What Principles are there in Mahjong Rules
al
Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?
My simple answer is YES. I quote a statement by the compiler of
Elegant Card Rules dated back to 1700 AD for Ma Diao. "For the ma diao
method, rules are given but not the principles behind the rules. This
is because the principles are in the rules." This is taken from page
117, The Playing Card, Vol. xxix, Number 3 (Andrew Lo's article).
As in the statement above, there were principles in the rules of ma
diao. By extension, there should be principles in the rules of
mahjong.
What are some of mahjong rules? What principles are in these mahjong
rules?
ithinc
> diao. By extension, there should be principles in the rules of
> mahjong.
>
> What are some of mahjong rules? What principles are in these mahjong
> rules?
I have a question. What are principles?
al
See dictionary.
mstanwick
Not a very helpful reply Alan, as there are various meanings of
'principle(s)' in a dictionary. Therefore, which meaning do we apply
to 'principles', in the context of the quote taken from 'Jiya Paigui
(Elegant card Rules) and in the context of the Lo's discussion?
I presume that is the reason behind ithinc's question?
Cheers
Michael
al
quote. I thought that was obvious.
The dictionary offers a meaning that fits a reader's point of view.
Cheers...
> Cheers
> Michael
mstanwick
Yes, it is obvious.
> The dictionary offers a meaning that fits a reader's point of view.
Yes, but you asked a question and expected an answer from anyone in
this group. You asked; "What principles are in these mahjong rules?"
Since you are expecting an answer (I assume the question is not
rhetorical) and you are using the term 'principles', then we are
entitled to ask you what you mean by 'principles' because how can we
give you an answer unless we know what your question means.
Therefore, you are required to at least give what you determine to be
the meaning. I replied that the meaning should be determined from the
context in which the term 'principles' appears, rather than from a
dictionary. So if you give a meaning, then you may get an answer.
Cheers
al
Good point...
al
Here are 4 of 8 synonyms in dictionary for principle: belief, opinion,
law, theory.
Any one of the four definition can apply. Use it as you see fit in
context with the quote.
Cheers....
mstanwick
My point was that you need to read the entire article of Lo's. Then
decide if you can derive the meaning of 'principles' from the
information in the article. The point is, you have to derive the
meaning of 'principles' from the article and then give it to us. That
is because it is your question and so the burden is on you to tell us
what your question means.
Now, you may not know what 'principles' means in Lo's article because
you cannot find any meaning of it in Lo's article. That's ok. If you
can't find any meaning then you can ask if anyone in the group whose
has read the article has a probable idea of what it means.
If that is the case, and you get an answer from someone in the group,
then you can either accept it or not. If you don't, then that is the
end of the discussion. If you do, and it conflicts with what you think
'principles' are in MJ (assuming you have an idea of them), then if
you want to argue the point you will have to go and derive another
meaning of 'principles', from Lo's article.
Cheers
al
The synonyms for "principle" are: belief, opinion, law or theory.
Its meaning offers 4 options to a reader for an expression of opinion
or belief, or explain points of law or theory relating to mahjong.
Whatever prnciple(s) in Matiao is not relevant here except for the
reference of evidence that a mention of principles being there at the
time. I did make the inference that there should be principles in
mahjong since there were supposed to be principles in Matiao (and
Matiao being considered an important progenator of mahjong). I assumed
readers are better informed and more knowledgeable than I am on the
rules. They would respond accordingly if they have their own
principles in the rules. They would not necessarily recognize my
principles even if I had them. So, carry on...
Alan Kwan
> Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?
Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
some principles and the reasoning behind them were forgotten, and
the rules developed in ways which violated the principles due to
undesirable side effects, mis-propagation and inappropriate inheritance.
The "Fixed Payoff Principle" in Zung Jung is an express statement to
oppose the common trend of "self-draw inflation", which is a combined
result of the undesirable side effect of the Old Style payoff scheme
and the mis-propagation of the "Totally Concealed" pattern or the
doubled payment in the payoff scheme.
The common maximum penalty for "false win" is a case of inappropriate
inheritance, in which an overly heavy penalty is applied even though
the reason behind it (namely, the false win irrecoverably interrupting
the game because the other players have revealed their hands for the
purpose of computing side payments between non-winners) has become
inapplicable for ages. Another case of inappropriate inheritance
would be the definition of "pinfu" (see my FAQ).
For more stuff like this, please see my FAQ (in Chinese).
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/Mahjong/ZungJung/zj_reasons_hk.html
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
al
> al wrote:
> > Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?
>
> Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
> some principles and the reasoning behind them were forgotten, and
> the rules developed in ways which violated the principles due to
> undesirable side effects, mis-propagation and inappropriate inheritance.
>
> The "Fixed Payoff Principle" in Zung Jung is an express statement to
> oppose the common trend of "self-draw inflation", which is a combined
> result of the undesirable side effect of the Old Style payoff scheme
> and the mis-propagation of the "Totally Concealed" pattern or the
> doubled payment in the payoff scheme.
>
> The common maximum penalty for "false win" is a case of inappropriate
> inheritance, in which an overly heavy penalty is applied even though
> the reason behind it (namely, the false win irrecoverably interrupting
> the game because the other players have revealed their hands for the
> purpose of computing side payments between non-winners) has become
> inapplicable for ages. Another case of inappropriate inheritance
> would be the definition of "pinfu" (see my FAQ).
>
> For more stuff like this, please see my FAQ (in Chinese).
>
> http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/Mahjong/ZungJung/zj_reasons_hk.html
>
> --
> "
>
> "
> hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
> can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
> - Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
> Zung Jung mahjong official website:http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
Your 2 examples are too deep for me. I may be able to appreciate
something simple like a principle or rationale for the "dead wall" in
mahjong.
"Zero Cash" for example was explained for matiao. I can understand why
it ranks highest in that suit because it was rated in terms of storage
capacity. From that I can see why the name "container" was adopted
possibly from there for the circular symbol in mahjong.
I remember reading a discussion on use of dead-wall and live-wall
rules, but no reasons given. It would be interesting to know why "dead
wall" exists.
al
> > Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?
>
> Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
If there was a process then, it is not clear to me now.
> some principles and the reasoning behind them were forgotten, and
> the rules developed in ways which violated the principles due to
> undesirable side effects, mis-propagation and inappropriate inheritance.
>
Any of these principles and reasoning behind them can be recalled or
written somewhere?
Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to lack
of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of principles is
due to the game's doubtful origin?
> The "Fixed Payoff Principle" in Zung Jung is an express statement to
> oppose the common trend of "self-draw inflation", which is a combined
> result of the undesirable side effect of the Old Style payoff scheme
> and the mis-propagation of the "Totally Concealed" pattern or the
> doubled payment in the payoff scheme.
