 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] Related topics: Topic 205 | Topic 205a | Topic 205b | Topic 205c History of MAHJONG - A lengthy discussion in the mahjong newsgroup in year 2000
Below is a collection of messages of a lengthy discussion in the mahjong newsgroup in year 2000. It has over 70 pages! The archived messages may be searched from the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) with the following text strings: "Why does kong have precedence over chow"; "MJ History (was: Why does kong have precedence)"; "historical development of mah-jong styles". NOTE: In message #38 Karl Hung provided his personal witness of how mahjong was evolved since the years 1940s.
[Below is a reproduction of messages posted in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) - 8 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2000 5:42 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:15:02 GMT, d...@my-deja.com wrote: >I think Alan's explanation that a kong scores higher in classical is >more acceptable. HKOS is a vast simplification of Chinese Classical. If anyone has deeper interest in mahjong than merely playing, it is recommended that he learns the parent form, Chinese Classical, because it gives a lot of insight on how later versions come by. >My intuitive reaction would say >preference should be given to acts where the chance are lower. In mahjong, precedence is given to acts which are the most significant. Going out wins the hand and realizes its full score value, so it has highest priority. Kong and pung has higher priority than chow because kong and pung score points (even if the player does not go out with the hand) while a chow has no score value. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 9 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2000 10:39 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a317de0.316...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > HKOS is a vast simplification of Chinese Classical. If anyone has > deeper interest in mahjong than merely playing, it is recommended that > he learns the parent form, Chinese Classical, because it gives a lot > of insight on how later versions come by. In my opinion, it is yet to determine whether HKOS is a simplification of Chinese Classical, or "Chinese Classical" a complicated form of "HKOS". ^_^ > In mahjong, precedence is given to acts which are the most > significant. Going out wins the hand and realizes its full score > value, so it has highest priority. Kong and pung has higher priority > than chow because kong and pung score points (even if the player does > not go out with the hand) while a chow has no score value. In HKOS, only the winning hand is scored and only the *elements* in a winning hand have its value and all elements have to be evaluated as a whole. In some case, a pung or kong in a hand may decrease the value of a hand rather than adding value to it. An answer based on "how many players are allowed for an act" seems fits in both systems (I guess?). Cheers! -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 10 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 8 2000 11:51 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:39:01 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <3a317de0.316...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >> HKOS is a vast simplification of Chinese Classical. If anyone has >> deeper interest in mahjong than merely playing, it is recommended that >> he learns the parent form, Chinese Classical, because it gives a lot >> of insight on how later versions come by. >In my opinion, it is yet to determine whether HKOS is a simplification >of Chinese Classical, or "Chinese Classical" a complicated form of >"HKOS". ^_^ There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the former. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 11 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 9 2000 12:49 am Email: Tom Sloper <tslo...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa Tsui wrote: > While d_lau's question can be answered from different points of view, my answer was based on the *neutralized nature* of the acts involved. If "pung" or "kong" is to be declared to claim a discard, only EITHER one "pung" OR one "kong" can be declared (including "change of mind" scenarios), and by ONE SAME PLAYER. Just to throw in some confusion into the issue: this answer is absolutely true, /unless/ the player is playing American mah-jongg. In American mah-jongg, with the use of 8 jokers ("almighty" tiles), it is possible for two players to desire a tile for pung or kong or both. Of course, we are talking about Dan Lau's game, which is not American. In fact, reviewing this thread, Dan has never stated (in this thread) whether he plays Classical or HKOS (it might even be Taiwanese, but I don't remember from previous threads). We may be debating farther than is necessary given that we don't have all the facts about what the question is exactly. Alan wrote: >>> HKOS is a vast simplification of Chinese Classical. If anyone has >>> deeper interest in mahjong than merely playing, it is recommended that >>> he learns the parent form, Chinese Classical, because it gives a lot >>> of insight on how later versions come by. Cofa replied: >>In my opinion, it is yet to determine whether HKOS is a simplification >>of Chinese Classical, or "Chinese Classical" a complicated form of >>"HKOS". ^_^ Alan said what I wanted to say: >There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the former. Alan said it better than I would have. (I would have said something convoluted like, "Oh, yeah? Whichever comes first, the other is the XX form of /that/.") Alan is correct; there /is/ overwhelming evidence that the Classical game is indeed the classical game, from which HKOS derived. Another proponent of HKOS as "the correct original form" is David Li, who went off to research his 2nd mah-jongg book. It would be interesting to hear his arguments on this point. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 12 From: d_lau - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 9 2000 9:46 pm Email: d...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <90so73$1e...@nnrp1.deja.com>, toms...@sloperama.com wrote: > Of course, we are talking about Dan Lau's game, which is not American. > In fact, reviewing this thread, Dan has never stated (in this thread) > whether he plays Classical or HKOS (it might even be Taiwanese, but I > don't remember from previous threads). We may be debating farther than > is necessary given that we don't have all the facts about what the > question is exactly. Tom, actually I had stated previously in my posts that I only play HKOS. But my original question in this thread had very little to do with what style, that was why I asked for the "historians" to help answer it because I knew it was historical. Since I didn't know the Chinese Classical scoring rules, I had to ask. Thanks everyone, for a good discussion. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 13 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 9 2000 11:01 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <90so73$1e...@nnrp1.deja.com>, - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - toms...@sloperama.com wrote: > Cofa Tsui wrote: > > While d_lau's question can be answered from different points of view, > my answer was based on the *neutralized nature* of the acts involved. > If "pung" or "kong" is to be declared to claim a discard, only EITHER > one "pung" OR one "kong" can be declared (including "change of mind" > scenarios), and by ONE SAME PLAYER. > Just to throw in some confusion into the issue: this answer is > absolutely true, /unless/ the player is playing American mah-jongg. In > American mah-jongg, with the use of 8 jokers ("almighty" tiles), it is > possible for two players to desire a tile for pung or kong or both. Interesting! But even if American mahjong is played and even two players are trying to declare "pung" on a discard, perhaps still only one player can make the "pung" - in priority (?) If it is true, the rest will be straightforward. > Alan said what I wanted to say: > >There is overwhelming historical evidence pointing to the former. > Alan said it better than I would have. (I would have said something > convoluted like, "Oh, yeah? Whichever comes first, the other is the XX > form of /that/.") > Alan is correct; there /is/ overwhelming evidence that the Classical > game is indeed the classical game, from which HKOS derived. Another > proponent of HKOS as "the correct original form" is David Li, who went > off to research his 2nd mah-jongg book. It would be interesting to > hear his arguments on this point. I am still not convinced, given my experience with this group that in many cases, when people said "rulebook" of mahjong, it was in fact a "reference book" about mahjong was referred. Likewise, would those "evidence" be in fact "reference" as well? Given the lack of documentation demonstrating any proper evidence of the origin of the game, I am still in doubt as to whether HKOS was derived from Chinese Classical, or if they both were derived from some other "origin" of the game. (Note: the term "HKOS" might be young, while the play style could be much older. In fact, when I first learned mahjong, I was told it was Cantonese Mahjong, a term which is still common nowadays.) As to the "overwhelming historical evidence", could you, Alan or Tom, indicate a date of any of the oldest evidence you know of? -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 14 From: sloperama.com - view profile Date: Sun, Dec 10 2000 4:15 pm Email: "sloperama.com" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa wrote: >Interesting! But even if American mahjong is played and even two >players are trying to declare "pung" on a discard, perhaps still only >one player can make the "pung" - in priority (?) Yes, "in priority" as you say. Just as is done in other forms when two players claim a tile for same use. >I am still not convinced, given my experience with this group that in >many cases, when people said "rulebook" of mahjong, it was in fact a >"reference book" about mahjong was referred. Likewise, would those >"evidence" be in fact "reference" as well? This is a meaningless argument. It's improper to use semantics (how someone may have referred to a book) as evidence against the book's validity. More below. >Given the lack of >documentation demonstrating any proper evidence of the origin of the >game, I am still in doubt as to whether HKOS was derived from Chinese >Classical, or if they both were derived from some other "origin" of the >game. Find us the earliest possible work (in any language) documenting the HKOS style of play. Let's start from there. >(Note: the term "HKOS" might be young, while the play style could >be much older. In fact, when I first learned mahjong, I was told it was >Cantonese Mahjong, a term which is still common nowadays.) Fine. Semantics are unimportant in determining the history of the game. >As to the "overwhelming historical evidence", could you, Alan or Tom, >indicate a date of any of the oldest evidence you know of? Gladly. * 1893: [U.S.A.] Anthropologist Stewart Culin wrote papers introducing Mahjong to the English-speaking world. I have not seen any of these, and do not know in what detail the rules are discussed. This is THE earliest known mention of mah-jongg according to the Mahjong Museum. (The Mahjong Museum estimates the game's origin as being in the 1850s.) * 1909: [Japan] Article "Some Places in Manchuria and Korea" published by Soseki Natsume. I cannot read Japanese, and have no record of what he wrote other than that he "stated that he saw Chinese people playing Mahjong" in Shanghai. This is the earliest known Japanese description of Mahjong confirmed so