was ever used historically. In particular, there is some linguistic mentions of such a scoring being used, but no actual surviving game records to support and confirm it, so whether it was actually used is, to my non-expert knowledge, not entirely clear because translating ancient Chinese is not trivial and without game records it's at least arguable if the interpretation of ancient writings is correct.
Ancient-territory is Japanese rules minus 2 points per independently living group. So unlike stone scoring, filling dame with stones is not worth points, for example, because it doesn't increase the surrounded territory. In this case, my understanding is we have relatively clear evidence that this form of scoring, or something very close to it was in fact used historically, because there are a few surviving game records with recorded results that are consistent with this and not consistent with stone scoring. Unlike stone-scoring, however, there isn't such a mathematically clean way to express the scoring like "fill up all the territory and count the number of stones on the board".
from katago.
I tried to analyze the "Game for a Pair of Gold-Petaled Bowls" using katogo and faced with scoring issue.
According to the "Getting the Last Play, Bill Spight, [BS]", the game's rules was:
The game was played under territory scoring with a group tax of two points per group.
But according to the "Game for a Gold-Petal Bowl, circa 850, r/baduk, [RB]", the game's rules was:
The game ends with Black winning by 1 point with Chinese Scoring. However, at this point in Go history, Stone Scoring was used.
"territory scoring with a group tax" = katago ancient-territory
"Stone Scoring" = katago stone-scoring
But which of these KataGo rules correspond to this game?
I analyzed Bill Spight's White move improvement
Black won by one point, but White could have evened the score by getting the last play
When I used the ancient-territory rules I got the right result - Jigo
But when I used the stone-scoring rules I got the wrong result - W+1
Then I tried to understand why the results were different. And in this I was greatly helped by "The History of Go Rules, Chen Zuyuan, [CZ]".
According to this work for this game
Essentially they were territory counting, but actually a method of stone scoring
and
…so the rules of the Tang Dynasty were not territory scoring but territory counting, the counting method being stones scoring
("we use scoring to refer to the definition of score. The point is to distinguish it from the actual procedure used to find the score, referred to as counting, [SL]")
"Stone Scoring" = katago ancient-territory
The wrong score result under katago stone-scoring is due to the katago stone-scoring does not meet "equal stones, [CZ]" requirement. So, ancient (with "equal stones") "Stone Scoring" != katago stone-scoring.
from katago.
Related Issues (20)
- How to set rules to "twisted cross and eating" for beginner HOT 2
- Throwback HOT 4
- Lack of ability HOT 3
- Katago cannot give a definitive answer for the best move. HOT 2
- Report an error HOT 3
- allowResignation affects humanSL strength?? HOT 4
- Loose ladder
- katago 1.15.1 build failure HOT 1
- Do you have a plan to create a GUI? HOT 4
- kata-analyze reports a non-human-like move for the preaz_20k human profile HOT 1
- Evaluate the value of moves HOT 2
- KataGo works with old libssl versions only HOT 5
- katago-v1.15.3-opencl-windows-x64 Server returned error 400: This version of KataGo is not enabled for distributed. HOT 2
- trt 15.3 causes system crashes
- Training of human-like models HOT 8
- The Homebrew version is still 1.14.1 HOT 20
- Effect of pass moves on ownership
- Identify equivalent states in MCTS
- OpenCL tuning fails on Pixel7a MaliG710 GPU
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from katago.