IMJ Archives - 205d(2) <<Return to Archives Index Page

[History of MAHJONG - Front page]

Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)
by Cofa Tsui (Jan 5, 2007)(Modified Nov 23, 2008 - See log at end of page.)
• 2008-11-23 - ADDED to this page: MJ newsgroup messages of this topic - Messages from Jan 06 through Feb 23, 2007 (link from here).

I have now translated the specific paragraph of Chapter 31 of Li Boyuan's "Guanchang Xianxing Ji" where an important description of an early mahjong game ("Ma Que Pai") was found. For the purposes of clear reference and identification, I propose all future references to the game as described by this particular paragraph be called the "1903 Ma Que."

1. Original paragraph
("Guanchang Xianxing Ji", by Li Boyuan, said to be originally published in 1903. Original texts obtained from: http://www.inncn.com/book/gd/l/libaojia/gcxxj/031.htm)

却不料那田小辫子田大人新叫的一个姑娘，名字叫翠喜，是乌额拉布乌大人的旧交。乌额拉布同田小辫子今天是第一次相会，看见田小辫子同翠喜要好，心上着实吃醋。起初田小辫子还不觉得，后来乌大人的脸色渐渐的紫里发青，青里变白。他是旗下人，又是阔少出身，是有点脾气的。手里打的是麻雀牌，心上想的却是他二人。这一副牌齐巧是他做庄，一个不留神，发出一个中风，底家拍了下来。上家跟手发了一张白板，对面也拍出。其时田小辫子正坐对面，翠喜歪在他怀里替他发牌，一会劝田小辫子发这张牌，一会又说发那张牌。田小辫子听他说话，发出来一张八万，底家一摊就出。仔细看时，原来是北风暗克，二三四万一搭，三张七万一张八万等张。如今翠喜发出八万，底家数了数：中风四副，北风暗克八副，三张七万四副，八万吊头不算，连着和下来十副头，已有二十六副，一翻五十二，两翻一百零四，万字一色，三翻二百零八。乌额拉布做庄，打的是五百块洋钱一底的么二架，庄家单输这一副牌已经二百多块。乌额拉布输倒输得起，只因这张牌是翠喜发的，再加以醋意，不由得“怒从心上起，恶向胆边生”，顿时拿牌往前一推，涨红了脸，说道：“我们打牌四个人，如今倒多出一个人来了！看了两家的牌，发给人家和，原来你们是串通好了来做我一个的！”翠喜忙分辩道：“我又不晓得下家等的是八万。你庄家固然要输，田大人也要陪着你输。”乌额拉布道：“自然要输！你可晓得你们田大人不是庄，输的总要比我少些？”翠喜道：“一个老爷不是做一个姑娘，一个姑娘不是做一个老爷，甚么我的田大人！你们诸位大人听听，这话好笑不好笑！”

=============================================
2. Translation - Whole paragraph without comments
(By Cofa Tsui, Jan 5, 2007.)

Unexpectedly Tian The Little Plait Master Tian came along with a new girl called Cuixi, who was also an old companion of Wuelabu Master Wu. This was the first time Wuelabu met up with Tian The Little Plait. Seeing that Tian The Little Plait and Cuixi were so nice to each other, he was heartedly jealous. In the beginning Tian The Little Plait didn't realize that; as it went on the change of expression on Master Wu's face was obvious: purple shining with green, and green becoming pale. Being an officer of the army and grown up in a wealthy family, he really had the temper. While playing Ma Que Pai in the hands, his heart kept thinking about the couple. As it happened he was the zhuang of the current hand, and without paying attention he discarded a Zhongfeng, which was punged by the dijia. Thereafter shangjia discarded a Baiban, which was also punged by the opposite side. Tian The Little Plait was sitting on the opposite side, with Cuixi snuggling in his arms helping him in giving out the pais; at one time telling Tian The Little Plait to discard this pai, and at another time uttering to discard the other. Tian The Little Plait did as she had said; he discarded an 8 Wan which caused the dijia to spread out right away. With a careful look, it was found to contain concealed pung of Beifeng, a set of 234 Wan, three pieces of 7 Wan and one piece of 8 Wan waiting. Now with Cuixi having discarded the 8 Wan, dijia had evaluated the total: Zhongfeng four fu, Beifeng concealed pung eight fu, three pieces of 7 Wan four fu, 8 Wan fishing is not counted, plus the initial reward of ten fu for the win, the total had already reached twenty six fu. One fan fifty two, two fan one hundred and four, Wan in one suit, three fan two hundred and eight. Wuelabu was the zhuang, the game was played under five hundred dollars a base in the one-two structure, for this hand alone the zhuang had already lost two hundred plus dollars. Wuelabu could certainly afford to lose. However, because this pai was given out by Cuixi, and on top of it added the jealous feeling, he couldn't help but, "with anger being raised from the heart and evil being grown by the guts", immediately pushed all the pais to the front, and said in a red face: "We play pais by four people, now we have in excess of one extra! Having viewed pais of two, giving out a pai for one to win, so now I know you are ganging up to cheat on me!" Cuixi defended without delay: "I didn't know what xiajia was waiting for was an 8 Wan. You zhuangjia would have to lose, Master Tian is going to lose along with you as well." Wuelabu said: "Of course has to lose! But don't you know your Master Tian is not the zhuang, is going to lose less than me?" Cuixi said: "A Master acts not as a girl. A girl acts not as a Master. What do you mean by my Master Tian! Listen up all you Masters, don't you think it's funny or not!"

=============================================
3. Translation - Whole paragraph with comments
(By Cofa Tsui, Jan 5, 2007.)

却不料那田小辫子田大人新叫的一个姑娘, 名字叫翠喜, 是乌额拉布乌大人的旧交.
Unexpectedly Tian The Little Plait Master Tian came along with a new girl called Cuixi, who was also an old companion of Wuelabu [pronounced as "Wu E La Bu"] Master Wu.

乌额拉布同田小辫子今天是第一次相会, 看见田小辫子同翠喜要好, 心上着实吃醋.
This was the first time Wuelabu met up with Tian The Little Plait. Seeing that Tian The Little Plait and Cuixi were so nice to each other, he was heartedly jealous.

起初田小辫子还不觉得, 后来乌大人的脸色渐渐的紫里发青, 青里变白.
In the beginning Tian The Little Plait didn't realize that; as it went on the change of expression on Master Wu's face was obvious: purple shining with green, and green becoming pale.

他是旗下人, 又是阔少出身, 是有点脾气的.
Being an officer of the army and grown up in a wealthy family, he [Wu] really had the temper.

手里打的是麻雀牌, 心上想的却是他二人.
While playing Ma Que Pai in the hands, his heart kept thinking about the couple.

这一副牌齐巧是他做庄, 一个不留神, 发出一个中风, 底家拍了下来.
As it happened he was the zhuang [the jonga, dealer, east, etc.] of the current hand, and without paying attention he discarded a Zhongfeng ["Centre Wind"], which was punged by the dijia ["di jia", the "bottom house", the "bottom seat"; in this scene, the "North seat" (Modified 070114 with thanks to Ithinc)].

上家跟手发了一张白板, 对面也拍出.
Thereafter shangjia ["shang jia", the one on the left, the lefta] discarded a Baiban ["White Board"], which was also punged by the opposite side.

其时田小辫子正坐对面, 翠喜歪在他怀里替他发牌, 一会劝田小辫子发这张牌, 一会又说发那张牌.
Tian The Little Plait was sitting on the opposite side, with Cuixi snuggling in his arms helping him in giving out the pais; at one time telling Tian The Little Plait to discard this pai, and at another time uttering to discard the other.

田小辫子听他说话, 发出来一张八万, 底家一摊就出.
Tian The Little Plait did as she had said; he discarded an 8 Wan which caused the dijia to spread out [all pais] right away.

仔细看时, 原来是北风暗克, 二三四万一搭, 三张七万一张八万等张.
With a careful look, it was found to contain concealed pung of Beifeng ["Bei Feng an ke", North Wind concealed pung], a set of 234 Wan ["a set" is called 一搭 "yi da", a set, a combination], three pieces of 7 Wan and one piece of 8 Wan waiting ["waiting" is called 等张 "deng zhang", "waiting piece", waiting for a piece, or "fishing"].

如今翠喜发出八万, 底家数了数: 中风四副, 北风暗克八副, 三张七万四副, 八万吊头不算, 连着和下来十副头, 已有二十六副,
Now with Cuixi having discarded the 8 Wan, dijia had evaluated the total: Zhongfeng ["Centre Wind"] four fu [for "fu", the word 副 is used, meaning a set; however, Ithinc said this could be a mistake of "fu"(符). "Fu"(符) can mean a symbol, a sign, a mark, and be extended to mean point or score - note the "plural form" is not used here], Beifeng ["North Wind"] concealed pung eight fu, three pieces of 7 Wan four fu, 8 Wan fishing is not counted ["8 Wan fishing" is corresponding to 八万吊头, where 吊头 "diao tou" ("hang head") should be understood as the equivalence of the modern term 钓头 "diao tou" (fishing for the head)(Modified 070114 with thanks to Ithinc)], plus the initial reward of ten fu for the win [for the term "win", 和 "he" (which somebody says should be sounded as "hu") was used], the total had already reached twenty six fu.

一翻五十二, 两翻一百零四, 万字一色, 三翻二百零八.
One fan [turn over, double] fifty two, two fan one hundred and four, Wan in one suit, three fan two hundred and eight.

乌额拉布做庄, 打的是五百块洋钱一底的么二架, 庄家单输这一副牌已经二百多块.
Wuelabu was the zhuang [the jonga, the dealer], the game was played under five hundred dollars a base in the one-two structure [I've translated "么二架" as "one-two structure". The word 么 shall be read as corresponding to today's standardized Simplified form of 幺 "yao", meaning one. 架 "jia" can mean a frame, a structure.], for this hand alone the zhuang had already lost two hundred plus dollars.

乌额拉布输倒输得起, 只因这张牌是翠喜发的, 再加以醋意, 不由得"怒从心上起, 恶向胆边生", 顿时拿牌往前一推, 涨红了脸, 说道:
Wuelabu could certainly afford to lose. However, because this pai was given out by Cuixi, and on top of it added the jealous feeling, he couldn't help but, "with anger being raised from the heart and evil being grown by the guts", immediately pushed all the pais to the front, and said in a red face:

"我们打牌四个人, 如今倒多出一个人来了! 看了两家的牌, 发给人家和, 原来你们是串通好了来做我一个的! "
"We play pais by four people, now we have in excess of one extra! Having viewed pais of two, giving out a pai for one to win, so now I know you are ganging up to cheat on me!"

翠喜忙分辩道: "我又不晓得下家等的是八万. 你庄家固然要输, 田大人也要陪着你输."
Cuixi defended without delay: "I didn't know what xiajia ["xia jia", "lower house", lower seat, next seat, the nexta. With this scene, since Tian/Cuixi is the opposite side of Wu and since Wu is the "zhuang", the "East", "xia jia" is therefore the "North seat" (Modified 070114 with thanks to Ithinc)] was waiting for was an 8 Wan. You zhuangjia ["zhuang jia", jonga, dealer] would have to lose, Master Tian is going to lose along with you as well."

乌额拉布道: "自然要输! 你可晓得你们田大人不是庄, 输的总要比我少些? "
Wuelabu said: "Of course [he] has to lose! But don't you know your Master Tian is not the zhuang, is going to lose less than me?"

翠喜道: "一个老爷不是做一个姑娘, 一个姑娘不是做一个老爷, 甚么我的田大人! 你们诸位大人听听, 这话好笑不好笑! "
Cuixi said: "A Master acts not as a girl. A girl acts not as a Master. What do you mean by my Master Tian! Listen up all you Masters, don't you think it's funny or not!"

Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)
A reproduction of messages on the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) from Jan 06 through Feb 23, 2007.

1. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 6 Jan 2007 02:58:27 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 6 2007 2:58 am
Subject: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Thanks to Thierry for the urge, to Tom for the online translator site,
and to all for giving me the honour to do the job!

I have now translated the specific paragraph of Chapter 31 of Li
Boyuan's "Guanchang Xianxing Ji" where an important description of an
early mahjong game ("Ma Que Pai") was found. For the purposes of clear
reference and identification, I propose all future references to the
game as described by this particular paragraph be called the "1903 Ma
Que."

A bilingual version of the translation (with comments) can be viewed
at:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_2.html
(I don't know why but I have difficultty posting Chinese characters to
be properly displayed on the newsgroup.)

Below is an English only version of the translation (without comments):

=============================================
2. Translation - Whole paragraph without comments
(By Cofa Tsui, Jan 5, 2007.)