far, according to the Mahjong Museum in Chiba. Given the similarity between the Chinese Classical and classical Japanese scoring systems, I can only surmise that the original game introduced to Japan was the non-HK variety. * May, 1920: [China] The earliest known Chinese book on mah-jongg: "Keys to Winning at Mah-Jongg and Poker," by Haishang Laoyuouke (a pen name), Shanghai Shijie Shuju. I have not seen the book, wouldn't know how to read it anyway, and don't know if it was printed in Northern or Southern China. * 1920: [U.S.A.] Babcock wrote his simplified "Rules for Mah-Jongg" (usually called "the Red Book"), based on the Chinese Classical rules (not on the HK/Cantonese rules). * 1923: [U.S.A.] Robert F. Foster serialized his research on Mahjong in the magazines "Vanity Fair" and "Asia" from 1923 to 1924, and compiled it all in his book "Foster on Mahjong." This game too was based on the Classical rules (not on the HK/Cantonese rules). I have collected many mah-jongg books (in English) from the 1920s. In fact, I just checked 15 non-Babcock books all dated 1922-1924. In these books, it is acknowledged that there are regional variants in China (especially Northern vs. Southern, primarily Shanghai vs. Canton). But the difference in those areas seems mainly to be in fine points of the scoring, which special hands are recognized, and other various ways of handling specific situations. Olga Racster, for instance, in her 1924 book (printed in Great Britain -- so it's not "polluted" by the mah-jongg wars going on at that time in the U.S.), states that the main difference between the Shanghai style and the Hong Kong style at the time was that the "base score" in Shanghai was 20 points; in Hong Kong it was 10. R.F. Foster, in his research for his magazine articles, mentions that he used 27 translations from Chinese manuscripts, and that "all 27 agree upon what might be called the cardinal points of the scoring. They differ only in the limitation of certain scores to certain hands, and in the bonuses or doubles." As far as I can determine from these 15 non-Babcock books, the game known today as "Chinese Classical" was played pretty much the same (with minor differences) all across China (including the Canton area). That's all I have for the moment. Alan's turn. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 15 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 11 2000 9:58 am Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author A correction. > * May, 1920: [China] The earliest known Chinese book on mah-jongg: "Keys to > Winning at Mah-Jongg and Poker," by Haishang Laoyuouke (a pen name), > Shanghai Shijie Shuju. I have not seen the book, wouldn't know how to read > it anyway, and don't know if it was printed in Northern or Southern China. I misspoke there. Clearly it was printed in Northern China, and clearly it describes the Shanghai rules of the time (aka "Chinese Classical"). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Cheers, > Tom > Tom Sloper > http://www.sloperama.com Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 16 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2000 12:14 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom wrote: Yes, "in priority" as you say. Just as is done in other forms when two players claim a tile for same use. So I believe only ONE player can make the "pung" or "kong" in question. Cofa wrote: >I am still not convinced, given my experience with this group that in >many cases, when people said "rulebook" of mahjong, it was in fact a >"reference book" about mahjong was referred. Likewise, would those >"evidence" be in fact "reference" as well? Tom wrote: This is a meaningless argument. It's improper to use semantics (how someone may have referred to a book) as evidence against the book's validity. More below. Alan Kwan wrote: That's no more than a verbal dispute. Anybody can write a book on mahjong and call it a "rulebook", but that says nothing about its correctness or authority. Millington's book seems much better researched and much more reliable than many a "rulebook". Perhaps the argument about the validity as to whether a book is really a /rulebook/ is not meaningless, especially to those who wanted to learn the game in full but found at the end the rules of the rulebook itself were not complete enough to solve any problems of play. I agree that Millington indeed did a very good job on the research of the game of mahjong. But as far as /rules/ are concerned, occasionally we did have hard time finding answers from Millington's rules to questions posted to this NG. Cofa wrote: >Given the lack of >documentation demonstrating any proper evidence of the origin of the >game, I am still in doubt as to whether HKOS was derived from Chinese >Classical, or if they both were derived from some other "origin" of the >game. Tom wrote: Find us the earliest possible work (in any language) documenting the HKOS style of play. Let's start from there. I did admit that there is lack of documentation demonstrating any proper evidence of the origin of the game - including HKOS (or its equivalent). However, it does not mean HKOS was derived from Chinese Classical. (further below) >As to the "overwhelming historical evidence", could you, Alan or Tom, >indicate a date of any of the oldest evidence you know of? <snipped - Tom's collection of mahjong books> (From year 1893 through to 1923 - I always admire at Tom's great collection of mahjong books! Thanks for the info Tom!) From what Tom has described, those books basically told about the game style the authors knew of. I believe they did not say what *was* the origin, and which was derived from the other - Which is such *evidence* we both should look for in this discussion. One thing seems to be true: those authors all told about mahjong in the "Chinese Classical" form (or its equivalent), so Chinese Classical must be a form much earlier than HK/Cantonese style (or its equivalent). IS THIS TRUE, OR ARE THOSE BOOKS EVIDENCES OF SUCH STATEMENT? I certainly am doubt about it! However, history is history, facts are facts - I did recognize the "overwhelming books" about Chinese Classical, and the very few about HK/Cantonese, as most of you did. It is, however, a fact that they didn't /connect/ (or compare) each other. They were independent, and talking about game of its own. On the other hand, I could think of some reasons why the history and facts were developed that way: (a) In those days (1920's) when a foreigner visited China, probably the only parts of China they could visit were the NE provinces, or perhaps only few cities like Shanghai and "Peking" were available to them. These were places where Chinese Classical/Shanghainese was then developed or evolved. (b) In the old days, very few Chinese authors would be pleased to write books about a game of the gambling nature. Or, the game was only available to very few people connected to the emperor society. Perhaps these were the reasons why the "origin" of the game was lost in nowhere. (c) The "origin" of mahjong games as we play today, could be diverged over time all over China. [Note: This is only my guess, NOT to be treated as evidence.] Few mainstreams became those different styles that are popular to us as you see today (e.g., Chinese Classica/Shanghainese, HK/Cantonese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.). Some might look "rare" to some of us (e.g., Philippine, Vietnamese styles, etc.). If this were true, it would be reasonable for anyone to have reasonable doubt as to which style was derived from the other. Perhaps, they were all derived from one "origin" which is still in lost. Who can be so sure to tell? In some newer articles and nowadays, authors intend to investigate which was the "origin", which was derived from which. But these can be referred to as /references/, rather than /evidences/ of the *results* those authors wanted to tell in their books, UNLESS the true *origin* is also evidenced and presented. As the game of mahjong becomes more and more popular, and more and more *evidences* about the games are readily available in written forms, it becomes possible one may find something in one style that is similar or deviated from the other style. This is a point that is out of the current discussion. -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== MJ History (was: Why does kong have precedence) 17 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2000 5:49 pm Email: Tom Sloper <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Cofa wrote: ><snipped - Tom's collection of mahjong books> >(From year 1893 through to 1923 - I always admire at Tom's great >collection of mahjong books! Thanks for the info Tom!) You're welcome, but I have not said that I have any books from before 1920. I did quote some earlier books, which I've learned about through the Mahjong Museum in Chiba and from previous discussions here on this newsgroup. First mention of Culin I encountered was here on the NG. >From what Tom has described, those books basically told about the game >style the authors knew of. I believe they did not say what *was* the >origin, and which was derived from the other Uh-huh. They described the Chinese Classical style as being the game that was played (with minor variations) all across China -- including HK. They couldn't say that it was the parent of any other styles if those other styles didn't exist yet. So the lack of them mentioning other styles is actually a point against you -- not a point in your favor. >- Which is such *evidence* >we both should look for in this discussion. That was my intention -- to give /evidence/ for why Alan and I contend that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Chinese Classical existed before HKOS. I have given evidence that shows that CC was widely played all across China in the early 1920s, and that it was even played in Hong Kong. >[snip] On the other hand, I could think of some reasons why the history and >facts were developed that way: >(a) In those days (1920's) when a foreigner visited China, probably the >only parts of China they could visit were the NE provinces, or perhaps >only few cities like Shanghai and "Peking" were available to them. These >were places where Chinese Classical/Shanghainese was then developed or >evolved. Well, Hong Kong was in fact a British colony at that time. Was it a British colony where non-Chinese people could not go? See the British subject Olga Racster's book as one piece of solid evidence that the CC game was the prevalent style in Hong Kong in the early 1920s. >(b) In the old days, very few Chinese authors would be pleased to write >books about a game of the gambling nature. Or, the game was only >available to very few people connected to the emperor society. Perhaps >these were the reasons why the "origin" of the game was lost in nowhere. Perhaps so. Our side has presented the facts to bolster our side of the argument. Looking for the facts from your side. >(c) The "origin" of mahjong games as we play today, could be diverged >over time all over China. [Note: This is only my guess, NOT to be >treated as evidence.] The most educated guess (by the Mahjong Museum, whose library is much larger than mine, and whose staff are able to deal better than I with Chinese texts) is that the game was created during the Tai Ping Rebellion (1850-55) by Chin Zheng Yue, by combining aspects of Matiao and Dominoes. >[snip] Perhaps, they were all derived from >one "origin" which is still in lost. Who can be so sure to tell? We gave you facts. You give us "perhaps." We await facts from your side. >In some newer articles and nowadays, authors intend to investigate which >was the "origin", which was derived from which. But these can be >referred to as /references/, rather than /evidences/ of the *results* >those authors wanted to tell in their books, UNLESS the true *origin* is >also evidenced and presented. I personally don't have any vested interest in what the "original" rules were. I enjoy the rules that are in use today, in their many flavors and accents. But I am interested in learning facts, thus I've collected and presented some. It's been established that CC was prevalent in HK in the early 1920s. Looking for some facts and evidence from those (like you) who believe that the Hong Kong style was even in existence during or prior to the 1920s -- that HKOS is the "original" style. The preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 18 From: John McLeod - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 15 2000 5:20 pm Email: John McLeod <j...