One or two days ago there was here a posting from a beginning MJ player. He started his posting saying that he beginning to understand why sometimes _not_ claiming a chow in the beginning of the game.
Apparently I'm a little more unexperienced than he, so why should someone doesn't not make a chow. I play on the PC almost a year. The main purpose of The Game is to go out first, yes? If I have two Wan 5 and one of Wan 6 and I can chow the Wan 7, sometimes I reject that and gamble on a Pung of 5 Wan Have I give myself the answer, here?
(still never have played MJ with four people, but hopefully that will changed within 9 days)
"Very funny, Scotty, Now beam down my clothes"
Henri Pannevis (hen...@cistron.nl) The Netherlands
Hi Henri, There are many valid strategies that can be used to play Mah-Jongg. But if you watch experienced players, you will see that they do not necessarily grab the first Chow opportunity that comes along, for several reasons: a. It shows the other players three tiles that you have collected; opponents can learn more about your hand by the melds AND discards than they could from the discards alone. b. It narrows the opportunities for the hand you are building (having made one Chow, you would be wise to make the rest of your hand all Chows and/or all the same suit). c. Chow hands are not necessarily the best -- with Pong hands, you aren't limited to the suit, you can also use Winds and Dragons. Hope that helps! Tom Sloper, Activision Senior Producer, Shanghai tslo...@activision.com Coming in December: SHANGHAI: DYNASTY (includes several Shanghai tile-matching modes, plus the actual game of Mah-Jongg, playable against any combination of human and A.I. opponents, in both Chinese and Western rules). http://www.activision.com
> One or two days ago there was here a posting from a beginning MJ player. > He started his posting saying that he beginning to understand why > sometimes _not_ claiming a chow in the beginning of the game.
> Apparently I'm a little more unexperienced than he, so why should > someone doesn't not make a chow. I play on the PC almost a year. > The main purpose of The Game is to go out first, yes? > If I have two Wan 5 and one of Wan 6 and I can chow the Wan 7, > sometimes I reject that and gamble on a Pung of 5 Wan
Henri Pannevis (hen...@cistron.nl) wrote: > why should someone doesn't not make a chow. I play on the PC almost a > year. The main purpose of The Game is to go out first, yes?
Actually, you'll quite frequently end up not chowing a tile and being much better off that way. Efficiently trying to go out first is not as simply done as might seem at first glance.
Tom Sloper (tslo...@activision.com) wrote: > a. It shows the other players three tiles that you have collected; > opponents can learn more about your hand by the melds AND discards than > they could from the discards alone. > b. It narrows the opportunities for the hand you are building (having made > one Chow, you would be wise to make the rest of your hand all Chows and/or > all the same suit).
Also, it narrows down your options when making discards. Your hand size will be permanently reduced by three tiles, and having less tiles to choose your discards from is often disastrous. This is (perhaps) most readily apparent in the Japanese rules, where the discarder (and only the discarder) pays the winner, but is as valid in under any rules system. Of course, you should (almost) never give another player a tile that will aid him/her.
Another important point is that when you place the three tiles in your chow (or pong) on the table, you have committed yourself to use just those tiles as a set. Sometimes this is ok, if your hand is very clear-cut, but very often the flexibility from having the elements (particularly suit tiles, the stuff chows are made of) hidden in your hand is more valuable than 'just' making a set. At each stage of development, from the dealt hand to the winning hand, you should try to maximize the number of tiles that will improve your hand, and while claiming tiles gives you the immediate advantage of one good tile, having flexible elements hidden will eventually be more fruitful...after all, most of your tiles will be drawn straight from the wall, and the player who can find a use for many drawn tiles has a definite advantage over the one who can't.
> c. Chow hands are not necessarily the best -- with Pong hands, you aren't > limited to the suit, you can also use Winds and Dragons.
Umm, sure, pong hands are nice, but most often very hard to make compared to chow hands. I would consider it an unsound strategy to refuse to make chows just because you want to make pongs. Almost always.