>
> The common maximum penalty for "false win" is a case of inappropriate
> inheritance, in which an overly heavy penalty is applied even though
> the reason behind it (namely, the false win irrecoverably interrupting
> the game because the other players have revealed their hands for the
> purpose of computing side payments between non-winners) has become
> inapplicable for ages. Another case of inappropriate inheritance
> would be the definition of "pinfu" (see my FAQ).
>
> For more stuff like this, please see my FAQ (in Chinese).
>
I only have simple basic but fundamental questions like "why a pair is
a must?" and why a "run" is limited to 3 cards (unlike rummy)? Nothing
complicated.
These are rules in mahjong. What are the principles behind them?
> http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/Mahjong/ZungJung/zj_reasons_hk.html
>
> --
Alan Kwan
> Your 2 examples are too deep for me. I may be able to appreciate
> something simple like a principle or rationale for the "dead wall" in
> mahjong.
If that's what you want, why didn't you simply ask for it directly?
Why ask for a fruit if all you want is an orange?
I have written some explanation a long time ago, if you search the
archives.
An easy-to-understand reason is to give a chance to the player who
is playing defense. Playing to the last tile of the wall is a
variant which tries to create a winner for every hand, diminishing
the chance of success for defensive play. It makes a richer game if
a player who feels that his chance of winning the hand has become slim
has the option of resorting to defensive play feasibly.
A deeper reason is to preserve the consistency of the random nature
of drawn tiles throughout the game. The tile draws are random and
unpredictable for the early through mid part of the game; if they
become deterministic and predictable near the end, that makes a
mismatch. In short, compare with Blackjack. Any casino which deals
to the bottom of the deck for Blackjack is extremely dumb.
And the question is in the wrong direction. The dead wall is the
traditional, original rule. What should be questioned is, how did
the "play to the last tile" variant come into being? And my answer is,
it grew out of high faan-minimum requirements (or the irregular-hand
centered variants): those variants made it too difficult to complete the
hand, so the "play to the last tile" variant came about to alleviate
the problem of too many drawn games.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
Alan Kwan
> On Oct 11, 7:59 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>>Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
>
> If there was a process then, it is not clear to me now.
I'm not talking about the early formation of the game pre-1900,
but rather the development of the rules (in particular the scoring rules)
from around 1920 onwards.
>>some principles and the reasoning behind them were forgotten, and
>>the rules developed in ways which violated the principles due to
>>undesirable side effects, mis-propagation and inappropriate inheritance.
>>
>
> Any of these principles and reasoning behind them can be recalled or
> written somewhere?
They are conjectured by me. But my conjecture is quite believable
if one follows the early versions of mahjong (such as Haibara's,
and the "exported CC" versions in the 20's up). The early versions
themselves were documented.
If one wishes to study the early sources, just ask and many people on
this NG can help. If one doesn't know the early versions and refuses
to learn about them, I have no discussion with such person.
> Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to lack
> of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of principles is
> due to the game's doubtful origin?
It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not understanding
the principles while trying to evolve the rules. It has nothing to do with
the "doubtful origin" (which is beyond my scope of study), but rather,
it's all practical issues concerning the propagation of the game and its
rules. The "fixed payoff principle", for example, is IMO an issue of
high importance if we are to develop a set of mahjong rules for
international competitions.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
al
+++++++++++++++++
copy of text from Kwan's reply:
On Oct 14, 11:04 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> al wrote:
++++++++++++++++
This is done to keep the thread under the same heading.
For whatever reason, the author had the heading of thread changed
(again).
al
+++++++++++++++
The following reply is copied from Allan Kwan, to keep the thread from
broken.
For some reason, this author needs to do that time and again.
arrogance is a word thatcomes to mind.
+++++++++++++
On Oct 14, 11:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> al wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 7:59 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
> >>Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
>
> > If there was a process then, it is not clear to me now.
>
> I'm not talking about the early formation of the game pre-1900,
> but rather the development of the rules (in particular the scoring rules)
> from around 1920 onwards.
>
> >>some principles and the reasoning behind them were forgotten, and
> >>the rules developed in ways which violated the principles due to
> >>undesirable side effects, mis-propagation and inappropriate inheritance.
>
> > Any of these principles and reasoning behind them can be recalled or
> > written somewhere?
>
> They are conjectured by me. But my conjecture is quite believable
> if one follows the early versions of mahjong (such as Haibara's,
> and the "exported CC" versions in the 20's up). The early versions
> themselves were documented.
>
> If one wishes to study the early sources, just ask and many people on
> this NG can help. If one doesn't know the early versions and refuses
> to learn about them, I have no discussion with such person.
>
> > Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to lack
> > of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of principles is
> > due to the game's doubtful origin?
>
> It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not understanding
> the principles while trying to evolve the rules. It has nothing to do with
> the "doubtful origin" (which is beyond my scope of study), but rather,
> it's all practical issues concerning the propagation of the game and its
> rules. The "fixed payoff principle", for example, is IMO an issue of
> high importance if we are to develop a set of mahjong rules for
> international competitions.
>
> --
> "
>
> "
> "The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
> hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
> can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
> - Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
> Zung Jung mahjong official website:http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
+++++++++++++++
The text is a full reply from Kwan.
al
> al wrote:
> > Your 2 examples are too deep for me. I may be able to appreciate
> > something simple like a principle or rationale for the "dead wall" in
> > mahjong.
>
> If that's what you want, why didn't you simply ask for it directly?
> Why ask for a fruit if all you want is an orange?
I did not ask for just "a fruit". I asked for any "fruits" (like
principles). I gave "dead wall" as an example like your orange.
>
> I have written some explanation a long time ago, if you search the
> archives.
>
> An easy-to-understand reason is to give a chance to the player who
> is playing defense. Playing to the last tile of the wall is a
> variant which tries to create a winner for every hand, diminishing
> the chance of success for defensive play. It makes a richer game if
> a player who feels that his chance of winning the hand has become slim
> has the option of resorting to defensive play feasibly.
>
This sounds like scholarly writing on strategy. No good to me.
> A deeper reason is to preserve the consistency of the random nature
> of drawn tiles throughout the game. The tile draws are random and
> unpredictable for the early through mid part of the game; if they
> become deterministic and predictable near the end, that makes a
> mismatch. In short, compare with Blackjack. Any casino which deals
> to the bottom of the deck for Blackjack is extremely dumb.
>
Here I can understand a bit of what you said.
But "deterministic"? Not quite. Each player will still have to take
turn which is still unpredictable, because the outcome for a turn
depends on actions of other players. There will be increasing
transparency (if that is a proper word) or when the picture gets
clearer of what is left as the game progresses and the wall gets
shorter and shorter. Nothing unfair about that. Advantage is to the
skillful, yes.
Did I understand you correctly? (The situation would be probabilistic
until the last two cards. Wouldn't you say?)
> And the question is in the wrong direction. The dead wall is the
> traditional, original rule. What should be questioned is, how did
> the "play to the last tile" variant come into being? And my answer is,
> it grew out of high faan-minimum requirements (or the irregular-hand
> centered variants): those variants made it too difficult to complete the
> hand, so the "play to the last tile" variant came about to alleviate
> the problem of too many drawn games.