Unexpectedly Tian The Little Plait Master Tian came along with a new
girl called Cuixi, who was also an old companion of Wuelabu Master Wu.
This was the first time Wuelabu met up with Tian The Little Plait.
Seeing that Tian The Little Plait and Cuixi were so nice to each other,
he was heartedly jealous. In the beginning Tian The Little Plait didn't
realize that; as it went on the change of expression on Master Wu's
face was obvious: purple shining with green, and green becoming pale.
Being an officer of the army and grown up in a wealthy family, he
really had the temper. While playing Ma Que Pai in the hands, his heart
kept thinking about the couple. As it happened he was the zhuang of the
current hand, and without paying attention he discarded a Zhongfeng,
which was punged by the dijia. Thereafter shangjia discarded a Baiban,
which was also punged by the opposite side. Tian The Little Plait was
sitting on the opposite side, with Cuixi snuggling in his arms helping
him in giving out the pais; at one time telling Tian The Little Plait
to discard this pai, and at another time uttering to discard the other.
Tian The Little Plait did as she had said; he discarded an 8 Wan which
caused the dijia to spread out right away. With a careful look, it was
found to contain concealed pung of Beifeng, a set of 234 Wan, three
pieces of 7 Wan and one piece of 8 Wan waiting. Now with Cuixi having
discarded the 8 Wan, dijia had evaluated the total: Zhongfeng four fu,
Beifeng concealed pung eight fu, three pieces of 7 Wan four fu, 8 Wan
waiting is not counted, plus the initial reward of ten fu for the win,
the total had already reached twenty six fu. One fan fifty two, two fan
one hundred and four, Wan in one suit, three fan two hundred and eight.
Wuelabu was the zhuang, the game was played under five hundred dollars
a base in the one-two structure, for this hand alone the zhuang had
already lost two hundred plus dollars. Wuelabu could certainly afford
to lose. However, because this pai was given out by Cuixi, and on top
of it added the jealous feeling, he couldn't help but, "with anger
being raised from the heart and evil being grown by the guts",
immediately pushed all the pais to the front, and said in a red face:
"We play pais by four people, now we have in excess of one extra!
Having viewed pais of two, giving out a pai for one to win, so now I
know you are ganging up to cheat on me!" Cuixi defended without delay:
"I didn't know what xiajia was waiting for was an 8 Wan. You zhuangjia
would have to lose, Master Tian is going to lose along with you as
well." Wuelabu said: "Of course has to lose! But don't you know your
Master Tian is not the zhuang, is going to lose less than me?" Cuixi
said: "A Master acts not as a girl. A girl acts not as a Master. What
do you mean by my Master Tian! Listen up all you Masters, don't you
think it's funny or not!"

(End of translation)

Comments welcome.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


2. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 6 Jan 2007 03:36:13 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 6 2007 3:36 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa,

Just thank you!

Your translation and your comments will help us to better understand
what is described in this scene.

Do you think Li Boyuan's book may yield other such scenes?

The chapters of the English *abridged* translation which I saw with
Google Book Search did offer a few references to mahjong, but these
were just mentioning the game. No actual play was described.
However, the full Chinese on-line version may offer some more. Does it?

Cheers,
Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


3. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:21:05 GMT
Local: Sat, Jan 6 2007 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

wrote in message

news:1168083373.231570.262170@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Do you think Li Boyuan's book may yield other such scenes?

I don't know. I have not gone thru the book yet - I probably won't (you
know, over 40 chapters ...) ^_^

> The chapters of the English *abridged* translation which I saw with
> Google Book Search did offer a few references to mahjong, but these
> were just mentioning the game. No actual play was described.

But if you could provide the chapter numbers you saw on the Google Book that
have mentioned the term "mahjong" that you are curious about, I (perhaps
Ithinc and others) could then have a quick look of the online version and
advise on what it says.

> However, the full Chinese on-line version may offer some more. Does it?

I don't know but we could find out if we work together (see above)?

Cheers!

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


4. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 7 Jan 2007 07:58:23 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 7 2007 7:58 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> > Do you think Li Boyuan's book may yield other such scenes?

> I don't know. I have not gone thru the book yet - I probably won't (you
> know, over 40 chapters ...) ^_^

60 chapters! (And Li Boyuan died before finishing his novel!)

> But if you could provide the chapter numbers you saw on the Google Book that
> have mentioned the term "mahjong" that you are curious about,

Chapter 29 seems to have a fair amount of references to mahjong.

Best regards,
Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


5. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 7 Jan 2007 08:10:28 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 7 2007 8:10 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

And perhaps also Chapter 44.

Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


6. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 6 Jan 2007 07:27:28 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 6 2007 7:27 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Cofa Tsui wrote:
> Thanks to Thierry for the urge, to Tom for the online translator site,
> and to all for giving me the honour to do the job!

> I have now translated the specific paragraph of Chapter 31 of Li
> Boyuan's "Guanchang Xianxing Ji" where an important description of an
> early mahjong game ("Ma Que Pai") was found. For the purposes of clear
> reference and identification, I propose all future references to the
> game as described by this particular paragraph be called the "1903 Ma
> Que."

> A bilingual version of the translation (with comments) can be viewed
> at:
> http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_2.html
> (I don't know why but I have difficultty posting Chinese characters to
> be properly displayed on the newsgroup.)

Hello Cofa. Many, many thanks for the translation and the marvellous
job with your comments.

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


7. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 7 Jan 2007 09:43:49 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 7 2007 9:43 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> Comments welcome.

So that's a different picture.

>From ithinc's and Cofa's first impressions it was unclear to me who the

winner was.
Now we can see it is South.

As Alan Kwan has recently pointed out:

> I suspect that the game did have East doubling: it specifically
> emphasised that East lost a lot of money.

We can indeed safely conclude that East (here Wuelabu/Wu) has to pay
more than the other losers. See quotation:

" Wuelabu said: "Of course [he] has to lose! But don't you know your
Master Tian is not the zhuang, [and therefore] is going to lose less
than me?" "

Although it is not made explicit, chances are that East loses twice
more than West (Tian). So it is highly probable that, like in CC, East
had to pay and receive double. (And this would definely be different
from the 1915 Mauger rules.)

Another conclusion can be drawn from the same quotation: there is no
settlements of score between non-winners. (Otherwise Wu's remark would
be impossible.)

Doubles
Three doubles are applicable to South's hand.
"Wan in one suit" is the third one, a rule that is set forth by
Millington as:
- "A hand which is composed of honour tiles and tiles from any one suit
receives one double. Such a hand is termed a One Suit hand."
(Nowadays Mixed One Suit is worth 3 fans.)

But what are the other two fans?
If we follow the CC rules, we find (in Millington):
- "For each set of Dragons [here triplet of Zhong], a player receives
one double."
So that certainly explains one of the two doubles.

But the second one remains puzzling.
Millington gives one double for a set of the player's own Wind but that
doesn't work here since the winner is South and his set of Winds is
made of "Bei Feng", i.e. North Winds.

In CC (as well as in HKOS), a double is awarded for a triplet of the
Prevailing Wind (or "Wind of the Round"). This might be the double we
are looking for.
If this is so, then the "Prevailing Wind" was North, and we may assume
they were about to complete a full game.
Any other idea?

"8 Wan waiting is not counted"
An interesting statement. It sounds as if *normally* -- or in a similar
though different situation -- a "waiting tile" was counted...

Millington again:
"If a player who has already completed four sets then obtains Mah-Jongg
by completing his pair (whether by drawing from the wall, or by
claiming a discard), he scores 2 points if the pair consists of minor
tiles, or 4 points if it consists of major tiles."

Perhaps the score was lower, e.g. no point for a pair of minor tiles
(like 8s), 2 points for a pair of major tiles. (Indeed it seems that
the scoring system is less generous than CC: 3 exposed Dragons are
worth 4 points only, whereas they are counted for 8 points in CC.)

A minor observation: obviously the players are using a "standard" set,
with Wan suit, and regular "Winds" and "Dragons" (Zhong [Feng], Bai
Ban, etc.). Flowers and Seasons are not mentioned. This is the kind of
set Wilkinson and Laufer met around the turn of the century.

Now it is clear I was wrong in linking Li's rules to Mauger's. They're
finally rather different (even in the scoring system). I suggest we
expand the Analysis Table adding one extra column:

Li Mauger CC 1920s* Jap. HKOS
1 Score 10/20 for MJ, plus pts for sets YES YES YES YES YES NO
2 Count points, then double YES YES YES YES YES NO
3 "Concealed" sets (more) rewarded YES YES YES YES YES NO
4 Discarder pays winner NO NO NO YES YES YES
5 Self-pick rewarded ? NO NO YES YES YES
6 Special hands FEW? FEW XX XX XX FEW
7 Settlement between non-winners NO YES YES NO NO NO
8 East pays/gets double YES NO YES NO NO NO

we cannot keep a single "Pre-Classical" set or rules, and therefore we
have to change summaries. Suggestions:

CHINESE ARCHAIC (ca 1890)
no change

LATE QING STYLE (ca 1900)
* Uses 136 tiles. (No Seasons or Flowers.)
* Hold 13 tiles in the hand, go out on 14 tiles.
* East pays and receives double.
* Few special hands (?).
* Score 10 points for Out, then count up points based on pongs, kongs,
and pairs, then double if appropriate.
* "Concealed" sets are more rewarded (as in CC and Japanese).
* Only the winner is paid.
* Source: as in Li Boyuan's "Officialdom Unmasked" (Guanchang xianxing
ji), 1903-5.

CHINESE PRE-WWI = HANKOW STYLE ?
* Uses 136 tiles. (No Seasons or Flowers.)
* Hold 13 tiles in the hand, go out on 14 tiles.
* East has no privilege.
* Few special hands.
* Score 10 points for Out, then count up points based on pongs, kongs,
and pairs, then double if appropriate.
* "Concealed" sets are more rewarded (as in CC and Japanese).
* All players earn points (not only the winner).
* Source: Mauger 1915.

Cheers,

Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


8. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 22:13:44 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 8 2007 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Thierry wrote...
>" Wuelabu said: "Of course [he] has to lose! But don't you know your
>Master Tian is not the zhuang, [and therefore] is going to lose less
>than me?" "

Presumably "zhuang" means "east/dealer". Wu calls dealer "Chuang-keeper,"
and jyutping for dealer is "Zong1." And Cofa calls the dealer "jonga." (FAQ
6) Coming back to this soon...

>Doubles
>Three doubles are applicable to South's hand.
>"Wan in one suit" is the third one, a rule that is set forth by
>Millington as:
>- "A hand which is composed of honour tiles and tiles from any one suit
>receives one double. Such a hand is termed a One Suit hand."
>(Nowadays Mixed One Suit is worth 3 fans.)

Yes, so maybe they were awarding 3 fan for that alone (regardless of the
presence of honors).

>But what are the other two fans?

Maybe this is a red herring (maybe the 3 fan are for the Clean hand alone).

>If we follow the CC rules, we find (in Millington):
>- "For each set of Dragons [here triplet of Zhong], a player receives
>one double."
>So that certainly explains one of the two doubles.

Reading the translation, I notice that the translator says the "zhuang"
discarded a "zhongfeng." Is it possible that the dealer discarded the
"dealer's wind"? Does zhuang=jonga=zong=zhong? (I'm just trying to make
sense of the one translation we have, given the few "Rosetta Stone" terms we
have, in light of my not knowing any Chinese.) In this instance, does "zhong
feng" mean "dealer's wind" and not "red dragon (center wind)" at all?

Then another player ("dijia," whatever that means) punged it. If a post
clarified what "dijia" and "shangjia" and "xiajia" mean, I must have missed
it. Shang="upper" (Shanghai="upper sea") so does "shangjia" mean "upper
seat" perhaps? Then does "dijia" mean "lower seat"? And "xiajia" means
"opposite seat" perhaps (just guessing, maybe those two are vice-versa)?
These are table positions being mentioned?

I guess what I'm saying is, we can't be certain, based on this translation,
that the first double is for a dragon pung. We also can't be certain which
round it is, and the seat positions of the players (Cofa can, I hope,
clarify that last point for us).

>But the second one remains puzzling.
>Millington gives one double for a set of the player's own Wind but that
>doesn't work here since the winner is South and his set of Winds is
>made of "Bei Feng", i.e. North Winds.

Possibly confusing tangential point. My Japanese friends use a rule in which
the "opposite round wind" earns any player a double. They do this because
the Japanese game is only two rounds (E and S) and this allows W and N to
come into play, and also because they enjoy the increased gambling stakes
afforded thereby. Doubtful that this sort of thing existed in 1903, but you
never know.

