# Chinese Rule Sharpness

This page aims to provide a simple position in which Chinese Rules are “sharper” than Japanese Rules, where (as indicated in the article Sunjang Baduk Counting) a rule set R is considered “sharper” than another rule set S in a certain position if fewer moves are optimal in that position under R than under S.

 Table of contentsExample Analysis by Bill Spight Discussion Meaning of “sharpness” Why this example? The example on this page does the job Table of diagramsBlack to play Correct play Incorrect play

# Example

Black to play

## Analysis by Bill Spight

Bill:

Correct play

takes ko, fills ko

Theoretically, gains ⅙ pt. less than , but it is correct in this case to play it first, to force White to win the ko. After the ko exchange, gains 1˝ pt., gains 1⅓ pt., and then gains 1 pt, for a net gain to Black of 1⅙ pt. Black wins by 1 pt.

Incorrect play

takes ko, fills ko

Because White is komaster of the ko, White can fill the dame with , effectively getting the last play. The empty point at 3 belongs to White. White wins by 1 pt., 2 pts. worse for Black.

Locally gains 1˝ pt. and gains 1 pt., so locally Black has a net gain of ˝ pt. But globally Black has a net loss of ⅚ pt. How come? The reason is that, because White was komaster, with the drops in temperature, the ko lost a total of 1⅓ pts. At first it was worth ⅔ pt. for White, at the end it was worth 2 pts. for White. This is a good example of why the koloser should start the ko fight.

# Discussion

## Meaning of “sharpness”

RobertJasiek: What does "sharpness" in the page titles mean?

PJT: This question presumably refers to the title of this page and of Japanese Rule Sharpness.

Bill: Maybe the original author will let us know.

[ ]: Considering what sharpness means here, one can create a counting system that says "its a draw". This would be "not sharp" or have a sharpness of 0 as all moves lead to a draw. The claim that one out of area and territory counting is sharper may be based on the idea that there are more board arrangements where playing differently causes a change in the result when using one system than there are when using the other one.

## Why this example?

Bill: OK. So a small Black mistake on this board costs 2 pts. in the end, while a small Black mistake on the Japanese Rule Sharpness board costs only 1 pt. But that why the difficult to understand ko positions?

[ ]: The smallest change when using area counting is two points. (OK, one point if we're looking at some lengthy sequence where one line leads to a draw involving a seki with an odd number of dame, and the other a one point win (see One Point Area Scoring Swing)). Regarding the ko positions, they were the easiest I could create. It is not simply a matter of the mistake costing x points, it is also then when the other counting system is used, the mistake costs 0 points. The Japanese Rule Sharpness page is an example of "...by Japanese counting Black may have only one option that wins by 1 point, while another results in jigo". The Chinese Rule Sharpness page is an attempt to create the same situation by Chinese counting, although it doesn't quite succeed because of the minimum 2 points swing and the difficulties in arranging a jigo.

Bill: On an odd parity board, with no komi, it is not at all difficult to construct a position where Black to play loses 1 pt. by a mistake to get jigo under Japanese scoring, while the same "mistake" costs nothing and is a 1 pt. win under Chinese scoring, because Black gets the last dame. That is an example of the condition in your final sentence.

[ ]: the Japanese Rule Sharpness page provides such a position. If you have a simpler example then to provide it would improve the page.