Life In 19x19

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

And if they don't? You lose a point.

DrStraw wrote:

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

And if they don't? You lose a point.

Good, you deserve to lose a point for doing something dumb.

Still not seeing how area scoring encourages you to waste time since the only time you'd be doing that is if you're 50 points behind.

I go with area scoring. Simpler to use and, at least in my case, easier during a game to just count stones + empty points, rather than just empty points.

tekesta wrote:at least in my case, easier during a game to just count stones + empty points, rather than just empty points.

How is it easier ?

EdLee wrote:

tekesta wrote:at least in my case, easier during a game to just count stones + empty points, rather than just empty points.

How is it easier ?

Because you can just visually fill in all of your territory with stones and count in blocks.

Abyssinica wrote:Because you can just visually fill in all of your territory with stones and count in blocks.

That shows the two processes are different, not which one is easier, or even if one is easier at all.

For example, at the end of the game, when we rearrange stones to try to make rectangular blocks with multiples of 10, it's to make counting much easier and more clear. Even pros do it. There is a lot of empirical evidence to show the multiples of 10 make counting much faster.

But in the middle of a game, the shapes and the differences between the two methods are much more subtle. If you want to show one is easier, you need to show empirical evidence over many different boards, the times required to count them, by many different people. Where's the data or evidence ? Maybe people have already shown one is faster ?

EdLee wrote:

Abyssinica wrote:Because you can just visually fill in all of your territory with stones and count in blocks.

But in the middle of a game, the shapes and the differences between the two methods are much more subtle. If you want to show one is easier, you need to show empirical evidence over many different boards, the times required to count them, by many different people. Where's the data or evidence ? Maybe people have already shown one is faster ?

I think you missed this comment:

tekesta wrote: at least in my case,

Tekesta, I didn't. I specifically kept it in the quote.

So, I began using area scoring exclusively and now that I'm more familiar with it, I'm curious to hear what others have to say about their preference. I do still find it odd that territory seems to be so much more popular. In fact, when I play online, people often don't notice that I've set the scoring to area and assume were playing territory so I have to inform them to fill in the dame at the end. Why do you think people just assume territory scoring without looking?

My reasons for now preferring area scoring: well, probably the biggest thing is that I like the concept of "control more than half the board to win" as oppose to "control more of the board than your opponent (small, very technical difference, I know). Also, I like the word "control" to mean anywhere that you have a living stone OR anywhere that you can lay a living stone but your opponent cannot. In other words, if you have a string of stones that snakes through your opponents territory, I like the idea of counting that as an area of control. In territory scoring, you wouldn't get any actual points for that (once again, I realize the difference is hardly relevant, I just like the principle). I like being able to teach a new-comer the game and telling them "it's simple. The board has 361 points. You need to control 181 of them to win the game" (I don't teach komi to total beginners). Also, I love the aesthetic qualities of the game and I love to sit and look at a finished board. For this reason, I like to fill in all dame just to give the board a more finished look. I use to think it was lame to get points for playing dame, however, I now realize that it doesn't really matter. The game ends with each player consecutively filling in the dame so they get split up anyways; there's no change in the score. I also don't like having to keep track of prisoners, especially when you have a long ko fight and you end up with a big pile of stones. All this to say, I completely understand the merits of territory scoring as well and I'm not suggesting that one is superior to the other.

There is a form of go that synthesizes territory and area scoring called Button Go. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?ButtonGo

I prefer aera scoring. First because this is how I learned the game in France. And next, because the definition of the score invoves only one element, the intersections, instead of two, territory and prisoners.

In practice, in France, we use an equivalent of AGA rules, which means that in order to count the aera, we fill the territory with prisoners.