>In CC (as well as in HKOS), a double is awarded for a triplet of the
>Prevailing Wind (or "Wind of the Round"). This might be the double we
>are looking for.
>If this is so, then the "Prevailing Wind" was North, and we may assume
>they were about to complete a full game.
>Any other idea?

Well, if "zhongfeng" doesn't mean "center wind" (a mysterious nomenclature
in and of itself, although one that's been discussed before), then it might
possibly mean "dealer's wind" - and that might even possibly be stretched to
mean "round wind."

>"8 Wan waiting is not counted"
>An interesting statement. It sounds as if *normally* -- or in a similar
>though different situation -- a "waiting tile" was counted...

Some people award double if the final pair is 2, 5, or 8. I've encountered
this with Taiwanese players - and it might have older roots going back to
1903, I suppose (a table rule not in use at this particular table). To
understand why 2-5-8, one must do a mathematical (Alan: "combinatorial")
analysis, involving further delving into the magical series 1-4-7 and 3-6-9
(the latter still being important even in the American game, the former
being prominent in Whitney's discussion of the Japanese game, and all three
being important in MCR).

>Millington again:
>"If a player who has already completed four sets then obtains Mah-Jongg
>by completing his pair (whether by drawing from the wall, or by
>claiming a discard), he scores 2 points if the pair consists of minor
>tiles, or 4 points if it consists of major tiles."

Well... I presume that would make it 2+2 (2 points for the honor pair, and 2
points for winning waiting for the honor), not 4+2 (2 points for the honor
pair, and 4 points for winning waiting for the honor).

>Perhaps the score was lower, e.g. no point for a pair of minor tiles
>(like 8s), 2 points for a pair of major tiles. (Indeed it seems that
>the scoring system is less generous than CC: 3 exposed Dragons are
>worth 4 points only, whereas they are counted for 8 points in CC.)

IF the zhongfeng is red dragon and not dealer's wind.

>A minor observation: obviously the players are using a "standard" set,

Personally, I prefer the term "basic set" to refer to the suits, winds and
dragons sans flowers/seasons.

>with Wan suit, and regular "Winds" and "Dragons" (Zhong [Feng], Bai
>Ban, etc.). Flowers and Seasons are not mentioned. This is the kind of
>set Wilkinson and Laufer met around the turn of the century.

Yes. I have such an archaic set in my collection as well.

>Now it is clear I was wrong in linking Li's rules to Mauger's. They're
>finally rather different (even in the scoring system). I suggest we
>expand the Analysis Table adding one extra column:

>Li Mauger CC 1920s* Jap. HKOS
>1 Score 10/20 for MJ, plus pts for sets YES YES YES YES YES NO
>2 Count points, then double YES YES YES YES YES NO
>3 "Concealed" sets (more) rewarded YES YES YES YES YES NO
>4 Discarder pays winner NO NO NO YES YES YES
>5 Self-pick rewarded ? NO NO YES YES YES
>6 Special hands FEW? FEW XX XX XX FEW
>7 Settlement between non-winners NO YES YES NO NO NO
>8 East pays/gets double YES NO YES NO NO NO

OK, I will do that, and gladly (had a VERY busy couple of days).

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>we cannot keep a single "Pre-Classical" set or rules, and therefore we
>have to change summaries. Suggestions:

>CHINESE ARCHAIC (ca 1890)
>no change

>LATE QING STYLE (ca 1900)
>* Uses 136 tiles. (No Seasons or Flowers.)
>* Hold 13 tiles in the hand, go out on 14 tiles.
>* East pays and receives double.
>* Few special hands (?).
>* Score 10 points for Out, then count up points based on pongs, kongs,
>and pairs, then double if appropriate.
>* "Concealed" sets are more rewarded (as in CC and Japanese).
>* Only the winner is paid.
>* Source: as in Li Boyuan's "Officialdom Unmasked" (Guanchang xianxing
>ji), 1903-5.

>CHINESE PRE-WWI = HANKOW STYLE ?
>* Uses 136 tiles. (No Seasons or Flowers.)
>* Hold 13 tiles in the hand, go out on 14 tiles.
>* East has no privilege.
>* Few special hands.
>* Score 10 points for Out, then count up points based on pongs, kongs,
>and pairs, then double if appropriate.
>* "Concealed" sets are more rewarded (as in CC and Japanese).
>* All players earn points (not only the winner).
>* Source: Mauger 1915.

OK, I will make this change. BUT...
a. I will make an effort to make the bullets adhere to the format I've used
in describing the other games:

1* Number of tiles used (with explanation if necessary)
2* If present, how flowers (or other special tiles) are used.
3* How many tiles are used in the hand (and how many when won)
4* Amount of special hands
5* How scoring works
6* Who gets paid
7* What books or websites describe this form. (Including sources.)

b. If more than 7 bullets are truly needed, then that format should ideally
be used across all variants listed in the FAQ.

c. If I need to apply more than 7 bullets to each variant, I may need help
from the group in formulating extra bullets for all other listed variants.

d. Names of variants shouldn't necessarily include information that could
just go into bullet 7.

Cheers, a bientot, etc. etc.,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


9. Edwin Phua
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Edwin Phua"
Date: 8 Jan 2007 22:45:47 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 8 2007 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa has some comments in his archive, which explains some of the
individual terms and characters in more detail.

Tom Sloper wrote:
> Thierry wrote...

> >" Wuelabu said: "Of course [he] has to lose! But don't you know your
> >Master Tian is not the zhuang, [and therefore] is going to lose less
> >than me?" "

> Presumably "zhuang" means "east/dealer". Wu calls dealer "Chuang-keeper,"
> and jyutping for dealer is "Zong1." And Cofa calls the dealer "jonga." (FAQ
> 6) Coming back to this soon...

Yes, zhuang1 is the Mandarin pronunciation for 'dealer'.

> Reading the translation, I notice that the translator says the "zhuang"
> discarded a "zhongfeng." Is it possible that the dealer discarded the
> "dealer's wind"? Does zhuang=jonga=zong=zhong? (I'm just trying to make
> sense of the one translation we have, given the few "Rosetta Stone" terms we
> have, in light of my not knowing any Chinese.) In this instance, does "zhong
> feng" mean "dealer's wind" and not "red dragon (center wind)" at all?

No, the Chinese characters for zhuang ("manor", meaning dealer in
mahjong) and zhong ("middle") are different. Reading it, I would take
it to mean the Red Dragon, hong zhong. Didn't Millington (or some other
author/poster) mentioned some early mahjong sets where there are five
winds, which includes the Centre Wind. In 'Dreamer' mahjong, Zhong is
used as the fifth wind, where it scores an extra double as a Prevailing
Wind (I believe Millington as well as Amy Lo says this).

> Then another player ("dijia," whatever that means) punged it. If a post
> clarified what "dijia" and "shangjia" and "xiajia" mean, I must have missed
> it. Shang="upper" (Shanghai="upper sea") so does "shangjia" mean "upper
> seat" perhaps? Then does "dijia" mean "lower seat"? And "xiajia" means
> "opposite seat" perhaps (just guessing, maybe those two are vice-versa)?
> These are table positions being mentioned?

Shangjia refers to the upper seat, while both dijia and xiajia refers
to the lower seat. I don't think the opposite seat was mentioned.
(shang = 'upper', xia = 'lower', di = 'bottom')

Cheers!
Edwin Phua
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


10. Edwin Phua
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Edwin Phua"
Date: 8 Jan 2007 22:57:25 -0800
Local: Mon, Jan 8 2007 10:57 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


> Tom Sloper wrote:
> > Then another player ("dijia," whatever that means) punged it. If a post
> > clarified what "dijia" and "shangjia" and "xiajia" mean, I must have missed
> > it. Shang="upper" (Shanghai="upper sea") so does "shangjia" mean "upper
> > seat" perhaps? Then does "dijia" mean "lower seat"? And "xiajia" means
> > "opposite seat" perhaps (just guessing, maybe those two are vice-versa)?
> > These are table positions being mentioned?

> Shangjia refers to the upper seat, while both dijia and xiajia refers
> to the lower seat. I don't think the opposite seat was mentioned.
> (shang = 'upper', xia = 'lower', di = 'bottom')

This is a clarification. In fact, the opposite seat was mentioned, in
the line
上家跟手发了一张白板, 对面也拍出.
Cofa's translation was "Thereafter shangjia discarded a Baiban, which
was also punged by the opposite side." The term used for the opposite
side was 对面 (dui4 mian4, literally "facing side"). Cofa's own
proposed term is 'opposa', 对家 (dui4 jia1, "facing player"), but
since this exact term was not used by Li Boyuan himself, Cofa
apparently did not insert the term.

Cheers!
Edwin Phua
(I hope the Chinese characters do turn up in this posting!)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


11. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 9 Jan 2007 04:45:53 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 9 2007 4:45 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Hello all,

As I have written in the thread of "Earliest Chinese reference to ma
que", the winner should be the North seat. "Di jia" should point to the
same player to "shang jia". "Di jia" means the bottomer, the last
player in turn. So the three doubles in the scene are Dragon Pung, Seat
Wind and Mixed One Suit. I have googled the Internet and find a
paragraph describing a scene of a poker game to prove my above opinion
.

http://i.6to23.com/sense/comefrom/down_3.htm
打牌文化就更不用说了,过了十二点,转运的时间,也该是人最灵光的时候,一个小笑话,哪怕一个字都能兴奋一夜.记得一次,我打底,先出了Q对.
"我日"下家打了K一对.
"我也日"我对家不甘示弱,出了A对.
"我日不动了"底家扔了两张.
整场暴笑.

Cofa maybe need to revise your translation :)
I also hope Cofa could revise the translation of "8 Wan waiting is not
counted", for the original text is "8 Wan fishing is not counted". I
think the meanings behind the text is that it is not real fishing(it's
a three-sided wait).

To Thierry,
There seems no other detailed description of mahjong in Li Boyuan's
novel. I searched it with some keywords and found nothing valuable, but
I adidn't read through it.

Cheers,
ithinc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


12. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 10 Jan 2007 00:54:24 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 10 2007 12:54 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

ithinc a écrit :

> As I have written in the thread of "Earliest Chinese reference to ma
> que", the winner should be the North seat. "Di jia" should point to the
> same player to "shang jia". "Di jia" means the bottomer, the last
> player in turn. So the three doubles in the scene are Dragon Pung, Seat
> Wind and Mixed One Suit. I have googled the Internet and find a
> paragraph describing a scene of a poker game to prove my above opinion

That would indeed better explain the sentence:
"...he [Wu] discarded a Zhongfeng, which was punged by the dijia.
*Thereafter* shangjia discarded a Baiban...

Otherwise there would have been a missing turn between South, punging
Wu's Zhongfeng (and not discarding), and North (shangjia).
So according to you dijia ("lower house", no?) equates shangjia ("upper
house").
What is the difference between 'di' and 'xia' (also "lower"...). I find
shangjia in my Chinese-French dictionary ("a person who drinks or plays
before oneself"), but I have neither dijia nor xiajia.

> To Thierry,
> There seems no other detailed description of mahjong in
> Li Boyuan's novel. I searched it with some keywords and
> found nothing valuable, but I didn't read through it.

Thank very much anyway!

Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


13. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 10 Jan 2007 03:09:16 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 10 2007 3:09 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

"cymba...@free.fr 写道：

> Otherwise there would have been a missing turn between South, punging
> Wu's Zhongfeng (and not discarding), and North (shangjia).
> So according to you dijia ("lower house", no?) equates shangjia ("upper
> house").
> What is the difference between 'di' and 'xia' (also "lower"...). I find
> shangjia in my Chinese-French dictionary ("a person who drinks or plays
> before oneself"), but I have neither dijia nor xiajia.

"Dijia" corresponds to "bottom house/lowest house" while "xiajia"
corresponds to "lower house". "Dijia" is not often used now. I have
only found two effective results of "Dijia" AND "Mahjong" OR "Poker" by
google search. But "xiajia" is often used in our daily life, which is
the antonym of "shangjia".
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


14. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 10 Jan 2007 21:21:55 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 10 2007 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

(I am stuck in the office as traffic to home is blocked due to
accidents caused by snow fall earlier the afternoon.)

ithinc wrote:
> "cymba...@free.fr 写道：
> > Otherwise there would have been a missing turn between South, punging
> > Wu's Zhongfeng (and not discarding), and North (shangjia).
> > So according to you dijia ("lower house", no?) equates shangjia ("upper
> > house").
> > What is the difference between 'di' and 'xia' (also "lower"...). I find
> > shangjia in my Chinese-French dictionary ("a person who drinks or plays
> > before oneself"), but I have neither dijia nor xiajia.

