Anyone prefer area scoring?

[Bill Spight]

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

AGA pass stones enable area scoring by counting territory.

[Bill Spight]

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.

I like territory scoring with group tax.

But I think that the wave of the future is button go (area counting) or double button go (territory counting). Button go and double button go combine the precision of territory scoring with the ease of resolving disagreements of area scoring.

[skydyr]

AGA rules are pretty clearly area scoring with a veneer to make the result come out the same if you use territory counting and leave people thinking they're playing by "Japanese" type rules. Eyes in seki, etc. are counted as they are in other area scoring rulesets, and the pass stones force the number of plays on the board to be the same so that you can't lose points playing inside after the dame are played. They also have the elegance of allowing players to play out disputed positions without requiring that the board be reset after the playout to prevent the score from being affected, and not having the weird situation in Japanese rules where disputed positions are played out where the only valid ko threat is a pass directed at a particular ko. The formality of the way you count the score at the end is quite irrelevant, since the result should be the same with both the area counting method and the territory + prisoners one.

There is also value to filling in the dame at the end of the game. First, it's necessary to count the game on a physical board, and second, it can reveal shortage of liberty issues where one player or the other owes inside moves that are not necessarily clear to weaker players otherwise. It might be worth considering if the reason you don't want to play dame out is because you don't want to lose to such a move that you didn't consider in the game.

[Mike Novack]

There is also value to filling in the dame at the end of the game. First, it's necessary to count the game on a physical board, and second, it can reveal shortage of liberty issues where one player or the other owes inside moves that are not necessarily clear to weaker players otherwise. It might be worth considering if the reason you don't want to play dame out is because you don't want to lose to such a move that you didn't consider in the game.

Skydyr is making a really important point here. Beginners especially need to learn when dame aren't really dame. They may, as described, be sente, forcing a defensive move inside (so worth a point) and so be part of the endgame (when down to things worth one point). It might make a difference who plays on that dame point or might belong to one player (the score really one less than thought it was).

BTW, in this regard, count me as a beginner since I lose plenty of points in the endgame.

[paK0]

Playing wise I'm fine either way, but area scoring has two advantages imo:
- Playing out unsettled groups doesn't cost you anything
- It feels more natural. When you put a fence around your ground you usually own the fence as well, and not just what it surrounds.

[Joelnelsonb]

Playing wise I'm fine either way, but area scoring has two advantages imo:
- Playing out unsettled groups doesn't cost you anything
- It feels more natural. When you put a fence around your ground you usually own the fence as well, and not just what it surrounds.

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.

[Joelnelsonb]

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.

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.

[Abyssinica]

Playing wise I'm fine either way, but area scoring has two advantages imo:
- Playing out unsettled groups doesn't cost you anything
- It feels more natural. When you put a fence around your ground you usually own the fence as well, and not just what it surrounds.

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.

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.

[shapenaji]

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?

[EdLee]

Hi Joelnelsonb, please see my PM to you.

[snorri]

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.

[Joelnelsonb]

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.

[Abyssinica]

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.

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

[Bill Spight]

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.

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.

[Uberdude]

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.

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

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.