IMJ Archives - 205d(3) <<Return to Archives Index Page

Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)
by Thierry Depaulis and Cofa Tsui (January 2007) (Updated February 26, 2008 - See log at bottom for details)
• 2008-11-23 - ADDED to this page: MJ newsgroup messages responding to this article (link from here)



Introduction

It took a long time to set it up, but we can say we have come to a satisfying tabulated presentation of the most prominent features which characterise the main variants of mahjong in China over the past century, starting with Wilkinson (1890) and ending with Amy Lo (2001). The presentation is located at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html where current and updated data will be maintained.

The idea, which was Thierry Depaulis's, was at first tabulated by Tom Sloper (http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg/analysis.html), and slightly revised later. However, Cofa Tsui wanted the purposes of the chart to be for comparing features of any newer variants of mahjong in relation to the older forms, so as to provide a convenient mean to view the evolutions/developments of various forms over time, and this would require more features to be included, something which Thierry encouraged him to sketch. They have decided to cooperate.

This was an opportunity to check all features in the quoted sources (see "References to Sources"), to discuss and discuss again any difficult point, so to reach an agreement. We decided to drop the "Hallmark feature" highlight, since we thought it is too subjective. We have tried to be as "neutral" as possible. We also decided to remove feature "Self-pick rewarded" from our initial chart. Thierry noticed that "self-pick win" is rewarded in all known variants, either in the form of "points" or "fans," hence there is nothing discriminant for this item to be kept in the chart.

We now have 9 distinctive features, for which we have tried to say whether YES or NO the said variant is in agreement. When no data was available we have left the cell blank; when we had doubts, we have put a question mark.

From this analysis table it clearly appears that the mahjong game as played in the Late Qing novels, from Han's "Flowers of Shanghai" (1892) to Lu Shi'e's "Ten-Tailed Turtle" (1911) -- eventually extended to the Anonymous Zuijin guanchang mimi shi ("The Officials' Latest Secret History"), 1922 -- is a better candidate for a "classical" form, as played in Shanghai, the then homeland of mahjong. This is why we have chosen it as "reference gameplay", using simple terms YES or NO to mean whether a feature in another ruleset was the same (YES) or the opposite (NO) and different background colours to enhence the visual effects (where your print media supports).

We also assigned a location (region) to each variant, at least when enough data tell us.

This improved analysis table is certainly not definitive, and comments, suggestions, corrections are most welcome.

Thierry Depaulis and Cofa Tsui
February 12, 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Chart Showing Evolutions of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Item Feature 1890
Wilkinson
1892-1911
Late Qing
1915
Mauger
1920s
CC-like
1920s
New
Method
1930s
Japanese
Classical
1950
Nguyen
(HKOS)
1950-60
Shanghai
New Style
1979
HKOS
Perlmen
& Chan
2001
HKOS
Amy Lo
  Region of origin: Ningbo Shanghai Hankou? ? ? Japan Vietnam Hong Kong Hong Kong Canton
1 Points first, then doubling YES YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
2 Bonus for win ? YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
3 Concealed sets rewarded more highly NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
4 Self-pick poorly rewarded   YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
5 Set payoff structure before game starts ? YES NO NO YES NO YES YES YES YES
6 NO settlement between non-winning players ? YES NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES
7 Dealer pays and receives double ? YES NO YES NO YES YES NO YES NO
8 NO rule for discarder pays for all   YES YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO
9 FEWER or NO special hands YES YES YES NO   NO YES NO YES YES
10 NO Flower tiles YES YES YES NO NO YES NO YES YES NO
                       
Prepared by Thierry Depaulis and Cofa Tsui (Created January 2007. Updated February 26, 2007) [MS Excel format]

References to Sources

1890 Wilkinson = Sir William Henry Wilkinson. Mah-Jongg [ma que]: a memorandum. Amsterdam : Continental Mah-Jongg Sales Co., 1925. See thread "Mahjong rules... in 1890", 4 Dec 2002. [LINK]

1892-1911 Late Qing = Late Qing Chinese novels from Shanghai (by Han Bangqing, Sun Jiazhen, Li Boyuan, Ouyang Juyuan, Zhang Chunfan, Lu Shi'e and others, from 1892 to 1912). See threads Earliest Chinese reference to "ma que" (Nov-Dec 2006), Charting archaic rules (Jan 2007), Analysis of rules - A game of the year 1903 (Jan 2007), Excerpts of ancient Chinese novels mentioning Maque (Jan 2007), etc.

1915 Mauger = George Edward Mauger, "Quelques considérations sur les jeux en Chine et leur développement synchronique avec celui de l'empire chinois", Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, VI (1915), pp. 228-81 (rules of "Ma-Tchio-Pai" pp. 271-7).

1920s CC-like = mainly based on Joseph P. Babcock, Babcock's rules for Mah-Jongg : the red book of rules, Second edition revised and enlarged including full code of official laws and examples of illustrative hands. San Francisco : Mah-Jongg Sales Company of America ; Shanghai : Mah-Jongg Company of China, 1923, chapter VIII "The Chinese Game"

1920s New Method = Babcock 1923 + Tchou Kia-Kien [Zhu Jiajian], Le jeu de mah-jong tel qu'il est joué par les Chinois, Paris, 1924.

1930s Japanese Classical = based on "Japanese games: Classical and Modern, written by Mr. ITO Kazuo, minor editing by Alan KWAN Shiu Ho" at http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/Mahjong/Japanese-en.txt

1940-1950 Shanghai New Style = as in Perlmen & Chan 1979 and Lo 2001

1950 Nguyen (HKOS) = Nguyên Xuân Mai. Le mah-jong : guide complet. Jeu avec les 8 rois supplémentaires. Haiphong : selfpublished, 1950. (TD's collection)

1979 HKOS Perlmen & Chan = Samuel K. Perlmen & Mark Kai-Chi Chan, The Chinese game of Mahjong. Hong Kong : Book Marketing, 1979 (reprinted 1984, 1989).

2001 HKOS Amy Lo = Amy Lo [Lu Meizhen], The book of Mahjong: an illustrated guide. Boston / Rutland, VT : Tuttle Publishing, 2001.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

About the authors:

Thierry Depaulis, Paris, France. Played mahjong in the 1980s but has switched to game history. Playing-card and games collector. Chairman of the International Playing-Card Society. Editor and prepress manager.

Cofa Tsui, Vancouver, Canada. Started playing mahjong (HKOS) in the mid-1970s. Owner of the IMJ Infoweb (iMahjong.com). Real estate licensee in the province of British Columbia.


Copyright 2007 Thierry Depaulis and Cofa Tsui.
(File: IMJ\maiarchives205d_3.html)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)
A reproduction of messages on the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) from February 12 through March, 2007 (total 61 messages).

1. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 12 Feb 2007 00:58:55 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 12:58 am
Subject: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Hi all!

It took a long time to set it up, but we can say we have come to a
satisfying tabulated presentation of the most prominent features which
characterise the main variants of mahjong in China over the past
century, starting with Wilkinson (1890) and ending with Amy Lo (2001).
The presentation is located at http://www.imahjong.com/
maiarchives205d_3.html where current and updated data will be
maintained.

The idea, which was Thierry Depaulis's, was at first tabulated by Tom
Sloper (http://www.sloperama.com/mahjongg/analysis.html), and slightly
revised later. However, Cofa Tsui wanted the purposes of the chart to
be for comparing features of any newer variants of mahjong in relation
to the older forms, so as to provide a convenient mean to view the
evolutions/developments of various forms over time, and this would
require more features to be included, something which Thierry
encouraged him to sketch. They have decided to cooperate.

This was an opportunity to check all features in the quoted sources
(see "References to Sources"), to discuss and discuss again any
difficult point, so to reach an agreement. We decided to drop the
"Hallmark feature" highlight, since we thought it is too subjective.
We have tried to be as "neutral" as possible. We also decided to
remove feature "Self-pick rewarded" from our initial chart. Thierry
noticed that "self-pick win" is rewarded in all known variants, either
in the form of "points" or "fans," hence there is nothing discriminant
for this item to be kept in the chart.

We now have 9 distinctive features, for which we have tried to say
whether YES or NO the said variant is in agreement. When no data was
available we have left the cell blank; when we had doubts, we have put
a question mark.

>From this analysis table it clearly appears that the mahjong game as

played in the Late Qing novels, from Han's "Flowers of
Shanghai" (1892) to Lu Shi'e's "Ten-Tailed Turtle" (1911) --
eventually extended to the Anonymous Zuijin guanchang mimi shi ("The
Officials' Latest Secret History"), 1922 -- is a better candidate for
a "classical" form, as played in Shanghai, the then homeland of
mahjong. This is why we have chosen it as "reference gameplay", using
simple terms YES or NO to mean whether a feature in another ruleset
was the same (YES) or the opposite (NO) and different background
colours to enhence the visual effects (where your print media
supports).

We also assigned a location (region) to each variant, at least when
enough data tell us.

This improved analysis table is certainly not definitive, and
comments, suggestions, corrections are most welcome.

Thierry Depaulis and Cofa Tsui
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


2. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 12 Feb 2007 01:37:44 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 1:37 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

In case the complete pointer is broken here it is again:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html

T
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


3. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 12 Feb 2007 05:46:19 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 5:46 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On 2月12日, 下午5时37分, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:

> In case the complete pointer is broken here it is again:http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html

> T

Wonderful. I'll have a look at it in a later time.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


4. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:09:51 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 7:09 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 12, 8:58?am, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:
Hello Thierry and Cofa.

An excellent effort!
[snip]

> However, Cofa Tsui wanted the purposes of the chart to
> be for comparing features of any newer variants of mahjong in relation
> to the older forms, so as to provide a convenient mean to view the
> evolutions/developments of various forms over time, [snip]

I am a little curious as to how comparing newer variants/forms with
older variants/forms can give us knowledge of the evolution/
development of various forms over time?

I don't mean that this shouldn't be attempt, but I would like to know
what assumptions you are going to make in order for such comparisons
to be rendered. For example, I presume one assumption is that there
must have been is was a direct connection between the two forms - both
temporally and geographically? What others must you make in ordere for
a lineage to be formed?

I am trying a similar process with regards to the engraving styles of
a certain from of maque tile set. But in order to proceed, I realised
I have to put certain assumptions in place in order for my reasoning
to work.

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


5. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 12 Feb 2007 09:50:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> Hello Thierry and Cofa.

> An excellent effort!

Thank you.

> I don't mean that this shouldn't be attempt, but I would like to know
> what assumptions you are going to make in order for such comparisons
> to be rendered. For example, I presume one assumption is that there
> must have been is was a direct connection between the two forms - both
> temporally and geographically? What others must you make in ordere for
> a lineage to be formed?

Mmm. I know you have a flu, Michael.
We hardly understand your questions.

What do you mean by "the two forms"?

Take care.

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


6. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 12 Feb 2007 13:49:06 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 1:49 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 12, 5:50?pm, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:

> mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
> > I don't mean that this shouldn't be attempted, but I would like to know
> > what assumptions you are going to make in order for such comparisons
> > to be rendered. For example, I presume one assumption is that there
> > must be a direct connection between the two forms - both
> > temporally and geographically? What others must you make in order for
> > a lineage to be formed?
> What do you mean by "the two forms"?