> "Dijia" corresponds to "bottom house/lowest house" while "xiajia"
> corresponds to "lower house". "Dijia" is not often used now. I have
> only found two effective results of "Dijia" AND "Mahjong" OR "Poker" by
> google search. But "xiajia" is often used in our daily life, which is
> the antonym of "shangjia".

Ithinc should be correct as it makes sense if "dijia" means the bottom
seat, the last seat and in this story, it is the "shangjia" of Wu, or
the North.

So the triplets of Zhongfeng ("Center Wind") and Beifeng ("North
Wind"), plus Mixed One Suit, all get one fan - Does HKOS (today's) has
the same rules? Can we say that pre-HKOS also has triplet-point
counting, corresponding to the 1903 Ma Que? I mean, this feature
(triplet point counting) is not necessary the feature *of CC only*?!

I will also make changes to my web page as suggested by Ithinc when my
time allows.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


15. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 11 Jan 2007 01:31:15 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 1:31 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

ithinc a écrit :

> "Dijia" corresponds to "bottom house/lowest house" while "xiajia"
> corresponds to "lower house". "Dijia" is not often used now. I have
> only found two effective results of "Dijia" AND "Mahjong" OR "Poker" by
> google search. But "xiajia" is often used in our daily life, which is
> the antonym of "shangjia".

Dear ithinc,

Thanks very much for the explanation!

But how do you explain Cuixi's remark (as translated by Cofa):
"I didn't know what the xiajia was waiting for was an 8 Wan." ?

Here the xiajia designates the winner, doesn't it?
And if "xiajia" is, as you clearly puts it, "the antonym of
"shangjia"", it means "xiajia" is South...

I'm getting lost...

Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


16. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 11 Jan 2007 02:51:44 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 2:51 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

"cymba...@free.fr 写道：
"

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> ithinc a écrit :

> > "Dijia" corresponds to "bottom house/lowest house" while "xiajia"
> > corresponds to "lower house". "Dijia" is not often used now. I have
> > only found two effective results of "Dijia" AND "Mahjong" OR "Poker" by
> > google search. But "xiajia" is often used in our daily life, which is
> > the antonym of "shangjia".

> Dear ithinc,

> Thanks very much for the explanation!

> But how do you explain Cuixi's remark (as translated by Cofa):
> "I didn't know what the xiajia was waiting for was an 8 Wan." ?

> Here the xiajia designates the winner, doesn't it?
> And if "xiajia" is, as you clearly puts it, "the antonym of
> "shangjia"", it means "xiajia" is South...

> I'm getting lost...

> Thierry

Oh, very well, you find another evidence to prove my judgement:) The
winner is the North while Tian and Cuixi sitted in the West. So the
winner is the dijia/shangjia of the zhuangjia Wuelabu and the xiajia of
Tian and Cuixi. Shangjia or xiajia is a relative concept.

ithinc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


17. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 11 Jan 2007 08:39:45 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 8:39 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

ithinc a écrit :

> Oh, very well, you find another evidence to prove my judgement:) The
> winner is the North while Tian and Cuixi sitted in the West. So the
> winner is the dijia/shangjia of the zhuangjia Wuelabu and the xiajia of
> Tian and Cuixi. Shangjia or xiajia is a relative concept.

Brilliant, ithinc!
I understand the logics.

Thank you.
Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


18. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 14 Jan 2007 11:25:04 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 14 2007 11:25 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


ithinc wrote:
> Cofa maybe need to revise your translation :)

Thanks Ithinc. The page has been revised:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_2.html

> To Thierry,
> There seems no other detailed description of mahjong in Li Boyuan's
> novel. I searched it with some keywords and found nothing valuable, but
> I adidn't read through it.

(I can't post Chinese thru the Google website - It returns with this
message "Binary posts not allowed in non-binary groups.")

I have reviewed Chapters 29 and 44. There was mentioning of Ma Que Pai
and Ma Que, but only related to day to day activities of people of the
government offices.

Chapter 29 - Brief translation:
Ma Que Pai was popular at that time, in the region south of Changjiang
(Yangtze River). Six of the officers always met days and nights, apart
from the work hours. When they played, they played at least five
hundred dollars a base. They usually met at a large house of one of
them. Their gatherings were so popular, everyone knew where to go when
requiring to find one Mr Tang [one of the group of six].

Again, "Ma Que Pai" and "five hundred dollars a base" are mentioned.

Chapter 44:
This paragraph was the continuation of an argument between two small
officers about some "gift money", in the amount of four dollars. When
they came to an officer's big house for solutions, one of the players
in the Ma Que games said: "You big guys are really short sighted! Being
so serious about just four dollars! We play Ma Que, we get it if we win
[note, 和 "he" is used here] one hundred fu. If a non-dealer wins one
hundred fu, the zhuang will not take. What's the big deal with four
dollars! I already lost forty dollars yesterday!"

I don't understand the relation between the "dollar" and the "fu".
Anyone has any idea please?

Other mentioning of "Pai" throughout the chapters includes meanings of
"playing the [Ma Que] pais" or, in some irrelevant occasions, of
"signs", "permit" or other "documentation" not related to Ma Que.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


19. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 16 Jan 2007 03:53:47 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 16 2007 3:53 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa Tsui wrote:

[snip]

> Chapter 29 - Brief translation:
> Ma Que Pai was popular at that time, in the region south of Changjiang
> (Yangtze River). Six of the officers always met days and nights, apart
> from the work hours. [snip]

Hello Cofa. Many thanks for your further translations.

I am interested whether you have any view regarding what the 1st
sentence described? One interpretation is that in 1903, or thereabouts,
the ma que pai distribution was not uniform acorss China. In other
words it was known and played in some regions but not in others. Would
you agree with this interpretation in the context of the 1st sentence?

Regarding the 2nd sentence, can you tell me what sort of 'officers'
they were - ie., were they military officers or government officials?

Cheer
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


20. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:18:34 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 16 2007 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> [snip]
> > Chapter 29 - Brief translation:
> > Ma Que Pai was popular at that time, in the region south of Changjiang
> > (Yangtze River). Six of the officers always met days and nights, apart
> > from the work hours. [snip]

> Hello Cofa. Many thanks for your further translations.

> I am interested whether you have any view regarding what the 1st
> sentence described? One interpretation is that in 1903, or thereabouts,
> the ma que pai distribution was not uniform acorss China. In other
> words it was known and played in some regions but not in others. Would
> you agree with this interpretation in the context of the 1st sentence?

The 1st sentence can be interpreted as:
- The game was popular at that time in the said region; and
- The game could also be played in other regions but not popular.

As to your "In other words it was known and played in some regions but
not in others." - China is a big land, so it is possible at that time
that the game was not known in some regions. However, I would say the
longer the game had started being propagated, the smaller the number of
regions in which the game was not known would remain.

> Regarding the 2nd sentence, can you tell me what sort of 'officers'
> they were - ie., were they military officers or government officials?

The story mentioned "yamen" (government office, court house, police
station - the mix of all) being where those officers worked. I guess it
could be a mix of both. (Perhaps Ithinc could tell you more.)

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


21. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 9 Jan 2007 06:32:41 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 9 2007 6:32 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

I wrote:
> > I suggest we expand the Analysis Table adding one extra column:

(...)

and Tom replied:

> OK, I will do that, and gladly (had a VERY busy couple of days).

Take your time!
There is another important modification which I have forgotten about
HKOS...

The "East pays and receives double" payout plan was also part of HKOS
in its earliest form.

In their book The Chinese game of Mahjong, Hong Kong, 1979, Perlmen and
Chan offer this plan as optional (p. 66: "Dealer Pays Double Plan"), as
opposed to "Chung Plan" said to be "the more popular payout plan".

So it seems the "Dealer Pays Double Plan" was declining in the 1970s
(but it was still there in 1979 though less popular).

If we get back the an earlier period, namely to Nguyên Xuân Mai, Le
mah-jong : guide complet. Jeu avec les 8 rois supplémentaires,
Haiphong, 1950, which offers what I think is the earliest full
description of "HKOS", we see that the "Dealer Pays Double Plan" was
the only rule!

Nguyên sets it forth as: "Le Chef de village (vent Est) gagne double
et perd double également."
= The Village Chief [i.e. the "banker" or 'Zhuang'] (East wind) wins
double and loses double also.

Therefore it should be fair to change point 7 for HKOS from NO to YES.

In my view that would support the theory that says HKOS is derived from
CC...

> >CHINESE PRE-WWI = HANKOW STYLE ?

etc.

> OK, I will make this change. BUT...
> a. I will make an effort to make the bullets adhere to the format I've used
> in describing the other games:

> 1* Number of tiles used (with explanation if necessary)
> 2* If present, how flowers (or other special tiles) are used.
> 3* How many tiles are used in the hand (and how many when won)
> 4* Amount of special hands
> 5* How scoring works
> 6* Who gets paid
> 7* What books or websites describe this form. (Including sources.)

I understand.

> b. If more than 7 bullets are truly needed, then that format should ideally
> be used across all variants listed in the FAQ.

> c. If I need to apply more than 7 bullets to each variant, I may need help
> from the group in formulating extra bullets for all other listed variants.

Something we might consider some time...

Cheers,
Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


22. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:00:40 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 10 2007 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Thierry wrote:
>Take your time!

Thanks. The busy period continues...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>There is another important modification which I have forgotten about
>HKOS...
>The "East pays and receives double" payout plan was also part of HKOS
>in its earliest form.

>In their book The Chinese game of Mahjong, Hong Kong, 1979, Perlmen and
>Chan offer this plan as optional (p. 66: "Dealer Pays Double Plan"), as
>opposed to "Chung Plan" said to be "the more popular payout plan".

>So it seems the "Dealer Pays Double Plan" was declining in the 1970s
>(but it was still there in 1979 though less popular).

>If we get back the an earlier period, namely to Nguyen Xuan Mai, Le
>mah-jong : guide complet. Jeu avec les 8 rois supplementaires,
>Haiphong, 1950, which offers what I think is the earliest full
>description of "HKOS", we see that the "Dealer Pays Double Plan" was
>the only rule!

This is an important book! I will add this to the timeline.

Just one thing. "rois supplementaires" means, of course, "extra king
[tiles]." And Nguyen is, of course, a Vietnamese name (and Haiphong is, of
course, a city in Vietnam, a former French colony). The Vietnamese play
mahjong with not only 8 flowers but also 8 kings/queens. AND today they play
with either 8 or 24 jokers of different types. I would be curious how Nguyen
says the 8 kings were used in 1950 - maybe those were "wild" (and jokers
hadn't yet been added - a development that also was ongoing in the USA at
that time).

So my guess would be that this book describes the early Vietnamese game with
"8 extra kings." If it's very similar to HKOS, that would be normal, since
Haiphong is not too terribly far from Hong Kong (Haiphong being in northern
Vietnam and Hong Kong being in southern China).

I would question whether a rule used in Vietnam in 1950, with 8 extra kings,
necessarily indicates anything about how the game was played in Hong Kong in
1950.

>Nguyen sets it forth as: "Le Chef de village (vent Est) gagne double
>et perd double egalement."
>= The Village Chief [i.e. the "banker" or 'Zhuang'] (East wind) wins
>double and loses double also.

>Therefore it should be fair to change point 7 for HKOS from NO to YES.

Or perhaps I should add a new column about 1950s Vietnamese.

>In my view that would support the theory that says HKOS is derived from
>CC...

It doesn't provide any weight the other way, in any case. (^_^)

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>> >CHINESE PRE-WWI = HANKOW STYLE ?
>etc.

>> OK, I will make this change. BUT...
>> a. I will make an effort to make the bullets adhere to the format I've
>> used
>> in describing the other games:

>> 1* Number of tiles used (with explanation if necessary)
>> 2* If present, how flowers (or other special tiles) are used.
>> 3* How many tiles are used in the hand (and how many when won)
>> 4* Amount of special hands
>> 5* How scoring works
>> 6* Who gets paid
>> 7* What books or websites describe this form. (Including sources.)

>I understand.

I still need to do that work. Maybe this evening.
A bientot,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


23. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 10 Jan 2007 21:49:36 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 10 2007 9:49 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Tom Sloper wrote:
> Thierry wrote:

> >There is another important modification which I have forgotten about
> >HKOS...
> >The "East pays and receives double" payout plan was also part of HKOS
> >in its earliest form.

So "east pays and receives double" can be counted as also a feature of
the "HKOS-like" form; a feature found in the 1903 Ma Que, and a feature
not necessary to be a feature of the "CC-like" or CC only.

[...]

> >Therefore it should be fair to change point 7 for HKOS from NO to YES.

> Or perhaps I should add a new column about 1950s Vietnamese.

> >In my view that would support the theory that says HKOS is derived from
> >CC...

