Of course you own the fence, that's why those stones cant be captured: you own them, they're alive. However, should you receive extra credit for thickness of your fence? I think not but that's just me. Dame points are all about thickening and not actually surrounding any more points.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Actually I meant gay in a way that it's commonly dropped in my local: to mean stupid, bizarre, irrational or dysfunctional. Sorry for the confusion.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

The way you're talking about it makes it seem like one point gets the points and the other person doesn't. Of course, I'll leave it to the guy who "doesn't understand territory" to explain what dame points are all about.

I like area scoring as the official method, if there are any problems it steamrolls right through (Examples: Did we accidentally lose one of our prisoners? was the stone replayed or not? is there a complicated endgame position?). But in general, I resolve games with no complications with territory scoring. So, basically AGA rules.

I suppose there's a little inefficiency in that you can't punish someone by passing after all the dame are filled and they try a bad attack that can be safely ignored for a net of one point. But this seems a minor loss for the huge gains.

Also, OP, you're not in your local and there's just no point in using that word in that fashion when you could just as easily use one of the other words you described. You're dealing with a wide audience here, why use language that is obviously off-putting?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Hi Joelnelsonb, please see my PM to you.

I'd recommend not repeating the discussion in this thread.

Though I'm fine with either, given the choice I would prefer area scoring in the case of OTB games due to the large number of errors I've seen occur during the physical scoring process using the territory method.

So I've been better educated on area and I guess I get it now. I see why you might prefer it. It is "simpler" for those purist who love a basic game, however, I think I'll stick with territory unless I'm teaching a new player or something. I do kinda' like the concept of "control more than half the board to win" but I still get hung up on the original reasons given. I mean, with area, you have no reason to not invade as much a possible even if there's no chance of survival until the boards full of stones with no more open territory (pain in the butt to play against someone who doesn't want to except defeat). As always, correct me if I'm mistaken.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

It's the same for territory; just invade and they respond and the net difference is 0.

That is true only when the game is over and there are no more gainful plays. If you play on under those circumstances you will make few friends.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It's not the same if you don't need to answer their move because they just died in gote inside your territory. In territory rules if they do that and you pass then they lost a point as they give you one more dead stone. So there is a direct cost to dying in gote in your opponent's territory. In area rules there is no direct cost, only an opportunity cost: if there are still dame left and your opponent dies in gote in your territory then your territory is the same (as the dead stone is remove for counting) and they don't get any more live stones or territory so the effect is 0. If you can play a dame then you get one more live stone so gain a point: the net affect is you gain a point. However, if there are no dame left you can only pass in answer to their death in gote so you can't gain a point: they aren't punished for being a jerk and dying in gote in your territory. Of course for the kind of person who wants to be a jerk like that losing one point is rarely enough of an incentive to stop them doing it (particularly online were normal social rules are less strong), but I do prefer that aspect of territory counting.

And if they don't? You lose a point.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Good, you deserve to lose a point for doing something dumb.

Still not seeing how area scoring encourages you to waste time since the only time you'd be doing that is if you're 50 points behind.

I go with area scoring. Simpler to use and, at least in my case, easier during a game to just count stones + empty points, rather than just empty points.

How is it easier ?

Because you can just visually fill in all of your territory with stones and count in blocks.

That shows the two processes are different, not which one is easier, or even if one is easier at all.

For example, at the end of the game, when we rearrange stones to try to make rectangular blocks with multiples of 10, it's to make counting much easier and more clear. Even pros do it. There is a lot of empirical evidence to show the multiples of 10 make counting much faster.

But in the middle of a game, the shapes and the differences between the two methods are much more subtle. If you want to show one is easier, you need to show empirical evidence over many different boards, the times required to count them, by many different people. Where's the data or evidence ? Maybe people have already shown one is faster ?

I think you missed this comment:

Tekesta, I didn't. I specifically kept it in the quote.

So, I began using area scoring exclusively and now that I'm more familiar with it, I'm curious to hear what others have to say about their preference. I do still find it odd that territory seems to be so much more popular. In fact, when I play online, people often don't notice that I've set the scoring to area and assume were playing territory so I have to inform them to fill in the dame at the end. Why do you think people just assume territory scoring without looking?

My reasons for now preferring area scoring: well, probably the biggest thing is that I like the concept of "control more than half the board to win" as oppose to "control more of the board than your opponent (small, very technical difference, I know). Also, I like the word "control" to mean anywhere that you have a living stone OR anywhere that you can lay a living stone but your opponent cannot. In other words, if you have a string of stones that snakes through your opponents territory, I like the idea of counting that as an area of control. In territory scoring, you wouldn't get any actual points for that (once again, I realize the difference is hardly relevant, I just like the principle). I like being able to teach a new-comer the game and telling them "it's simple. The board has 361 points. You need to control 181 of them to win the game" (I don't teach komi to total beginners). Also, I love the aesthetic qualities of the game and I love to sit and look at a finished board. For this reason, I like to fill in all dame just to give the board a more finished look. I use to think it was lame to get points for playing dame, however, I now realize that it doesn't really matter. The game ends with each player consecutively filling in the dame so they get split up anyways; there's no change in the score. I also don't like having to keep track of prisoners, especially when you have a long ko fight and you end up with a big pile of stones. All this to say, I completely understand the merits of territory scoring as well and I'm not suggesting that one is superior to the other.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

There is a form of go that synthesizes territory and area scoring called Button Go. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.