>
Your subjective view gets in the way again. Ask if you were not sure
what the question was.
I wanted to know why the dead wall was there in the game play in the
first place. The context was with the quote I gave from Andrew Lo's
article on Matiao.
You made the assumption without clarification and now you tell me my
question was backward. I don't know what gave you such arrogance. I am
not buying it.
++++++++++++
P.S. Do not change my thread again. Start a new one of your own.
> --
Julian Bradfield
[....]
> +++++++++++++++++
> copy of text from Kwan's reply:
[....]
> This is done to keep the thread under the same heading.
> For whatever reason, the author had the heading of thread changed
> (again).
Don't do this.
Alan is correctly changing the Subject header when the subject matter
of the post changes.
The structure of the thread is correctly indicated by any decent newsreader
according to the chain of references.
You persistently abuse us by repeating vast quantities of text in your
posts. Now you're repeating entire posts because of your own lack of
understanding of the basics of the medium in which you post.
I for one have long since stopped reading your posts, more because of
the appalling presentation than because of the inanity of the content.
If you want people to read your ramblings, I suggest you learn how to
post effectively and with consideration to the reader. Googling
"Usenet etiquette" should give you enough material to go on, and
http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Usenet.html
is a particularly concise but substantial guide that I found in
the first few results.
(Maybe everybody should just stop replying to al until he learns?)
al
> al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> [....]
>
> > +++++++++++++++++
> > copy of text from Kwan's reply:
>
> [....]
>
> > This is done to keep the thread under the same heading.
> > For whatever reason, the author had the heading of thread changed
> > (again).
>
> Don't do this.
>
> Alan is correctly changing the Subject header when the subject matter
> of the post changes.
The subject matter was unchanged. It's still about rules and
principles. Dead Wall relates to rule. Should it be a courtesy to let
the primary poster be informed before switching? What was wrong with
leaving a reply in the same thread in this case?
> The structure of the thread is correctly indicated by any decent newsreader
> according to the chain of references.
>
I had trouble with the switch last time back in April. I may be a more
experienced reader now.
> You persistently abuse us by repeating vast quantities of text in your
> posts. Now you're repeating entire posts because of your own lack of
> understanding of the basics of the medium in which you post.
>
Any "abuse" was unintentional.
> I for one have long since stopped reading your posts, more because of
> the appalling presentation than because of the inanity of the content.
> If you want people to read your ramblings, I suggest you learn how to
> post effectively and with consideration to the reader. Googling
> "Usenet etiquette" should give you enough material to go on, andhttp://www.smfr.org/mtnw/docs/Usenet.html
> is a particularly concise but substantial guide that I found in
> the first few results.
>
Your advice is appreciated.
> (Maybe everybody should just stop replying to al until he learns?)
No comment. You already did.
al
>
> [....]
>
> > +++++++++++++++++
> > copy of text from Kwan's reply:
>
> [....]
>
>
> [snip]
>
> I for one have long since stopped reading your posts, more because of
> the appalling presentation than because of the inanity of the content.
>
I have only read your brief replies to some minute items once a while,
so I don't know how much of an expert or scholar you are in mahjong.
Are the current questions under discussion beneath your intellectual
level?
If a gentleman who is "cultivated" and has something to contribute,
why should he be disturbed by a few extra lines of reading? The lines
need not be shown when one is looking only for direct reply, but if
referral is needed, the material can be right there at a click. How
much to include for reference is optional by personal choice. So I
thought. I got the point.
However, let's get to the discussion of specific questions on mahjong.
A question never asked is "what are the principles behind mhjong
rules?" You have not said a word about it. Is that "inanity" on my
part to have raised such a basic question? I think not.
My second question-never-asked was on the claim that Matiao was an
"important progenitor" of mahjong. This is not a silly question as you
might think. There is hardly any evidence to support such claim,
unless you have something to add.
[snip]
ithinc
> (Maybe everybody should just stop replying to al until he learns?)
I agree to this.
Alan Kwan
al wrote:
> On Oct 14, 11:04 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>>al wrote:
>>
>>>Your 2 examples are too deep for me. I may be able to appreciate
>>>something simple like a principle or rationale for the "dead wall" in
>>>mahjong.
>>
>>If that's what you want, why didn't you simply ask for it directly?
>>Why ask for a fruit if all you want is an orange?
> I did not ask for just "a fruit". I asked for any "fruits" (like
> principles). I gave "dead wall" as an example like your orange.
You asked for a fruit, but a pineapple is too sour for you, and an apple
is too hard for you. So all you could take is an orange. So why not
ask for an orange in the first place?
>>I have written some explanation a long time ago, if you search the
>>archives.
>>
>>An easy-to-understand reason is to give a chance to the player who
>>is playing defense. Playing to the last tile of the wall is a
>>variant which tries to create a winner for every hand, diminishing
>>the chance of success for defensive play. It makes a richer game if
>>a player who feels that his chance of winning the hand has become slim
>>has the option of resorting to defensive play feasibly.
>>
>
> This sounds like scholarly writing on strategy. No good to me.
You asked a scholarly question, and a scholar gave you a scholarly answer.
And it's "no good to you" because you don't like the answer, i.e. the
answer doesn't agree with your prejudice.
>
>>A deeper reason is to preserve the consistency of the random nature
>>of drawn tiles throughout the game. The tile draws are random and
>>unpredictable for the early through mid part of the game; if they
>>become deterministic and predictable near the end, that makes a
>>mismatch. In short, compare with Blackjack. Any casino which deals
>>to the bottom of the deck for Blackjack is extremely dumb.
>>
>
> Here I can understand a bit of what you said.
> But "deterministic"? Not quite.
Relatively. The random draws get more and more deterministic towards the
end of the wall. You asked for the reason for the dead wall, and I suppose
you want to know why the original designer (whoever that was) adopted
the dead wall, so I give a conjecture: the designer felt that, beyond
the dead wall, the draws got 'too close to being deterministic' for his
liking. I cannot see where my conjecture is wrong, or how what you say are
disagreeing with it. Note that the difference in opinion is not with my
conjecture itself, but with my conjectured opinion of the original designer.
i.e. *You* like to have no dead wall in your mahjong game.
> Each player will still have to take
> turn which is still unpredictable, because the outcome for a turn
> depends on actions of other players.
I was talking about the possible tile draws from the wall, so your statement
is irrelevant.
> There will be increasing
> transparency (if that is a proper word) or when the picture gets
> clearer of what is left as the game progresses and the wall gets
> shorter and shorter. Nothing unfair about that. Advantage is to the
> skillful, yes.
And that kind of skill, namely exhaustive card counting and logical
deduction in a small space of possibilities, is very different from
the skill required in the early to mid part of the game. So I conjecture
that the designer didn't like to have this kind of skill in his game.