> It doesn't provide any weight the other way, in any case. (^_^)

Mostly not so (^_^)

The 1903 Ma Que as described by Li Boyuan contains features found in
both modern CC (1977 Millington) and HKOS (1979 Perlmen & Chan); and
Babcock also mentioned the forms of "CC-like" and "New Form" in his
book (1923) [pardon me if any spelling error]. Therefore, IMO it is
really unnecessary to *have to* link the developments of HKOS and CC
*directly* to each other. With the descriptions of the 1903 Ma Que in
Li's book, it is very reasonable to believe that the developments of
HKOS have its own source, and the developments are not necessary to
have to be linked to CC (1977 Millington) or "CC-like" (1920s).

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


24. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 11 Jan 2007 01:34:28 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 1:34 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> The 1903 Ma Que as described by Li Boyuan contains features found in
> both modern CC (1977 Millington) and HKOS (1979 Perlmen & Chan); and
> Babcock also mentioned the forms of "CC-like" and "New Form" in his
> book (1923) [pardon me if any spelling error]. Therefore, IMO it is
> really unnecessary to *have to* link the developments of HKOS and CC
> *directly* to each other. With the descriptions of the 1903 Ma Que in
> Li's book, it is very reasonable to believe that the developments of
> HKOS have its own source, and the developments are not necessary to
> have to be linked to CC (1977 Millington) or "CC-like" (1920s).

However, what strikes me when watching the "Analysis of Early Mahjong
Rules" Table at
http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg/analysis.html
as charted by Tom from my own data, and nicely enhanced, is the
clear-cut opposition between CC (all red) and HKOS (all blue). They
look like if "incompatible"!

It is also very clear that Li's and Mauger's rules (pretty similar in
fact) share more points with CC (6 each) than with HKOS, with which
they only share two (or three) points.

Owing to the existence of transitional forms (1920s "New Method" and
Japanese Classical), for which we have witness before WWII, whereas the
earliest account of HKOS is 1950, there is only one conclusion:
evolution. HKOS evolved from CC through variant forms like 1920s "New
Method" and Japanese Classical.

Cheers,
Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


25. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 11 Jan 2007 03:06:42 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 11 2007 3:06 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

cymba...@free.fr wrote:
> Cofa Tsui a écrit :
> > The 1903 Ma Que as described by Li Boyuan contains features found in
> > both modern CC (1977 Millington) and HKOS (1979 Perlmen & Chan); and
> > Babcock also mentioned the forms of "CC-like" and "New Form" in his
> > book (1923) [pardon me if any spelling error]. Therefore, IMO it is
> > really unnecessary to *have to* link the developments of HKOS and CC
> > *directly* to each other. With the descriptions of the 1903 Ma Que in
> > Li's book, it is very reasonable to believe that the developments of
> > HKOS have its own source, and the developments are not necessary to
> > have to be linked to CC (1977 Millington) or "CC-like" (1920s).

> However, what strikes me when watching the "Analysis of Early Mahjong
> Rules" Table at
> http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg/analysis.html
> as charted by Tom from my own data, and nicely enhanced, is the
> clear-cut opposition between CC (all red) and HKOS (all blue). They
> look like if "incompatible"!

Well, first of all, the items (features) in the table are, in my
opinion, somewhat biased. Sorry for having to say this but I do have
this feeling.

For item 1: If you separate it into two, i.e., (1) for "Score 10 or 20
for MJ" and (2) pts for sets, then (2) is clearly a common feature
found in both HKOS and CC. As to (1), I don't see any reason this can
be a "hall mark" feature. With or without this feature (e.g.,
Score/Bonus ZERO for win in HKOS), the game play or style won't change
significantly, IMO.

I have no say for item 2. But if I add item 2a: Set value for a base
before the game starts (i.e., $500 a base as mentioned in Li's book) -
This clearly is a hall mark feature of HKOS.

For item 4: "Discarder pays winner" - I don't understand why "NO" is
marked for the first 3 game forms. Isn't discarder paying the winner a
*must have* feature of the game?

For item 5: "Self-pick rewarded" - Li's descriptions don't seem to
provide an answer to this item.

For item 8; "Settlement between non-winners" - A "NO" should be given
to the 1903 game. (Hall mark feature of HKOS)

If you weigh the hall mark items alone, Li's 1903 game will have more
hall mark features found in HKOS than in CC:
HKOS: Item 2a: Set value for a base before the game starts and Item 8:
Settlement between non-winners.
CC: Item 2: Count points, then double.

Even with this weighing, one can reasonably question: Is item 2 really
a hall mark feature?

Secondly, when evaluating the development/evolution of the forms, the
method of payment (of scores) of a game should be an essential item.
With CC, the payment method is winner gets paid, then non-winners
settle among themselves. If CC is not the original form, and if an
earlier form having a different payment method exists, then we can
reasonably say that CC must have had evolved/developed from that
earlier form.

I can't say CC was evolved from the 1903 Ma Que as we do not have
documentation saying such. However, I believe it is quite clear, the
developments of HKOS do have their own source that is clearly not CC or
"CC-like".

Because, HKOS does have at least two hall mark features that are not
found in CC, but are found in a form older than CC.

> It is also very clear that Li's and Mauger's rules (pretty similar in
> fact) share more points with CC (6 each) than with HKOS, with which
> they only share two (or three) points.

See above.

> Owing to the existence of transitional forms (1920s "New Method" and
> Japanese Classical), for which we have witness before WWII, whereas the
> earliest account of HKOS is 1950, there is only one conclusion:
> evolution. HKOS evolved from CC through variant forms like 1920s "New
> Method" and Japanese Classical.

All forms in transit to the 1920s, can only be considered as forms that
were evolved from an or some earlier form(s) than those found in the
1920s. In my opinion, calling any earlier forms "CC", "CC-like" or
"HKOS-like" are inappropriate; that's why I suggested calling them by
their source of discovery.

And from my illustration above, HKOS is more likely a form that was
evolved from an older form than CC or "CC-like" (non-essential features
excepted); and since HKOS is a form rarely documented (isn't it
familiar with the mahjong games found all over China in the early
years), it could be in more than one form.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


26. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 12 Jan 2007 01:53:05 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 12 2007 1:53 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> Well, first of all, the items (features) in the table are, in my
> opinion, somewhat biased. Sorry for having to say this but I do have
> this feeling.

> For item 1: If you separate it into two, i.e., (1) for "Score 10 or 20
> for MJ" and (2) pts for sets, then (2) is clearly a common feature
> found in both HKOS and CC.

Why separate? They are always bundled together. It is this petty cash
accounting which is typical of CC, and which HKOS (later) changed. It
is, as we can see, often associated with payments between non-winners.

> As to (1), I don't see any reason this can
> be a "hall mark" feature. With or without this feature (e.g.,
> Score/Bonus ZERO for win in HKOS), the game play or style won't change
> significantly, IMO.

I'll leave Tom argue on this point. :-)) (Signed: Pilatus.)

> I have no say for item 2. But if I add item 2a: Set value for a base
> before the game starts (i.e., $500 a base as mentioned in Li's book) -
> This clearly is a hall mark feature of HKOS.

> For item 4: "Discarder pays winner" - I don't understand why "NO" is
> marked for the first 3 game forms. Isn't discarder paying the winner a
> *must have* feature of the game?

But it is so: Li Boyuan's game makes clear the discarder does NOT pay
the winner, and this is also the well-known rule in CC. Mauger sets
forth: "les trois autres joueurs doivent lui [the winner] payer les
points sans aucune déduction." (The other three players must pay him
the points without any deduction.")

> For item 5: "Self-pick rewarded" - Li's descriptions don't seem to
> provide an answer to this item.

Correct. This is why we put a question mark.

> For item 8; "Settlement between non-winners" - A "NO" should be given
> to the 1903 game.

It is so!

> (Hall mark feature of HKOS)

and of 1920s "New Method", and Japanese Classical...

> If you weigh the hall mark items alone, Li's 1903 game will have more
> hall mark features found in HKOS than in CC:

Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
find that CC is identical to HKOS!

> I can't say CC was evolved from the 1903 Ma Que as we do not have
> documentation saying such. However, I believe it is quite clear, the
> developments of HKOS do have their own source that is clearly not CC or
> "CC-like".

You may be right: after all, this would explain why there is so little
in common between CC and HKOS.

In fact we need more stuff to decide. Perhaps a more detailed analysis
of all play elements would yield a clearer picture. Would you like to
try? First list play elements ("rules") you think relevant, then build
up a chart (like Tom's but with more points). You can do this with CC,
Japanese Classical and HKOS, and what little we know from Li Boyuan. I
am ready to send you all you need from Mauger, including scoring.

At your service!

Thierry
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


27. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:34:54 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 12 2007 8:34 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Thierry AKA cymba...@free.fr wrote...
>Cofa Tsui a écrit :

>> Well, first of all, the items (features) in the table are, in my
>> opinion, somewhat biased. Sorry for having to say this but I do have
>> this feeling.

>> For item 1: If you separate it into two, i.e., (1) for "Score 10 or 20
>> for MJ" and (2) pts for sets, then (2) is clearly a common feature
>> found in both HKOS and CC.

I have never heard of scoring points for individual pungs, or honor pairs,
in HKOS. Am I missing something? All my descriptions of HKOS describe a
completely different scoring system, based on characteristics of the whole
hand, and how it was won, only (never scoring points for pungs or pairs).

>Why separate? They are always bundled together. It is this petty cash
>accounting which is typical of CC, and which HKOS (later) changed. It
>is, as we can see, often associated with payments between non-winners.

In fact, I think rows 1 and 2 ought not be separate - that they ought to be
combined.

>> As to (1), I don't see any reason this can
>> be a "hall mark" feature. With or without this feature (e.g.,
>> Score/Bonus ZERO for win in HKOS), the game play or style won't change
>> significantly, IMO.

>I'll leave Tom argue on this point. :-)) (Signed: Pilatus.)

Declined. (Signed: Thomas.)

>> I have no say for item 2. But if I add item 2a: Set value for a base
>> before the game starts (i.e., $500 a base as mentioned in Li's book) -
>> This clearly is a hall mark feature of HKOS.

>> For item 4: "Discarder pays winner" - I don't understand why "NO" is
>> marked for the first 3 game forms. Isn't discarder paying the winner a
>> *must have* feature of the game?

>But it is so: Li Boyuan's game makes clear the discarder does NOT pay
>the winner, and this is also the well-known rule in CC. Mauger sets
>forth: "les trois autres joueurs doivent lui [the winner] payer les
>points sans aucune déduction." (The other three players must pay him
>the points without any deduction.")

Probably need to change that line in the chart. Difference between
"Discarder pays same as other players" versus "Discarder pays for all."

>> For item 8; "Settlement between non-winners" - A "NO" should be given
>> to the 1903 game.

>It is so!

That's included in the "Late Qing Style" change I need to make.

>> If you weigh the hall mark items alone, Li's 1903 game will have more
>> hall mark features found in HKOS than in CC:

>Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
>find that CC is identical to HKOS!

(^_^)

A bientot,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


28. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:01:07 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 12 2007 10:01 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

"Tom Sloper" a écrit :

> Probably need to change that line in the chart. Difference between
> "Discarder pays same as other players" versus "Discarder pays for all."

>>> For item 8; "Settlement between non-winners" - A "NO" should be given
>>> to the 1903 game.

>>It is so!

> That's included in the "Late Qing Style" change I need to make.

I made the changes to the analysis chart. And I've updated FAQ 2b. I hope I
didn't make any errors - it required getting my brain to work, and it's
early in the morning.
http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg/analysis.html
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/mjfaq02b.htm

Cheers,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


29. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 13 Jan 2007 23:00:34 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 13 2007 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Tom Sloper wrote:
> Thierry AKA cymba...@free.fr wrote...
> >Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> >> Well, first of all, the items (features) in the table are, in my
> >> opinion, somewhat biased. Sorry for having to say this but I do have
> >> this feeling.

> >> For item 1: If you separate it into two, i.e., (1) for "Score 10 or 20
> >> for MJ" and (2) pts for sets, then (2) is clearly a common feature
> >> found in both HKOS and CC.

> I have never heard of scoring points for individual pungs, or honor pairs,
> in HKOS. Am I missing something? All my descriptions of HKOS describe a
> completely different scoring system, based on characteristics of the whole
> hand, and how it was won, only (never scoring points for pungs or pairs).

I must be getting old, or too much work lately to be not concentrated!
I've mixed up with "fans for sets" in HKOS as "points for sets" -
Surprised!

> >Why separate? They are always bundled together. It is this petty cash
> >accounting which is typical of CC, and which HKOS (later) changed. It
> >is, as we can see, often associated with payments between non-winners.