Hello Thierry. I have corrected some of the grammatical errors etc in
the above paragraph of mine.

Ok. This is what was written in the original post...
"However, Cofa Tsui wanted the purposes of the chart to
be for comparing features of any newer variants of mahjong in
relation
to the older forms, so as to provide a convenient mean to view the
evolutions/developments of various forms over time,..." [snip]

I was having trouble reconciling the terms 'newer variants' and 'older
forms' to mean the same thing, and figured that since the statement
above was referring to Cofa's wish for the chart to be also for
comparison purposes, then I presumed that he was going to try and
compare a newer thing with its, obviously older, antecedant thing. So
'thing' could be either the 'variant' or the 'form' since both seem to
be referring to the same 'thing'. Am I correct or not?

Thanks for the good wishes. But I wouldn't wish this virus on my worst
enemies!

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


7. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 12 Feb 2007 13:58:55 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 12, 9:49?pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
Sorry, an extra bit I left out but which should have gone in..

> So 'thing' could be either the 'variant' or the 'form' since both seem to
> be referring to the same 'thing'. Am I correct or not?

So 'the two forms' are just the newer 'version' and its antecedent
'version'.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


8. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 13 Feb 2007 02:39:50 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 2:39 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

mstanw...@aol.com a écrit :

Hi Michael.

> I was having trouble reconciling the terms 'newer variants' and 'older
> forms' to mean the same thing, and figured that since the statement
> above was referring to Cofa's wish for the chart to be also for
> comparison purposes, then I presumed that he was going to try and
> compare a newer thing with its, obviously older, antecedant thing. So
> 'thing' could be either the 'variant' or the 'form' since both seem to
> be referring to the same 'thing'. Am I correct or not?

Yes. I better understand you.

This analysis table makes clear there are indeed two "blocks", one
with the "older variants" on the left, another one to the right which
groups HKOS and S'hai New Style (what I would call the "Cantonese
block"). This is a first interesting result of the table. Of course we
knew it already, but it is safer to have it tabulated with 9 or 10
carefully chosen features. It adds weight to common sense view.

This said, we may question any chronological deduction. It is a fact
that all HKOS forms are known from post-WWII books, while the other
forms are attested earlier. Whether it is a question of sources - we
may have lost all HKOS materials prior to 1940 - or of actual
evolution, the latter ousting the former, we don't know for the
moment. I would favour this last conclusion, but Cofa has been
advocating the lack of sources.

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


9. mstanw...@aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: mstanw...@aol.com
Date: 13 Feb 2007 03:39:08 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 3:39 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 13, 10:39?am, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:
Hello Thierry et al.

> This analysis table makes clear there are indeed two "blocks", one
> with the "older variants" on the left, another one to the right which
> groups HKOS and S'hai New Style (what I would call the "Cantonese
> block"). This is a first interesting result of the table. Of course we
> knew it already, but it is safer to have it tabulated with 9 or 10
> carefully chosen features. It adds weight to common sense view.

This is very interesting. Thank you.

> This said, we may question any chronological deduction. It is a fact
> that all HKOS forms are known from post-WWII books, while the other
> forms are attested earlier. Whether it is a question of sources - we
> may have lost all HKOS materials prior to 1940 - or of actual
> evolution, the latter ousting the former, we don't know for the
> moment. I would favour this last conclusion, but Cofa has been
> advocating the lack of sources.

Again, very interesting. These two explanations are good hypotheses
that make a testable prediction - that there should exist some
material evidence of either. It is now a matter to keep on looking for
sources from the relevant period.

Actually, I was hoping you might put in some reference to the
hypothesis (gleaned from paper playing cards) as to the way games tend
to disperse from their place of origin etc., over time, and the effect
this has on the style of the game over time, in various places distant
from the proposed origin locale.

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


10. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:37:25 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 1:37 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

(Sorry I was busy the past few days.)

wrote in message

news:1171366748.190193.16890@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 13, 10:39?am, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:
> Hello Thierry et al.

Hi Michael, you said:

>> [Quote from the "Introduction"] However, Cofa Tsui wanted the purposes of
>> the chart to
>> be for comparing features of any newer variants of mahjong in relation
>> to the older forms, so as to provide a convenient mean to view the
>> evolutions/developments of various forms over time, [snip]

> I am a little curious as to how comparing newer variants/forms with
> older variants/forms can give us knowledge of the evolution/
> development of various forms over time?

Our chart is to provide a convenient mean to view the differences between
variants/forms over time. You need to work on it (perhaps requiring
additional info from other sources) to reach the knowledge that you wish to
establish ^_^

You also said:

> > I don't mean that this shouldn't be attempted, but I would like to know
> > what assumptions you are going to make in order for such comparisons
> > to be rendered. For example, I presume one assumption is that there
> > must be a direct connection between the two forms - both
> > temporally and geographically? What others must you make in order for
> > a lineage to be formed?

Making assumptions should be someone's choice in working on the information
provided by the chart. My opinion is that the chart or the purposes of the
chart need no assumption to make. Its purposes are merely to provide a
convenient mean to view the differences. However, discussions of various
issues coming out of the presentation are what I, and I believe also
Thierry, would expect.

>> This analysis table makes clear there are indeed two "blocks", one
>> with the "older variants" on the left, another one to the right which
>> groups HKOS and S'hai New Style (what I would call the "Cantonese
>> block"). This is a first interesting result of the table. Of course we
>> knew it already, but it is safer to have it tabulated with 9 or 10
>> carefully chosen features. It adds weight to common sense view.

> This is very interesting. Thank you.

Indeed the view of the "two blocks" is quite clear... (more below)

>> This said, we may question any chronological deduction. It is a fact
>> that all HKOS forms are known from post-WWII books, while the other
>> forms are attested earlier. Whether it is a question of sources - we
>> may have lost all HKOS materials prior to 1940 - or of actual
>> evolution, the latter ousting the former, we don't know for the
>> moment. I would favour this last conclusion, but Cofa has been
>> advocating the lack of sources.

> Again, very interesting. These two explanations are good hypotheses
> that make a testable prediction - that there should exist some
> material evidence of either. It is now a matter to keep on looking for
> sources from the relevant period.

I have a different view. Respecting HKOS-like, my assumption is that this is
the form that has kept evolving/developing at all times, from Late Qing,
through the 1920s and even into the 2000s. For example, the form of HKOS I
play since mid 1970s is "NO" to feature "6. Dealer pays and receives
double." Respecting feature "7. NO rule for discarder pays for all" - It
would be the answer "YES" up to late 1980s/early 1990s; and "NO" gradually
thereafter. In the chart each HKOS form is listed by the author's name; in
reality HKOS-like rules are propagated by mouth and practice and are hardly
unified. So evolution in HKOS is obvious, more obvious is that its evolution
started as early as from late Qing!

Cheers!

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


11. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:39:36 +0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Cofa Tsui wrote:
> I have a different view. Respecting HKOS-like, my assumption is that this is
> the form that has kept evolving/developing at all times, from Late Qing,
> through the 1920s and even into the 2000s. For example, the form of HKOS I
> play since mid 1970s is "NO" to feature "6. Dealer pays and receives
> double." Respecting feature "7. NO rule for discarder pays for all" - It
> would be the answer "YES" up to late 1980s/early 1990s; and "NO" gradually
> thereafter. In the chart each HKOS form is listed by the author's name; in
> reality HKOS-like rules are propagated by mouth and practice and are hardly
> unified. So evolution in HKOS is obvious, more obvious is that its evolution
> started as early as from late Qing!

... while the main other view is that, a Chinese roasted suckling pig,
with its skin roasted to golden brown and crispy, its limbs folded to
lie flat on the plate, with a ribbon tied to its head, and lit cherries
in place of its eyes, is recognizable as being prepared from a live pig
- even though it no longer stands and moves as a live pig.

As Perlman & Chan suggested, the original HKOS payoff scheme (discarder
pays double) is most likely a direct descendent of the Classical
east-doubling scheme - and that little paragraph in the 1920 novel
precisely suggested the reason why the change was made.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


12. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 15 Feb 2007 01:25:53 -0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 1:25 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Alan Kwan a écrit :

> As Perlman & Chan suggested, the original HKOS payoff scheme (discarder
> pays double) is most likely a direct descendent of the Classical
> east-doubling scheme

I don't think they put it so clearly... (Would you have a page
reference?).

> and that little paragraph in the 1920 novel
> precisely suggested the reason why the change was made.

Which 1920 novel?

I'm not trying to bother you, Alan, I just want to follow you and, as
all historians, I need references. Sorry about that.

If early "bao" rules are the topics, I think Liou's French manual of
1921 will bring some clear-cut early evidence.

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


13. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:42:06 +0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 2:42 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


cymba...@free.fr wrote:

>>As Perlman & Chan suggested, the original HKOS payoff scheme (discarder
>>pays double) is most likely a direct descendent of the Classical
>>east-doubling scheme

> I don't think they put it so clearly... (Would you have a page
> reference?).

You're right, P&C only listed the two schemes, without commenting on how
one evolved into the other.

It was Gaan (Hoi1 Toi2, pp9-12) who explained that HKOS evolved from CC,
and HKOS's discarder-double scheme evolved from CC's East-double scheme.

Though I think the relation is quite obvious when we look at the two
schemes. Especially as the self-draw in HKOS is awarded the same payoff
as East's win in CC - which contributes to half of the self-draw
inflation in HKOS.

>>and that little paragraph in the 1920 novel
>>precisely suggested the reason why the change was made.

> Which 1920 novel?

> I'm not trying to bother you, Alan, I just want to follow you and, as
> all historians, I need references. Sorry about that.

I was careless again; should be the 1903 one about corrupt government
officials.

When someone discarded carelessly (prompted by a woman) and let out a
win for a big hand, East got very upset precisely because he was losing
double, even though he did not throw the losing tile.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


14. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 15 Feb 2007 06:16:20 -0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 6:16 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Alan Kwan a écrit :

> It was Gaan (Hoi1 Toi2, pp9-12) who explained that HKOS evolved from CC,
> and HKOS's discarder-double scheme evolved from CC's East-double scheme.

Ah, a book that is tragically missing in my collection! ;-)
When my sister was living in HK, a few years ago, I urged her to find
a copy, second-hand or whatever, but she failed to do so. Probably it
was already out of print.
(Of course my near-zero-level Chinese would have made me unable to
read it, but I enjoy having books in languages I can hardly
understand...)

> Though I think the relation is quite obvious when we look at the two
> schemes. Especially as the self-draw in HKOS is awarded the same payoff
> as East's win in CC - which contributes to half of the self-draw
> inflation in HKOS.

This is not so obvious! We have evidence for East's double win/loss
and 'bao' rules in the same (early) rule set.

> I was careless again; should be the 1903 one about corrupt government
> officials.

Ah. Officialdom Unmasked, by Li Boyuan.

> When someone discarded carelessly (prompted by a woman) and let out a
> win for a big hand, East got very upset precisely because he was losing
> double, even though he did not throw the losing tile.

That's right. So you mean that players soon felt the "East pays/
receives double" plan was unfair? I would think so, but I see this
plan was still used in "early HKOS" (e.g. Nguyen and even P&C, who say
it was losing groung by the time they were writing their book).