Your liking it or not is another topic.
>>And the question is in the wrong direction. The dead wall is the
>>traditional, original rule. What should be questioned is, how did
>>the "play to the last tile" variant come into being?
> Your subjective view gets in the way again.
Not as much as yours.
> Ask if you were not sure what the question was.
I think I'm clearer on what's the question, and whether one is a question
or an answer (or rather, a prejudice looking for agreement), than you are.
Perhaps you didn't know how to ask the right questions?
If you want to hear whether people like to have dead wall or not
(and seek agreement with your opinion that no dead wall is better),
you should be asking exactly that, not for "the principle behind
the dead wall".
> I wanted to know why the dead wall was there in the game play in the
> first place.
Which I answered, IMO quite well, in the preceeding paragraphs.
> P.S. Do not change my thread again. Start a new one of your own.
Three words: please learn netiquette. What I did was in accordance with
standard Usenet netiquette.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
Tom Sloper
>> I wanted to know why the dead wall was there in the game play in the
>> first place.
Alan wrote:
> Which I answered, IMO quite well, in the preceeding paragraphs.
Yes, I thought it was a great answer.
Allan wrote:
>> P.S. Do not change my thread again. Start a new one of your own.
Alan wrote:
> Three words: please learn netiquette. What I did was in accordance with
> standard Usenet netiquette.
Yes, I complained to Allan before about his excessive use of previous text
in his posts, and I expressed a general complaint before about topic drift
without concomitant subject line change.
Tom
Alan Kwan
> On Oct 14, 11:04 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>>And the question is in the wrong direction. The dead wall is the
>>traditional, original rule. What should be questioned is, how did
>>the "play to the last tile" variant come into being?
>>
>
> Your subjective view gets in the way again. Ask if you were not sure
> what the question was.
> I wanted to know why the dead wall was there in the game play in the
> first place. The context was with the quote I gave from Andrew Lo's
> article on Matiao.
> You made the assumption without clarification and now you tell me my
> question was backward. I don't know what gave you such arrogance. I am
> not buying it.
If you're asking about "principles", it is perfectly relevant to talk about
how and why the rules drifted away from the original principles. In my studies,
which is on the historical development of mahjong rules, I have managed to
explain most of the cases. And invariably, people question the original rules
because they're prejudiced towards the modern rules, as they are (mostly) the
ones being propagated around now.
When I first read about the Classical rules, I thought that they were an
abomination. It took me years to really understand them. I guess many felt
the same way when they first learn about Classical - and they never came to
appreciate it.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
al
> al wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 11:04 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>
> >>If that's what you want, why didn't you simply ask for it directly?
> >>Why ask for a fruit if all you want is an orange?
> > I did not ask for just "a fruit". I asked for any "fruits" (like
> > principles). I gave "dead wall" as an example like your orange.
>
> You asked for a fruit, but a pineapple is too sour for you, and an apple
> is too hard for you. So all you could take is an orange. So why not
> ask for an orange in the first place?
>
Let us be accurate with analogies here. I did not ask for pineapple
and neither did I ask for apple. You just gave me an orange; it was so
tough that it nearly choked me.
> >>[..]
>
> >>An easy-to-understand reason is to give a chance to the player who
> >>is playing defense. Playing to the last tile of the wall is a
> >>variant which tries to create a winner for every hand, diminishing
> >>the chance of success for defensive play. It makes a richer game if
> >>a player who feels that his chance of winning the hand has become slim
> >>has the option of resorting to defensive play feasibly.
I guess I have to be a scholar to fully appreciate what you wrote
here. As I said before:
>
> > This sounds like scholarly writing on strategy. No good to me.
>
> You asked a scholarly question, and a scholar gave you a scholarly answer.
> And it's "no good to you" because you don't like the answer, i.e. the
> answer doesn't agree with your prejudice.
>
If you read your own writing over again, you can see your prejudice is
showing through and clear. You presumed and prejudged the meaning of
my reaction. You even preamp your accusation in saying I had
prejudice.
>
>
> >>A deeper reason is to preserve the consistency of the random nature
> >>of drawn tiles throughout the game. The tile draws are random and
> >>unpredictable for the early through mid part of the game; if they
I can understand this passage better. Equal random chance for all
players is ideal.
> >>[If they] become deterministic and predictable near the end, that makes a
> >>mismatch. [..]
Mismatch in consistency I assumed is what you meant. It is still a
fair game as the diminishing randomness is affecting all players.
>
> >]..]
>
> Relatively. The random draws get more and more deterministic towards the
> end of the wall. You asked for the reason for the dead wall, and I suppose
> you want to know why the original designer (whoever that was) adopted
> the dead wall, so I give a conjecture: the designer felt that, beyond
> the dead wall, the draws got 'too close to being deterministic' for his
> liking. I cannot see where my conjecture is wrong, or how what you say are
> disagreeing with it. Note that the difference in opinion is not with my
> conjecture itself, but with my conjectured opinion of the original designer.
I did not have a preference of having a dead wall in mahjong or not to
have one. I read in some posts and question/discussion somewhere that
in some place the dead wall remains fixed 'dead' whereas other places
allow the dead wall to vary with replenishment tiles.
I was curious about the ruling difference and what was the idea behind
the options.
> i.e. *You* like to have no dead wall in your mahjong game.
>
So, again, it is not that I like it one way or another. But I am
interested in knowing the reasons for one way instead of the other.
Tell me plain and simple if you have an explanation. That's all.
> > Each player will still have to take
> > turn which is still unpredictable, because the outcome for a turn
> > depends on actions of other players.
>
> I was talking about the possible tile draws from the wall, so your statement
> is irrelevant.
>
I was just saying although the randomness of draw is decreasing, the
outcome of each draw is still probabilistic. Relevant or not, the
statement is true.
> > [..]
>
> And that kind of skill, namely exhaustive card counting and logical
> deduction in a small space of possibilities, is very different from
> the skill required in the early to mid part of the game. So I conjecture
> that the designer didn't like to have this kind of skill in his game.
> Your liking it or not is another topic.
>
Again it is not how I like it.
However, common sense tells me that it was unlikely the original game
designer had foreseen the need to concern with probability
consideration near the end of a game. It's just my conjecture. Usually
time and experience are needed to detect weakness in any thing
including game design.
> >>And the question is in the wrong direction. The dead wall is the
> >>traditional, original rule. What should be questioned is, how did
> >>the "play to the last tile" variant come into being?
> > Your subjective view gets in the way again.
>
> Not as much as yours.
>
> > Ask if you were not sure what the question was.
>
> I think I'm clearer on what's the question, and whether one is a question
> or an answer (or rather, a prejudice looking for agreement), than you are.
> Perhaps you didn't know how to ask the right questions?
>
I guess it would not matter what my answer to that is. You knew it in
your head already...