Yet another, somewhat subtler reason against chowing, especially in the early game, is that you miss drawing a tile from the wall when you chow a tile. Of course you can get one useful tile from the other player, but the first few rounds of discards are the most critical for forming the elements in your hand that you will later use to make the sets. As all mahjongg players have so often seen, there is the distinct possibility that you'll draw a completely useless tile from the wall, but in the start of the deal, you have the largest number of different tiles that will form good elements in your hand and put you one step closer to winning. Missing a draw from the wall then is a disadvantage worth taking into account, especially as you'll also be exposing one of your elements and reducing the number of different tiles that will help you.
There are probably other general reasons for not always chowing (hmm, we might get a good strategy discussion going on here yet?), and, as always in mahjongg, reasons that depend on your particular situation in the game, your particular rules system, and your particular set of opponents.
I, too, hope this helps... sorry about the rambling,
Well, I will only chow when it is towards the extremities of a suit, like 1-2-3 or 7-8-9, and if I have winds which do not count or very little winds and dragons. If I hold 4-4-5-5-6 then there will be many more oppotunities then 1-2-7-8.
> One or two days ago there was here a posting from a beginning MJ player. > He started his posting saying that he beginning to understand why > sometimes _not_ claiming a chow in the beginning of the game.
> Apparently I'm a little more unexperienced than he, so why should > someone doesn't not make a chow. I play on the PC almost a year. > The main purpose of The Game is to go out first, yes? > If I have two Wan 5 and one of Wan 6 and I can chow the Wan 7, > sometimes I reject that and gamble on a Pung of 5 Wan > Have I give myself the answer, here?
> (still never have played MJ with four people, but hopefully that will > changed within 9 days)
> "Very funny, Scotty, > Now beam down my clothes"
> Henri Pannevis (hen...@cistron.nl) > The Netherlands
> BTW, "fan"s are how you value your winning hand. As in a chow hand > brings 1 fan, and a pong hand brings 2 fan etc... I can't think of a > suitable English translation...(Cantonese writer)
You are correct, there is no great way to express "fan" in English. In my game, Hong Kong Mahjong, I translated "fan" as "points", then referred to the winnings as "chips". For example, "All Pong is 3 points and (on a Discard) pays 32 chips".
This is not totally satisfying to me, but it works and it's much more accurate than referring to "doubles". -- Julian R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software 351 Ulloa Street San Francisco, California 94127 415-664-3474 v. 415-564-3161 f. jrfi...@ninedragons.com http://www.ninedragons.com
> Yet another, somewhat subtler reason against chowing, especially in the > early game, is that you miss drawing a tile from the wall when you chow a > tile. Of course you can get one useful tile from the other player, but the > first few rounds of discards are the most critical for forming the elements > in your hand that you will later use to make the sets. As all mahjongg > players have so often seen, there is the distinct possibility that you'll > draw a completely useless tile from the wall, but in the start of the deal, > you have the largest number of different tiles that will form good elements > in your hand and put you one step closer to winning. Missing a draw from the > wall then is a disadvantage worth taking into account, especially as you'll > also be exposing one of your elements and reducing the number of different > tiles that will help you.
> There are probably other general reasons for not always chowing (hmm, we might > get a good strategy discussion going on here yet?), and, as always in > mahjongg, reasons that depend on your particular situation in the game, your > particular rules system, and your particular set of opponents.
> I, too, hope this helps... sorry about the rambling,
> With linear growth ie 1 fan $1 (or 1 pt, but it is a gambling game :-) ) > and 2 fan $2 and so on, you don't need to have a pong hand because $x > and $x+1 only differ by 1, so a pong hand is only marginally better than > a pong hand.
> BTW, "fan"s are how you value your winning hand. As in a chow hand > brings 1 fan, and a pong hand brings 2 fan etc... I can't think of a > suitable English translation...(Cantonese writer)
Juha Samuli Sorva wrote: > > c. Chow hands are not necessarily the best -- with Pong hands, you aren't > > limited to the suit, you can also use Winds and Dragons.