@pagat.demon.co.uk> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Tom Sloper <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote: >The most educated guess (by the Mahjong Museum, whose library is much >larger than mine, and whose staff are able to deal better than I with >Chinese texts) is that the game was created during the Tai Ping >Rebellion (1850-55) by Chin Zheng Yue, by combining aspects of Matiao >and Dominoes. Is Matiao the same as Ma Diao, the Chinese game with the 40 card money pack that was fashionable in the late Ming period - around 1600? If so, what is the connection with Mah Jong? I have seen this relationship claimed by several people, but without any explanation or evidence. Ma Diao was a trick taking game for four players, each dealt 8 cards. Those who took more than two tricks won and those who take one trick or none lost. The only possible connections I can see with Mah Jong are: a) that both use a kind of money cards - three of the four Ma Diao suits (cash, strings and myriads) - correspond to the three Mah Jong suits (circles, bamboos and characters) b) that the names of both games begin with the syllable "ma" - albeit the "ma" in Mah Jong means "hemp" while the "ma" in Ma Diao is a different character meaning "horse". To say that Mah Jong is derived from Ma Diao seems about as accurate as saying that Canasta is derived from Whist (both of which use cards with hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades). I would be very interested to know what evidence there is in favour of a genuine Mah Jong / Ma Diao connection. (Presumably the aspect of Dominoes that was taken up by Chin Zheng Yue was simply the idea of making the pieces as tiles rather than cards?) -- John McLeod For information on card games visit j...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 19 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 15 2000 7:28 pm Email: Tom Sloper <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author I had written: >>The most educated guess (by the Mahjong Museum, whose library is much >>larger than mine, and whose staff are able to deal better than I with >>Chinese texts) is that the game was created during the Tai Ping >>Rebellion (1850-55) by Chin Zheng Yue, by combining aspects of Matiao >>and Dominoes. Now John McLeod (a most welcome visitor***, BTW) writes: >Is Matiao the same as Ma Diao, the Chinese game with the 40 card money >pack that was fashionable in the late Ming period - around 1600? If so, >what is the connection with Mah Jong? I have seen this relationship >claimed by several people, but without any explanation or evidence. Yes, John. The very same. The part of my sentence where I said "by combining aspects of Matiao and Dominoes" was my own (perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, for brevity's sake). >Ma Diao was a trick taking game for four players, each dealt 8 cards. >Those who took more than two tricks won and those who take one trick or >none lost. The only possible connections I can see with Mah Jong are: >a) that both use a kind of money cards - three of the four Ma Diao suits >(cash, strings and myriads) - correspond to the three Mah Jong suits >(circles, bamboos and characters) Yes. Precisely. >b) that the names of both games begin with the syllable "ma" - albeit >the "ma" in Mah Jong means "hemp" while the "ma" in Ma Diao is a >different character meaning "horse". No, that isn't /necessarily/ an important similarity between the two games. According to the MJM book, though, the audible similarity between the two names is even more pronounced (forgive the term) when spoken in Japanese or Shanghainese. The book says that Japanese players pronounce the Chinese characters for Matiao as "mahjong." And that there is an audible similarity in Shanghainese, as well. This led to some confusion in the 1920s, the book says, leading some outsiders to think that the game of mah-jongg could be played either with cards or with tiles. (In fact, "card mah-jongg" was a later development, as far as I can tell.) Perhaps this was the origin for Babcock's name for the game which was actually called "mah cheuk." >To say that Mah Jong is derived from Ma Diao seems about as accurate as >saying that Canasta is derived from Whist (both of which use cards with >hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades). Well, I didn't mean that the mah-jongg /gameplay/ was derived from Matiao. Rather that the makeup of a mah-jongg set was derived from the makeup of a Matiao deck. The MJM book's authors felt (and I agree) that Matiao was part of the history of the gaming "language" leading up to the birth of mah-jongg. No study of mah-jongg's history would be complete without an acknowledgment of the precursor games of matiao and dominoes. >I would be very interested to know what evidence there is in favour of a >genuine Mah Jong / Ma Diao connection. Mainly in the suits, as you said. Clearly, the fact that Matiao uses only 40 cards and mah-jongg uses 144 tiles shows that even at the most surface examination, the game rules cannot be very closely related. I'm talking mainly about the physical makeup of the pieces used to play the game. The MJM book goes a little further and cites Stewart Culin's theory that Matiao cards were the parents also of Tarot cards (and therefore of playing cards). Coins -> Pentacles. Strings -> Batons. Myriads -> Swords. Silver Harness -> Cups. The MJM book further shows a Culin photo of a Matiao card from the 11th century and posits that this is the oldest playing card in the world. Other members of the Matiao family of card games cited by the MJM book are "Sui-Huo Ti Pai," "Caozhou Ti Pai," "Jiangxi Ti Pai," "Jiangsu Ti Pai," "Fujian Ti Pai," "Tung-kwan pai," "Hakka Ti Pai," "Shanxi Tien- wang Ti Paii" and the Vietnamese game "Ba't." These, according to the MJM, belong to 4 groups of Matiao of the Ming dynasty. There are pictures of numerous card decks in the book. >(Presumably the aspect of Dominoes that was taken up by Chin Zheng Yue >was simply the idea of making the pieces as tiles rather than cards?) That is indeed what I meant when I said that. >John McLeod For information on card games visit >j...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/*** ***John's pagat.com site is THE pre-eminent website on card games. Anyone interested in card games is advised to bookmark the site! Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 20 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 16 2000 2:37 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author Thanks Tom for your reply with so much detailed references from all sources. To look at those information presented, we should now perhaps (another perhaps! ^_^) look back to the original /main/ questions of the discussion: "Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" "Were they both derived from an 'origin' which was lost in the history?" Although I don't have all the books you have, but from the information presented, it clearly established that Chinese Classical ("CC") were existing (Okay, "widely existing") in or around 1920's, and that there was no mention of HKOS (or that play style by other name) from books written in or around that time. However, these "establishments" did not provide answer to any of the two questions. Although I had admitted in the first place that there was no written evidence that I could provide to prove the existence of HKOS, I wish to use your evidence to prove that CC was NOT THE ONLY ONE that was popular at that time: Millington admitted in his book <Classical Mahjong Rules>: "In seeking to determine the true form of Mah-jongg, ... It reveals, however, that even within China a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game." (p. 7.) When giving a name to the form of mahjong that he reported on, he pertinently concluded: "This form, which is described in the Playing Rules included in chapter 3, we have called 'classical Mah-Jongg', to distinguish it on the one hand from the several popular Chinese variant forms, and on the other from the later non-Chinese adaptations of the game..." (p.8.) I don't know what other books you have had said about the existence of any forms other than CC. I don't have those books. From the Millington's book, however, we did notice that he used the terms like "very considerable diversity" and "several popular Chinese variant forms" to describe his findings. We should also notice that, at that time the form 'Chinese Classical' didn't even have a name, like many other 'popular Chinese variant forms' then existed. Millington NAMED IT! From this Millington's book alone, it is already obvious that "CC was not the only game that was popular in China in the 1920's", and that "CC was not the 'origin' of mahjong games." Although Alan has provided some meaningful conjectures about how he thinks HKOS could be derived from CC (more at Alan's lead), given the lack of proper *evidence* to establish otherwise I am still reasonably in doubt as to "whether HKOS was derived from Chinese Classical" and am still reasonable to ask "if both CC and HKOS were derived from an 'origin' which was lost in the history". I did write: >>(c) The "origin" of mahjong games as we play today, could be diverged over time all over China. [Note: This is only my guess, NOT to be treated as evidence.] Tom replied: >The most educated guess (by the Mahjong Museum, whose library is much larger than mine, and whose staff are able to deal better than I with Chinese texts) is that the game was created during the Tai Ping Rebellion (1850-55) by Chin Zheng Yue, by combining aspects of Matiao and Dominoes. >>[snip] Perhaps, they were all derived from one "origin" which is still in lost. Who can be so sure to tell? >We gave you facts. You give us "perhaps." We await facts from your side. In addition to the use of your evidence to support my "perhaps" as outlined earlier, the guess of the Mahjong Museum ("MJM") further established that CC was not the "origin". Given this "most educated guess" by MJM, one should be reasonable to ask: "Was CC /NOT the only from/ that was derived from an earlier form of mahjong?" And this is exactly the 2nd main question of this discussion is all about. Tom wrote: >Looking for some facts and evidence from those (like you) who believe that the Hong Kong style was even in existence during or prior to the 1920s -- that HKOS is the "original" style. >The preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise. Unfortunately I have never said that "HKOS is the 'original' style". I however did say that "The 'origin' of mahjong games as we play today, could be diverged over time all over China." And this implies that "both CC and HKOS could be derived from an 'origin' which was lost in the history." All evidences provided by you do support my /questions/ & /perhaps/, although any answer is yet to be established. Cheers! -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 21 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 12 2000 9:51 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 19:14:01 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >[...] I could think of some reasons why the history and >facts were developed that way: >(a) In those days (1920's) when a foreigner visited China, probably the >only parts of China they could visit were the NE provinces, or perhaps >only few cities like Shanghai and "Peking" were available to them. These >were places where Chinese Classical/Shanghainese was then developed or >evolved. >(b) In the old days, very few Chinese authors would be pleased to write >books about a game of the gambling nature. Or, the game was only >available to very few people connected to the emperor society. Perhaps >these were the reasons why the "origin" of the game was lost in nowhere. >(c) The "origin" of mahjong games as we play today, could be diverged >over time all over China. [Note: This is only my guess, NOT to be >treated as evidence.] Few mainstreams became those different styles that >are popular to us as you see today (e.g., Chinese Classica/Shanghainese, >HK/Cantonese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc.). Some might look "rare" to some >of us (e.g., Philippine, Vietnamese styles, etc.). If this were true, it >would be reasonable for anyone to have reasonable doubt as to which >style was derived from the other. Perhaps, they were all derived from >one "origin" which is still in lost. Who can be so sure to tell? Compare your conjectures with mine, and think about which are more plausible: 1. Chinese Classical (something the same or very similar to the form described in Millington) was the original form of mahjong. It was the predominant form of mahjong played all over China (including in Cantona and Hong Kong) in the 20's. 2. All other styles, new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from Chinese Classical. 