> If you want to hear whether people like to have dead wall or not
> (and seek agreement with your opinion that no dead wall is better),
> you should be asking exactly that, not for "the principle behind
> the dead wall".
>
I asked the question with reference to a quote taken from Andrew Lo's
article. The exact word 'principle' was used in the same context by
the complier of a game rule book.
Let me put it this way. Your assumption is dead wrong !
> > [..]
al
wrote:
> Allan wrote:
> >> I wanted to know why the dead wall was there in the game play in the
> >> first place.
> Alan wrote:
> > Which I answered, IMO quite well, in the preceeding paragraphs.
>
> Yes, I thought it was a great answer.
>
Now you know I am no scholar like many of you, put the explanation in
plain simple American English for me, Tom.
> and I expressed a general complaint before about topic drift
> without concomitant subject line change.
Am I guilty of this "concomitant' act too? I am unaware of it.
> Tom
al
> al wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 11:04 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
>
> > [..]
>
> If you're asking about "principles", it is perfectly relevant to talk about
> how and why the rules drifted away from the original principles.
I did not know it drifted.
In my studies,
> which is on the historical development of mahjong rules, I have managed to
> explain most of the cases.
Does the statement quoted "principles... in the rules" hold true to
some extent for mahjong as in matiao?
And invariably, people question the original rules
> because they're prejudiced towards the modern rules, as they are (mostly) the
> ones being propagated around now.
>
I am not prejudiced towards either, but I would be interested whenever
a rule changes to match a change in game play. Do you have examples of
such cases?
> When I first read about the Classical rules, I thought that they were an
> abomination. It took me years to really understand them. I guess many felt
> the same way when they first learn about Classical - and they never came to
> appreciate it.
>
I sense that one has to appreciate or understand the mathematics of
probability in combination and from permutation etc. The old method is
more sophisticated, in my estimation.
> --
Cheers...
al
> al wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 7:59 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
> >>Mahjong is a strange beast, because in the process of its development,
>
> > If there was a process then, it is not clear to me now.
>
> I'm not talking about the early formation of the game pre-1900,
> but rather the development of the rules (in particular the scoring rules)
> from around 1920 onwards.
>
Andrew Lo's Matiao paper. So I was talking about the history a long
way,1920-and-backward.
When I play I prefer the new way (just counting faans) and move along
quickly. The old way takes time and some players don't trust the
points assigned and question, causing delay.
But after learning about the game history, I appreciate the points for
triplets etc. As I see it now, the old way was or is more friendly and
fair. Luck counts a little more even for the inexperienced, because
whenever a player happens to be lucky and draws a good hand, all the
triplets count for something win or lose. In case of no-win he would
have points against the two other players who also didn't win.
After all mahjong was supposed to be for fun and friendship, not for
gambling. The old way of counting is like giving some consideration to
a golfer's handicap score.
n> >>[..]
>
> [..][..]
d_...@my-deja.com
> al wrote:
> > Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to
> > lack of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of
> > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
>
> It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not
> understanding the principles while trying to evolve the
I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
of them. If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
mstanwick
mstanwick
> the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
Sorry. I pressed the 'send' button in error.
You are dead right about meanings of terms. Even then, when you think
you have agreed on terms - it all blows up in your face.
The problem with these subjects and similar ones is that they are in
essence open-ended. Unfortunately, emotions are also fed into the
mixture, and then things get really messy.
Cheers
al
> On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
> > al wrote:
> > > Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to
> > > lack of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of
> > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
>
> > It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not
> > understanding the principles while trying to evolve the
> > rules. [snip]
>
> I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
> word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
> of them.
I was hoing you might find more than just the difference in meaning of
the word "principle". May be you will add your thoughts to the
discussion next post.
I quoted a passage from Lo's paper which had that quote of the
compiler of a rule book for Matiao.
So, "principle" should mean the same there as in mahjong, I thought. I
know we have rules in mahjong, but I have not read about their
"principles" (whatever that means to the people who are knowledgeable
and/or devising rules) and I asked.
As I explained, I prefer a fast pace game counting faans only. But the
old or original counting method might have been based on principles
which could relate and reveal the historical development of the game
more than any hypothetical derivation from symbols and hearsay mixed
with dialects and mispronunciations.
+++++++
If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> the (possible) "story" behind the game
+++++++++++
Something like that, the "story"; but I would say the philosophical
concept and core ideas the game might have been based. My basic
premise is that you don't throw a bunch of tiles in such variety
together and have a set of rules without reference to some guide posts
and expect consistency.
The underlying philosophical principles laid the foundation for the
mahjong game. Rules of play reflect those principles. Analyze the old
rules to discover the old principles behind them, then we will be
nearer to the "story".
So far the mahjong history is based on hearsay, word-of-mouth and a
variety of dialects with different pronunciations, homonyms and
misinterpretations.
+++++++++++
and the other "Al" is
> talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
+++++++++++
I was not familiar with Zung Jung. It scared me away. It fits between
the old and the new is my impression of it. The "rationale" seems more
for scholarly studies.
Cheers....
al
> On Oct 19, 5:11?pm, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> > it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
>
> Sorry. I pressed the 'send' button in error.
>
> You are dead right about meanings of terms. Even then, when you think
> you have agreed on terms - it all blows up in your face.
Hello, Michael,
"dead wall" is a rule. The basis for establishing that rule is the
principle.
That was the reason I strongly objected to the changing of my post
title. Yet I was told this is standard practice. It was an act of
disrespect and discourtesy at best. Look at what the post title is
now. It is incorrect and inappropriate.
>
> The problem with these subjects and similar ones is that they are in
> essence open-ended.
++++++++++
I am not sure which end was open in this case.
+++++++++
[..]
>
> Cheers
mstanwick
> On Oct 19, 1:17 pm, mstanwick <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 19, 5:11?pm, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> > > it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
> > You are dead right about meanings of terms. Even then, when you think
> > you have agreed on terms - it all blows up in your face.
>
> Hello, Michael,
> "dead wall" is a rule. The basis for establishing that rule is the
> principle.
> That was the reason I strongly objected to the changing of my post
> title. Yet I was told this is standard practice. It was an act of
> disrespect and discourtesy at best. Look at what the post title is
> now. It is incorrect and inappropriate.
Hello Allan.
Your reply has nothing to do with the content of my comment Allan.
Please refer to the quote preceding my comment. I always leave the
original quote, to which I am replying, in my posts. The message of
that preceding quote was what I was commenting about. I was not
commenting about netiquette.
> > The problem with these subjects and similar ones is that they are in
> > essence open-ended.
> I am not sure which end was open in this case.
Both.
al
>
> > al wrote:
> > > Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to
> > > lack of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of
> > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
>
> > It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not
> > understanding the principles while trying to evolve the
> > rules. [snip]
Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
back.
Now, what is or are the principles behind the formulation of such
rule(s)?
Cheers...
al
This "interesting discussion" did not come to any closure. There were
six people posted. All were quick at criticizing me or my way of
posting, but no one offers a direct answer to this question reiterated
below. I quote from my latest post on the topic.
"Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
back.
Now, what is or are the principles behind the formulation of such
rule(s)?"
I offered my explanation again in more than one posts even recently.
Do you or any one have comments?
al
> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
al wrote:
> > > > Is it possible that the undesirable side effects etc. is due to
> > > > lack of principles? Furthermore, is it possible the lack of
> > > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
>
> > > It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not
> > > understanding the principles while trying to evolve the
> > > rules. [snip]
>
rules. generally. Making changes to rules is more than a scholarly
task. I thought.
> > I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
> > word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
> > of them. If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> > it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
>
Your observation is correct. However, the rationale behind the scoring
system should also reflect the principles of the mahjong game. For
example, extra points given to "hooking an eye" in a winning hand.
there is a reason for that as a part of some principle of the game.
And of course, a pair of eyes is a must, but why? No other game has
the very same rule, as far as I know. What, if any, is the rationale
or principle?
> This "interesting discussion" did not come to any closure. There were
> six people posted. All were quick at criticizing me or my way of
> posting, but no one offers a direct answer to this question [..]
I gathered from responses from other posting the impression that most
readers never did get to read the Ma Diao article of Lo's translation
(Late Ming Game).
Without first reading the reference of "principle" in that article,
how can any rational answer be possible?
> below. I quote from my latest post on the topic.
>
> "Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
> needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
And each of
> The runs can not exceed 3 cards.
What is the principle there?
> A pair must be there.
Why? What is the rationale or principle? It's a unique (mahjong only)
RULE.
>
> This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
> back.
Or even from possible day-one.
>
> Now, what is or are the principles behind the formulation of such
> rule(s)?"
>
> I offered my explanation [..} in more than one posts [..].
>[..]
But I have not seen a single meaningful comment from scholars or
historians.
One thing is for certain though. The so-called "money base" can not
explain a thing.
+++++++
Cheers....al
al
> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
>
> > > al wrote:
> > > > Is it possible that the "undesirable side effects" etc. is due to
> > > > lack of principles?
mahjong.
No one cares to discuss it.
++++++
Furthermore, is it possible the lack of
> > > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
Not only doubtful, but dead wrong. Cash and strings of Cash have no
consideration for principles.
>
> > > It is due to the people (mahjong commoners) forgetting or not
> > > understanding the principles while trying to evolve the
> > > rules. [snip]
>
I have not read about "commoners" making change to mahjong rules, but
I know from Lo's translation of Ma Diao, an official (Vice Minister of
War, 1525-1593) named Wang Daokun reversed the hierarchy of a whole
suit, making Zero Cash supreme. He also "dismissed the universe". He
basically deleted the principles.
> > I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
> > word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
> > of them. If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. No wonder
> > it is so hard to have closure on these discussions.
>
That observation is about right. The theme is in the design structure
and the principles should be in the rules of game-play, in my view.
My contention is that a "cash base" design offers no principles for
the rules of game-play in mahjong, in addition to a theme-less design.
Does mahjong look like a game that got its 136 or more pieces thrown
together by random chance? Of course not. Then how and why? What is
the possible "story"?
> This "interesting discussion" did not come to any closure. There were
> six people posted. All were quick at criticizing me or my way of
> posting, but no one offers a direct answer to this question
Why should we not question? I remember reading a 2004 article that
nothing new in mahjong history since 125 years ago, Wilkinson's time.
That means the game's pioneers had written all there is to know in the
game. I don't accept that. Those historians were just learning the
game themselves at that time. They were told in slang terms what
"commoners" knew then. And it was not much.
[.]
>
> "Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
> needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
This is very unique pattern to mahjong.
The "2" has at least 2 levels of meanings in the mahjong theme.
The first is philosophical, representing yin and yang, the opposite
polarities of creation of the universe as the Chinese scholars knew it
thousands years ago. The second is mathematical binary system of
scoring by a power of 2.
Then 3's are similar to the binary combination in I-Ching where 2 to
power-3 is the 8-trigram and 2 to power-6 is 64 hexagram.
A winning hand is like yin and yang plus 4 trigrams which is 2
hexagrams. The correlation between the I-Ching and mahjong is
undeniably obvious. Furthermore the concept of changes applies in the
method of play in mahjong, i.e. draw and discard.That is simply a
process of recurring changes.
> The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
>
> This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
> back.
>
Such game design pattern and method of play are far more reliable
indicators of mahjong origin than a few round circles and knotted
sticks called by uncertain names in unknown dialects.
>[..]
> [..]
++++++++++
Cheers.....al
al
> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
"Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
> > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > al wrote:
> > > > >[..]
>
al wrote:
> It looks to be the case. Principle seems to be a new concept for
> mahjong. > No one cares to discuss it.
> ++++++
> Furthermore, is it possible the lack of >
> > > > > principles is due to the game's doubtful origin?
Again, it looks that way, too.
>
> Not only doubtful, but dead wrong.
Cash and strings of Cash have no consideration for principles.
>
> > > > [snip]
>
al:
> I have not read about "commoners" making change to mahjong rules, but
> I know from Lo's translation of Ma Diao, an official (Vice Minister of
> War, 1525-1593) named Wang Daokun reversed the hierarchy of a whole
> suit, making Zero Cash supreme. He also "dismissed the universe". He
> basically deleted the principles.
>
Reader's comment:
> > > I find this discussion interesting because both Al's are using the
> > > word "principles" and it means completely different things to each
> > > of them. If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. [..]
>
> That observation is about right. The theme is in the design structure
> and the principles should be in the rules of game-play, [..]
>
> My contention is that a "cash base" design offers no principles for
> the rules of game-play in mahjong, [mahjong was not even for gambling but for recreation among the upper class. So why all the Cash and Strings of Cash?]
Mahjong has been a game of intricate design with extraordinary
symbols.
> Does mahjong look like a game that got its 136 or more pieces thrown
> together by random chance? Of course not. Then how and why? What is
> the possible "story"?
>
Mahjong was created by design. And as the design of today is believed
to be evolved through time, then it simply means the game is much
older than the time when it was discovered and reported by foreigners.
> > [..]
> [..]
>
> > "Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
> > needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
>
> This is very unique pattern to mahjong.
It could have been 2.3.3 when and if there were only 60 blocks.
> The "2" has at least 2 levels of meanings in the mahjong theme.
> The first is philosophical, representing yin and yang, the opposite
> polarities of creation of the universe as the Chinese [believed] it
> thousands years ago. The second is mathematical binary system of
> scoring by a power of 2 [for each fann].
>
> Then 3's are similar to the binary combination in I-Ching where 2 to
> power-3 is the 8-trigram [Bagua] and 2 to power-6 is 64 hexagram.
> A winning hand is like yin and yang plus 4 trigrams which is 2
> hexagrams. The correlation between the I-Ching and mahjong is
> undeniably obvious. Furthermore the concept of changes applies in the
> method of play in mahjong, i.e. draw and discard.That is simply a
> process of recurring changes.