> Umm, sure, pong hands are nice, but most often very hard to make compared to > chow hands. I would consider it an unsound strategy to refuse to make chows > just because you want to make pongs. Almost always.
Well, it depends whether you are playing exponential growth or linear growth.
With linear growth ie 1 fan $1 (or 1 pt, but it is a gambling game :-) ) and 2 fan $2 and so on, you don't need to have a pong hand because $x and $x+1 only differ by 1, so a pong hand is only marginally better than a pong hand.
With exponential growth i.e. 1 fan $2 2-fan $4 and so on a fan difference could be worth as much as $128 for a single-suit hand! Sometimes if I have 3 pairs of a suit and a bit more I would not chow at all and wait for sb to discard. After all, you can only chow LHO (sorry to bring in bridge jargon) but with pongs you can pong anyone...This is only for Cantonese MJ, but I think it is the best way of playing.
BTW, "fan"s are how you value your winning hand. As in a chow hand brings 1 fan, and a pong hand brings 2 fan etc... I can't think of a suitable English translation...(Cantonese writer)
> "Fan" means "Double," doesn't it? So "1 Fan" is not "$1" but "2x base > score", right? Could be worth a LOT more than just $1... > Tom Sloper
> Keith So wrote:
> > With linear growth ie 1 fan $1 (or 1 pt, but it is a gambling game :-) ) > > and 2 fan $2 and so on, you don't need to have a pong hand because $x > > and $x+1 only differ by 1, so a pong hand is only marginally better than > > a pong hand.
> > BTW, "fan"s are how you value your winning hand. As in a chow hand > > brings 1 fan, and a pong hand brings 2 fan etc... I can't think of a > > suitable English translation...(Cantonese writer)
Yes, but the "linear growth" rule was invented by one of my friends who cannot stand people making big hands! ;-) It is much more fun playing the double rule.
> > "Fan" means "Double," doesn't it? So "1 Fan" is not "$1" but "2x base > > score", right? Could be worth a LOT more than just $1... > > Tom Sloper
> > Keith So wrote:
> Yes, but the "linear growth" rule was invented by one of my friends who > cannot stand people making big hands! ;-) > It is much more fun playing the double rule.
>Henri Pannevis (hen...@cistron.nl) wrote: >> why should someone doesn't not make a chow. I play on the PC almost a >> year. The main purpose of The Game is to go out first, yes?
>Actually, you'll quite frequently end up not chowing a tile and being much >better off that way. Efficiently trying to go out first is not as simply done >as might seem at first glance. > [good points deleted]
Let me try to explain Juha's ideas from another angle.
One way of roughly looking at the speed of a hand is the "N tiles from completion" concept. Most dealt hands are 4 to 6 tiles from completion. You develop the hand until it is 1 tile from completion, at which point you are waiting to go out.
In most cases, the closer the hand is to completion, the fewer tiles there are that will advance the hand, and the longer on average it takes for you to get them. This means that critical or 'choke' point of the speed of your hand is in the late game, when quite some luck (etc.) is needed for you to advance the hand from 2 f.c. to waiting. On the other hand, early in the game, there are many tiles that, when drawn, will improve your hand, by reducing the N or otherwise. Therefore, even though you could have chowed and reduced N by 1, by not chowing you are also likely to draw a tile that will advance your hand. Thus, the net benefit of chowing is not as high as a chow in the late game, and may not outweight the various benefits of retaining the tiles in your hand mentioned by Yuha.
A rule of thumb for experienced players is "don't chow with a hand without 5 related duals". A related dual is two tiles that can form part of a set, like 5-5, 1-3, or 6-7. You need 4 sets and a pair to go out, and if you don't have a related dual, you can't even be chowing (or ponging) to make your set. If you don't have enough related duals, any tile that you draw that forms a related dual with a loose tile in your hand would advance your hand and reduce N by 1. If you chow, you have to discard a loose tile, which would reduce the material for forming the needed related duals.
