Life In 19x19

oren wrote:

Joelnelsonb wrote: Remember though that using a scoring method is simply another strategy

It's not a different strategy.

Exactly.

No one plays the game any differently based on which scoring method they are going to use to sum up the results.

The scoring methods are merely accounting -- they don't change the score, nor affect the score, they merely report the score. And regardless of which scoring method you use, the score will be the same (to within a point -- and that oddity of math can be explained).

I've mentioned in other threads that my approach to the is game is based on one thing: the easiest, most efficient method for teaching the game to new comers. I start new players off on a 9x9 and we use stone scoring. After a few games, player will start to understand the nature of "control" and predict who will when ahead of time without me ever even mentioning anything about territory. In this approach, "territory" is just a piece of jargon used between players.

For the record, I'm a 5 kyu on kgs.

Now back to the fascinating topic of the OP. Has anyone studied games from different countries extensively enough to say if there is an evident difference in the approach to the game?

Oddly enough, I kind of get what you are saying. From the perspective of Chinese counting, for example, even at the end of the game, you don't have to think of the winner as the person with the most "territory" - counting up stones to add up the score could be viewed differently than "territory". They are stones you "control", but you could refrain from calling those stones "territory".

At the same time, though, whether you call this "control" territory or not makes no difference in the result of the game. Therefore, I would argue that trying to get the most "territory" is not subjective. Objectively, the player with the most "territory" will win. You just might not count it a particular way, or call it by that terminology.

Kirby wrote:Oddly enough, I kind of get what you are saying. From the perspective of Chinese counting, for example, even at the end of the game, you don't have to think of the winner as the person with the most "territory" - counting up stones to add up the score could be viewed differently than "territory". They are stones you "control", but you could refrain from calling those stones "territory".

At the same time, though, whether you call this "control" territory or not makes no difference in the result of the game. Therefore, I would argue that trying to get the most "territory" is not subjective. Objectively, the player with the most "territory" will win. You just might not count it a particular way, or call it by that terminology.

From everything I've ever read, the term "territory" refers to one thing only: vacant intersections that have been entirely surrounded by one color of stones. A player's "area" is the term which refers to his respective territory along with every stone that is agreed upon as "alive". Not trying to get technical here but I don't think it helps to bend the definitions of common terms.

Joelnelsonb wrote: From everything I've ever read, the term "territory" refers to one thing only: vacant intersections that have been entirely surrounded by one color of stones. A player's "area" is the term which refers to his respective territory along with every stone that is agreed upon as "alive". Not trying to get technical here but I don't think it helps to bend the definitions of common terms.

Controlling the territory or controlling the area is the same result greater than 99% of the time.

oren wrote:
Controlling the territory or controlling the area is the same result greater than 99% of the time.

I'm not sure why this would be relevant to the current discussion.

Joelnelsonb wrote:
From everything I've ever read, the term "territory" refers to one thing only: vacant intersections that have been entirely surrounded by one color of stones. A player's "area" is the term which refers to his respective territory along with every stone that is agreed upon as "alive". Not trying to get technical here but I don't think it helps to bend the definitions of common terms.

Man, you don't compromise, do you? I guess I don't usually either

From my view, captured stones are territory, too: When an opponent plays a stone in "my territory", that stone also becomes my territory.

I don't think this is bending a definition. But if your only qualm here is with whether we call this stuff "points" or "territory", then I don't really care what you want to call it.

Joelnelsonb wrote:From everything I've ever read, the term "territory" refers to one thing only: vacant intersections that have been entirely surrounded by one color of stones.

Territory is one of those go terms that has been around for long enough to have acquired a number of related meanings. (Like most words. Look in a dictionary. ) For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ White territory
$$ ----------------
$$ | . O O . X . O .
$$ | X X X X X . O .
$$ | . . . . . . O .
$$ | O O O O O O O .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

We normally regard White as having 22 points of territory in this corner.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Black territory
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . X O O .
$$ | . . . . . X O .
$$ | X X X X X X O .
$$ | O O O O O O O .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

We also say that White has a play inside Black's territory in this diagram.

And when we use territory scoring, we count each prisoner as one point of territory, just as we do dead stones. (And the concept of territory in no pass go includes dead stones, as well. )