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


15. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:28:46 +0800
Local: Fri, Feb 16 2007 2:28 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


cymba...@free.fr wrote:
> Ah, a book that is tragically missing in my collection! ;-)
> When my sister was living in HK, a few years ago, I urged her to find
> a copy, second-hand or whatever, but she failed to do so. Probably it
> was already out of print.

It's difficult to find on the bookstore shelf. I had to customer-order
mine.

> (Of course my near-zero-level Chinese would have made me unable to
> read it, but I enjoy having books in languages I can hardly
> understand...)

We Chinese are everywhere; you can easily find one near you to help. :)

>>Though I think the relation is quite obvious when we look at the two
>>schemes. Especially as the self-draw in HKOS is awarded the same payoff
>>as East's win in CC - which contributes to half of the self-draw
>>inflation in HKOS.

> This is not so obvious! We have evidence for East's double win/loss
> and 'bao' rules in the same (early) rule set.

Bao for big hands (Pure One-Suit etc.) is a classical feature, and is
the topic of another discussion. Universal discarder-doubling is a HKOS
feature. Universal discarder-pay-all originated from Classial Japanese,
and got reverse-imported into China, HK, Taiwan and other places.

My conjecture is that the universal discarder-doubling scheme in HKOS
evolved directly from the Classical East-doubling scheme. Bao rules
(which cover the exceptional case, rather than the general one) have
nothing to do with it.

>>When someone discarded carelessly (prompted by a woman) and let out a
>>win for a big hand, East got very upset precisely because he was losing
>>double, even though he did not throw the losing tile.

> That's right. So you mean that players soon felt the "East pays/
> receives double" plan was unfair? I would think so, but I see this
> plan was still used in "early HKOS" (e.g. Nguyen and even P&C, who say
> it was losing groung by the time they were writing their book).

When someone who's East had to pay double for a big hand which he did
not feel responsible for, he'll probably feel that it's unfair. (Which
is the quoted case.) The reason why P&C etc. mentioned the scheme was
very simple: it was the original scheme, and replacing it by the new
(HKOS) scheme was not an instantaneous process. Just like, Mixed
One-Suit's original value was one faan, and the inflation process to 3
faan was not instantaneous: it went through the 2-faan step. (P&C,
pp56- ) And the value didn't went from 2 faan to 3 faan overnight: some
localitites started using 3 faan, and then others followed gradually,
until the point when today, many players don't even know that it had
once been 2 or 1 faan.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


16. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 18 Feb 2007 11:38:58 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 11:38 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

(This is a repeated dispatch - The first dispatch seems got lost.)

Gong Xi Fa Cai to everyone and best wishes for a happy and healthy
Chinese New Year!!!

On Feb 16, 2:28 am, Alan Kwan wrote:

> cymba...@free.fr wrote:
> >>Though I think the relation is quite obvious when we look at the two
> >>schemes. Especially as the self-draw in HKOS is awarded the same payoff
> >>as East's win in CC - which contributes to half of the self-draw
> >>inflation in HKOS.

> > This is not so obvious! We have evidence for East's double win/loss
> > and 'bao' rules in the same (early) rule set.

Hello Alan, *long time* no see...

I guess what Thierry meant was that the evolutions seen in HKOS were
not necessarily *directly from CC*.

Perhaps at this point you need to identify what "CC" really means...

- Millington's "Classical"?

- "CC-like" found in books of the 1920s?

- Or your exclusive "the original form of mahjong, all other styles,
new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from it" type of "CC"?
[message 21 at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html]

In late 2006 and early 2007, lots of Chinese literatures were
introduced to the mahjong newsgroup confirming that there is a form of
mahjong that existed much earlier than even the "CC-like" form of the
1920s. That earlier form we call "Late Qing" style, consists of
hallmark features of HKOS like "NO settlement between non-winning
players" and "Set payoff structure before game starts," that any "CC"
or "CC-like" forms don't have. [refer to "http://www.imahjong.com/
maiarchives205d_2.html" and "http://www.imahjong.com/
maiarchives205d_3.html"]

No doubt HKOS is ever evolving; but it is more believable that HKOS as
seen today, evolved, largely and primarily, directly from the Late
Qing style that was documented as early as 1903, than from "CC".

At this point you might wish to review your *long time* claim, i.e.,
"Chinese Classical is the original form of mahjong, all other styles,
new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from it (therefore, many
features of HKOS were also evolved directly from CC)".

Cheers!

Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Bao for big hands (Pure One-Suit etc.) is a classical feature, and is
> the topic of another discussion. Universal discarder-doubling is a HKOS
> feature. Universal discarder-pay-all originated from Classial Japanese,
> and got reverse-imported into China, HK, Taiwan and other places.

> My conjecture is that the universal discarder-doubling scheme in HKOS
> evolved directly from the Classical East-doubling scheme. Bao rules
> (which cover the exceptional case, rather than the general one) have
> nothing to do with it.

> >>When someone discarded carelessly (prompted by a woman) and let out a
> >>win for a big hand, East got very upset precisely because he was losing
> >>double, even though he did not throw the losing tile.

> > That's right. So you mean that players soon felt the "East pays/
> > receives double" plan was unfair? I would think so, but I see this
> > plan was still used in "early HKOS" (e.g. Nguyen and even P&C, who say
> > it was losing groung by the time they were writing their book).

> When someone who's East had to pay double for a big hand which he did
> not feel responsible for, he'll probably feel that it's unfair. (Which
> is the quoted case.) The reason why P&C etc. mentioned the scheme was
> very simple: it was the original scheme, and replacing it by the new
> (HKOS) scheme was not an instantaneous process. Just like, Mixed
> One-Suit's original value was one faan, and the inflation process to 3
> faan was not instantaneous: it went through the 2-faan step. (P&C,
> pp56- ) And the value didn't went from 2 faan to 3 faan overnight: some
> localitites started using 3 faan, and then others followed gradually,
> until the point when today, many players don't even know that it had
> once been 2 or 1 faan.

> --
> "3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
> It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
> - Alan Kwan / t...@netvigator.com
> Zung Jung mahjong official website:http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


17. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:13:08 +0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 8:13 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Cofa Tsui wrote:
> Perhaps at this point you need to identify what "CC" really means...

> - Millington's "Classical"?

> - "CC-like" found in books of the 1920s?

Does it matter? They are all distinctively CC, clearly different in
many major features (some of which conveninetly omitted in your
analysis) from later versions.

Following your practice, I could choose to call /your/ game HKOS or
non-HKOS as I see fit: I could call it HKOS to undermine its
"international" status, or call it non-HKOS to imply that it's a wacky
rules set which nobody knows or cares about.

> In late 2006 and early 2007, lots of Chinese literatures were
> introduced to the mahjong newsgroup confirming that there is a form of
> mahjong that existed much earlier than even the "CC-like" form of the
> 1920s. That earlier form we call "Late Qing" style, consists of
> hallmark features of HKOS like "NO settlement between non-winning
> players" and "Set payoff structure before game starts," that any "CC"
> or "CC-like" forms don't have. [refer to "http://www.imahjong.com/
> maiarchives205d_2.html" and "http://www.imahjong.com/
> maiarchives205d_3.html"]

The game described in that 1903 "corrupt officials" novel piece, as I
said, resembles CC too well to be called anything else.

Concerning "NO settlement between non-winning players", it was not
explicit in the novel that the "standard" game rule being described was
so. It was possible that this 'irrelevant' detail was dropped for the
sake of literary expression (dramatization): the purpose of that passage
was clearly to describe a East player getting mad (and jealous, over the
girl) over a non-East's player careless discard, for which he had to pay
more. What is the relevance of side settlements for this literature?
Should the author have written that:

"Wuelabu was very mad, but he remebered the rules and patiently settled
the side settlements before he threw the tiles at Tian's face." ?

or

"After Wuelabu angrily pushed the tiles, the other two players (boldly!)
challenged him and made him pay the side payments." ?

It's just irrelevant: it was a passage about people's deeds and temper,
not meant to be a mahjong textbook. It's even possible that, since
Wuelabu had a no-point hand or low-point hand, he didn't mind throwing
his tiles.

And even if you are right and the game didn't have side settlements,
it's still recognizably CC. It had triplet-points, it had East
doubling, Mixed One-Suit was one faan, etc. It's just like, HKOS with
different (complex) limit levels is still HKOS.

Concerning "Set payoff structure before game starts", I don't understand
what you mean by that. If you're talking about the East-doubling, I
don't know what "CC" form you mean which DOESN'T have it.

> No doubt HKOS is ever evolving; but it is more believable that HKOS as
> seen today, evolved, largely and primarily, directly from the Late
> Qing style that was documented as early as 1903, than from "CC".

> At this point you might wish to review your *long time* claim, i.e.,
> "Chinese Classical is the original form of mahjong, all other styles,
> new and old, evolved directly or indirectly from it (therefore, many
> features of HKOS were also evolved directly from CC)".

My claim was that, HKOS evolved from CC by starting with these two moves:

1. dropping the triplet-point counting (and assuming a fixed base for
any winning hand)
2. changing East-doubling into discarder-doubling

(Other changes such as pattern-value inflation naturally followed.)

If CC started with side payments, then #1 would naturally lead to its
elimination (by assigning "0" to any non-winning hand); but even if it
didn't, my point still stands.

It's ironic that you ask me to review my claim, while you still haven't
come about to review yours.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


18. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:36:38 GMT
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


"Alan Kwan" wrote in message news:45d9cc91$1@127.0.0.1...

> Cofa Tsui wrote:

>> Perhaps at this point you need to identify what "CC" really means...

>> - Millington's "Classical"?

>> - "CC-like" found in books of the 1920s?

> Does it matter? They are all distinctively CC, clearly different in many
> major features (some of which conveninetly omitted in your analysis) from
> later versions.

Oh ya! They are all mahjong, but they represent different types in different
times of the history, regardless of their features. The name "CC" did not
exist in the 1920s. Authors of books in the 1920s did not call their forms
by the name "CC." We call them "CC-like" for convenience purposes, and
because those CC-like forms have features similar to Millington's
"Classical", or similar to those forms we collectively call "CC" in the
modern years.

This is an arguement about timeline, not about features of the forms. When
you claim a form (in this case, HKOS) to be evolved *directly* from "CC"
because there is lack of evidences that features of HKOS did exist prior to
the "CC" form. This claim may be possible under such circumstance, although
not definitive. Now here we've found lots of evidences that a form (here we
call it "Late Qing") carries features of HKOS that those "CC" forms don't
have, did exist much earlier than the "CC" form. With the new evidences,
your older claim that "HKOS evolved directly from CC" becomes very doubtful;
and the hypothesis that HKOS-like and CC-like share a common ancestor
becomes very reasonable.

The above hypothesis will have to be changed again if you could prove that
"CC is the origin of mahjong," but looks like you have already swept this
claim out quietly.

You cannot claim merits of an older form for the credit of a newer form in
an argument about timeline.

> Following your practice, I could choose to call /your/ game HKOS or
> non-HKOS as I see fit: I could call it HKOS to undermine its
> "international" status, or call it non-HKOS to imply that it's a wacky
> rules set which nobody knows or cares about.

Alan, do you mean to make personal attack? This newsgroup does not approve
this type of attitude. I see that you have a high reputation in the group -
Shall we keep the discussions in the friendly way, please?