3. In particular, HKOS evolved directly from Chinese Classical by dropping the triplet-point counting element, with the purpose of simplifying the rules and scoring. (The simplification might have been inspired by the house rule of raising the bonus for going out to a large amount of 50 or 100 points, which has the effect of making most scoring elements other than the number of faan in the winning hand insignificant. According to Millington p.118, such house rule was common in Hong Kong, among other places.) In order to reduce illegal collaboration in gambling situations and/or to punish "ruthless" discarding, the East's doubling of the payment was changed to the discarder's doubling. And then, in order to encourage/reward "pattern-building", the value of "Mixed One-Suit" and "All Pong" were raised from 1 faan to 2 faan, and later to 3 faan. Both the original East doubling rule and the 2-faan (for Mixed One-Suit etc.) system are described in Perlmen and Chan (Chapter 8). Cofa, your conjecture that both HKOS and Chinese Classical were developed seperately and in parallel from a version *which was significantly different from the Chinese Classical as we know it* doesn't sound plausible to me at all. Can you suggest what the original version could have been like? 4. Japanese Classical evolved directly from Chinese Classical by adopting the "discarder-pays-for-all" payment plan and dropping the settlement between non-winning players. Also, a number of patterns were added. 5. Japanese Modern evolved directly from Japanese Classical by adding the /riichi/ rule, the /dora/ rule, adding more patterns, raising the value of patterns (especially for concealed hands), and adding a number of other rules. This is why in Japanese modern, we see some rare patterns with low faan values for their difficulty, namely Three Similar Pong and Mixed Terminals at 2 faan. (Some players have raised Mixed Terminals to 3 faan.) They retained their values at some intermediate stage of development and did not get fully updated like patterns such as Pure One-Suit because they occurred too rarely and were forgotten or overlooked. We see similar things happening in HKOS: rare patterns such as Mixed Terminals, Nine Gates and Four Kong are sometimes forgotten and not propagated properly. The payment plan in both Japanese versions still clearly shows its roots in Chinese Classical. >In some newer articles and nowadays, authors intend to investigate which >was the "origin", which was derived from which. But these can be >referred to as /references/, rather than /evidences/ of the *results* >those authors wanted to tell in their books, UNLESS the true *origin* is >also evidenced and presented. >As the game of mahjong becomes more and more popular, and more and more >*evidences* about the games are readily available in written forms, it >becomes possible one may find something in one style that is similar or >deviated from the other style. This is a point that is out of the >current discussion. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 22 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 16 2000 2:47 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a36fdfa.4072...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >Compare your conjectures with mine, and think about which are more plausible: >1. Chinese Classical (something the same or very similar to the form described in Millington) was the original form of mahjong. It was the predominant form of mahjong played all over China (including in Cantona and Hong Kong) in the 20's. >2. All other styles, new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from Chinese Classical. Both #1 and #2 have been established to be wrong, according to Millington's findings (p.7 & 8). >3. In particular, HKOS evolved directly from Chinese Classical by dropping the triplet-point counting element, with the purpose of simplifying the rules and scoring. (The simplification might have been inspired by the house rule of raising the bonus for going out to a large amount of 50 or 100 points, which has the effect of making most scoring elements other than the number of faan in the winning hand insignificant. According to Millington p.118, such house rule was common in Hong Kong, among other places.) In order to reduce illegal collaboration in gambling situations and/or to punish "ruthless" discarding, the East's doubling of the payment was changed to the discarder's doubling. And then, in order to encourage/reward "pattern-building", the value of "Mixed One-Suit" and "All Pong" were raised from 1 faan to 2 faan, and later to 3 faan. >Both the original East doubling rule and the 2-faan (for Mixed One-Suit etc.) system are described in Perlmen and Chan (Chapter 8). >Cofa, your conjecture that both HKOS and Chinese Classical were developed seperately and in parallel from a version *which was significantly different from the Chinese Classical as we know it* doesn't sound plausible to me at all. Can you suggest what the original version could have been like? Although your above conjecture (#3) is meaningful, same conjecture could be established in a "reverse" form. Since HKOS and CC are so different from each other as you said, and since the lack of evidence to prove a concrete answer, it is still a good question as to whether they both were diverged over time from one other 'origin'; and is still reasonable to question whether one form is derived from the other. >4. Japanese Classical evolved directly from Chinese Classical by adopting the "discarder-pays-for-all" payment plan and dropping the settlement between non-winning players. Also, a number of patterns were added. >5. Japanese Modern evolved directly from Japanese Classical by adding the /riichi/ rule, the /dora/ rule, adding more patterns, raising the value of patterns (especially for concealed hands), and adding a number of other rules. Unlike #3, your #4 and #5 might be supported by latest facts, in that "there might not have had any mahjong game before in Japan", and that "the Japanese games are so much similar to Chinese Classical", etc. (These are my guesses only. I have not studied any Japanese mahjong games.) The fundamental points that support my questions are: - The 'origin' of mahjong (not that of any forms known today, or in the 1920's as the earliest) was lost in the history. - Many forms of mahjong did exist at the time of any earliest possible written references about mahjong that can be identified (say, the 1920's or even 1893). - None of the written references *evidence* that one form was derived from the other. I know that finding an answer to my questions is difficult, perhaps dismissing those questions is equally difficulty as well. Cheers! -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 23 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 16 2000 6:22 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author By "Chinese Classical" I do not mean the precise form described by Millington. I mean collectively any version which has these important features: 1. Triplet-points, with 2 points for minor exposed triplet, 4 points for minor concealed triplet, etc. 2. Settlement between losers. East pays and receives double. The discarder is usually immaterial. Minimal bonus (2 points) for self-draw except perhaps for Totally Concealed hands. 3. Low faan or no faan (point value only) for most patterns (except for limit patterns). 1 faan for Mixed One-Suit instead of 2 or 3 faan. Simple limit system (when a limit is used at all). Millington's version is a refined Chinese Classical version. I maintain that HKOS has been developed from some original version which had these features (thus I would call 'Chinese Classical'). "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 24 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sat, Dec 16 2000 6:35 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:47:17 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >In article <3a36fdfa.4072...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >>Compare your conjectures with mine, and think about which are more >plausible: >>1. Chinese Classical (something the same or very similar to the form >described in Millington) was the original form of mahjong. It was the >predominant form of mahjong played all over China (including in Cantona >and Hong Kong) in the 20's. >>2. All other styles, new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from >Chinese Classical. >Both #1 and #2 have been established to be wrong, according to >Millington's findings (p.7 & 8). By "Chinese Classical" I do not mean the precise form described by Millington. I mean collectively any version which has these important features: 1. Triplet-points, with 2 points for minor exposed triplet, 4 points for minor concealed triplet, etc. 2. Settlement between losers. East pays and receives double. The discarder is usually immaterial. Minimal bonus (2 points) for self-draw except perhaps for Totally Concealed hands. 3. Low faan or no faan (point value only) for most patterns (except for limit patterns). 