This is a principal concept for the game: the universe is in constant
and continual change, the 4 seasons, the wind directions and life as
a whole for all living. A player is making changes to the 13 cards
throughout each hand and the game.
Changes are what the Book of Changes is all about.
The correlation is there amply clear. Readers can decide if that was
accidental or by design. It can not be proven by linear thinking.
>
> > The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
Trigrams are made of 3 yin-yang lines in I-Ching. 3-some format is
symbolic.
A pair of "eyes" is needed. What other game requires that? But
remember. The apple in the Garden was a metaphor; so are the eyes
here.
>
> > This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
> > back.
The unique design and rules of play are more reliable characteristics
of the game than all the names you can dig up from novels and
translated text.
>
> Such game design pattern and method of play are far more reliable
> indicators of mahjong origin than a few round circles and knotted
> sticks called by uncertain names in unknown dialects.>[..]
> > [..]
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
Once the underlying principles are understood and appreciated, then
the symbols can be meaningful in a coherent way and related to a
central theme.
> ++++++++++
> Cheers.....al
P.S. I am not talking to myself. I am writing for your interest and
whomever happens to read it.
al
> On Jan 30, 10:40 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I asked back in Oct. 10 2007 this question.
> "Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
>
> > > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > [..]
>
> al wrote:
> > It looks to be the case. Principle seems to be a new concept for
> > mahjong. No one cares to discuss it.
Or no one knew what I was talking about. My reference is to the
"principle and application" mentioned in Lo's translation of Ma Diao.
I seem to recall. Very few people had the chance to read the Ming game
translation paper. That surprised me. That paper was supposed to be
reference for the claim that Ma Diao was an "importatnt progenitor" of
mahjong. Also the Cash and Strings from Ma Diao were ancestrally tied
to mahjong. Yet the Cash-suited" cards were widely accepted for
sometime. Another question I got was what did I mean by 'principle' a
long wjile back
> > ++++++
> > [..]
>
I said the lack of principle perhaps because of MJ's doubtful history.
> > Not only doubtful, but dead wrong.
>
> Cash and strings of Cash have no consideration for principles.
>
> al:
> > I have not read about "commoners" making change to mahjong rules, but
> > I know from Lo's translation of Ma Diao, an official (Vice Minister of
> > War, 1525-1593) named Wang Daokun reversed the hierarchy of a whole
> > suit, making Zero Cash supreme. He also "dismissed the universe". He
> > basically deleted the principles.
>
Wang changed the game. He gave money to some scholars who had little
money and when they won so as not only to embarrass the rich and
arrogant but have money to spend and enjoy.
> Reader's comment:
> > > > [..] If I understand them correctly, one "Al" is talking about
> > > > the (possible) "story" behind the game and the other "Al" is
> > > > talking about the "rationale" behind the scoring system. [..]
>
> > That observation is about right. The theme is in the design structure
> > and the principles should be in the rules of game-play, [..]
>
> > My contention is that a "cash base" design offers no principles for
> > the rules of game-play in mahjong, [mahjong was not even for gambling but for recreation among the upper class. So why all the Cash and Strings of Cash?]
>
Not only that...the symbols were not objects. Symbols are like Fruits
in the Garden of Eden. This the simplest way I can put it.
> Mahjong has been a game of intricate design with extraordinary
> symbols.
>
Why go through all that to represent a few amounts (of money) that are
miles apart?
> > Does mahjong look like a game that got its 136 or more pieces thrown
> > together by random chance? [..]
NO WAY.
>
> Mahjong was created by design. And as the design of today is believed
> to be evolved through time, then it simply means the game is much
> older than the time when it was discovered and reported by foreigners.
The game hasn't changed in the last 100 years. How long does it take
to change mahjong from paper cards design or format? A millennium or
two? If it was that long ago, it could have been done without paper
which was not yet invented then.
> > [..]
>
> > > "Let us take a basic rule in mahjong like for a winning hand, a player
> > > needs to have 14 cards in a typical pattern, 2-3-3-3-3.
>
Or 8 pieces using for a pattern of 2-3-3 if it was evolved.
> > This is very unique pattern to mahjong.
>
> It could have been 2.3.3 when and if there were only 60 blocks.
>
> > The "2" has at least 2 levels of meanings in the mahjong theme.
> > The first is philosophical, representing yin and yang, the opposite
> > polarities of creation of the universe as the Chinese [believed] it
> > thousands years ago. The second is mathematical binary system of
> > scoring by a power of 2 [for each fann].
>
Yin and yang, polar opposites are like today's electron and proton
(negative and positive charges). Without yin and yang, where is the
universe?
> > Then 3's are similar to the binary combination in I-Ching where 2 to
> > power-3 is the 8-trigram [Bagua] and 2 to power-6 is 64 hexagram.
> > A winning hand is like yin and yang plus 4 trigrams which is 2
> > hexagrams. The correlation between the I-Ching and mahjong is
> > undeniably obvious. Furthermore the concept of changes applies in the
> > method of play in mahjong, i.e. draw and discard.That is simply a
> > process of recurring changes.
>
People today with good education have not learned about I-Ching and
some refuse to acknowledge it or ignore its philosophy. How could
olden day Chinese grasp the "principle" and propagate it down through
history? It was bound to get lost.
> This is a principal concept for the game: the universe is in constant
> and continual change, the 4 seasons, the wind directions and life as
> a whole for all [myriads of] living. A player is making changes to the 13 cards
> throughout each hand and the game.
NOT ONLY CHANGE, BUT CYCLICAL CHANGES...
> Changes are what the Book of Changes is all about.
> The correlation is there amply clear. Readers can decide if that was
> accidental or by design. It can not be proven by linear thinking FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND THEREFORE C]..
Linear logic has its limitations, especially 3000 years a ago in
ancient civilization.
>
> > > The runs can not exceed 3 cards. A pair must be there.
NOT TRICK-TAKING IN 4-SUM. THIS IS PATTERN FORMING.
>
> Trigrams are made of 3 yin-yang lines in I-Ching. 3-some format is
> symbolic.
> A pair of "eyes" is needed. What other game requires that? But
> remember. The apple in the Garden was a metaphor; so are the eyes
> here.
>
> > > This requirement for a winning hand is probably unchanged from way
> > > back.
Correct me if I am wrong.
>
lOOKING FOR CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MAHJONG AND i-CHING? HERE IT IS.
> The unique design and rules of play are more reliable characteristics
> of the game than all the names you can dig up from novels and
> translated text.
i RECALL THE STORY of some one, IF IT WAS CULIN, IN A MAHJONG FACTORY-
SHOP. HE WAS TOLD HE COULD HAVE THE CHOICE OF DESIGN HE WANTED ON THE
TILE FACE.