>> In late 2006 and early 2007, lots of Chinese literatures were
>> introduced to the mahjong newsgroup confirming that there is a form of
>> mahjong that existed much earlier than even the "CC-like" form of the
>> 1920s. That earlier form we call "Late Qing" style, consists of
>> hallmark features of HKOS like "NO settlement between non-winning
>> players" and "Set payoff structure before game starts," that any "CC"
>> or "CC-like" forms don't have. [refer to "http://www.imahjong.com/
>> maiarchives205d_2.html" and "http://www.imahjong.com/
>> maiarchives205d_3.html"]

> The game described in that 1903 "corrupt officials" novel piece, as I
> said, resembles CC too well to be called anything else.

[...]

Yes, it has the features of the "CC" or "CC-like" forms, it also has the
features of the "HKOS" forms. But they are neither "CC" nor "HKOS." Again,
you can't claim merits of an older form for the credit of a newer form in an
argument about timeline.

> My claim was that, HKOS evolved from CC by starting with these two moves:

> 1. dropping the triplet-point counting (and assuming a fixed base for any
> winning hand)
> 2. changing East-doubling into discarder-doubling

We can see these changes from the chart; and we also see that a style (we
call "Late Qing") also existed much earlier than "CC-like" (^_^)

Since the Late Qing style carries features of HKOS that CC doesn't have,
would it be more reasonable to claim that HKOS (or "HKOS-like" for that
matter) evolved directly from the Late Qing style, by starting with those
two moves?

And CC evolved directly from the Late Qing style, but keeping those two
features?

We can't call the Late Qing style a "CC" style or "HKOS" style, because we
can't claim merits of an older form for the credit of a newer form in an
argument about timeline.

[...]

> If CC started with side payments, then #1 would naturally lead to its
> elimination (by assigning "0" to any non-winning hand); but even if it
> didn't, my point still stands.

But Late Qing consists of "NO settlement between non-winning players" (You
need to read through all those late Qing novels to believe this. There is no
mistake or omision about this.) AND triplet-point counting and East-doubling
at the same time. How do you explain your logic about those evolutions?

In fact, I am more interested in finding out why "NO settlement between
non-winning players" can be evolved into "settlement between non-winning
players!"

> It's ironic that you ask me to review my claim, while you still haven't
> come about to review yours.

If you mean my claim to be those maintained on my website ["(1) Chinese
Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese Classical is
not the only origin of MAHJONG. (2) Many variants, including Cantonese
Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of
Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many variants, including HKOS and CC, could have
co-existed altogether for the long, undocumented history of the evolution
and development of the game MAHJONG." - As seen at
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205_ori.html], they seem to be in line
with all new evidences we recently found out. Or please let me know what I
need to make change of. I am open minded ^_^

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


19. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 17 Feb 2007 20:41:28 -0800
Local: Sat, Feb 17 2007 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 14, 8:39 pm, Alan Kwan wrote:

> ... while the main other view is that, a Chinese roasted suckling pig,
> with its skin roasted to golden brown and crispy, its limbs folded to
> lie flat on the plate, with a ribbon tied to its head, and lit cherries
> in place of its eyes, is recognizable as being prepared from a live pig
> - even though it no longer stands and moves as a live pig.

Alan the roasted golden brown skin pig has anything to do with
mahjong? (^_^)

I made an assumption about HKOS;

Perlman and Chan made an assumption about HKOS ("is most likely a
direct descendent of..." is in your quote);

You made a famous and perhaps exclusive assumption about HKOS as well
(see message 21 at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html).

Would this "pig comment" also go to Perlman and Chan and yourself?

Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


20. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:12:29 +0800
Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 11:12 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Cofa Tsui wrote:
> You made a famous and perhaps exclusive assumption about HKOS as well
> (see message 21 at http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html).

It is far from "exclusive". Gaan (in Hoi1 Toi2) and others (or rather,
most who really know that CC exists and is truly Chinese) make the same
conjecture: HKOS is directly descended from CC by simplification. It's
not an assumption, it's a conjecture. *Yours* is but an assumption.

> Would this "pig comment" also go to Perlman and Chan and yourself?

It's an analogy to the point that, HKOS, with the triplet-point system
dropped, the payoff scheme changed (with self-draw inflation), some faan
values inflated (with yet more self-draw inflation), and a complex limit
system applied, is still recognizable as being descended from CC -
even though it has no triplet-points nor settlement between losers.

The skin is totally changed, but the skeleton is there, so it's as
recognizable as the roast pig.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


21. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 18 Feb 2007 12:25:01 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 18, 11:12 am, Alan Kwan wrote:

> Cofa Tsui wrote:
> > You made a famous and perhaps exclusive assumption about HKOS as well
> > (see message 21 athttp://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205c.html).

> It is far from "exclusive". Gaan (in Hoi1 Toi2) and others (or rather,
> most who really know that CC exists and is truly Chinese) make the same
> conjecture: HKOS is directly descended from CC by simplification. It's
> not an assumption, it's a conjecture. *Yours* is but an assumption.

I checked Dictionary.com -
For "conjecture":
1. Inference or judgment based on *inconclusive or incomplete
evidence; guesswork*.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on *guesswork*: The
commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next
election. [*Emphasis added.]
For "assumption":
- a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion
can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer
that he will not to play"

They are both common in that: Lack of concrete evidence to prove it to
be definitive.

Nobody denies the existence of "CC" - I don't. However, I don't know
based on what evidences Gaan made his conjecture. From the experience
you have with this newsgroup, I assume that your evidences (respecting
the conjectures made related to HKOS and CC) go no farther than 1920s.
Can you tell us if this is correct?

As per my message re-posted a moment ago under the same thread [Feb
18, 11:38 am], there is a mahjong form that existed much earlier than
"CC" and "CC-like" and that older form consists of hallmark features
of HKOS that "CC" and "CC-like" don't have.

With these evidences, we can *conclude* that evolutions seen in HKOS
are
not necessarily *directly from CC*. Thierry tried to point this out to
you in an indirect manner [at least that's how I understand his
message of Feb 15, 6:16 am]. Note that this is a CONCLUSION, not
assumption or conjecture.

> > Would this "pig comment" also go to Perlman and Chan and yourself?

> It's an analogy to the point that, HKOS, with the triplet-point system
> dropped, the payoff scheme changed (with self-draw inflation), some faan
> values inflated (with yet more self-draw inflation), and a complex limit
> system applied, is still recognizable as being descended from CC -
> even though it has no triplet-points nor settlement between losers.

"...being descended from CC" could be true only if "CC" is the origin
of mahjong, as claimed by you for long. The fact is that it ("CC" is
the origin of mahjong) has been proved to be wrong (at least at this
point in time). And with evidences that features of HKOS are found in
form much earlier than "CC," it can be concluded that the evolutions
of HKOS are not necessarily directly from "CC." So your "HKOS, ... is
still recognizable as being descended from CC" could be wrong.

> The skin is totally changed, but the skeleton is there, so it's as
> recognizable as the roast pig.

Do you mean to imply that "pig" is the only origin of all animal
types?? (^_^)

Cheers!

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


22. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 19 Feb 2007 02:12:55 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 2:12 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

May I make a point here?

If "CC" is defined as the ruleset that spread to the Western world in
the 1920s, through many books in English, French and other European
languages, and assuming it reflects a genuine Chinese game, then we
cannot say that HKOS is a *direct* descendant of it. But that they
must have a common ancestor has recently become obvious.

Now that we have more light shed on the early rules, as played in
Shanghai before the Republic, we can say this common ancestor exists:
it's what we call "Late Qing" (Shanghai) mahjong. I say "(Shanghai)"
because there may have been local variants in, say, Ningbo, Nanking,
Peking, Tientsin or Hankou, e.g. using flowers (and certainly
somewhere a lot of them!), with settlement between losers, etc. But
Shanghai appears as the true "capital" of mahjong.

Now, claiming HKOS as being THE direct heir of this "Late
Qing" (Shanghai) game is unfair too. From the table we have set, Cofa
and I, I draw an obvious conclusion: there must have been some sort of
"break" between the "classic" game ("Late Qing", CC, New Method, proto-
Japanese Classical), which forms one clear group, and the "modern"
game -- HKOS. What I would call the "Cantonese block".

Of course HKOS evolved from the "classic" game, and Alan Kwan is not
wrong when he says HKOS "is still recognizable as being descended from
CC", provided we substitute "Late Qing classic game" to CC.

Most experts think HKOS arose in Canton, and I see nothing against it.
Maybe the very special historical evolution and political situation of
Canton between 1920 and 1938 may account for the dramatic modification
of mahjong scoring. The Cantonese have the reputation for inventing
gambling games, which may explain the *late* success of mahjong in the
South. But it is clear that mahjong became a fad in Canton from 1925.
(ref. Virgil Ho, Understanding Canton : Rethinking Popular Culture in
the Republican Period, Oxford, OUP, 2005 -- there is a long chapter on
gambling, with some pages on mahjong in Canton in the 1920s-1930s).

I would imagine the complicated "petty-cash" scoring of the "classic"
game, its poor reward for selfdraw and a few other "flaws" annoyed the
Cantonese who wanted a faster and more "interactive" game, with a
simpler scoring. The new game naturally spread to Hong Kong which
became its sanctuary from 1949.

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


23. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:44:23 +0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 8:44 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

I define CC by the following features:

1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
between non-winning players

3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

And I can't see what makes the "Late Qing" game "non-CC", side payments
excepted (and even that was not explicit in the novel).

> If "CC" is defined as the ruleset that spread to the Western world in
> the 1920s, through many books in English, French and other European
> languages, and assuming it reflects a genuine Chinese game, then we
> cannot say that HKOS is a *direct* descendant of it. But that they
> must have a common ancestor has recently become obvious.

And that ancestor should belong to CC - early-CC, to be more precise.

If side settlements were not in early-CC, then well, why is that a big
deal? Does it matter if HKOS descended from the CC version which had
side payments or the one which didn't? Whether side payments were
introduced some time later around the 20's, or got forgotten locally
somewhere for a while, what made one version or another "non-CC"?

> Now, claiming HKOS as being THE direct heir of this "Late
> Qing" (Shanghai) game is unfair too. From the table we have set, Cofa
> and I, I draw an obvious conclusion: there must have been some sort of
> "break" between the "classic" game ("Late Qing", CC, New Method, proto-
> Japanese Classical), which forms one clear group, and the "modern"
> game -- HKOS. What I would call the "Cantonese block".

Only two simple ideas are needed to start to change CC all the way
(gradually) to HKOS. Namely ...

> I would imagine the complicated "petty-cash" scoring of the "classic"
> game, its poor reward for selfdraw and a few other "flaws" annoyed the
> Cantonese who wanted a faster and more "interactive" game, with a
> simpler scoring.

Clearly, simpifying the scoring was what motivated the development of
HKOS. Not "poor reward of selfdraw": rewarding the selfdraw was not an
intended effect. Discarder-punishment (discarder-doubling) produced a
more "interavtice" (and "fair") game; self-draw inflation didn't make
the game more interactive - it only added more luck.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


24. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 19 Feb 2007 09:49:43 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 9:49 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Alan Kwan a écrit :

> I define CC by the following features:

> 1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
> exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

> 2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
> between non-winning players

> 3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
> faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

> And I can't see what makes the "Late Qing" game "non-CC", side payments
> excepted (and even that was not explicit in the novel).

I agree.