1 faan for Mixed One-Suit instead of 2 or 3 faan. Simple limit system (when a limit is used at all). Millington's version is a refined Chinese Classical version. I maintain that HKOS has been developed from some original version which had these features (thus I would call 'Chinese Classical'). - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - >>3. In particular, HKOS evolved directly from Chinese Classical by >dropping the triplet-point counting element, with the purpose of >simplifying the rules and scoring. (The simplification might have been >inspired by the house rule of raising the bonus for going out to a large >amount of 50 or 100 points, which has the effect of making most scoring >elements other than the number of faan in the winning hand >insignificant. According to Millington p.118, such house rule was common >in Hong Kong, among other places.) In order to reduce illegal >collaboration in gambling situations and/or to punish "ruthless" >discarding, the East's doubling of the payment was changed to the >discarder's doubling. And then, in order to encourage/reward >"pattern-building", the value of "Mixed One-Suit" and "All Pong" were >raised from 1 faan to 2 faan, and later to 3 faan. >>Both the original East doubling rule and the 2-faan (for Mixed One-Suit >etc.) system are described in Perlmen and Chan (Chapter 8). >>Cofa, your conjecture that both HKOS and Chinese Classical were >developed seperately and in parallel from a version *which was >significantly different from the Chinese Classical as we know it* >doesn't sound plausible to me at all. Can you suggest what the original >version could have been like? >Although your above conjecture (#3) is meaningful, same conjecture could >be established in a "reverse" form. That won't be plausible. Think about it. Adding the triplet-point system and settlement between losers, and reducing pattern faan values to make CC from HKOS? Why would anyone do that? >Since HKOS and CC are so different >from each other as you said That's not what I said. In fact, HKOS and CC are not too different from each other, because HKOS has been developed mostly as a simplification of CC. >and since the lack of evidence to prove a >concrete answer, it is still a good question as to whether they both >were diverged over time from one other 'origin'; Such conjecture has zero plausibility unless someone can suggest what the "origin" might be like. In all likelihood, said "origin" would merely be a more primitive version of Chinese Classical. >and is still reasonable >to question whether one form is derived from the other. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 25 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Dec 17 2000 11:56 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a3c15f0.1878...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >That won't be plausible. Think about it. Adding the triplet-point system and settlement between losers, and reducing pattern faan values to make CC from HKOS? Why would anyone do that? It could be possible. Didn't you occasionally read in this NG that someone did 'complaint' about the non-playability of HKOS because it was too simplified? If there is a complaint, there is always chance that such complaint could be changed. (Of course it is just joking: I don't know the 'original form' of either HKOS or CC.) Cofa wrote: >and since the lack of evidence to prove a concrete answer, it is still a good question as to whether they both were diverged over time from one other 'origin'; and is still reasonable to question whether one form is derived from the other. Alan replied: >Such conjecture has zero plausibility unless someone can suggest what the "origin" might be like. Alan, I 100% agree with your applying the fundamental principle "unless someone can suggest what the 'origin' might be like" to my conjecture. Likewise, why couldn't same principle apply to your conjecture as well? >In all likelihood, said "origin" would merely be a more primitive version of Chinese Classical. This could be true if you wanted to suggest how the 'origin' of Chinese Classical (or the like) could be like (i.e., using the later facts to guess the earlier things). I have no say about it. However, you could not THEN say that Chinese Classical WAS THE ORIGIN, where all other forms (including HKOS) were derived from. This simply cannot stand, because the former "conjecture" is yet to be proved. -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 26 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 18 2000 8:10 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:56:00 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <3a3c15f0.1878...@news.netvigator.com>, > t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: >>That won't be plausible. Think about it. Adding the triplet-point >system and settlement between losers, and reducing pattern faan values >to make CC from HKOS? Why would anyone do that? >It could be possible. Didn't you occasionally read in this NG that >someone did 'complaint' about the non-playability of HKOS because it was >too simplified? If there is a complaint, there is always chance that >such complaint could be changed. (Of course it is just joking: I don't >know the 'original form' of either HKOS or CC.) I don't recall reading a lot of such complaints. Most of the playability problems of HKOS lie not in that HKOS is simplified or "too" simplified, but rather in that the simplification has been misdirected, has bad side effects, and such. >Cofa wrote: >>and since the lack of evidence to prove a concrete answer, it is still >a good question as to whether they both were diverged over time from one >other 'origin'; and is still reasonable to question whether one form is >derived from the other. >Alan replied: >>Such conjecture has zero plausibility unless someone can suggest what >the "origin" might be like. >Alan, I 100% agree with your applying the fundamental principle "unless >someone can suggest what the 'origin' might be like" to my conjecture. >Likewise, why couldn't same principle apply to your conjecture as well? It does. Chinese Classical (by my looser definition) is the origin, so that's what the origin is like. HKOS evolved from it. >>In all likelihood, said "origin" would merely be a more primitive >version of Chinese Classical. >This could be true if you wanted to suggest how the 'origin' of Chinese >Classical (or the like) could be like (i.e., using the later facts to >guess the earlier things). I have no say about it. However, you could >not THEN say that Chinese Classical WAS THE ORIGIN, where all other >forms (including HKOS) were derived from. This simply cannot stand, >because the former "conjecture" is yet to be proved. It seems quite apparent to me when I study the various forms in detail. HKOS is merely Chinese Classical with some rules removed and some rules twitched. Since it seems unlikely that CC evolved from HKOS, the natural conclusion would be that HKOS evolved from CC. The similiarities cannot be explained otherwise: if HKOS evolved from some other version, that version has to be so close to CC that it /is/ one version of CC. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 27 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Mon, Dec 18 2000 7:50 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a3e25e6.13642...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > Chinese Classical (by my looser definition) is the origin, > so that's what the origin is like. Although I am still in doubt, I think you believe you have found the original form of mahjong. Shouldn't it be a great news to the world? Or, at least, a great news to this news group? Let's celebrate it! Cheers! -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 28 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Fri, Dec 22 2000 8:00 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author >>Alan replied: >>>Such conjecture has zero plausibility unless someone can suggest what >>the "origin" might be like. >>Alan, I 100% agree with your applying the fundamental principle "unless >>someone can suggest what the 'origin' might be like" to my conjecture. >>Likewise, why couldn't same principle apply to your conjecture as well? >> It does. Chinese Classical (by my looser definition) is the origin, >> so that's what the origin is like. >Although I am still in doubt, I think you believe you have found the >original form of mahjong. The point is not that whether there is any doubt in my conjecture. The problem is that, an alternate conjecture which fails to even suggest what the original form might have been like isn't plausible unless and until said suggestion is given. If you want me to believe you, or want me to at least consider what you're trying to claim, you have every responsibility to at least make out *what* you want me to believe in. If you suggest a conjecture (with content), we can consider it and compare the plausibility; in the lack of solid evidence, we can conclude that both conjectures are possible and leave it as an open problem for further research and discussion. If you can't suggest anything, there is nothing to discuss and you will not be heeded. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 29 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Tues, Dec 26 2000 1:18 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a4369cc.6438...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > >> It does. Chinese Classical (by my looser definition) is the origin, > >> so that's what the origin is like. > >Although I am still in doubt, I think you believe you have found the > >original form of mahjong. > The point is not that whether there is any doubt in my conjecture. > The problem is that, an alternate conjecture which fails to even > suggest what the original form might have been like isn't plausible > unless and until said suggestion is given. Alan, at this point we better review our questions once again: In the first place you said "HKOS is a vast simplification of Chinese Classical." I then replied: "it is yet to determine whether HKOS is a simplification of Chinese Classical, or 'Chinese Classical' a complicated form of 'HKOS'." I then summarized it into two main questions of this discussion: "Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" "Were they both derived from an 'origin' which was lost in the history?" Therefore, the issues causing problems in your conjecture (HKOS was derived from CC) and in mine (HKOS being derived from CC is yet to be determined, and both CC and HKOS could have come from the same 'origin' that had been lost in history) are not the /contents/ of the conjectures, but the /BASE/ upon which the conjectures were made. In this discussion, the /base/ is the ORIGIN of the game. If the /base/ is not proved, the conjectures based on it are still questions in a search, and are subject to change (i.e., a conjecture could be made in a reverse form and is still subject to final determination after the /ORIGIN/ is identified). If the /ORIGIN/ is found, all questions are solved. If the /ORIGIN/ is not determined, arguing about the correctness of any conjectures basing on the /ORIGIN/ is meaningless. > If you want me to believe you, or want me to at least consider what > you're trying to claim, you have every responsibility to at least make > out *what* you want me to believe in. If you suggest a conjecture > (with content), we can consider it and compare the plausibility; in > the lack of solid evidence, we can conclude that both conjectures are > possible and leave it as an open problem for further research and > discussion. If you can't suggest anything, there is nothing to > discuss and you will not be heeded. I don't need you to believe me. However, I do like your saying: "in the lack of solid evidence, we can conclude that both conjectures are possible and leave it as an open problem for further research and discussion." That's exactly what I truly meant. My conjectures are still QUESTIONS, I am still seeking the proper answers. What I was in doubt was about your statement: "Chinese Classical (by my looser definition) is the origin, so that's what the origin is like." And since the 'origin' IS the element of those two main questions and since you believe you have found it, what could I say but to congratulate you and to suggest celebration of it! Season's greetings! -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 30 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Mon, Jan 8 2001 8:11 pm Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:18:43 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: >"Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" "Were they both derived from >an 'origin' which was lost in the history?" The answer seems quite apparent and obvious to me (and a number of mahjong scholars too), when one looks at the two forms in detail. The suggestion of an alternate origin which directly evolved to HKOS without passing through CC just isn't very plausible, especially when no suggestion of how said origin could have been like can be given. It seems a badly 'forced' conjecture. >I don't need you to believe me. However, I do like your saying: "in the >lack of solid evidence, we can conclude that both conjectures are >possible and leave it as an open problem for further research and >discussion." That's exactly what I truly meant. My conjectures are still >QUESTIONS, I am still seeking the proper answers. The problem is that, yours is of less than "conjecture" status, since it doesn't have any plausiblity at all. It's a badly forced, boring, superfluous question, as useless as questioning Newton and Einstein's theories without offering any plausible alternative explanation to the phenomena around us. The key is in the last part of the above sentence. To challenge a conjecture, you must offer a plausible alternative conjecture. That's the starting point. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 31 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2001 11:37 am Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a5a7df1.2416...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: > On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:18:43 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > >"Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" "Were they both derived from > >an 'origin' which was lost in the history?" > The answer seems quite apparent and obvious to me (and a number of > mahjong scholars too), when one looks at the two forms in detail. The > suggestion of an alternate origin which directly evolved to HKOS > without passing through CC just isn't very plausible, especially when > no suggestion of how said origin could have been like can be given. > It seems a badly 'forced' conjecture. However apparent and obvious your (or any mahjong scholars') answers could be, the 'answers' remain part of the questions IF they are based on the same 'origin' which is yet to be identified. Alternatively, you can simply IGNORE the fact that the 'origin' of mahjong was lost in the history AND claim that 'Chinese Classical' is the 'origin' of mahjong, like I suggested before. The discussion shall then automatically come to an end. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >I don't need you to believe me. However, I do like your saying: "in the > >lack of solid evidence, we can conclude that both conjectures are > >possible and leave it as an open problem for further research and > >discussion." That's exactly what I truly meant. My conjectures are still > >QUESTIONS, I am still seeking the proper answers. > The problem is that, yours is of less than "conjecture" status, since > it doesn't have any plausiblity at all. It's a badly forced, boring, > superfluous question, as useless as questioning Newton and Einstein's > theories without offering any plausible alternative explanation to the > phenomena around us. > The key is in the last part of the above sentence. To challenge a > conjecture, you must offer a plausible alternative conjecture. That's > the starting point. There is great large huge dramatic difference between questioning 'CC is the origin of mahjong' and 'the theories of Newton and Einstein'. The latter were proven with solid evidences, while the 'origin of mahjong' is not. Instead of leaving both conjectures "as an open problem for further research and discussion", it seems that you are more interested in seeing more conjectures rather than admitting the fact that the 'origin' of mahjong is still at lost. Just to fulfil your curiosity and as some fun to this NG, the following could be some conjectures related to 'HKOS' (or that play style by its nature): (a) The original game allowed for one winner only in each hand of game, and all players paid to the winner (that was 'HKOS'). For some reason and in some point of time and in a particular place on earth, some naughty (or genius) players in a game play of four found that it was very boring as player A always won. Player B then suggested, instead of all three players always paid to A, why not all four players be allowed to compare their own hands, and settled some scores between one and other as well. This way, an 'always looser' could also have chance of getting positive scores as he might have had lost to player A, but could win from the other two players. This idea was great! And soon this became spread all over places, and was perhaps the 'origin' or 'prototype' of the 'Chinese Classical' style. (b) Settling between players who had tiles that were not of complete hands could sometimes cause problems. Since it was inevitable that some patterns in a non-complete hand could be scored differently, it needed a complete rule to regulate how patterns in non-complete hands may be scored. The simple (an origin is usually always simple, thus providing room for any added-on, improvement, further development, etc.) patterns in HKOS could always cause problems. Some special patterns had to be created to make the scoring more precise, and so some were created, thus making CC a bit more complicated than HKOS, in both the patterns and the scoring. (c) It was said that the 'original' mahjong was played by cards. A set of card mahjong was brought to a remote area and was played extensively, that most of the cards became torn and worn. Later, people there were smart enough to engrave images on bamboo pieces, thus making the first set of bamboo mahjong in the world (of course, this was not documented, or otherwise any such documentation was lost in the history). [Many more conjectures can be made and by anyone. But what would be the point if such conjectures are based on 'something' that is also a conjecture by itself?] -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 32 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2001 3:32 pm Email: "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author It's time for me to jump into the debate again. Cofa Tsui had asked (in the first part of a two-part question): >>>"Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" Yes. It was. It is clear from viewing texts of the early 1920s that Chinese Classical was played throughout China, with some minor differences, even in Hong Kong. No mention can be found of the HKOS-style playing system in any writings of the 1920s, and in the 1920s mah-jongg was a hugely popular worldwide fad. It's unthinkable that HKOS could have gone undocumented if it indeed existed in that decade. So the answer (based solely on documented evidence) is clearly yes. Documented evidence isn't the only proof, however. There's also the evidence inherent in the rules of the games in discussion. As Alan Kwan replied: >> The answer seems quite apparent and obvious to me (and a number of >> mahjong scholars too), when one looks at the two forms in detail. Alan's previous post showing how the rules are clearly evolutionary from Chinese Classical was extremely logical and well reasoned. Alan's arguments (especially when coupled with the documented evidence) should be convincing to anyone with an open mind. I wonder why Cofa resists so much? Is Cofa's IMJ trademark somehow threatened (reduced in value) if it's based on a form of mah-jongg which is merely derived from the original rules (rather than on the original rules themselves)? [I don't think so, but perhaps Cofa does.] Cofa's question had a second part: >>>"Were they both derived from >>>an 'origin' which was lost in the history?" The answer to this question is "perhaps yes and definitely no." Millington does discuss the possibility that the original rules varied somewhat from Chinese Classical, and calls the posited original rules "proto-mah-jongg." IMO, proto-MJ (if it did exist) evolved (was refined) into CC, then HKOS derived from that. So: "perhaps yes." But one senses that Cofa's question actually means to hint that HKOS is not the offspring, but rather the sibling, of Chinese Classical. So: "definitely no." Alan also addressed this: >> The >> suggestion of an alternate origin which directly evolved to HKOS >> without passing through CC just isn't very plausible, especially when >> no suggestion of how said origin could have been like can be given. >> It seems a badly 'forced' conjecture. I agree with Alan. One has to wonder why Cofa persists in resisting so consistently (sorry, I'll desist playing with my words now): >Alternatively, you can simply IGNORE the fact that the 'origin' of mahjong was lost in the history AND claim that 'Chinese Classical' is the 'origin' of mahjong, like I suggested before. The discussion shall then automatically come to an end. Perhaps Chinese Classical IS indeed the original game, as originally designed by Chin Zheng Yue / Hung Hsiu-Chuan / Houng-Sieou-Ts'iuen / Unnamed civil servants / army officers / Two unnamed brothers. Perhaps the term "proto-mah-jongg" is a red herring. But we don't know for sure. Culin didn't give us enough information to go on, and then there are those early sets with the blue Chung ("center wind"). So we cannot claim that CC is definitely the original set of rules. But in my view, it doesn't matter that much if the original rules were different -- in the 1920s, CC was the /only/ set of rules around. So, /effectively/, CC are the BASIC rules, the standard, from which all other forms have subsequently evolved. Cofa wrote: >it seems that you are more interested in seeing more conjectures rather than admitting the fact that the 'origin' of mahjong is still at lost. No, Alan was not conjecturing. He was only showing, through a logical analysis of the rules of CC and HKOS, that one is clearly the offspring (not the sibling) of the other. It seems that Cofa, rather, is the one who is more interested (through conjecture) in elevating the importance of HKOS than in seeing the truth: >Just to fulfil your curiosity and as some fun to this NG, the following could be some conjectures related to 'HKOS' (or that play style by its nature): [Three conjectures-upon-conjectures snipped] >[Many more conjectures can be made and by anyone. But what would be the point if such conjectures are based on 'something' that is also a conjecture by itself?] Exactly. What IS the point? I had written a detailed reply to Cofa's three conjectures-upon-conjectures, then realized that replying to them was just as pointless as making them in the first place. Cheers, Tom Tom Sloper http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 33 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 11 2001 10:49 pm Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <vwq76.28125$y9.6839...