Anyone prefer area scoring?

[Joelnelsonb]

So I guess it's just because I first started out with Territory scoring (not knowing there was anything else) that I find area scoring to be pretty lame. It just changes a lot of things that I like about Go. For instance, I like how if you've surrounded and killed a group (but not captured), it actually costs you points to make the final moves and capture. This is a very interesting contrast to Chess where everything gets played out. Also, the fact that playing dame gives you points is pretty twisted, IMO. Also, in area scoring you can reinforce your own territory without losing points; all you lose is a tempo. That's just not right to me. I guess I just have my mind wrapped around the idea of territory so that's the only Go I appreciate. The reason I'm asking though is because it seems like territory is the norm everywhere but China. Of everything I've read and everyone I've played (including Chinese people), I've never come across anyone who wanted to play area or preferred it. Does anyone here like area and if so, why? I realize it's a little easier on beginners but the rules are so simple anyways, it only takes a few games to get comfortable with it (recognizing life and death, etc).

[DrStraw]

I detest it. For all the reasons you cite. It just encourages laziness.

Having said that, I will admit that it probably is better for two beginners playing in isolation as it does resolve a lot of issue with scoring.

[Abyssinica]

I like area scoring because it removes any bent 4 ambiguity.

How does dame = points = "pretty gay" if the only times you play dame are at the end of the game and you only get ONE point per move. The exact same as your opponent.

Yes, in territory scoring, you CAN reinforce your territory and lose a point + Tempo! Good job!

I'm not getting where anyone thinks area scoring = lazy if there's actually more points to count technically. Plus, you only need to count one side at the end of the game.

[Joelnelsonb]

I find playing dame stupid because Go is the "surrounding game". You're supposed to receive points for intersections and enemy stones that you surround, period. Also, why should you be able to reinforce your territory for free like that? I just feel like it dulls the game a little in particular ways that I appreciate the game as is.

[Abyssinica]

I find playing dame stupid because Go is the "surrounding game". You're supposed to receive points for intersections and enemy stones that you surround, period. Also, why should you be able to reinforce your territory for free like that? I just feel like it dulls the game a little in particular ways that I appreciate the game as is.

How is it for free?

You reinforce your territory and opponent plays dame: You gain 0 points, your opponent gains 1

Territory:

You reinforce your territory and your opponent plays dame: You lose 1 point, your opponent gains 0

The net difference is still one.

Plus, Go is about controlling more of the board than your opponent. You want as many live stones on the board as you can, and dame are included. You only need to control 181 intersections to win.

[Fedya]

I've been trying to keep track of score, or more specifically whether I've got a chance to win, by using area scoring and half-counting and figuring out if I can get to 181. It doesn't seem to have helped my score estimation much more than tediously counting out both sides point by point using territory scoring.

[EdLee]

that playing dame gives you points is pretty gay IMO.

Of course, "gay" here means happy or joyful. Otherwise --

That playing dame gives you points is pretty heterosexual.

-- is just as nonsense as your original sentence.

[RobertJasiek]

I prefer area scoring very much because the rules and their application are extraordinarily simpler, as can be seen here

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/simple.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html

Correcting myths having occurred so far in this thread:

- Counting during the middle game of an area scoring game is essentially the same as of a territory scoring game because territorial positional judgement can be applied in both cases.

- Filling territory is not lazy, and does not encourage laziness, under area scoring because doing so loses better endgame to be taken elsewhere. There is only one exception: when all yose, two-sided and one-sided dame and teire are already filled, then one can be lazy under area scoring (except that one still must not kill one's own group). So in practice the same skill is needed WRT to not filling territory prematurely.

- Dame under area scoring is not dull but demanding strategy much richer than under territory scoring:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf
Note that in particular this is much more demanding than the slight relaxation of the aforementioned exception.

- Go is not just a surrounding game, also not under territory scoring, because territory scoring also scores the prisoners, i.e., objects that are not currently surrounded. Go is also not per se a surrounded game, but it depends on one's perception whether go is a board partitioning game (as in area scoring), an occupation game (as in stone scoring) or a surrounding game (as it would be in territory scoring modified by disregarding the prisoners).

- Area scoring is not only used in China but also in New Zealand and in tournaments in other countries using area scoring, especially USA, France, Great Britain, Ing tournaments, some EGF tournaments, AFAIK coexisting in Singapore.