> Clearly, simpifying the scoring was what motivated the development of
> HKOS. Not "poor reward of selfdraw": rewarding the selfdraw was not an
> intended effect. Discarder-punishment (discarder-doubling) produced a
> more "interavtice" (and "fair") game;

The discarder-paying-for-all feature was adopted lately, though.

> self-draw inflation didn't make
> the game more interactive - it only added more luck.

It was perhaps what the Cantonese wanted in the 1930s.
After all the only true gambling game played with a mahjong set - "sap
tim bun" - comes from Canton...

> There is the "reconstructed Nigpo rules" for the 1850's :

Mmm. I can't understand it, but I can see he mentions Chen Yumen's
story -- which is highly conjectural and is not supported by any known
document.

For Ningbo game sets, with "wang" tiles and Seasons, see Michael
Stanwick articles. In the 1860s, Ningbo sets were made of bamboo (the
so-called "Ningbo zhu pai") and included a lot of "flower" tiles, and
almost no dragons. This must have affected the gameplay. I'm not sure
Ryo Asami takes this into account.

> And it's recognizably CC in my book, though it's quite different from
> Millington's (or other 20's) CC.

In YOUR book? Which book? I'm curious about it...

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


25. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 19 Feb 2007 11:28:08 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 11:28 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On 2月20日, 上午12时44分, Alan Kwan wrote:

> I define CC by the following features:

> 1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
> exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

> 2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
> between non-winning players

> 3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
> faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
widely accepted in this group? It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's
defintion.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


26. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 19 Feb 2007 13:56:05 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 19, 11:28 am, "ithinc" wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> On 2月20日, 上午12时44分, Alan Kwan wrote:

> > I define CC by the following features:

> > 1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
> > exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

> > 2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
> > between non-winning players

> > 3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
> > faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

> Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
> widely accepted in this group? It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's
> defintion.

Just a quick question to you, Alan:

What is the DATE OF THE ORIGIN of this definition? If it is originated
with a publication, please provide the title and other identifiable
info of the publication as well.

Thanks a lot!

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


27. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:47:24 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Alan Kwan wrote:
>> I define CC by the following features:

>> 1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
>> exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

>> 2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
>> between non-winning players

>> 3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
>> faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

The first two being precisely those features which I've earmarked as being
"hallmarks" of CC. I agree. Change this little rule, add this little
practice, and you still have the flavor of playing CC - but drop the
triplet-point counting, and the "everybody scores their hand," and now you
don't.

I suppose it becomes a matter of how narrowly one defines things. The degree
to which a definition needs to be narrow is governed by the context of the
topic under discussion.

That said, I think all these recent findings are fascinating, and it's a
real treasure to have uncovered some variations on the game as played before
and during the 1920s.

"ithinc" wrote

>Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
>widely accepted in this group?

No, of course not.

>It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's
>defintion.

Yes, we will never be able to agree on what that is. There is even someone
here who says "mahjong" cannot be defined. So *nothing* can be defined in
such a way that we will all agree.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


28. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:10:24 +0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Tom Sloper wrote:
> Alan Kwan wrote:

>>>I define CC by the following features:

>>>1. triplet-point counting, with 2-4-8-16-32 points for things from
>>>exposed middle triplets to concealed terminal kong.

>>>2. East-doubling payment scheme, (probably) with side settlements
>>>between non-winning players

>>>3. original faan values before 'the great inflation': Mixed One-Suit one
>>>faan, Pure One-Suit three faan

> The first two being precisely those features which I've earmarked as being
> "hallmarks" of CC. I agree. Change this little rule, add this little
> practice, and you still have the flavor of playing CC - but drop the
> triplet-point counting, and the "everybody scores their hand," and now you
> don't.

Yes. Dropping side settlements would create a significant variant; if
we assume that mahjong did start with side payments, that would be as
much a HKOS variant as (the recent) "discarder pays for all" instead of
"discarded doubling". But still recognizably CC.

> I suppose it becomes a matter of how narrowly one defines things. The degree
> to which a definition needs to be narrow is governed by the context of the
> topic under discussion.

> That said, I think all these recent findings are fascinating, and it's a
> real treasure to have uncovered some variations on the game as played before
> and during the 1920s.

Well, we're still not sure that there is a "variation" there, as
explained in my other article. The passage took pains to explain the
scoring of the winning hand, because the author wanted to illustrate
that a big hand was won, which upset East. It didn't mention side
settlements, but we cannot exclude the possibility that it was an
omission for the sake of dramatization: side settlements were irrelevant
to the purpose of the passage.

If you watch recent HK mahjong/gambling movies, you can see how
'incorrect' their (HKOS) mahjong games are. They're passable as drama,
but definitely not as mahjong rules resources. There are frequent
occasions of calling the game of mahjong itself as "maa5 diu3"
(horse-hang), which is wrong:

http://www.asamiryo.jp/rekisi05.html

(In short, maa-diu is a war-type game, and is a completely different
'game' from mahjong, which is a rummy-type game.)

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> "ithinc" wrote

>>Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
>>widely accepted in this group?

> No, of course not.

>>It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's
>>defintion.

> Yes, we will never be able to agree on what that is. There is even someone
> here who says "mahjong" cannot be defined. So *nothing* can be defined in
> such a way that we will all agree.

There is no need or purpose to argue over definitions. What is useful
is to understand what someone means when he uses the words in his
context. When I says that "all modern versions are descended from CC",
the CC I mean is the one I defined above. Excluding pre-20's earlier
versions to try to invalidate my statement doesn't really discredit my
statement - it only creates an extra way to waste time and electrons.
Showing that some minor variant, different from "the CC we all know",
existed around that time, in no way disproves my (and many others')
conjecture that HKOS is descended from CC by "dropping the triplet-point
counting".

cymba...@free.fr wrote:

>>Clearly, simpifying the scoring was what motivated the development of
>>HKOS. Not "poor reward of selfdraw": rewarding the selfdraw was not an
>>intended effect. Discarder-punishment (discarder-doubling) produced a
>>more "interavtice" (and "fair") game;
>
>
> The discarder-paying-for-all feature was adopted lately, though.

Much later. It was almost unheard of in the 70's. It was imported from
Modern Japanese or Taiwanese.

>
>>self-draw inflation didn't make
>>the game more interactive - it only added more luck.
>
>
> It was perhaps what the Cantonese wanted in the 1930s.

It was not an intended effect. It was a side effect of the intention to
punish the discarder. There was never any document supporting the idea
that rewarding self-draw was an intented effect of the change.
Nowadays, Chinese players (of "modern" versions, namely HKOS or others
influenced directly or indirectly by it) take self-draw inflation for
granted because of ignorance: they don't even know that CC existed, and
no more than barely rewarded the self-draw.

> After all the only true gambling game played with a mahjong set - "sap
> tim bun" - comes from Canton...

While that game is probably a Canton game, I am not sure that it's truly
a game using mahjong tiles. The game might well have originated as a
card game (using common playing cards) and then was adapted for mahjong
tiles later. I learned it while a kid as a card game.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


29. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 20 Feb 2007 01:08:45 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 1:08 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

I don't understand why all these arguments. There is no doubt HKOS is
ever evolving. A Late Qing style consists of features found in HKOS
but not in CC, hence it is reasonable to believe HKOS evolved direct
from the Late Qing style, rather than evolved directly from CC which
is also evolved from the Late Qing style. CC and HKOS have the common
ancestor!

All Late Qing novels, not just one, but many, clearly demonstrate that
"no settlement between non-winning players" and "set payoff structure
before game starts" are part of its features. These features are not
found in CC. Adding the fact that "CC" is a name created after 1977,
it is very qualified to call Late Qing on its own - It's not CC, nor
HKOS, even though it has features similar to CC and HKOS.

We can say HKOS is evolved from the Late Qing style, a style similar
to CC. Substituting Late Qing with CC is simply wrong.

The argument is about timeline, not about features. You can't claim
merits of an older form for the credit of a newer form in an argument
about timeline.

On Feb 19, 8:10 pm, Alan Kwan wrote:

> Tom Sloper wrote:
[...]
> > That said, I think all these recent findings are fascinating, and it's a
> > real treasure to have uncovered some variations on the game as played before
> > and during the 1920s.

> Well, we're still not sure that there is a "variation" there, as
> explained in my other article. The passage took pains to explain the
> scoring of the winning hand, because the author wanted to illustrate
> that a big hand was won, which upset East. It didn't mention side
> settlements, but we cannot exclude the possibility that it was an
> omission for the sake of dramatization: side settlements were irrelevant
> to the purpose of the passage.

Please refer to topics with subjects "Excerpts of ancient Chinese
novels mentioning" in January 2007 of this group. All novels describe
games with certain features found only in HKOS, not in CC. There don't
seem to have mistake, or any intended or unintended omission.

> If you watch recent HK mahjong/gambling movies, you can see how
> 'incorrect' their (HKOS) mahjong games are. They're passable as drama,
> but definitely not as mahjong rules resources. There are frequent
> occasions of calling the game of mahjong itself as "maa5 diu3"
> (horse-hang), which is wrong:

> http://www.asamiryo.jp/rekisi05.html

> (In short, maa-diu is a war-type game, and is a completely different
> 'game' from mahjong, which is a rummy-type game.)

We are not comparing recent HK movies or "maa-diu". Demonstrations in
those late Qing novels are very clear - Not just one novel, but many.

> > Yes, we will never be able to agree on what that is. There is even someone
> > here who says "mahjong" cannot be defined. So *nothing* can be defined in
> > such a way that we will all agree.

> There is no need or purpose to argue over definitions. What is useful
> is to understand what someone means when he uses the words in his
> context. When I says that "all modern versions are descended from CC",
> the CC I mean is the one I defined above. Excluding pre-20's earlier
> versions to try to invalidate my statement doesn't really discredit my
> statement - it only creates an extra way to waste time and electrons.
> Showing that some minor variant, different from "the CC we all know",
> existed around that time, in no way disproves my (and many others')
> conjecture that HKOS is descended from CC by "dropping the triplet-point
> counting".

However, it is important to know the date of a name or definition when
timeline is the centre of an arguement.

When new evidences are found, as we just did recently, we now all see
that both CC and HKOS have a common ancestor. When timeline is the
centre of the arguement, you simply can't claim the merits of the 1903
form for the credit of the name of 1977.

The best way to make "HKOS is descended from CC" a universally correct
statement is to substitute "CC" with "the origin of mahjong," so that
whenever an older form is found, the statement always remains correct
(^_^)

Cheers!
Cofa Tsui
www.iMahjong.com
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


30. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:42:18 +0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 2:42 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Cofa Tsui wrote:
> I don't understand why all these arguments. There is no doubt HKOS is
> ever evolving. A Late Qing style consists of features found in HKOS
> but not in CC, hence it is reasonable to believe HKOS evolved direct
> from the Late Qing style, rather than evolved directly from CC which
> is also evolved from the Late Qing style. CC and HKOS have the common
> ancestor!

> All Late Qing novels, not just one, but many, clearly demonstrate that
> "no settlement between non-winning players" and "set payoff structure
> before game starts" are part of its features. These features are not
> found in CC. Adding the fact that "CC" is a name created after 1977,
> it is very qualified to call Late Qing on its own - It's not CC, nor
> HKOS, even though it has features similar to CC and HKOS.