> In fact, I think rows 1 and 2 ought not be separate - that they ought to be
> combined.

The reason to separate them is because they could be of different
nature:
- Score (bonus) for win - Nature: of the whole hand
- Points for sets - Nature: related to individual sets or combinations
of pais
- (Row 2) Count points, then double - Nature: of the whole hand

As I will try to define "hallmark feature" - see below...

> >> As to (1), I don't see any reason this can
> >> be a "hall mark" feature. With or without this feature (e.g.,
> >> Score/Bonus ZERO for win in HKOS), the game play or style won't change
> >> significantly, IMO.

> >I'll leave Tom argue on this point. :-)) (Signed: Pilatus.)

> Declined. (Signed: Thomas.)

Cruel guys!

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> >> I have no say for item 2. But if I add item 2a: Set value for a base
> >> before the game starts (i.e., $500 a base as mentioned in Li's book) -
> >> This clearly is a hall mark feature of HKOS.

> >> For item 4: "Discarder pays winner" - I don't understand why "NO" is
> >> marked for the first 3 game forms. Isn't discarder paying the winner a
> >> *must have* feature of the game?

> >But it is so: Li Boyuan's game makes clear the discarder does NOT pay
> >the winner, and this is also the well-known rule in CC. Mauger sets
> >forth: "les trois autres joueurs doivent lui [the winner] payer les
> >points sans aucune déduction." (The other three players must pay him
> >the points without any deduction.")

> Probably need to change that line in the chart. Difference between
> "Discarder pays same as other players" versus "Discarder pays for all."

Tom's clarification makes it clear now - You meant "discarder pays for
all." But I think this feature is the recent change to the older HKOS
form (prpbably late 1980s/early 1990s). I started playing mahjong
(HKOS) in/around 1975 where all losers must pay the winning player. I
guess your table is not meant to include this new
development/evolution, right?

> >> For item 8; "Settlement between non-winners" - A "NO" should be given
> >> to the 1903 game.

> >It is so!

> That's included in the "Late Qing Style" change I need to make.

I see that the table has been changed now.

> >> If you weigh the hall mark items alone, Li's 1903 game will have more
> >> hall mark features found in HKOS than in CC:

> >Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
> >find that CC is identical to HKOS!

> (^_^)

Exactly! But that's not what I meant. We must understand what we are
comparing:
- On one hand, a form that has many written references, that any
changes (however small) over time are either properly recorded or
possible to trace.
- On the other hand, a form that has been propagated mainly by mouth
and practice of players, that newer changes from its "original forms"
are not recorded and could be considered part of the "original forms" -
This could make any comparison or analysis inaccurate.

To respect the above historic situations and to keep the analysis more
accurate, I have some suggestions - see next.

Thierry wrote:
> > I can't say CC was evolved from the 1903 Ma Que as we do not have
> > documentation saying such. However, I believe it is quite clear, the
> > developments of HKOS do have their own source that is clearly not CC or
> > "CC-like".

> You may be right: after all, this would explain why there is so little
> in common between CC and HKOS.

> In fact we need more stuff to decide. Perhaps a more detailed analysis
> of all play elements would yield a clearer picture. Would you like to
> try? First list play elements ("rules") you think relevant, then build
> up a chart (like Tom's but with more points). You can do this with CC,
> Japanese Classical and HKOS, and what little we know from Li Boyuan. I
> am ready to send you all you need from Mauger, including scoring.

I think I can do that. I have the following raw ideas:

A. Change the contents of the table:
- Identify feature items of the early-years forms and the left-most
column will contain these items only (I suggest ca 1890 Wilkinson and
1903 Li Boyuan to be the early-years forms)
- Separate the features into two groups: Hallmark features and general
features (see also B below)
- Mark all these features (i.e., those found in the early years forms)
as T (true) or Y (yes)
- Compare later or modern forms - Use F (false) or N (no) to indicate
their similarity to the early years forms.

B. Hallmark feature - Below is my suggested definition:
Of or respecting the whole hand, or related to the game play, BUT not
related to individual sets or combinations of pais.

Based on the above ideas, I have created a spreadsheet:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_2b_RulesComparison070113.xls
(Note: MS Excel file - URL is case sensitive.)

The above table is not completed. Anyone can fill out items and send
back a revised table to me - And I'll update the file on the web after
proper verifications. My email address: IMJ /at/ cofatsui /dot/ com

Meanwhile, I need to verify the following:

Thierry wrote in "Charting archaic rules" dated Jan 2, 2007:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> CHINESE ARCHAIC (ca 1890)
> * Uses 136 tiles. (No Seasons or Flowers.)
> * Hold 15 tiles in the hand, go out on 15 tiles ("as in Kanhoo").
> * No special hands.
> * Score for Out not mentioned.
> * Score: count up points based on "tricks" (i.e. pongs, kongs, and
> pairs), according to "tariff".
> * "Sequences help towards filling a hand, but are not regarded as
> tricks, and score nothing."
> * Four own winds ("e.g. the 4 East in the East hand") double "stakes
> all round".
> * "In some cases" 4 own winds double "the value of all tricks in the
> holder's hand only".
> * All players earn points (?) -- this is inferred from preceding point.

> * Source: Wilkinson 1890.

My understand is that all scores are awarded to the winner only, and no
payments between non-winners.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


30. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 16 Jan 2007 04:11:11 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 16 2007 4:11 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Cofa Tsui wrote:

[snip]

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > Thierry AKA cymba...@free.fr wrote...
[snip]
> > >Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
> > >find that CC is identical to HKOS!

> > (^_^)

> Exactly! But that's not what I meant. We must understand what we are
> comparing:
> - On one hand, a form that has many written references, that any
> changes (however small) over time are either properly recorded or
> possible to trace.
> - On the other hand, a form that has been propagated mainly by mouth
> and practice of players, that newer changes from its "original forms"
> are not recorded and could be considered part of the "original forms" -
> This could make any comparison or analysis inaccurate.

Hello Cofa. Am I right in assuming that in the 1st instance you are
referring to the CC form and in the 2nd instance you are referring to
the HKOS form?

If so, I am interested to know if you are making a statement of
actuality (ie 'factual'), as opposed to a statement of possibility (ie
'hypothetical'), when you state "...that has been propagated mainly by
mouth and practice of players..." .

I suspect it is the 2nd? If I am correct, I presume you mean that when
you compare the two forms above, you are saying that we must be aware
that the development of the 1st form is the stronger claim, and the
development of the 2nd form is the weaker claim (due to lack of
evidence for its development)?

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


31. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 16 Jan 2007 19:19:29 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 16 2007 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Thierry AKA cymba...@free.fr wrote...
> [snip]
> > > >Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
> > > >find that CC is identical to HKOS!

> > > (^_^)

> > Exactly! But that's not what I meant. We must understand what we are
> > comparing:
> > - On one hand, a form that has many written references, that any
> > changes (however small) over time are either properly recorded or
> > possible to trace.
> > - On the other hand, a form that has been propagated mainly by mouth
> > and practice of players, that newer changes from its "original forms"
> > are not recorded and could be considered part of the "original forms" -
> > This could make any comparison or analysis inaccurate.

> Hello Cofa. Am I right in assuming that in the 1st instance you are
> referring to the CC form and in the 2nd instance you are referring to
> the HKOS form?

Yes.

> If so, I am interested to know if you are making a [1st] statement of
> actuality (ie 'factual'), as opposed to a [2nd] statement of possibility (ie
> 'hypothetical'), when you state "...that has been propagated mainly by
> mouth and practice of players..." .

> I suspect it is the 2nd?

No. I think my [2nd] statement is more factual than hypothetical. It is
a fact that there are more written references on CC than on HKOS. As to
"[HKOS] has been propagated mainly by mouth and practice of players" -
this has been my personal experience and it has also been reported by
some literature as well as by some regulars of this group (I have no
reference on hand though). I guess Babcock also mentioned this in his
book so this "experience" could also apply to developments back in the
1920s or beyond.

If I am correct, I presume you mean that when

> you compare the two forms above, you are saying that we must be aware
> that the development of the 1st form is the stronger claim, and the
> development of the 2nd form is the weaker claim (due to lack of
> evidence for its development)?

I guess whether your previous assumption is correct or not, your above
assumption can still be correct. However, this is not what I meant to
say when answering to Thierry and Tom:

> > >Oh, yes, if we change everything, and limit the features to two, we'll
> > >find that CC is identical to HKOS!

> > (^_^)

> Exactly! But that's not what I meant. We must understand what we are
> comparing:
> - On one hand, a form that has many written references, that any
> changes (however small) over time are either properly recorded or
> possible to trace.
> - On the other hand, a form that has been propagated mainly by mouth
> and practice of players, that newer changes from its "original forms"
> are not recorded and could be considered part of the "original forms" -
> This could make any comparison or analysis inaccurate.

What I meant is we need to understand (or identify) what we wish to
compare. With CC (1977 Millington) and CC-like (those of the 1920s),
one can easily compare features of forms in the two time periods,
because they are mostly properly documented. Some people say that those
similar forms found in books of the 1920s are "CC" but I would rather
call them "CC-like" if I have to, because CC is a term created or
inspired in and after 1977. It ("CC") didn't exist in the 1920s!
Although features of CC (1977) and of CC-like (1920s) are very alike,
we can't say that CC existed in the 1920s!

Features of the CC-like (1920s) are part of a group of many features
existed at or prior to that time, features that continued to evolve and
develop, with or without proper documentation.

With HKOS (1979 Perlmen and Chan), we have nothing or rarely anything
to compare to. In my opinion, features that we found in the 1920s could
also be (or part of) features-in-transit of HKOS. But since we don't
have documentation showing older features (of the 1920s) being
transformed into modern features of HKOS, it has once given good
reasons to the belief that HKOS was derived from CC. The reason such
belief is possible could be, in my opinion, that the believers have
mixed up features of the 1920s with the features of the CC (1977),
believing that those features of the 1920s were that of the "original
form." (See lengthy discussions "History of MAHJONG - HKOS and Chinese
Classical" - http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205_ori.html)

That's why I suggested to Thierry and Tom, that we compare only
features that are found in the early years forms, not features between
the modern forms.

-----
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


32. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:16:06 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 16 2007 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Just a correction...

> No. I think my [2nd] statement is more factual than hypothetical.

Should have been:

> No. I think my statement is more factual than hypothetical.

Cheers!

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


33. Edwin Phua
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Edwin Phua"
Date: 17 Jan 2007 01:27:06 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 17 2007 1:27 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

How different are the 1920s "CC" rules from Millington's CC (1977)?
While Cofa's point about CC being coined in 1977 is true, I believe
that for the sake of discussion that we do not need to name them
differently unless Chinese Classical always refers specifically to
Millington's variant.

In evolutionary biology, similar things need not be related
historically, an example being the wings of bats, and the wings of
birds. Although these appendages are used for flying, their structures
are different, and birds and bats are rather distantly related. This is
a phenomenon known as convergent evolution, and these wings are
phenetic (overall) similarities, rather than phylogenetic
(evolutionary) relationships. This can be applied to our discussion,
although it is rather difficult to see the evolutionary relationships
given the lack of evidence (in terms of books, articles on rules etc.
from the early 20th century).

For example, as I have mentioned earlier, the Singapore variant does
not count points for sets (pungs, kongs etc.) and use only doubles when
scoring. This does not mean that it never had a rule that did not count
points for such sets, but just the Singapore variant evolved, and lost
this rule. The evidence, I believe, is in the particular rules for the
pinghu (All Chows hand). Since we do not know if the Singapore variant
evolved directly from the 1920s "CC" variant, we can at most speculate
that the 1920s "CC" and the Singapore variant shared a common ancestor.
The problem for the Singapore variant is the same as that for HKOS, the
lack of recorded rules. The result is that we can only use the current
version for discussion (although even till now, there is no proper
record of the rules).

I believe HKOS faces the same problem. Based on what I know
(imperfectly), the All Chows hand is not quite the same as in the
Singapore variant. There are fewer restrictions on the All Chows hand.
There are two possible reasons: HKOS has evolved further from the
common ancestor than the Singapore variant, and has lost all signs of
"CC"-styled set counting; or HKOS is derived from an ancestor where
set-counting was not a part of the rules, and evolved on its own from
there. However, it is really difficult to say which is the case, since
any ancestral form(s) are not well recorded.

I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
seems to be comparing bats and birds.