>
> > [..] [PATTERN FORMATION] and method of play are far more reliable
> > indicators of mahjong origin than a few round circles and knotted
> > sticks called by uncertain names in unknown dialects.>[..]
> > > [..]
>
> http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
>
> Once the underlying principles are understood and appreciated, then
> the symbols can be meaningful in a coherent way and related to a
> central theme.
WITHOUT A THEME OR A BASIC CONCEPT, SCHOLARS AND ENTHUSIAST CAN GUESS
AND SPECULATE OR DISCUSS ANOTHER 100 YEARS AND GET NOWHERE.
Zhong and Fa, according to Wilkinson, means "hit and go". What was hit
and where to go? This is another example of meaningless speculation.
Early historians learning about mahjong were not unlike grade students
learning how to read and write in elementary schools. We should not
believe every word they said.
++++++++++++++
Cheers......al
al
> On Mar 27, 5:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:40 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I asked back in Oct. 10 2007 this question.
> > "Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
>
> > > > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
I thought the question was simple enough. Apparently it was not. There
was question on my question and also criticism on the way I posted the
question.
This time instead of repeating the question, I will try to give my
simple answer.
My answer is from Dao De Jing of Laozi. The first part of Chapter 25,
my translation, similar to other scholarly versions, is like this.
DAO GAVE BIRTH TO ONE
ONE GAVE BIRTH TO TWO
TWO GAVE BIRTH TO THREE
THREE GAVE BIRTH TO MYRIADS
One is from the Ultimate Birthplace.
Yang carries Yin with it. Yin and Yang are Two.
Yin and Yang combine with another yin or yang to form Three's.
Three's are trigrams. Eight-trigram is Bagua.
Bagua represent "ten-thousand", myriad or all things in the universe.
The simple pattern 2.3.3.3.3 for a winning hand correlates with basic
principle in Daoism. Furthermore, Colors, Directions and Seasons are
cosmology aspects of Daoism. Four rounds to complete a game and/or
more rounds of play represent cyclical changes. Winds are metaphors
for seasons.
++++++++++++++++++++
This is how I see it.
Cheers....al
al
> On May 20, 12:49 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:40 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > I asked back in Oct. 10 2007 this question.
> > > "Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
>
> > > > > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > > > [..]+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I thought the question was simple enough. Apparently it was not. There
> was question on my question and also criticism on the way I posted the
> question.
>
> This time instead of repeating the question, I will try to give my
> simple answer.
>
> My answer is from Dao De Jing of Laozi. The first part of Chapter 25,
CORRECTION: CHAPTER 42, NOT 25.
> my translation, similar to other scholarly versions, is like this.
>
> DAO GAVE BIRTH TO ONE
> ONE GAVE BIRTH TO TWO
> TWO GAVE BIRTH TO THREE
> THREE GAVE BIRTH TO MYRIADS
>
> One is from the Ultimate Birthplace.
> Yang carries Yin with it. Yin and Yang are Two.
> Yin and Yang combine with another yin or yang to form Three's.
> Three's are trigrams. Eight-trigram is Bagua.
>
> Bagua represent "ten-thousand", myriad or all things in the universe.
>
> The simple pattern 2.3.3.3.3 for a winning hand correlates with basic
> principle in Daoism. Furthermore, Colors, Directions and Seasons are
> cosmology aspects of Daoism. Four rounds to complete a game and/or
> more rounds of play represent cyclical changes. Winds are metaphors
> for seasons.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> This is how I see it.
> Cheers....al
+++++++++++++++++
One quick correction:
The quote is from Chapter 42, the first sentense. Dao De Jing.
al
> On May 20, 12:49 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 5:17 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:40 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Dec 8 2007, 11:28 am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:> On Oct 19, 11:11 am, d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > I asked back in Oct. 10 2007 this question.
> > > "Are there principles in the rules of Mahjong?"
>
> > > > > > On Oct 14, 8:17 pm, Alan Kwan <notme@nospam> wrote:
> > > > [..]+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I thought the question was simple enough. Apparently it was not. There
> was question on my question and also criticism on the way I posted the
> question.
>
game seems strange to some people. Most games copy their rules from
older games have no consideration for principles. Authors of game
manuals did not have to explain. Players of these newer games just
have to memorize the rules and play to win. Mahjong is a different
breed. It's an older game played by literati first in ancient China.
In the translation of Ma Daio, published in The Playing-Card, it was
said that when the drinking games appeared, the principle and purpose
of many older games were lost.
Old game rules were based on principles, according to the Ma Daio
translation.
> This time instead of repeating the question, I will try to give my
> simple answer.
>
> My answer is from Dao De Jing of Laozi. The first part of Chapter 25,
Correction: Chapter 42; not 25.
> my translation, similar to other scholarly versions, is like this.
>
> DAO GAVE BIRTH TO ONE
> ONE GAVE BIRTH TO TWO
> TWO GAVE BIRTH TO THREE
> THREE GAVE BIRTH TO [TEN-THOUSAND THINGS]
>
[TEN-THOUSAND THINGS] appeared 16 times in 81 chapter of the book.
This should be a hint to the meaning of 'ten-thousand'.
> One is from the Ultimate Birthplace.
A more appropriate term for this could be personified as Lady
Ultimate.
> Yang carries Yin with it. Yin and Yang are Two.
Two can be the pair of "eyes" in the mahjong game. Without yin-yang,
there can not be anything. The rule is 'no eyes; no win'.
> Yin and Yang combine with another yin or yang to form Three's.
> Three's are trigrams. Eight-trigram is Bagua.
>
> Bagua represent "ten-thousand", myriad or all things in the universe.
>
How else could it mean by "three gave birth to ten-thousand things"?
All 8 trigrams each represented by 3 lines and the yin-yang are show
in the link below..
http://www.taopage.org/iching/iching_symbols.html
> The simple pattern 2.3.3.3.3 for a winning hand correlates with basic
> principle in Daoism. Furthermore, Colors, Directions and Seasons are
> cosmology aspects of Daoism. Four rounds to complete a game and/or
> more rounds of play represent cyclical changes. Winds are metaphors
> for seasons.
>
Seasons bring the change of winds. Cyclical seasons go by spring-
summer-autumn-winter and winds fol Low as EAST-SOUTH-WEST-NORTH. Hence
the principle for the counterclockwise rotation in mahjong is based on
the winds and seasonal rotation. The wind change is brought on by the
earth's counterclockwise rotation as illustrated below.
http://www.mrdowling.com/images/601seasons.jpg
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> This is how I see it.
What I see has been documented in writings of historians. Readers
beware.
I see simple numbers like 1-2-3 have deeper meaning than ever
documented.
There were principles in the rules of mahjong when the game was first
designed. Foe instance, why East, South, West and North can not form
sequences like the other suits?
Likewise, why zhong-fa-bai can not be a run but must be in melds like
three-of-a-kind? A basic principle is in such a basic rule.
++++++++++++++++
Cheers....al