I agree that it was possible that side settlements might not have
existed or been universal or popular during the pre-1920 period.
It could well have been a feature introduced around 1920, or could have
been around but not popular with some or most localities.

What is appaling is to try to use this as a base for Cofa's argument,
that "HKOS is not descended from CC", by claiming this omission of the
side payments "a feature of HKOS". Such dispute is purely "verbal"
(disputing the use of certain words) and carries no useful meaning.

None of the early literatures suggested a version of mahjong which
omitted triplet-point counting and counted faan alone - the most central
distinction between CC and HKOS. Trying to suggest that HKOS existed or
was "in development" before its time just because side settlements
were not universal is a wild, wild assumption.

Nor was there any early literature suggesting the discarder-double
payoff scheme, even. There is no connection whatsoever between the
omission of side settlements pre-1920 and the development of the HKOS
payoff scheme.

> "set payoff structure before game starts"

Could somebody please kindly explain what this means?

> We can say HKOS is evolved from the Late Qing style, a style similar
> to CC. Substituting Late Qing with CC is simply wrong.

"Chinese Classical" 中國古典麻雀 literally means mahjong as it was
played in old times in China. Thus trying to exclude an old version
from the definition of the term, when that version shares 90% of the
features as the "CC as we know it" (of the 20's) but differs only in one
feature, is a rather absurd manipulation of words (if not "simply wrong").

Note that any "style" of mahjong we're talking about here is lumped with
many variants which are 90% alike but different in some details. With
HKOS we have discarder-doubling vs. discarder-pay-all scheme; 6 faan vs.
7 faan for Pure One-Suit; various (complex) limit systems; 0/1/3/6 faan
minimum requirement; and so on. So which HKOS are we talking about?
(Even my own Zung Jung had version numbers.)

> The argument is about timeline, not about features. You can't claim
> merits of an older form for the credit of a newer form in an argument
> about timeline.

Let me list two possibilities:

1. Side settlements were originally in the conception of mahjong, but
got left out in some localitites some time in the middle, yet got
reinforced and gained popularity around the 20's

2. Side settlements were a feature newly invented for mahjong around the
20's, and got popular after that.

And, Mr. Cofa, I can't see at all, regardless of which of these
possibilities is true, that your claim of the "early beginnings of HKOS"
could be substantiated. HKOS is undeniably evolved from the version of
mahjong before it (whatever you call it, though I can't see a more
sensible term than "Classical") by dropping the (cumbersome)
triplet-point counting. And also (probably) a bit later, by adopting
the discarder-double payoff scheme. Whether side settlements were there
or not in the pre-20s is not very relevant for your purpose, I'm afraid.

HKOS is not the original, nor an early, form of mahjong. No clever
manipulation of words, or misdirection of the discussion, is going to
change that.

> The best way to make "HKOS is descended from CC" a universally correct
> statement is to substitute "CC" with "the origin of mahjong," so that
> whenever an older form is found, the statement always remains correct
> (^_^)

If you can prove that the oldest form of mahjong didn't have
triplet-point counting, but was indeed HKOS-like and counted faan alone,
and what we know as CC was indeed developed from it by adding
triplet-point counting to the system, I will bow down to you on all fives.

Or if you can prove that Mixed One-Suit was originally 3 faan, and got
shrinked to 1 faan for CC, I will make a gold-plated plaque for you,
engraved with whatever words of your choosing.

Otherwise, there is little use to try to be clever. We used to include
side settlements as a hallmark CC feature because it was identifiable as
such; but what if it's not actually universal? Does its omission really
create an alternate "origin" of mahjong? I'd rather just call it "CC
without side settlements".

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


31. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 20 Feb 2007 10:11:38 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 10:11 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 20, 2:42 am, Alan Kwan wrote:

> I agree that it was possible that side settlements might not have
> existed or been universal or popular during the pre-1920 period.
> It could well have been a feature introduced around 1920, or could have
> been around but not popular with some or most localities.

Thanks for agreeing to this. All your hypotheses are possible and
reasonable. I have no arguement about that. Keep in mind that the
feature of "no settlement between non-winning players" existed as
early as in 1903, and this feature is found in HKOS only, not in CC.

> What is appaling is to try to use this as a base for Cofa's argument,
> that "HKOS is not descended from CC", by claiming this omission of the
> side payments "a feature of HKOS". Such dispute is purely "verbal"
> (disputing the use of certain words) and carries no useful meaning.

You might get me wrong, Alan. My base is that your "CC" and the "Late
Qing" are not the same. You can't claim the merits of Late Qing for
the credit of your "CC" in this argument which is about timeline of
various forms. Late Qing started as early as 1892 (see chart
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html), while the term "CC"
was fromed no earlier than 1977.

I have no objection about HKOS dropping the "triplet point counting"
etc, which are features seen in CC; I always say that HKOS is ever
evolving. But my point is that these are also features of the Late
Qing style, which existed much, much earlier than when the term "CC"
was created or formed. And since that Late Qing style consists of
features of HKOS that all CC forms don't have, it is only reasonable
to say that HKOS style, or its earlier form, evolved directly from
this Late Qing style.

> None of the early literatures suggested a version of mahjong which
> omitted triplet-point counting and counted faan alone - the most central
> distinction between CC and HKOS. Trying to suggest that HKOS existed or
> was "in development" before its time just because side settlements
> were not universal is a wild, wild assumption.

> Nor was there any early literature suggesting the discarder-double
> payoff scheme, even. There is no connection whatsoever between the
> omission of side settlements pre-1920 and the development of the HKOS
> payoff scheme.

Alan, it doesn't matter how features in those earlier literatures are
similar to those represented by the form "CC," they belong to the Late
Qing style, possibly from which all "CC" forms also evolved. You can't
claim the merits of the Late Qing style for the credit of the later
"CC" forms.

I have no arguement about the changes of HKOS, only that it changed
directly from Late Qing, which is supported by all new evidences we
recently found.

> "Chinese Classical" 中國古典麻雀 literally means mahjong as it was
> played in old times in China. Thus trying to exclude an old version
> from the definition of the term, when that version shares 90% of the
> features as the "CC as we know it" (of the 20's) but differs only in one
> feature, is a rather absurd manipulation of words (if not "simply wrong").

Are "Chinese Classical" and "中國古典麻雀" the same thing? When was/were
they published?

[...]

> HKOS is not the original, nor an early, form of mahjong. No clever
> manipulation of words, or misdirection of the discussion, is going to
> change that.

Aaaah! Is this what you are in fact trying to establish in the first
place? I totally agree to this! We have Late Qing having its features
(1892-1911), HKOS is definitely NOT the origin of mahjong!

So I guess answering to rest of your message becomes unnecessary.
(^_^)

[...]

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


32. Julian Bradfield
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Julian Bradfield
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:19:46 +0000
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


"Cofa Tsui" writes:
> You might get me wrong, Alan. My base is that your "CC" and the "Late
> Qing" are not the same. You can't claim the merits of Late Qing for
> the credit of your "CC" in this argument which is about timeline of
> various forms. Late Qing started as early as 1892 (see chart
> http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html), while the term "CC"
> was fromed no earlier than 1977.

You are *term*inally confused!
The fact that the term "CC" was formed no earlier than 1977 is just as
irrelevant as the fact that the term "Late Qing" was formed last month
(not 1892). What matters is when the referents of the terms were
formed.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


33. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 20 Feb 2007 13:59:09 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 1:59 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 20, 1:19 pm, Julian Bradfield wrote:

> "Cofa Tsui" writes:
> > You might get me wrong, Alan. My base is that your "CC" and the "Late
> > Qing" are not the same. You can't claim the merits of Late Qing for
> > the credit of your "CC" in this argument which is about timeline of
> > various forms. Late Qing started as early as 1892 (see chart
> >http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html), while the term "CC"
> > was fromed no earlier than 1977.

> You are *term*inally confused!
> The fact that the term "CC" was formed no earlier than 1977 is just as
> irrelevant as the fact that the term "Late Qing" was formed last month
> (not 1892). What matters is when the referents of the terms were
> formed.

Good point, Julian! And what matters is also the timeline of the
features those terms/definitions represent. We now then have "Late
Qing":
(1) representing the game form widely played in the years 1892-1911;
(2) having some features found only in HKOS but not in CC; and
(3) having some features found only in CC but not in HKOS;

can we then say that:
(1) HKOS is not necessarily evolved *directly from CC*?
(2) CC and HKOS have the common ancestor?

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


34. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:48:32 +0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 6:48 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Cofa,

> Alan, it doesn't matter how features in those earlier literatures are
> similar to those represented by the form "CC," they belong to the Late
> Qing style, possibly from which all "CC" forms also evolved. You can't
> claim the merits of the Late Qing style for the credit of the later
> "CC" forms.

> I have no arguement about the changes of HKOS, only that it changed
> directly from Late Qing, which is supported by all new evidences we
> recently found.

I totally disagree to your *wording*. You are deliberately calling this
"Late Qing" style "not CC" just to establish your statement "HKOS is not
directly evolved from CC". To me, this looks like nothing but a
deliberate manipulation of words for your own purpose.

It is not fair or useful (for all purposes but *yours*) to call CC
without side settlements a different style. Even in a world where the
'standard' rule has side settlements, they can easily be omitted in a
certain locality (such as, the writers'), precisely for the reason that
they are too cumbersome, and more trouble than it is worth. Whether
side settlemenets had been a local omission or a later addition, it was
CC that was being played all that time.

We do not have overwhelming evidence to point to one way or the other: I
agree that it is possible that side settlments might not have been
universal for the late Qing period, but there are many possibilities. I
am not yet convinced that side settlements must necessarily be a new
thing invented in the 20's.

And there is even no evidence that HKOS is inherited from the
no-side-settelment variant rather than the yes-side-settlement variant.
Because in the latter case, side settlements will necessarily be
dropped in the transition. Also, there is no evidence that the
no-side-settlements variant has been around or popular after the 20's,
and most of us here are pretty convinced that HKOS was developed much
later. To quote this easy omission as a "common feature", and to
conclude that HKOS evolved from this variant rather than the other, and
perhaps even to suggest that HKOS might have been developed earlier, is
really stretching it by a very long bit. But the most appaling is to
call this variant "a different style" altogether, just to serve one's
purpose.

Cofa, your method of arguing might work in the legal field (in court),
but here we are dealing with scholarship and rationality. Your argument
is mostly verbal, 強詞奪理。 This is not court. You are wrong: HKOS is
evolved from CC.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


35. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 20 Feb 2007 20:02:32 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 8:02 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 20, 6:48 pm, Alan Kwan wrote:

[... ]

> Cofa, your method of arguing might work in the legal field (in court),
> but here we are dealing with scholarship and rationality. Your argument
> is mostly verbal, 強詞奪理。 This is not court. You are wrong: HKOS is
> evolved from CC.

WOW! Alan, take it easy! Relax! This is a friendly mahjong newsgroup!

We'd better stop for a while. Take care!

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


36. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 20 Feb 2007 01:07:18 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 20 2007 1:07 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> "ithinc" wrote
> >Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
> >widely accepted in this group?

> No, of course not.

> >It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's defintion.

> Yes, we will never be able to agree on what that is. There is even someone
> here who says "mahjong" cannot be defined. So *nothing* can be defined in
> such a way that we will all agree.