As an aside, even though HKOS was recorded (as in Perlmen and Chan,
1979), it seems that it has continued to evolve, and the 1979 HKOS is
not played faithfully. This is interesting, because I feel that CC
appears to be more faithfully followed in non-Asian countries, whereas
other variants are not well-preserved. Personally, this kinds of
support Cofa's assertion that HKOS is a "form that has been propagated
mainly by mouth and practice of players". Obviously Perlmen and Chan's
(1979) book is probably not essential at all to HK players learning how
to play mahjong, since there are many other sources to learn from,
whereas "CC" variants overseas could faithfully propagated by new
generations of mahjong players who only learn from such rulesets,
thereby keeping the game played today largely similar to as when it was
first described in the 1920s.

In addition, American (NJML), 'Western' and 'Wright-Patterson' variants
are indications that mahjong can evolve, but it is well-documented that
these arose from 1920s "CC" variants, whereas the origins of Chinese
and Asian variants are not so well-known.

Apologies for a long and rambling post. Pardon me if I made any errors
as well.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


34. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 17 Jan 2007 13:48:34 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 17 2007 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Edwin Phua wrote:
> How different are the 1920s "CC" rules from Millington's CC (1977)?
> While Cofa's point about CC being coined in 1977 is true, I believe
> that for the sake of discussion that we do not need to name them
> differently unless Chinese Classical always refers specifically to
> Millington's variant.

Hello Edwin.

There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

[snipped explanation] I agree with your analysis.

> There are two possible reasons: HKOS has evolved further from the
> common ancestor than the Singapore variant, and has lost all signs of
> "CC"-styled set counting; or HKOS is derived from an ancestor where
> set-counting was not a part of the rules, and evolved on its own from
> there. However, it is really difficult to say which is the case, since
> any ancestral form(s) are not well recorded.

Precisely.

> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

Again, excellent discussion. I fully agree.

> As an aside, even though HKOS was recorded (as in Perlmen and Chan,
> 1979), it seems that it has continued to evolve, and the 1979 HKOS is
> not played faithfully. This is interesting, because I feel that CC
> appears to be more faithfully followed in non-Asian countries, whereas
> other variants are not well-preserved. Personally, this kind of
> supports Cofa's assertion that HKOS is a "form that has been propagated
> mainly by mouth and practice of players".

Interesting. Over what time frame are you applying the 'mouth and
practice type of propagation' above?

> Obviously Perlmen and Chan's(1979) book is probably not essential at all to HK players learning how
> to play mahjong, since there are many other sources to learn from,
> whereas "CC" variants overseas could faithfully [be] propagated by new
> generations of mahjong players who only learn from such rulesets,
> thereby keeping the game played today largely similar to as when it was
> first described in the 1920s.

Again, interesting. But if this were the case, why the conservatism
amongst 'CC' players? That is, why do you think there might have been
such strict adherence to a particular rule set, apart from the fact
that this rule set was one source to learn from? Are there other
additional or alternative explanations?

snip]

> Apologies for a long and rambling post. Pardon me if I made any errors
> as well.

No need to apologise. IMO it was not long or rambling, but a very
interesting post indeed.

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


35. Edwin Phua
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Edwin Phua"
Date: 17 Jan 2007 23:13:57 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 17 2007 11:13 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

Hello, Michael! Thanks for your kind words.

mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > As an aside, even though HKOS was recorded (as in Perlmen and Chan,
> > 1979), it seems that it has continued to evolve, and the 1979 HKOS is
> > not played faithfully. This is interesting, because I feel that CC
> > appears to be more faithfully followed in non-Asian countries, whereas
> > other variants are not well-preserved. Personally, this kind of
> > supports Cofa's assertion that HKOS is a "form that has been propagated
> > mainly by mouth and practice of players".

> Interesting. Over what time frame are you applying the 'mouth and
> practice type of propagation' above?

I would not know how to answer this. But, it does seem true that
players in Asia are not learning from printed rule sets, and there are
few (if any) rule sets written and used by Chinese (but my knowledge of
such artifacts is scant). Since we can assume that mahjong playing has
never been completely stopped for any period of time some places in
Asia (Hong Kong, for a good example) since the invention of mahjong, it
does seem safe to say that this 'mouth and practice type of
propagation' has been happening since the early 1900s.

However, I personally think that major changes in the game can happen
in a short time frame. I was playing the Singapore variant with my
mother's friends recently, and I mentioned playing a new variant of
mahjong (Chinese Official), and I said something along the lines of
"this variant involves a lot of point-counting" ('point-counting'
actually referring to the addition of the points to make the 8-point
mininum to win), but one of them mistook my statement to be referring
to CC (he went, "oh, the old style we used to play"). It turns out that
Singaporeans used to play CC mahjong (perhaps 30 to 40 years ago), but
somehow the Singapore variant which is fairly different took root, and
became the de facto variant instead. So, one 'generation' is enough to
make a major change from CC to Singapore-style mahjong. All younger
Singaporeans will learn from their older friends and relatives, and the
change is complete. Few Singaporeans under 40 seem to know the "old
style" (i.e. CC).

> Again, interesting. But if this were the case, why the conservatism
> amongst 'CC' players? That is, why do you think there might have been
> such strict adherence to a particular rule set, apart from the fact
> that this rule set was one source to learn from? Are there other
> additional or alternative explanations?

In the first place, I do not think there is particular strict adherence
to the rule set. The players in Europe probably all started out playing
CC (1920s rules), but there are developments since. Italian, Western,
Wright-Patterson and American NJML mahjong variants appear to be
evolved from CC (since CC is the stock variant introduced from China).
After they have changed, these are no longer considered CC, having
become distinct variants.

For example, a new player may learn CC, most likely from a (1920s) rule
set that is available and played by a group of players who more or less
play as learnt, possibly with table rules that are slight variants (50
points for going mahjong instead of 10 or 20, for example). Should this
new player desires a change, it is highly possible that he will end up
learning one of the established new variants that are available.

That said, there are problems with my speculations and reasoning, but I
will think them out and reply again later.

Cheers!
Edwin Phua
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


36. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 10:08:47 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jan 18 2007 10:08 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Edwin Phua wrote:
>> How different are the 1920s "CC" rules from Millington's CC (1977)?
>> While Cofa's point about CC being coined in 1977 is true, I believe
>> that for the sake of discussion that we do not need to name them
>> differently unless Chinese Classical always refers specifically to
>> Millington's variant.
Michael Stanwick wrote:
> There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
> Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
> for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
> Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
> Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
> for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described by
Millington in his book.
I agree with Edwin that for the sake of this discussion we don't need to
name them differently. If one wants to dissect fine details between Foster
and Work and Millington, then fine - but all those authors described CC. No
need to split hairs in every discussion, just those concerned with that
level of detail.

>> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
>> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
>> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
>> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
>> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
>> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

There's very little documentation. I think there is something to be gained
by comparing (and contrasting) bats and birds. Apples are not oranges, bats
are not birds. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, though, which makes the study
of birds relevant if one is studying dinosaurs and/or evolution. And it is
helpful to make it clear how bats differ from birds. In a discussion such as
this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
contrasting their differences is. Which is why it's helpful to consider
those features that are particular to CC in contrast to those features that
are particular to HKOS.

Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


37. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:03:47 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 18 2007 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

"Tom Sloper" wrote in message

news:a8GdndFjdM5hKjLYnZ2dnUVZ_sOknZ2d@giganews.com...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Edwin Phua wrote:
>>> How different are the 1920s "CC" rules from Millington's CC (1977)?
>>> While Cofa's point about CC being coined in 1977 is true, I believe
>>> that for the sake of discussion that we do not need to name them
>>> differently unless Chinese Classical always refers specifically to
>>> Millington's variant.

> Michael Stanwick wrote:
>> There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
>> Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
>> for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
>> Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
>> Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
>> for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

> There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
> distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
> The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
> describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described by
> Millington in his book.
> I agree with Edwin that for the sake of this discussion we don't need to
> name them differently. If one wants to dissect fine details between Foster
> and Work and Millington, then fine - but all those authors described CC.
> No need to split hairs in every discussion, just those concerned with that
> level of detail.

I think separating "CC (1977)" and "CC-like (1920s)" has a good reason when
"historical issues" are of the centre of the discussions. For discussing
game play or details of features, it is true there is no such need, hence
the statement "the term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been
using to describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was
described by Millington in his book" doesn't seem to have any problem for as
long as the term is used for this purpose. However, when historical issues
are involved, and without knowing the difference between the two terms and
without knowing the *existence of any older forms*, one could easily come to
a conclusion that "CC is the only origin of MAHJONG and all other variants
are simply its descendants." For some time the latter statement
("conclusion") seemed very convincing since only books describing
Millington's CC (1977) and the CC-like (1920s) were found, thus it became
natural to say that they are all CC.

However, from the view involving historiical issues this could be
problematic, especially when *older forms* than those of the 1920s are
found, and with the knowledge that *not all* forms reported in the 1920s are
CC.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>>> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
>>> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
>>> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
>>> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
>>> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
>>> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

> There's very little documentation. I think there is something to be gained
> by comparing (and contrasting) bats and birds. Apples are not oranges,
> bats are not birds. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, though, which makes the
> study of birds relevant if one is studying dinosaurs and/or evolution. And
> it is helpful to make it clear how bats differ from birds. In a discussion
> such as this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
> contrasting their differences is. Which is why it's helpful to consider
> those features that are particular to CC in contrast to those features
> that are particular to HKOS.

And with the discovery of some older forms that contain features that are
different than CC (1977), it becomes more necessary to identify the terms
"CC (1977)" and the term "CC-like (1920s)" - For features found in CC-like
(1920s) are not necessary features of CC alone, because such features can
also be considered as features of other co-existing forms that are
evolving/developing from the older forms.

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


38. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:52:11 -0800
Local: Fri, Jan 19 2007 4:52 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Tom Sloper wrote:
> Edwin Phua wrote:
> >> How different are the 1920s "CC" rules from Millington's CC (1977)?
> >> While Cofa's point about CC being coined in 1977 is true, I believe
> >> that for the sake of discussion that we do not need to name them
> >> differently unless Chinese Classical always refers specifically to
> >> Millington's variant.

> Michael Stanwick wrote:
> > There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
> > Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
> > for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
> > Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
> > Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
> > for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

> There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
> distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
> The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
> describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described by
> Millington in his book.

Hello Tom. In your last sentence, do you mean that (1) "Chinese
Classical" is used to describe the 1920's game, as well as the game
described in Millington's book, or do you mean that (2) "CC" is used to
describe the 1920's game, and it was that game that was described in
Millington's book? Or do you mean something else?

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> I agree with Edwin that for the sake of this discussion we don't need to
> name them differently. If one wants to dissect fine details between Foster
> and Work and Millington, then fine - but all those authors described CC. No
> need to split hairs in every discussion, just those concerned with that
> level of detail.

> >> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
> >> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
> >> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
> >> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
> >> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
> >> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

> There's very little documentation. I think there is something to be gained
> by comparing (and contrasting) bats and birds. Apples are not oranges, bats
> are not birds. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, though, which makes the study
> of birds relevant if one is studying dinosaurs and/or evolution. And it is
> helpful to make it clear how bats differ from birds. In a discussion such as
> this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
> contrasting their differences is.
> Which is why it's helpful to consider those features that are particular to CC
> in contrast to those features that are particular to HKOS.

Can you expand on this Tom? Why is contrasting their differences
useful?

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


39. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:36:07 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 20 2007 9:36 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

wrote...

> Tom Sloper wrote:

>> There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
>> distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
>> The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
>> describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described
>> by
>> Millington in his book.

> Hello Tom. In your last sentence, do you mean that (1) "Chinese
> Classical" is used to describe the 1920's game, as well as the game
> described in Millington's book, or do you mean that (2) "CC" is used to
> describe the 1920's game, and it was that game that was described in
> Millington's book? Or do you mean something else?

Both (1) and (2) are acceptable interpretations of what I said (I don't
discern any distinction between the two).

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>> I think there is something to be gained
>> by comparing (and contrasting) bats and birds. Apples are not oranges,
>> bats
>> are not birds. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, though, which makes the
>> study
>> of birds relevant if one is studying dinosaurs and/or evolution. And it
>> is
>> helpful to make it clear how bats differ from birds. In a discussion such
>> as
>> this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
>> contrasting their differences is.
>> Which is why it's helpful to consider those features that are particular
>> to CC
>> in contrast to those features that are particular to HKOS.

> Can you expand on this Tom? Why is contrasting their differences
> useful?

No, I must confess that I feel unable to do so satisfactorily. I think it's
useful. Anyone who doesn't think so can simply ignore the discussion.

Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


40. Julian Bradfield
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: j...@inf.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sat, Jan 20 2007 9:41 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

In article <6oGdndwqpvqyzi_YnZ2dnUVZ_ryln...@giganews.com>,

Tom Sloper wrote:
> wrote...
>> Hello Tom. In your last sentence, do you mean that (1) "Chinese
>> Classical" is used to describe the 1920's game, as well as the game
>> described in Millington's book, or do you mean that (2) "CC" is used to
>> describe the 1920's game, and it was that game that was described in
>> Millington's book? Or do you mean something else?