[lightvector]

As a mathematician and a programmer I prefer area scoring. The rules complexity necessary for resolving disputes in territory scoring are inelegant and ugly, and the task of writing them down and implementing them accurately is a nightmare. For similar reasons, this part of me is not a big fan of sports where the rules for what constitutes an infraction or a foul are complicated and often come down to fuzzy judgment calls.

As a go player, I prefer territory scoring, in the sense I find it far easier to estimate the score via territory plus captures. The numbers involved are generally smaller, and I find it confusing to think about how the dame points will be split up, particularly when the game is unfinished and various endgame and reduction sequences are possible. I don't actually care about what scoring method is actually used to count the game at the end, it's just that territory is the only way that I can reasonably estimate an unfinished position.

As a teacher, I prefer stone scoring. It's the method of scoring where all you have to do is explain how capturing works to some new players, say barely two or three more sentences about what the objective is and how the game ends, and then off they can go playing real games with one another and discovering things for themselves without any further guidance.

[Shaddy]

I prefer area scoring at the end of the game, territory scoring during the game. It doesn't cost you points, by the way, to capture dead stones in your territory at the end of the game, no matter which scoring system you use. Otherwise there'd be a fun problem of how to stick already-dead stones in your opponent's territory to cost him the most points at the end of the game

[RobertJasiek]

territory scoring during the game.

What can be done during the game determines a territory COUNT of the expected area or territory score at the imagined game end or the end of an imagined variation. Therefore, presumably it is territory COUNTING (for area scoring) you prefer during the game. Territorial positional judgement or (early) endgame calculations are example methods using territory counting.

[tapir]

In theory, I am for area scoring (with group tax) or in fact I am for a point for every alive stone. In practice, I play like everyone plays around me 6, 6.5 or 7 komi, territory scoring.

[Krama]

I prefer area scoring at the end of the game, territory scoring during the game. It doesn't cost you points, by the way, to capture dead stones in your territory at the end of the game, no matter which scoring system you use. Otherwise there'd be a fun problem of how to stick already-dead stones in your opponent's territory to cost him the most points at the end of the game

Umm yes it does?

When using japanese rules if your opponent has a bunch of dead stones in your secured territory and the game is pretty much over (only dame left but since in japanese dame is not important..)

if you decide to spend 10 moves to capture the dead stones you just reduced your total score by 10 points because you didn't have to eat those stones since they were already dead.

[xed_over]

I prefer area scoring at the end of the game, territory scoring during the game. It doesn't cost you points, by the way, to capture dead stones in your territory at the end of the game, no matter which scoring system you use. Otherwise there'd be a fun problem of how to stick already-dead stones in your opponent's territory to cost him the most points at the end of the game

Umm yes it does?

When using japanese rules if your opponent has a bunch of dead stones in your secured territory and the game is pretty much over (only dame left but since in japanese dame is not important..)

if you decide to spend 10 moves to capture the dead stones you just reduced your total score by 10 points because you didn't have to eat those stones since they were already dead.

it depends on if your opponent has to respond or not

yes, unanswered moved will cost points.
answered moves cost nothing.

AGA rules nullify these differences by using pass stones -- making area and territory scoring the same either way.

[Krama]

I prefer area scoring at the end of the game, territory scoring during the game. It doesn't cost you points, by the way, to capture dead stones in your territory at the end of the game, no matter which scoring system you use. Otherwise there'd be a fun problem of how to stick already-dead stones in your opponent's territory to cost him the most points at the end of the game

Umm yes it does?

When using japanese rules if your opponent has a bunch of dead stones in your secured territory and the game is pretty much over (only dame left but since in japanese dame is not important..)

if you decide to spend 10 moves to capture the dead stones you just reduced your total score by 10 points because you didn't have to eat those stones since they were already dead.

it depends on if your opponent has to respond or not

yes, unanswered moved will cost points.
answered moves cost nothing.

AGA rules nullify these differences by using pass stones -- making area and territory scoring the same either way.

It doesn't depend on anything.

If the game is in the endgame state, only doing yose then you have to be stupid to go and eat all the dead stones in your own territory if you don't need to. Yes sometimes you will need to since there are endgame techniques that can be used against you but killing a random stone in the middle of your secured area is 99.99% pointless and silly since you will just lose points.