If we all would agree on clear-cut definitions, this group would never
exist! :-))

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


37. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 18:14:07 -0800
Local: Thurs, Mar 1 2007 6:14 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>> "ithinc" wrote
>>>Oh, this is the first time I see a clear definition of CC. Is it
>>>widely accepted in this group?

>Tom Sloper a écrit :
>> No, of course not.

>>>It seems lots of disputes lie on CC's defintion.

>> Yes, we will never be able to agree on what that is. There is even
>> someone
>> here who says "mahjong" cannot be defined. So *nothing* can be defined in
>> such a way that we will all agree.

>Thierry=cymbalum@free> wrote...
>If we all would agree on clear-cut definitions, this group would never
>exist! :-))

Quite right. I just heard a quote today from the late Arthur Schlesinger:

"History is argumentation without end."

I have a better perspective on things now...
A bientot,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


38. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:57:19 +0800
Local: Mon, Feb 19 2007 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Cofa Tsui wrote:
> For "conjecture":
> 1. Inference or judgment based on *inconclusive or incomplete
> evidence; guesswork*.

That's what mine (or rather, ours) is. Though in this case, the
"incomplete" evidence seems almost overwhelmingly convincing ...

> For "assumption":
> - a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion
> can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer
> that he will not to play"

Assumed without any evidence (complete or incomplete) at all, that's
what yours is. Or rather, an assumed made in mid-air, against every
evidence we can see.

> Nobody denies the existence of "CC" - I don't. However, I don't know
> based on what evidences Gaan made his conjecture. From the experience
> you have with this newsgroup, I assume that your evidences (respecting
> the conjectures made related to HKOS and CC) go no farther than 1920s.
> Can you tell us if this is correct?

There is the "reconstructed Nigpo rules" for the 1850's :

http://www.asamiryo.jp/tre40.html

And it's recognizably CC in my book, though it's quite different from
Millington's (or other 20's) CC. (No faan/points for "no-point hand",
Thirteen Terminals for dealt hand only, etc.)

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


39. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:59:38 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 8:59 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote

> We have tried to be as "neutral" as possible. We also decided to
> remove feature "Self-pick rewarded" from our initial chart. Thierry
> noticed that "self-pick win" is rewarded in all known variants, either
> in the form of "points" or "fans," hence there is nothing discriminant
> for this item to be kept in the chart.

I think there's a big difference between 2 points and doubling the score. CC
gave the winner pennies for winning by self-pick, whereas many other forms
give the winner double score from each other player. Seems like a
significant discriminant to me, even more significant than the number of
special hands being "few" versus "many."
Cheers,
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


40. d_...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: d_...@my-deja.com
Date: 12 Feb 2007 10:56:02 -0800
Local: Mon, Feb 12 2007 10:56 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 12, 8:59 am, "Tom Sloper"
wrote:

> wrote

> > We have tried to be as "neutral" as possible. We also decided to
> > remove feature "Self-pick rewarded" from our initial chart. Thierry
> > noticed that "self-pick win" is rewarded in all known variants, either
> > in the form of "points" or "fans," hence there is nothing discriminant
> > for this item to be kept in the chart.

> I think there's a big difference between 2 points and doubling the score. CC
> gave the winner pennies for winning by self-pick, whereas many other forms
> give the winner double score from each other player. Seems like a
> significant discriminant to me, even more significant than the number of
> special hands being "few" versus "many."
> Cheers,
> Tom

I agree with Tom that it is worth keeping the "Self-pick rewarded" in
the chart.

Another question: Unless you guys know a lot more than what has been
discussed, what is the basis on the "Region of ORIGIN:" for each
form? I am not questioning that the various forms were POPULAR (or
PLAYED) in the respective regions, but I am not ready to jump to the
conclusion that the form ORIGINATED in the given region.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


41. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 13 Feb 2007 02:16:09 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 2:16 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


d_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I agree with Tom that it is worth keeping the "Self-pick rewarded" in
> the chart.

We both agree with you and Tom.
It is not without regret that we dismissed the "Self-pick rewarded"
feature.
It was a late-comer. But when we checked it in our references (and in
many other 1920's manuals) we saw, that it was YES everywhere!

In fact, the type of reward is so bound to the two main scoring
systems (counting points then double, or counting doubles then
converting to points) that we thought it would have added little to
the table.

We certainly failed to have a typical phrase that would return a
definite YES or NO.

Would you like to suggest one? We can add it to the table easily.

> Another question: Unless you guys know a lot more than what has been
> discussed, what is the basis on the "Region of ORIGIN:" for each
> form? I am not questioning that the various forms were POPULAR (or
> PLAYED) in the respective regions, but I am not ready to jump to the
> conclusion that the form ORIGINATED in the given region.

I'm afraid that, yes, we "guys know a lot more than what has been
discussed"... ;-)

But, you're right. We meant the various forms were indeed *popular* in
the respective regions. We did not mean they *originated* there.
Maybe we should revert to a previous and more cautious "area"...

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


42. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:30:27 +0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 4:30 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


cymba...@free.fr wrote:
> We certainly failed to have a typical phrase that would return a
> definite YES or NO.

> Would you like to suggest one? We can add it to the table easily.

"self-draw INFLATION" :)

... to borrow from the Japanese's usage of the word. In common English
terms,

"excessive self-draw reward" :)

----

In Alan's mahjong dictionary,

[Inflation] (n.)

1. The general trend in mahjong development history of patterns gaining
increasing score values, and new patterns being added.
2. A specific instance of #1.
3. The problem of a scoring element or pattern becoming overly valuable,
often due to a side effect or mispropagation, and causing a bias (a
"peculiarity") in the scoring system.

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


43. ithinc
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "ithinc"
Date: 13 Feb 2007 06:27:26 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 6:27 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On 2月13日, 下午8时30分, Alan Kwan wrote:

> "self-draw INFLATION" :)

> ... to borrow from the Japanese's usage of the word. In common English
> terms,

> "excessive self-draw reward" :)

Why not "too little self-draw reward"?

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


44. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:54:21 +0800
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 2:54 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


ithinc wrote:
> On 2月13日, 下午8时30分, Alan Kwan wrote:

>>"self-draw INFLATION" :)

>>... to borrow from the Japanese's usage of the word. In common English
>>terms,

>>"excessive self-draw reward" :)

> Why not "too little self-draw reward"?

I have previously written about the topic. Because the large reward was
not an intended change (with a clear intention to improve the game), but
rather, it was the combined result of

1. a side effect of a change with a different purpose
2. a mis-propagated or improperly evolved pattern

I call a pattern "improperly evolved" when it changed series (in the
Zung Jung categorization system, or an extension thereof). "Riichi" was
improperly evolved because it's a series 1.2 pattern evolved from a
series 9.4 pattern (original call). 1 faan for "self-draw" in HKOS was
improperly evolved because it was a category 9 pattern evolved from
series 1.2 (fully concealed) (if it's not merely mis-propagation of
self-draw doubling in the payoff scheme).

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


45. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:18:01 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 8:18 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


wrote:
> It is not without regret that we dismissed the "Self-pick rewarded"
> feature. ... when we checked it in our references (and in
> many other 1920's manuals) we saw, that it was YES everywhere!
> We certainly failed to have a typical phrase that would return a
> definite YES or NO.
> Would you like to suggest one? We can add it to the table easily.

A few thoughts:

Self-pick highly rewarded
Huge reward for self-pick
Tiny reward for self-pick
Self-pick barely rewarded

It's probably easier to quantify than "many" vs. "few" special hands.

> In fact, the type of reward is so bound to the two main scoring
> systems (counting points then double, or counting doubles then
> converting to points) that we thought it would have added little to
> the table.

Interesting. But "count points then double" does not imply "only give a
small reward for self-pick," does it? It could easily have been a double
rather than just 2 points, then CC would have had a point of similarity with
all other forms (and *then* the line item could have been ignored).

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


46. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 13 Feb 2007 08:56:44 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 8:56 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> A few thoughts:

> Self-pick highly rewarded
> Huge reward for self-pick
> Tiny reward for self-pick
> Self-pick barely rewarded

Why not "Self-pick rewarded a few points"? YES YES YES... NO NO
(From the early sources, it appears that Self-pick is rewarded between
2 (the most frequent) to 5 (probably unusual).

Or, the other way round:
"Self-pick rewarded in fans": NO NO NO... YES YES YES
It's trivial, but the answer is unambiguous.

> It's probably easier to quantify than "many" vs. "few" special hands.

Ah, yes! You are right. And now I realise that we gave "1920s CC-like"
a YES to "FEWER or NO special hands", which is disputable. If we refer
to Babcock's Second edition, we can see there are FEW special hands.
In fact the inflation, as Alan calls it, came later. Millington does
have a lot of special hands.

> Interesting. But "count points then double" does not imply "only give a
> small reward for self-pick," does it? It could easily have been a double
> rather than just 2 points, then CC would have had a point of similarity with
> all other forms (and *then* the line item could have been ignored).

I concur. We definitely need include this 10th feature.

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


47. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 13 Feb 2007 09:34:09 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 9:34 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

cymba...@free.fr a écrit :

> Ah, yes! You are right. And now I realise that we gave "1920s CC-like"
> a YES to "FEWER or NO special hands", ...

Need to change my glasses!
It's NO we have in this cell, and this is why this may be disputable.
Sorry for the mistake!

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


48. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:07:05 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 2:07 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote in message

news:1171388049.640494.229430@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
cymba...@free.fr a écrit :

> Ah, yes! You are right. And now I realise that we gave "1920s CC-like"
> a YES to "FEWER or NO special hands", ...

Need to change my glasses!
It's NO we have in this cell, and this is why this may be disputable.
Sorry for the mistake!

Hi Thierry,

Our chart is correct with this one.
With "FEWER or NO special hands" the "CC-like" field is "NO" - That means
"CC-like" form has MANY special hands, a statement that is correct.

Re:

> (D_lau) I agree with Tom that it is worth keeping the "Self-pick rewarded"
> in
> the chart.

and
(Thierry) Would you like to suggest one? We can add it to the table easily.

It is a unity of the chart that to all features under column "Late Qing" the
answers shall all be "YES" - So we shall consider these suggestions (pardon
me for the filtering):
From Tom:
Tiny reward for self-pick
Self-pick barely rewarded

My pick and reasoning:
"Reward for self-pick win insignificant"
- It implies that all forms have reward for self-pick win
- The comparison is whether it is significant

I'll make change to the chart if there is no objection.

Cheers!

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


49. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 14 Feb 2007 02:24:33 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 2:24 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> My pick and reasoning:
> "Reward for self-pick win insignificant"
> - It implies that all forms have reward for self-pick win
> - The comparison is whether it is significant

Mmm. I find it little descriptive, and the word "insignificant" is not
precise enough. (What does it mean exactly? Can you fix the point
where a feature becomes "significant"?). In HKOS one fan is
"insignificant"...

I would have favoured:
"Self-pick rewarded a few points (2-4)"

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


50. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:46:07 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 2:46 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote in message

news:1171448673.729314.275910@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cofa Tsui a écrit :

> My pick and reasoning:
> "Reward for self-pick win insignificant"
> - It implies that all forms have reward for self-pick win
> - The comparison is whether it is significant

Mmm. I find it little descriptive, and the word "insignificant" is not
precise enough. (What does it mean exactly? Can you fix the point
where a feature becomes "significant"?). In HKOS one fan is
"insignificant"...