>Both (1) and (2) are acceptable interpretations of what I said (I don't
>discern any distinction between the two).

In (1), "CC" is used to describe two (perhaps different) games, whereas in
(2) the two games are asserted to be the same.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


41. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:24:47 -0800
Local: Sat, Jan 20 2007 10:24 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


>> wrote...
>>> Hello Tom. In your last sentence, do you mean that (1) "Chinese
>>> Classical" is used to describe the 1920's game, as well as the game
>>> described in Millington's book, or do you mean that (2) "CC" is used to
>>> describe the 1920's game, and it was that game that was described in
>>> Millington's book? Or do you mean something else?
> Tom Sloper wrote:
>>Both (1) and (2) are acceptable interpretations of what I said (I don't
>>discern any distinction between the two).
"Julian Bradfield" wrote...
> In (1), "CC" is used to describe two (perhaps different) games, whereas in
> (2) the two games are asserted to be the same.

Oh. Then #2 is what I meant. Thanks, Julian.
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


42. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 21 Jan 2007 08:00:29 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 21 2007 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


Tom Sloper wrote:
> Michael Stanwick wrote:
> > There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
> > Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
> > for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
> > Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
> > Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
> > for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

> There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
> distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
> The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
> describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described by
> Millington in his book.

I think there is a conflation going on with the concepts of 'game' and
'rules'? We are talking about the 'game' are we not? Does not the game
of 'Mah-jongg' consist of just the rule set or scoring system etc., but
a mixture of the rules, scoring system, strategy, philosophy (as per
Millington's observation), tile set, name, as well as its history, as
other authors have pointed out. (I may have left other components
out?).

The game referred to in Millington's book consists of all of these
whereas the game referred to as 'Chinese Classical' by members of this
group, as I see it, consists of only some of these. Where Millington's
game is concerned, the extra components are essential to his
description of his game - indeed, he goes to great lengths to show that
they entail his variant. The game called 'Chinese Classical' does not
have this 'baggage' by any stretch of my imagination.

As Julian pointed out in a past thread, (I assume he hasn't retracted
his observation) "... I don't say that CC is exactly Millington's
"classical mah-jong", because his "classical mah-jong" was constructed
by doing some tidying up and adding philosophical baggage to the game
as actually played."

My arument is that the two 'games' are NOT the same and to suggest
otherwise is misleading. One could argue/assert that the rule sets
and/or scoring systems are similar but not related as far as we know,
but that is as far as it goes in my view. To assert that the two games
are the same is to assert that all the components of the games are the
same and hence one would be forced to accept that their
origins/development are the same.

> >> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
> >> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
> >> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
> >> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
> >> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
> >> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

> There's very little documentation. [snip] In a discussion such as
> this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
> contrasting their differences is. Which is why it's helpful to consider
> those features that are particular to CC in contrast to those features that
> are particular to HKOS.

I agree with Edwin on this point. Not unless we have documentation to
show a developmental lineage. If I may use my post grad. Evolution
parlence (since we seem to be using this approach as a tool of
analysis), comparing and/or contrasting similarities or differences of
a few gross features will tell us nothing useful about the
developmental histories/relationships of the number variants or games
in question - ie., were they subject to convergent evolution, divergent
evolution, parallel evolution or iterative evolution, for example. The
latter is particularly interesting where Babcock's observations are
concerned, but I'll leave that for those who want to figure it out and
discuss it. ^_^

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


43. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 21 Jan 2007 08:28:18 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 21 2007 8:28 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> Tom Sloper wrote:
> > Michael Stanwick wrote:
> > > There is a distinction between the two terms. The term 'Chinese
> > > Classical' (as far as I am aware) is not used by Millington as a name
> > > for his MJ form. The name he coins for his form is 'Classical
> > > Mah-Jongg'. Thus, for the 1920's form(s) we could use 'Chinese
> > > Classical' (CC) (altho I am reluctant to use the word 'classical') and
> > > for Millington's form we can use 'Classical mah-Jongg' (CMJ).

> > There may be a distinction between the terms, but there's very little
> > distinction to speak of between the games referred to by those terms.
> > The term "Chinese Classical" is one that many of us have been using to
> > describe the game that was popular in the 1920s, and that was described by
> > Millington in his book.

> I think there is a conflation going on with the concepts of 'game' and
> 'rules'? We are talking about the 'game' are we not? Does not the game
> of 'Mah-jongg' consist of just the rule set or scoring system etc., but
> a mixture of the rules, scoring system, strategy, philosophy (as per
> Millington's observation), tile set, name, as well as its history, as
> other authors have pointed out. (I may have left other components
> out?).

> The game referred to in Millington's book consists of all of these
> whereas the game referred to as 'Chinese Classical' by members of this
> group, as I see it, consists of only some of these. Where Millington's
> game is concerned, the extra components are essential to his
> description of his game - indeed, he goes to great lengths to show that
> they entail his variant. The game called 'Chinese Classical' does not
> have this 'baggage' by any stretch of my imagination.

> As Julian pointed out in a past thread, (I assume he hasn't retracted
> his observation) "... I don't say that CC is exactly Millington's
> "classical mah-jong", because his "classical mah-jong" was constructed
> by doing some tidying up and adding philosophical baggage to the game
> as actually played."

> My arument is that the two 'games' are NOT the same and to suggest
> otherwise is misleading. One could argue/assert that the rule sets
> and/or scoring systems are similar but not related as far as we know,
> but that is as far as it goes in my view. To assert that the two games
> are the same is to assert that all the components of the games are the
> same and hence one would be forced to accept that their
> origins/development are the same.

> > >> I think that when constructing the table of overall features (this is a
> > >> phenetic approach), we have to be careful with our conclusions about
> > >> the relationships of the variants. If there is documentation, it is
> > >> helpful and can show the historical development (i.e. phylogenetic
> > >> relationships are elucidated), but otherwise just using gross features
> > >> seems to be comparing bats and birds.

> > There's very little documentation. [snip] In a discussion such as
> > this one, comparing their similarities isn't all that useful, but
> > contrasting their differences is. Which is why it's helpful to consider
> > those features that are particular to CC in contrast to those features that
> > are particular to HKOS.

> I agree with Edwin on this point. Not unless we have documentation to
> show a developmental lineage. If I may use my post grad. Evolution
> parlence (since we seem to be using this approach as a tool of
> analysis), comparing and/or contrasting similarities or differences of
> a few gross features will tell us nothing useful about the
> developmental histories/relationships of the number variants or games
> in question - ie., were they subject to convergent evolution, divergent
> evolution, parallel evolution or iterative evolution, for example. The
> latter is particularly interesting where Babcock's observations are
> concerned, but I'll leave that for those who want to figure it out and
> discuss it. ^_^

> Cheers
> Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


44. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 21 Jan 2007 08:29:10 -0800
Local: Sun, Jan 21 2007 8:29 am
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

[I wrote, incorrectly]

> Does not the game of 'Mah-jongg' consist of just the rule set or scoring system etc., but...

I should have said(putting the 'not' in the right place)
"Does the game of 'Mah-jongg' not consist of just the rule set or
scoring system etc., but ...

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


45. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:08:23 -0800
Local: Wed, Jan 17 2007 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > > - On one hand, a form that has many written references, that any
> > > changes (however small) over time are either properly recorded or
> > > possible to trace.
> > > - On the other hand, a form that has been propagated mainly by mouth
> > > and practice of players, that newer changes from its "original forms"
> > > are not recorded and could be considered part of the "original forms" -
> > > This could make any comparison or analysis inaccurate.
> mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > Hello Cofa. Am I right in assuming that in the 1st instance you are
> > referring to the CC form and in the 2nd instance you are referring to
> > the HKOS form?

> Yes.

> > If so, I am interested to know if you are making a [1st] statement of
> > actuality (ie 'factual'), as opposed to a [2nd] statement of possibility (ie
> > 'hypothetical'), when you state "...that has been propagated mainly by
> > mouth and practice of players..." .

> > I suspect it is the 2nd?

> No. I think my [2nd] statement is more factual than hypothetical. It is
> a fact that there are more written references on CC than on HKOS.

Hello Cofa. A small point - your 2nd statement says nothing 'written
references' at all.

> As to "[HKOS] has been propagated mainly by mouth and practice of players" -
> this has been my personal experience and it has also been reported by
> some literature as well as by some regulars of this group (I have no
> reference on hand though). I guess Babcock also mentioned this in his
> book so this "experience" could also apply to developments back in the
> 1920s or beyond.

I am doubtful of these assertions. I do not doubt your experience in
your own lifetime about how HKOS has been propagated, but I do doubt
whether this was the case prior your own lifetime and prior to the 1st
mention of this game-form in the literature - unless that literature
(or some other evidence) explicitly mentions this type of propagation
to be the case. I do not recall Babcock saying anything about HKOS. Do
you have any evidence to back this up?

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> > If I am correct, I presume you mean that when
> > you compare the two forms above, you are saying that we must be aware
> > that the development of the 1st form is the stronger claim, and the
> > development of the 2nd form is the weaker claim (due to lack of
> > evidence for its development)?

> I guess whether your previous assumption is correct or not, your above
> assumption can still be correct. However, this is not what I meant to
> say when answering to Thierry and Tom:
[snip]
> What I meant is we need to understand (or identify) what we wish to
> compare. With CC (1977 Millington) and CC-like (those of the 1920s),
> one can easily compare [the] features of [these] forms in the two time periods,
> because they are mostly properly documented. Some people say that those
> similar forms found in books of the 1920s are "CC" but I would rather
> call them "CC-like" if I have to, because CC is a term created or
> inspired in and after 1977. It ("CC") didn't exist in the 1920s!
> Although features of CC (1977) and of CC-like (1920s) are very alike,
> we can't say that CC existed in the 1920s!

Yes. This is a restatement of my proposition from my Millington thread.

> Features of the CC-like (1920s) [form] are part of a group of many features [that]
> existed at or prior to that time, features that continued to evolve and
> develop, with or without proper documentation.

How do you know they continued to evolve and develop?

Cheers
Michael
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


46. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:24:37 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 18 2007 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

wrote in message

news:1169064503.273710.86960@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Hello Cofa. A small point - your 2nd statement says nothing 'written
> references' at all.

I don't understand your point here, Michael?

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>> As to "[HKOS] has been propagated mainly by mouth and practice of
>> players" -
>> this has been my personal experience and it has also been reported by
>> some literature as well as by some regulars of this group (I have no
>> reference on hand though). I guess Babcock also mentioned this in his
>> book so this "experience" could also apply to developments back in the
>> 1920s or beyond.

> I am doubtful of these assertions. I do not doubt your experience in
> your own lifetime about how HKOS has been propagated, but I do doubt
> whether this was the case prior your own lifetime and prior to the 1st
> mention of this game-form in the literature - unless that literature
> (or some other evidence) explicitly mentions this type of propagation
> to be the case. I do not recall Babcock saying anything about HKOS. Do
> you have any evidence to back this up?

OK, I don't mean Babcock talked about HKOS - Mine is obviously a bad
construction. I meant Babcock also talked about mahjong games being
propagated by mouth in China in his time.

[...]

>> Features of the CC-like (1920s) [form] are part of a group of many
>> features [that]
>> existed at or prior to that time, features that continued to evolve and
>> develop, with or without proper documentation.

> How do you know they continued to evolve and develop?

That might be difficult to tell, Michael. Firstly, I mean"a group of many
features." These could be features of the CC-like (1920s) and of the
non-CC-like. There are books of the 1920s describing features of the CC-like
(1920s) and Thierry has pointed out some features of the "New Method"
mentioned in Babcock's book which is said to be "HKOS-like." I guess one can
compare those 1920s books and features found in today's forms and can easily
tell the changes.

--
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


47. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 23 Feb 2007 13:27:07 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 23 2007 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Part 2)

[...]

> Based on the above ideas, I have created a spreadsheet:

http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_2b_RulesComparison070113.xls

> (Note: MS Excel file - URL is case sensitive.)

A more comprehensive spreadsheet is available at:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =
Modifications Log

2008-11-24: Modified a name display as per a poster's request.
2008-11-23: ADDED to this page: MJ newsgroup messages of this topic - Messages from Jan 06 through Feb 23, 2007 (link from here).
2007-01-14: Applied the concept of "di jia" being the "bottom seat" corresponding to the "zhuang" (jonga, dealer). Changed from "8 Wan waiting" to "8 Wan fishing". Thanks to Ithinc.
Top | Home