Life In 19x19

Or isn't it? ><;;

Anzu3 wrote:Chinese Japanese rules the same right? Win lose wtf

?Or isn't it? ><;;

what do you mean. (just to not to say NO straight away)

Anzu3 wrote:Or isn't it? ><;;

they have totally different concept in counting but usually they will yield same result.
there are some instances that will result different outcome but rarely happens.

For most games area and territory scoring differ by at most one point.
The basic idea is that either both players have played the same number of stones(or black one more). So the stones on the board are the same except for prisoners. And since prisoners are subtracted from the score in territory but not area scoring the score of each players is just increased by the number of moves with area-scoring. And since it cancels out in the score difference it doesn't matter.

But for certain situations for example involving points in a seki, or bent four and unremovable ko threats they can yield completely different outcomed.
In handicap games the difference increases by 1 per stones, unless the komi is adjusted to compensate for that, since in area scoring each handicap stone is worth a point.

And of course japanese rules terminate the game if a long repetition cycle, whereas rulesets that use some kind of superko will continue.

What does the question want to ask? Which right? Only Chinese and only Japanese or in general Area Scoring versus Territory Scoring? For the moment, I assume your question to mean "Are Area Scoring and Territory Scoring equally good?". Answer:

No. Reasons see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html

Is this our new troll?

RobertJasiek wrote:What does the question want to ask? Which right? Only Chinese and only Japanese or in general Area Scoring versus Territory Scoring? For the moment, I assume your question to mean "Are Area Scoring and Territory Scoring equally good?". Answer:

No. Reasons see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/advant.html

Why don't you mention the Ikeda Area rules 3 I think they are best

Because I lack time to enhance the webpage.

Bill Spight wrote:Is this our new troll?

[Admin]
Almost. He is one of our new ex-trolls. I've banned at least 4 of them in the last few days.
[/Admin]

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Is this our new troll?

[Admin]
Almost. He is one of our new ex-trolls. I've banned at least 4 of them in the last few days.
[/Admin]

Gee, does this mean that go is becoming more popular?

Or maybe it means that the semester is over.

Li Kao wrote:For most games area and territory scoring differ by at most one point.

for most games, the score doesn't differ at all between area and territory scoring ... but the potential is there.

and when the score does differ, then for most of those games the final outcome remains unchanged.

With Standard Area Komi (5.5, 7.5,...), usually also smallest possible scores do not alter the winner.

in general the score differs by at most 1 point, but there are ways to get it to differ by more.
in particular, if you play in your own territory to unnessicarily prevent invasion, under territory rules, each such move would cost you a point, under area, your score stays the same.

suide rule difference can make it more than 100 point different.

Magicwand wrote:suide rule difference can make it more than 100 point different.

I guess you mean a suicide rule?

But neither of the Japanese or the Chinese rule set allows suicide

(the NZRules do aswell as some other more theoretical rules do)