I can't if on one form alone; but it's possible if two forms are compared
(one form shall always be Late Qing). And in HKOS, the value of 1 fan seems
small, the "double of total value" it allows can be considered significant,
IMO.

I would have favoured:
"Self-pick rewarded a few points (2-4)"

If "points" is mentioned in the feature, the need of adding a feature for
"fan" is arguable. It might end up taking the whole line away.

Headache !

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


51. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:39:40 -0800
Local: Tues, Feb 13 2007 9:39 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote / a écrit :

>Ah, yes! You are right. And now I realise that we gave "1920s CC-like"
>a YES to "FEWER or NO special hands", which is disputable. If we refer
>to Babcock's Second edition, we can see there are FEW special hands.
>In fact the inflation, as Alan calls it, came later.

You can't go by Babcock. He "simplified" the rules and can't be used as a CC
authority. That's why in my system of variant naming I separate Babcock from
CC. You have to use another 1920s author, like Foster, Work, or Hartman for
instance.

Babcock's second edition, the hardcover book, is more reliable a CC source
than his softcover books, but I guess I feel like there's still the taint
(as it were) of his first edition on his body of work, thus I prefer using
the other major 1920s authors when defining CC.

>Millington does
>have a lot of special hands.

Perhaps I should consider separating Millington from CC as well. Sometime
when I have more time I'll look into that.

>> Interesting. But "count points then double" does not imply "only give a
>> small reward for self-pick," does it? It could easily have been a double
>> rather than just 2 points, then CC would have had a point of similarity
>> with
>> all other forms (and *then* the line item could have been ignored).

>I concur. We definitely need include this 10th feature.

Cool.
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


52. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 14 Feb 2007 00:55:36 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 12:55 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> Babcock's second edition, the hardcover book, is more reliable a CC source
> than his softcover books, but I guess I feel like there's still the taint
> (as it were) of his first edition on his body of work, thus I prefer using
> the other major 1920s authors when defining CC.

I don't think so. Babcock's second edition is perfectly usable as
reliable CC source, the more so as he's been living in China, whereas
most of his "competitors" haven't. His Chapter on the "Chinese game"
looks pretty faithful, and he is well-informed enough to present the
"New Method", something you don't find elsewhere (save in Tchou).

Frankly I much appreciate his 1923 hardcover book.
He very honestly says what he has simplified, although in this version
his Mah-Jongg rules are not "oversimplified". It's in fact the
"standard Western CC".

Cheers,

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


53. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 14 Feb 2007 01:45:39 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 1:45 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> Perhaps I should consider separating Millington from CC as well. Sometime
> when I have more time I'll look into that.

The question is how many special hands qualify to be styled "fewer" or
"many"...

In Tom's excellent "Overview of Mah-Jongg Styles" (FAQ 2b), Chinese
Classical is credited to have "Not many special hands (somewhere
around 19 tile combinations)".

I guess here "tile combinations" means "hand patterns", not just "tile
sets"... :-)

Just to have some figures in mind here is a rapid count of special and
limit hands, or "patterns" (including "robbing a kong"), that can be
retrieved from various sources.
(not counting selfdraw, sets of flowers, dragons, seat or prevailing
winds all worth one or more fans)

There are surprises!

Special hands that are attested in Wilkinson, Late Qing novels and/or
Mauger: 5
(there certainly were more)

Special hands listed in Liou 1921*: 15
Special hands listed in Babcock 1923: 15
Special hands listed in Winters 1923: 23
Special hands listed in Chiang Lee 1923: 13
Special hands listed in Foster 1924: 11 + 15 "Chinese limit hands"
Special hands listed in Tchou 1924**: 17
Additions welcome!

* More on K.T. Liou, "Le jeu de matchang", 1921 soon.
** Tchou Kia-Kien [= Zhu Jiajian]. Le jeu de mah-jong tel qu'il est
joué par les Chinois. Paris, 1924.

Special hands listed in Japanese Classical according to source: 26

Special hands listed in Millington 1977: 39!

Special hands listed in Nguyen 1950: 17
Special hands listed in Perlmen & Chan 1979 (for HKOS): 19
Special hands listed in Amy Lo 2001 (for HKOS): 22

So, all in all, the range of special/limit hands is an average 18-19
for 1920s CC (congratulations, Tom, you got it right!); but twice more
in Millington; Japanese Classical offers 26, and HKOS some 19, just
like CC! It's the world upside down!

In fact, it seems there is a basic list of ±20/25 classic patterns --
about 10 "special hands" plus 12/15 "limit hands" --, from "Pinghu" to
"Thirteen Orphans", which is to be found in most historical variants
of Mahjong.
Shanghai New Style (some 100 patterns in Perlmen & Chan, but only 60
in Amy Lo) and CO=CMCR (81 patterns) indeed appear to be "monsters",
dwarfing inflationist Millington.

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


54. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:19:59 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 2:19 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote in message

news:1171446339.464510.318120@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

[...]

So, all in all, the range of special/limit hands is an average 18-19
for 1920s CC (congratulations, Tom, you got it right!); but twice more
in Millington; Japanese Classical offers 26, and HKOS some 19, just
like CC! It's the world upside down!

Wonderful! I mean the chart is wonderful! One can work out so much knowledge
out of it!

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


55. Tom Sloper
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Tom Sloper"
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:17:38 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 9:17 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

wrote

>The question is how many special hands qualify to be styled "fewer" or
>"many"...

>Just to have some figures in mind here is a rapid count of special and
>limit hands, or "patterns" (including "robbing a kong"), that can be
>retrieved from various sources.

Nice work, Thierry! Thanks
Tom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =


56. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 14 Feb 2007 09:54:12 -0800
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2007 9:54 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> wrote
> >Just to have some figures in mind here is a rapid count of special and
> >limit hands, or "patterns" (including "robbing a kong"), that can be
> >retrieved from various sources.

> Nice work, Thierry! Thanks

Thank you, thank you.

Two further additions to the 1920s CC list:

Special hands listed in The Pocket Guide to Mah Jong, Containing the
Standard Laws 1924 (from Gareth Saunders's site at http://
www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/mahjong/rules1924.html): 16
Special hands listed in Ly Yu Sang 1923 : 25

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


57. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 16 Feb 2007 06:04:39 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 16 2007 6:04 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Latest additions to lists of special hands:

Special hands listed in Chung Wu 1973: 100
Special hands listed in Perlmen & Chan (for S'hai New Style): 99
Special hands listed in Amy Lo (for S'hai New Style): 60
Special hands listed in CMCR: 81
Special hands listed in Zung Jung (v3.0): 44

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


58. Thierry Depaulis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "cymba...@free.fr"
Date: 16 Feb 2007 06:13:27 -0800
Local: Fri, Feb 16 2007 6:13 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> A few thoughts:

> Self-pick highly rewarded
> Huge reward for self-pick
> Tiny reward for self-pick
> Self-pick barely rewarded

Finally I suggest:
"Self-pick poorly rewarded"
(placing this item as no. 4)

so that it should comply to Cofa's specifications.

And, while we are in this subject, I also suggest:
"Less than 25 special hands"
(instead of "FEWER or NO special hands")

setting a pitch at 25, so that all CC-like and HKOS variants will be
YES, and Japanese Classical and S'hai New Style will be NO.

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


59. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: 18 Feb 2007 00:17:46 -0800
Local: Sun, Feb 18 2007 12:17 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

On Feb 16, 6:13 am, "cymba...@free.fr" wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> Tom Sloper a écrit :

> > A few thoughts:

> > Self-pick highly rewarded
> > Huge reward for self-pick
> > Tiny reward for self-pick
> > Self-pick barely rewarded

> Finally I suggest:
> "Self-pick poorly rewarded"
> (placing this item as no. 4)

> so that it should comply to Cofa's specifications.

> And, while we are in this subject, I also suggest:
> "Less than 25 special hands"
> (instead of "FEWER or NO special hands")

> setting a pitch at 25, so that all CC-like and HKOS variants will be
> YES, and Japanese Classical and S'hai New Style will be NO.

One thing regarding "FEWER or NO special hands" - I thought it should
have a different meaning than simply counting all *score elements* of
a ruleset.

"Special hand" shall refer to a hand as a whole for scoring purposes.
A hand include one or more "score elements" (or "grade elements", or
"fan elements" - elements that give points or fans to add up for a
hand). In my opinion, if a score out of a "special hand" is counted,
all other score elements (or grade elements) in the hand shall be
ignored. An illustration about this concept can be seen at rule art.
25 of the International Mahjong Rules (http://www.imahjong.com/
mruonline1101imjrulesc_simplified.html).

In Millington's book, "special hand" is referred to as "special limit
hand" = total of 18 (rule 122, page 66).

You might need to recount all rulesets again ^_^ (for example, CMCR
will have 0 special hands).

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


60. Cofa Tsui
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: "Cofa Tsui"
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:18:37 GMT
Local: Fri, Feb 23 2007 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)

Tom Sloper a écrit :

> > A few thoughts:

> > Self-pick highly rewarded
> > Huge reward for self-pick
> > Tiny reward for self-pick
> > Self-pick barely rewarded

And Thierry suggested:

> "Self-pick poorly rewarded"
> (placing this item as no. 4)

The "chart" has now been revised. Please visit:
http://www.imahjong.com/maiarchives205d_3.html
(The spreadsheet file is also updated.)

And we are still pending on this one - suggestions welcome:

> And, while we are in this subject, I also suggest:
> "Less than 25 special hands"
> (instead of "FEWER or NO special hands")

Cheers!

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


61. Alan Kwan
Newsgroups: rec.games.mahjong
From: Alan Kwan
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:55:36 +0800
Local: Fri, Feb 16 2007 2:55 am
Subject: Re: Evolution of Various Forms of Mahjong (1890-2001)


Tom Sloper wrote:
> I think there's a big difference between 2 points and doubling the score. CC
> gave the winner pennies for winning by self-pick, whereas many other forms
> give the winner double score from each other player. Seems like a
> significant discriminant to me, even more significant than the number of
> special hands being "few" versus "many."

Of course.

And the pigeon-holing practice of seperating into two groups of "few"
vs. "many" special hands is pretty much worthless IMHO.

What would be useful is to look at the actual patterns in each list, and
try to form conjectures. Basically, there is a general trend of
"inflation": the introduction of more patterns, and the raising of the
values of existing patterns. Other than the original Classical
patterns, the addition of others are usually limited to some locality.
(Thus the HKOS set is pretty much the same as the basic Classical set,
while Millington adopted a more sophiscated set.) But then, sometimes
some patterns (especially the rare ones) get dropped due to
mis-propagation. (There are some HK players who don't know All Honors
and Nine Gates, for example.)

--
"3-faan minimum mahjong is like volleyball with a 4-meter-high net.
It makes the game more challenging only for novices."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = END OF MESSAGE = = = = = = = =

Updates Log:

2008-11-23 - ADDED to this page: MJ newsgroup messages responding to this article (link from here)

2007-02-26: Minor correction made to fields along the row of feature "FEWER or NO special hands."

2007-02-23: Feature "Self-pick rewarded" was put back to the table - Thanks to participants in the discussions of the MJ newsgroup. Changed the year period of Shanghai New Style and rearranged the column position.

Top | Home