simonguoxm
commented
1 month ago 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".
dany52
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".