Bantari wrote:I mean, and this answers the rest of your post pretty much as well, that the case in which area scoring is presented as superior to territory scoring is very very rare, if it even happens at all. In most cases, regardless of scoring method, group status is determined long before the last dame is filled. This should go for both beginners and advanced players. Thus I said: you do, I do, and everybody else does as well.
This is a joke when it comes to beginners, and that's why I say you have blinders on. The logical confusion around Japanese rules for beginners has been documented countless times, in threads you have participated in. In this very thread we were told by the beginner he
resigned rather than score the game:
"The hard part was with dead stones. Even after understanding the rules, I would get to the end of a game and second guess myself on what is dead/alive (Maybe this has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn Japanese rules v.s. me being insecure about what I call a dead stone). Also I worry about objections from the other player. I get to the end of the game, and feel overwhelmed at deciding what stays and what goes. (Have not made it through many end games.) [..] It is very frustrating to not be able to feel confident about finishing a game from beginning to resignation/end. [..] The reason example 1 ended in resignation is because I did not know when or how to end the game."Under Chinese-style rules, "When in doubt, play it out." There's nothing confusing about that. Under Japanese rules, the score mysteriously changes, so players typically don't play things out, and a playout method typically isn't even taught.
To be precise, the only case I can think of that what you suggests holds true is:
- after game ended (i.e. two passes or whatever) AND
- there is a disagreement about status of a group, AND
- the score is very close, like 0.5 points or something
And yet you ignore the countless beginners who just can't make sense of Japanese-style rules, for good reason. This is absurd when an easy alternative exists for a game that is supposed to have simple rules but be hard to master to play well.
In those rare situations I give you that area scoring allows one party to add a single stone to the position without affecting the score.
It also can take several stones to fully remove a dead group from the board, not just a single one.
However - if you talk about 'determining the status of the group without penalty' - this is highly suspect, especially in beginner games. If there is a longer sequence involved, after the end of the game, that the players need to play out to determine the proper status - proper determination requires a more-or-less perfect sequence, which is mostly wishful thinking. When beginners start putting stones on the board, anything can happen... dead group can be alive, live group can die, the surrounding stones can die, it can end in seki, whatever. The scoring method they use is the least of their problems!
You just don't get it. The "proper" status of the group isn't hypothetical play between perfect players. The status of
any stone on the board should be determined by the skill of the players through play. That experienced players can normally agree without actually playing is a
shortcut. Japanese rules have lost this aspect so that you can't just forego the shortcut if there's any uncertainty. This is a severe penalty for beginners when learning the game.
Before the game ends, if there are concern about status - it needs to be played out, and the fact that it costs points to make unnecessary moves is very good, imho - and it applies to each scoring method, so no advantage here.
*laugh* You really are clueless. Player A thinks a group is alive (common among beginners who don't understand false eyes and such). Player B thinks the group is dead, but doesn't want to lose points taking it off the board. Which ruleset lets you play on using the same rules you were using before without changing the score for Player B? Are you still going to say it's "very good" that it costs points to determine the status? Is it "very good" beginners are confused and can't end games, confident that they are playing according to the rules?
So, as I have stated in my previous post: I still give the overwhelming advantage to using the scoring method which is used around you. Whichever this might be. Anything else is smoke-screen.
I give the overwhelming advantage to rules that don't confuse beginners with logical inconsistencies, that are simple to teach, and that let them confidently play and teach other beginners. Those are Chinese-style rules.
