In Territory Scoring, I found out placing a stone in your territory reduces you a point since you eliminated an empty spot of yours. Wouldn't it be strategic to place stones in your opponent's territory, wait for the dust to settle from him eliminating your stones, and therefore have successfully deducted him points by forcing him to cover empty spots of his? I understand that the opponent can simply ignore you, so he doesn't have to cover empty territory spots, but if your group becomes large and threatening enough, he'd have to respond.

Obviously I'm missing something; I know there's an answer, but from my current understanding, Area Scoring seems to be a lot more reasonable system of counting.

If you put a stone in your opponent's territory, he gets a point for the intersection and the stone. So you play in your opponent's territory and he replies with the same number of stones, the net result is that the score didn't change.

Where territory and area scoring diverge is when you play into your opponent's territory and he doesn't have to respond: then you've given him a point. Similarly, if you play an unnecessary defensive move in your own territory "just in case," you lose a point. These situations occur less frequently as skill goes up, so among skilled players territory vs area scoring will give the same result.

The following diagrams illustrate a couple of differences between area and territory scoring.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Living Black group (White stones alive)
$$ -------------------------
$$ . . O X . . . X . X O . .
$$ . . O X X X X X X X O . .
$$ . . O O O O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Here we have a live Black group. Let us assume that the surrounding White stones are alive (standard assumption).

Black has 14 points by area scoring, but only 4 points by territory scoring. However, the net scores by the two forms of scoring rarely differ by more than one point, because each player plays the same number of stones on the board or Black may play one more stone that White.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Dead White stone
$$ -------------------------
$$ . . O X . W . X . X O . .
$$ . . O X X X X X X X O . .
$$ . . O O O O O O O O O . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

In this diagram Black still has 14 points by area scoring, but she has 5 points by territory scoring, since the dead White stone counts as 1 point for Black.

Perhaps nobody explained this aspect of territory scoring to you, and you quite reasonably assumed that the White stone is alive and cannot be counted until it is captured. In fact, it is dead and is normally removed at the end of the game and placed inside the White territory for convenience in scoring. Doing so is not necessary, but it makes the scoring easier to do.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think what you're missing is that if you place stones in your opponents territory that are not a threat, they can just ignore them. At the end of the game, if they are not alive (by being part of a group with 2 eyes, generally) then they are removed from the board without the opponent having to play any internal moves to take them.

If they are sufficient threat that the opponent must capture them, then they still get a prisoner and come out even, unless they had to play multiple inside stones to prevent the threat. This may occur as strings of stones run out of outside liberties and need to be connected more directly as the game comes to a close, but it's certainly less common than the other option (declaring the stones dead).

In the event that you and your opponent do not agree whether the stones are dead at the end of the game, normally you continue playing to prove it one way or the other, and then return the board to the original finished state. As an alternative, you can also play on with the stipulation that neither player can pass until the status of all groups is agreed upon. That way, if you need to fill your territory to capture something, they will be filling their own at an equal rate and the score won't change.

Once you've gained a bit of experience, you'll find that these disputes come up quite rarely.

One thing that you may have in mind is playing inside your opponent's territory and forcing him to respond inside that territory. If he responds to each such play, then you have gained nothing. If he must still make an extra play, why stop playing? For instance, he may need to make another play to prevent your stones from living. In that case, why not simply make another play yourself and live?

Not that interesting plays may not be possible inside the opponent's "territory", but in the vast majority of cases they are possible by area scoring as well as territory scoring, and it does not matter which scoring method you use.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Y'all have certainly answered my question. I was playing a review game (first ever game against someone in real life) with a 3 kyu where he mentioned this one aspect about Territory Scoring. I had a lot of wonders about other things, so I refrained from questioning it. Thank you everyone!

Territory scoring works as follows:

1. Game

2. Determination of life and death by hypothetical analysis

3. Removal of dead stones from territory and adding them to the prisoners

4. Counting the territory (then consisting of empty intersections) and prisoners


Therefore, if you place a stone inside your opponent's territory (and do not create any threat by doing so), during (2.) the stone is identified as dead. This identification is done by hypothetical (imagined) analysis and therefore, in the actual game end position, the opponent does not have to fill empty intersections to remove your dead stone. Since it is added to the prisoners (3.), you lose 1 point.

During hypothetical analysis, the opponent makes hypthetical, imagined-only plays to approach and fill the liberties of your stone. Being only imagined means that they do not alter the actual game end position or prisoners yet.

(2.) can be abbreviated by mutual agreement.

A beginner must learn to overcome the mistake of actually playing out determination of life and death sequences after the game end under territory scoring. Such sequences are possible under area scoring.

Is there any disadvantage in lacking knowledge of life or death sequences if your opponent also lacks knowledge? In all of my games, I always play out the sequences. Maybe I shouldn't even worry about this considering my rank.

It is important for becoming stronger because you gain the skill of mentally reading LD sequences, predicting LD status and so developing better strategy to avoid unfavourable statuses. If both players play out and you play 1 stone more, you lose 1 point.

Hi PocketMad,
Whatever your level, there are three possibilities :

a) You play a move into what looks like your opponent territory, and he/she can't prevent you to destroy something: your attack is successful

b) You play a move into what looks like your opponent territory, and he/she actually prevents you to destroy anything by answering properly: nothing has changed, although, strategically, the result is that you have strengthen a bit your opponent position, or maybe removed some ko threats that could have been useful for you later.

c)You play a move into what looks like your opponent territory, your opponent passes and lives all the same : you loose one point per move.

In c) you lose one point plus whatever you might have gained by a better play. (Slightly different perspective. )

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

That is d) You play a move into what looks like your opponent territory, your opponent plays elsewhere and lives all the same.