Another way of looking at it is redundancy. I'll try to illustrate this with an example. Suppose you have the following dealt hand, 4 tiles from completion:
B 24 89 C 89 D 24 E S NN R
D3 is discarded by your upper-seat player.
(Actually, in this extreme example one should probably chow; I'm using this example to explain redundancy, not to discuss whether one should chow in this situation.)
Assume that you are ultimately going out with the obvious four sequences and NN as eyes.
Consider that you chow, and later draw or chow two more sequences to arrive at waiting status.
When you are waiting, look at the hand retroactively. If you have drawn/been offered another D3 before you become waiting, your first chow is, retroactively, immaterial (if offered) or redundant and cost you a draw (if subsequently drawn, since you will be discarding the drawn D3).
The chance that your first chow is immaterial or redundant is, /roughly/, 1/2 . [ 1 - C(3,2) / C(4,2) ] The chance that it is redundant is /roughly/ half of that, 1/4 . That is, 1 times out of 4, that first chow did nothing for you other than costing you a turn.
This is an extreme example constructed so that the calculations are as simple as possible. In real cases, the redundancy factor is often higher, and the benefit of the missed draw is also higher.
Also, that first chow ends up being redundant if you draw a D3 after you achieve calling and before you go out. That is /roughly/ another 1/5. Combined with the 1/4 above, this comes up to /about/ 2 times out of 5 that your first chow is redundant, with a 1 out of 5 that the chow is otherwise immaterial (because you will get a second chance at it).
Throwing out the chance of 'immaterial', the chow is a 50-50 shot: half of the time (when it matters) you get to go out sooner, half of the time it is redundant and you lose a turn by chowing and discarding the same tile.
In real cases, when there are better prospective with the loose tiles, when you're chowing off 4-5 or 4-5-5, when you don't have 5 related duals ... the chance that an early chow becomes redundant is higher, and so is the value of the lost turn, that chowing might indeed be slowing you down more than speeding you up.
"Live life with Heart." Alan Kwan / ta...@NOSPAM.netvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews) (remove NOSPAM. from mailing address)
On Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:15:34 GMT, ta...@NOSPAM.netvigator.com (Alan
Kwan) wrote: > [...] and may not outweight the various benefits of >retaining the tiles in your hand mentioned by Yuha.
Arghhh! I misspelled "Yuha" for "Juha". Sorry!
"Live life with Heart." Alan Kwan / ta...@NOSPAM.netvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core game reviews) (remove NOSPAM. from mailing address)
Basically if you play with a minimum hand to do MahJong let say 3, you will not see many Chows since they reduce the choices. Although playing with the 'Clear Front Door' and Flowers rules you can do 3 and close with a hand of 0. For example: Self-pick + No flowers + Clear door = 3.
> Basically if you play with a minimum hand to do MahJong let say 3, you will > not see many Chows since they reduce the choices. Although playing with the > 'Clear Front Door' and Flowers rules you can do 3 and close with a hand of > 0. For example: Self-pick + No flowers + Clear door = 3.
: > Tom Sloper writes: "Huh?" : > (i.e. "What's a "clear door"?)
: As far as I know on Shangai rules (or chinesse ones) there is a point (fan) : if the winner has all his tiles hidden before winning.
Called 'Hidden Treasure' in some rules, I think. -- ------------------------------------------------------ NON ANIMAM CONTINE Lyle H. Gray g...@cs.umass.edu (text only) --(My opinions are my own, and do not represent my employer's opinions)-- Spam bait: postmas...@warez.eu.org, ab...@warez.phantom.com
> Ah. In English we call this a "concealed hand." > Tom
My friends say 'All Up'. Many HK folks, but not a majority, give an extra fan for this. -- Julian R. Fitch Nine Dragons Software 351 Ulloa Street San Francisco, California 94127 415-664-3474 v. 415-564-3161 f. jrfi...@ninedragons.com http://www.ninedragons.com