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, "Tom Sloper" <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote: > It's time for me to jump into the debate again. (Welcome back!) Cofa Tsui had asked (in the - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > first part of a two-part question): > >>>"Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" > Yes. It was. It is clear from viewing texts of the early 1920s that Chinese > Classical was played throughout China, with some minor differences, even in > Hong Kong. No mention can be found of the HKOS-style playing system in any > writings of the 1920s, and in the 1920s mah-jongg was a hugely popular > worldwide fad. It's unthinkable that HKOS could have gone undocumented if > it indeed existed in that decade. So the answer (based solely on documented > evidence) is clearly yes. Documented evidence isn't the only proof, > however. There's also the evidence inherent in the rules of the games in > discussion. As Alan Kwan replied: How could you be so sure? As once mentioned in my other posting, my position is that even a lot of texts of the 1920's mentioned about Chinese Classical ("CC"), it also mentioned that other variants were also existing. What kind of variants were those unmentioned styles we don't know, it was however clearly evidenced that CC was NOT THE ONLY STYLE EXISTING AT THAT TIME. On the other hand, since the game was so popular worldwide in the 1920's and if CC was so 'obvious' and 'apparent' that it was the 'origin' of mahjong, I think it should be more logical and qualified for those writers in the 1920's to declare such thought. In the contrast, I don't think any book of the 1920's had claimed what was the 'origin' of the game. In fact, there was not any writing up to date (or, perhaps, prior to this discussion) that had determined what the origin of mahjong was! Among this NG, I believe you are the one who has the most complete collection of mahjong books. Even if we look at your collection (in your FAQ on mahjong history), I am still not convinced if the collection is good enough to determine the true origin of mahjong. (Not the 'one' that was defined in your FAQ.) Tracing the lost origin of mahjong is no doubt a job that could cost huge. Among those books listed, I could see that the most qualified organizations that could have such resources are authors of the CHINESE MAHJONG CONTEST RULES ("CMCR", 1998 Beijing, China) and the 'Mahjong Museum Book' ("MJM" 1999 Chiba, Japan). I don't have the MJM. From what you had mentioned and what had not mentioned in this NG, I believe the MJM has NOT DETERMINED what was the origin of mahjong. It shouldn't have had mentioned what style was derived from which, either. (Correct me if my guess is wrong.) As to my CMCR on hand, it said that "mahjong could be traced back as early as three to four thousand years ago" (p.1). It DID NOT MENTION how the origin of mahjong was like, or what style was derived from which. Does this have any meaning to our current discussion? My point is that we are living in the late 20th century and we are now talking about a very, very old game that we have only very, very little documentation that we could study about. I am not in favour of any conjecture. I SIMPLY DON'T THINK IT IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO LAY ANY CONCLUSION THAT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURES. Please be serious! > >> The answer seems quite apparent and obvious to me (and a number of > >> mahjong scholars too), when one looks at the two forms in detail. > Alan's previous post showing how the rules are clearly evolutionary from > Chinese Classical was extremely logical and well reasoned. Alan's arguments > (especially when coupled with the documented evidence) should be convincing > to anyone with an open mind. I wonder why Cofa resists so much? [ snipped other similar comments through to the end ] Again, as mentioned in my previous posting, if a conjecture is based on a conjecture, it is up to you (and anyone) to GUESS which one is plausible, and how plausible it is. And you can make whatever conjecture you like. However, when it comes to making a determination or a conclusion, I still maintain that one should be responsible, and be serious as well! You raised a "side question": Is Cofa's > IMJ trademark somehow threatened (reduced in value) if it's based on a form > of mah-jongg which is merely derived from the original rules (rather than on > the original rules themselves)? [I don't think so, but perhaps Cofa does.] Tom, I don't think so, too. IMJ is a true duplicate of HKOS. Nothing will change if whatever is determined to be the origin of mahjong, or one is concluded to be derived from the other. It won't affect IMJ in any way. Currently, IMJ and other related trademarks and copyrights are simply holding properties only. I never think of being threatened. Anything mahjong and any software of mahjong games can be duplicated, but not a trademark or a copyright. I also don't think of any connection between this discussion and my IMJ properties. Why do you have that kind of thinking? Instead, if you understand what I have said in the beginning of this reply, you should know exactly what I concern most. -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 34 From: Tom Sloper - view profile Date: Fri, Jan 12 2001 6:46 pm Email: Tom Sloper <toms...@sloperama.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author The question under discussion is: "Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical?" [Note that the question is NOT "What were the original rules of mah-jongg?" NOR is it "Was CC the original rule set?"] In responding to the question, I have quoted from several books to show solid evidence that in the early 1920s CC was the form of mah-jongg that was played all across China (including Hong Kong). Alan has analyzed the rules of both forms to show a clear pattern of derivation in HKOS. Cofa, you have twisted the question, you've twisted the evidence, you've even twisted the words. You've done everything you possibly can to reject the evidence that we have given. I'm tired of playing this game, and I'm quitting. Most of the points raised in your latest post will just have to go unanswered by me because it'd just mean going back over stuff I've already said and you choose to ignore. But there are a couple things in your last post that I want to respond to. Cofa wrote: >[snip] Among those books listed, I could see that >the most qualified organizations that could have such resources are >authors of the CHINESE MAHJONG CONTEST RULES ("CMCR", 1998 Beijing, >China) I would not trust the CMCR. It was written with a slanted purpose. BTW, anybody know where/how I can obtain a copy? I'd love to have one! Even a photocopy or a scan. [Book not available outside China, and friends who've gone to China were unable to find it for me.] >CMCR [snip] said that "mahjong could be traced back as early as >three to four thousand years ago" (p.1). Clearly intended to promulgate the "hype" about mah-jongg. Or simply misinformed. I doubt that the writer of the CMCR did any serious research. Surely you don't believe the CMCR on this? >My point is that we are living in the late 20th century and we are now >talking about a very, very old game How old do you think the game is? Surely you don't buy the hyped history??? >I SIMPLY DON'T THINK IT IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO LAY ANY >CONCLUSION THAT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURES. Please be serious! Uh-huh. Okay. Do you really mean that you believe that mah-jongg is thousands of years old? If so, I really HAVE been wasting my time arguing anything with you. Or were you just making some point that I missed? >I also don't think of any connection >between this discussion and my IMJ properties. Why do you have that kind >of thinking? I just wonder why it is that you persist in your doubts, in spite of the evidence. When someone refuses to listen to reason, I have to believe that that person /chooses/ to persist in his beliefs. When someone chooses to ignore reason, there has to be a motive. I was trying to figure out what it is. No offense intended -- I hope none was taken. However, I see no need to continue trying to convince you that CC predates HKOS. And I certainly don't want to try to convince you that mah-jongg originated in the nineteenth century, if you believe otherwise. Continued persistence is futile, and I hereby give up. Tom -- Tom Sloper toms...@sloperama.com http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 35 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sat, Jan 13 2001 12:41 am Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <93oc19$hc...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom Sloper <toms...@sloperama.com> wrote: > The question under discussion is: "Was HKOS derived from Chinese > Classical?" [Note that the question is NOT "What were the original > rules of mah-jongg?" NOR is it "Was CC the original rule set?"] > In responding to the question, I have quoted from several books to show > solid evidence that in the early 1920s CC was the form of mah-jongg > that was played all across China (including Hong Kong). Alan has > analyzed the rules of both forms to show a clear pattern of derivation > in HKOS. Given the uncertainty and the lack of proper documentation of the history of mahjong, an answer to determine the origin of mahjong is essential to all answers to the two questions raised by me. If this very first question is not answered, other answers are simply based on something that is itself subject to verification. Tom, I appreciate your effort in providing all the evidences from your collection of books, however, they are not evidences that could answer the question "Was HKOS derived from Chinese Classical". Your evidences apparently showed that CC was very popular in China in the 1920's. However, it is not the "one way only" answer to prove that HKOS was derived from CC, because your evidences also showed that CC was not the only mahjong game that was popular in China at that time. Would HKOS be among those unmentioned popular games other than CC? This question is probably not evidenced in any of those books in your collection, but it is supported by the outstanding question "what was the origin of mahjong". [Note that the question is not about any "original rules". It is about the ORIGIN OF MAHJONG.] If CC was not the origin of mahjong, CC should have had been developed or evolved from something that was initially not CC. Since your evidences supported that CC was not the only popular mahjong game in 1920's, it becomes reasonable to ask if HKOS was also one of a number of styles that were developed from that lost origin. If this question stands (i.e., "Was HKOS also developed from the lost origin of mahjong?"), or if any evidence proving otherwise is missing, any conjecture (and analysis, demonstration alike) suggesting that HKOS was derived from CC will become "conjecture upon conjecture". You may suggest that from 1920's onward people has simplified the "settle between all players" rule of CC to become the "all losers pay to the winner only" rule of HKOS. I may say that LONG BEFORE 1920's the "all losers pay to the winner only" rule of one "MOS" (i.e., Mahjong Older Style) was common but someone later changed it to a complicated "settle between all players" rule that somehow foreigners visiting China in the 1920's called it the "Chinese Classical". On the contrast, if CC were the origin of mahjong, all questions of this particular discussion would be answered perfectly, and the discussion shall come to an end. It's up to you, Alan, or anyone else, to say whatever about CC. But if one is to make a determination or conclusion on the origin of mahjong, one should be responsible and be serious. > Cofa, you have twisted the question, you've twisted the evidence, > you've even twisted the words. You've done everything you possibly can > to reject the evidence that we have given. I'm tired of playing this > game, and I'm quitting. Most of the points raised in your latest post > will just have to go unanswered by me because it'd just mean going back > over stuff I've already said and you choose to ignore. Tom, I don't think anyone can twist any question about mahjong in front of you that could make you quit, if you are still serious about mahjong. Both you and Alan emphasize the popularity of CC in the 1920's, and the possibility CC being evolved thereafter, but avoid answering to the fact that CC was not the only game that was popular at that time, and to the possibility that something could have been developed long before the 1920's. This simply leaves your answers incomplete. To me, objecting the saying that CC is the only origin of mahjong (therefore, all games were derived from CC) [again, note that it is not about any "original rules" of mahjong, it's about the ORIGIN of mahjong] is equivalent to your objecting someone saying that "XXX is the only mahjong rule in the world" (refer to your own mahjong FAQs). You know for sure there are many mahjong rules in the wide-open world and that the "one-rule-only" guy must step into the world to see all other rules. Likewise, if you could not see beyond the 1920's and could not accept that the origin of mahjong is still out there missing, there is really no point in continuing the discussion. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > But there are a couple things in your last post that I want to respond > to. > Cofa wrote: > >[snip] Among those books listed, I could see that > >the most qualified organizations that could have such resources are > >authors of the CHINESE MAHJONG CONTEST RULES ("CMCR", 1998 Beijing, > >China) > I would not trust the CMCR. It was written with a slanted purpose. > BTW, anybody know where/how I can obtain a copy? I'd love to have > one! Even a photocopy or a scan. [Book not available outside China, > and friends who've gone to China were unable to find it for me.] > >CMCR [snip] said that "mahjong could be traced back as early as > >three to four thousand years ago" (p.1). > Clearly intended to promulgate the "hype" about mah-jongg. Or simply > misinformed. I doubt that the writer of the CMCR did any serious > research. Surely you don't believe the CMCR on this? > >My point is that we are living in the late 20th century and we are now > >talking about a very, very old game > How old do you think the game is? Surely you don't buy the hyped > history??? > >I SIMPLY DON'T THINK IT IS RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO LAY ANY > >CONCLUSION THAT IS BASED SOLELY ON CONJECTURES. Please be serious! > Uh-huh. Okay. Do you really mean that you believe that mah-jongg is > thousands of years old? If so, I really HAVE been wasting my time > arguing anything with you. Or were you just making some point that I > missed? For all your above questions, I would rather say: Everyone can have a say. As long as the origin of mahjong is missing, any saying is always subject to verification. Whether we are good enough to determine whose saying is correct and whose saying is not, is itself subject to determination. Perhaps another lead "Mah-Jongg History FAQ" in this NG is the appropriate place to discuss further about your above questions. > >I also don't think of any connection > >between this discussion and my IMJ properties. Why do you have that > kind > >of thinking? > I just wonder why it is that you persist in your doubts, in spite of > the evidence. When someone refuses to listen to reason, I have to > believe that that person /chooses/ to persist in his beliefs. When > someone chooses to ignore reason, there has to be a motive. I was > trying to figure out what it is. No offense intended -- I hope none > was taken. Tom, relax and sleep well! Don't worry about any offense - I didn't see any! > However, I see no need to continue trying to convince you that CC > predates HKOS. And I certainly don't want to try to convince you that > mah-jongg originated in the nineteenth century, if you believe > otherwise. Continued persistence is futile, and I hereby give up. If history (or precisely, mahjong history) started only from the nineteenth century, I would accept everything you (and Alan) said. Likewise, it might be equally difficult for me to convince you that the 1920's was in the middle of the mahjong history, and much more could have had happened prior to CC being even known to foreigners in China, and that much of those happenings could have had been lost in the history. -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 36 From: Alan Kwan - view profile Date: Sat, Jan 13 2001 11:44 am Email: t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:41:51 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> wrote: >If this question stands (i.e., "Was HKOS also developed from the lost >origin of mahjong?"), or if any evidence proving otherwise is missing, >any conjecture (and analysis, demonstration alike) suggesting that HKOS >was derived from CC will become "conjecture upon conjecture". You may >suggest that from 1920's onward people has simplified the "settle >between all players" rule of CC to become the "all losers pay to the >winner only" rule of HKOS. I may say that LONG BEFORE 1920's the "all >losers pay to the winner only" rule of one "MOS" (i.e., Mahjong Older >Style) was common but someone later changed it to a complicated "settle >between all players" rule that somehow foreigners visiting China in the >1920's called it the "Chinese Classical". There are just two major changes as the starting points of the development of HKOS: 1. Drop the triplet-point counting system. 2. Adopt discarder-doubling in place of East-doubling. *Everything* else are natural consequences which follow from the aboves. If triplet-points are not counted, there is nothing to settle between losers. (Even if a loser has a faan from a faan-triplet, there are no points to be doubled by said faan.) So the "pay to winner only" rule /necessarily/ follows. >On the contrast, if CC were the origin of mahjong, all questions of this >particular discussion would be answered perfectly, and the discussion >shall come to an end. It is exactly how convincing this explanation is which validates the believe that HKOS is an offspring of CC. And, too, the documentation which Tom supported. Plus the fact that every early exported version of mahjong (such as Japanese and American) is based on CC instead of HKOS. >It's up to you, Alan, or anyone else, to say >whatever about CC. But if one is to make a determination or conclusion >on the origin of mahjong, one should be responsible and be serious. Same to one who wants to challenge a sound conclusion. "Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / t...@notmenetvigator.com http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews) Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com (please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address) Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 37 From: Cofa Tsui - view profile Date: Sun, Jan 14 2001 1:33 am Email: Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author In article <3a609f32.5138...@news.netvigator.com>, t...@notmenetvigator.com (Alan Kwan) wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:41:51 GMT, Cofa Tsui <cofat...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > >If this question stands (i.e., "Was HKOS also developed from the lost > >origin of mahjong?"), or if any evidence proving otherwise is missing, > >any conjecture (and analysis, demonstration alike) suggesting that HKOS > >was derived from CC will become "conjecture upon conjecture". You may > >suggest that from 1920's onward people has simplified the "settle > >between all players" rule of CC to become the "all losers pay to the > >winner only" rule of HKOS. I may say that LONG BEFORE 1920's the "all > >losers pay to the winner only" rule of one "MOS" (i.e., Mahjong Older > >Style) was common but someone later changed it to a complicated "settle > >between all players" rule that somehow foreigners visiting China in the > >1920's called it the "Chinese Classical". > There are just two major changes as the starting points of the > development of HKOS: > 1. Drop the triplet-point counting system. > 2. Adopt discarder-doubling in place of East-doubling. > *Everything* else are natural consequences which follow from the > aboves. If triplet-points are not counted, there is nothing to settle > between losers. (Even if a loser has a faan from a faan-triplet, > there are no points to be doubled by said faan.) So the "pay to > winner only" rule /necessarily/ follows. > >On the contrast, if CC were the origin of mahjong, all questions of this > >particular discussion would be answered perfectly, and the discussion > >shall come to an end. > It is exactly how convincing this explanation is which validates the > believe that HKOS is an offspring of CC. And, too, the documentation > which Tom supported. Plus the fact that every early exported version > of mahjong (such as Japanese and American) is based on CC instead of > HKOS. > >It's up to you, Alan, or anyone else, to say > >whatever about CC. But if one is to make a determination or conclusion > >on the origin of mahjong, one should be responsible and be serious. The following is something I was about to reply to Alan's above posting prior to my reading of Karl Hung's recent posting: "Thanks Alan for the reply but this seems to be another count of answer that has avoided (or ignored) *the missing happenings* of mahjong PRIOR TO THE 1920's. Any answer without dealing with the missing part of mahjong prior to the 1920's is simply incomplete." In addition to Karl's posting, please allow me to give an example why I believe those happenings PRIOR TO THE 1920's are so important in our discussion: Not long ago Julian Bradfield <j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> showed us images of some tiles (refer to topic "help in identifying characters on tiles [corrected URL]") and many respondents suggested that the meanings of the tiles were > san1 niang2 jiao4 zi3 > three mothers teaching child > si4 ling4lang2 tan4 mu3 > four sons visiting mother Such conclusion was clearly based on the knowledge of Chinese commonly available to them. Should no one ever bring up the stories of the related idiom, the above "conclusion" will be treated as correct forever. This may be used as an example to demonstrate how "Chinese Classical" is now being concluded as the origin of mahjong, and HKOS as being derived from Chinese Classical, in our current discussion. (Because CC was so popular since the 1920's, and anything else before that time was missing.) Of course, we now all know the correct meanings of those tiles, thanks to the essential background knowledge of the idiom being brought to us. Similarly, and using the same kind of logic thinking, I believe making a conclusion on the origin of mahjong and on the question as to whether HKOS was derived from CC is not appropriate, simply because the essential knowledge about the true origin of mahjong is still missing. Karl's posting may not have solved our questions, but at least it shows us how equally important those information that is not available to us, could be. -- COFA TSUI "IMJ Rules" - Answers your questions about rule, ALL BY ONE RULEBOOK - Now available in PDF format (download file from IMJ Web Site). <http://www.cofatsui.com/mahjong.html> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Reply ==============================END OF MESSAGE===== 38 From: ckxung - view profile Date: Sat, Jan 13 2001 11:35 pm Email: ckx...@my-deja.com Groups: rec.games.mahjong Not yet ratedRating: show options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author 01/13/2001 It is very interesting to see these lengthy discussions about the history of Mah Jong. I have never read any book about Mah Jong but I do want to offer my personal observation about this ANCIENT CHINESE Game as I lived with it. My observation dated backed to 1940's when I was a child. Many children in Hong Hong were brought up in their mothers' lap at the Mah Jong Table so they were exposed to the game while they were infants. In 1940's and early 50's, most people played the game which is called HKOS in these discussions. As people coming from northern China in early 1950's, they also brought in Mah Jong game with differnet rules than those used in HK. Since they are NEW people to HK, the rules they brought with them was naturally called New Rule( Sun chang,sun=new and chang=rule in cantonese). Mah Jong was called Mah Jong until the New rules appeared. Old Rules ( Gow chang , Gow=old and chang=rule) was then refered to the ordinary Mah Jong game rules. I believe most< |