I think the estimate score function added confusion for me, it counts your stones but I think this is wrong. Also, the accept stones option when both pass was a source of confusion but I am maybe beyond that today 
The different rules, making sure I was always playing japanese was something you have to watch out for. In chess, online, you just play to the end and get mated - much easier as a beginner 
Both are hard on the ego of the noob.
It generally matters little whether the scoring estimator counts chinese or japanese. The answer of who is ahead is usually independent of that: both methods deliver the same answer in most circumstances (as I understand it)
both methods deliver the same answer
But if it counts stones you could fill your whole area with stones - in japanese youâd lose a point for each unneeded stone in your area, no?
That would be the reason GaJ said âmostâ but I think the real lesson here isnât âuse a different rulesetâ but rather âdonât unnecessarily fill in your own territoryâ
Yes, if you played completely nonsensical moves while your opoonent kept passing the two scoring systems would start differing in result. But considering more or less sensible moves the result should be more or less same.
The score estimator uses chinese because AFAI understand it it is easier to programm that way
I looked at your games. 5.5 komi for 9x9 is entirely fair btw.
Unless itâs in the very end game, thereâs no difference. You are effectively losing a point when you play each unneeded stone in your area as well in Chinese rule because you couldâve at least earned a point by playing elsewhere.
I play Chess, Go, and Shogi. (ratio: 1 : 4 : 2)
shogi is more flexibel from chess.
afterall Go is still mistery for meâŚ
I have been struggling to break through 18th Kyu. I managed to get down to 16th Kyu once, but I have been around 18/19th Kyu for some time. I guess part of the reason is that I mostly play against friends I have made here, or if I set up an open challenge I usually limit rank to people higher than me.
For me I guess the biggest problem is I play for enjoyment and learning and temporary distraction from the daily battles of life, rather than to win. I donât study enough. And when people review a game we have played, I usually do learn something, but itâs hard to incorporate in the heat of actual play. When I try and develop structure, I miss detail. I gain Aji, but fail to turn it to my advantage.
Iâm a slow learner, but I do keep at it. If you could play me and give me some ideas at how I could improve, I would be very grateful.
Well, you might actually be a stronger player than your OGS rating.
The way it works, (the old system at least), as far as I can tell, is that you rank up only when you win a game, so if youâre constantly losing to stronger players, then youâll never rank up.
Again, this is my own speculation, I could be very wrong. But this is what I seem to have observed.
Play a few weaker players every too, itâs good to learn. To see their mistakes, and figure out how to punish. That is another way to get stronger.
Doesnt sound like a problem to me 
. Contact me. Im always glad to help.
Good point! Thanks.
Thank you for the offer. That would be great. What is the right way to go about setting it up. Do I send a pm, or just set up a non-ranked challenge?
I prefer to play correspondence, as if I need to ponder I can hold back on moving for a day or so, so I can research or ponder. I find it hard to chat and play at the same time in a Live game, and I find Blitz quite overwhelming still.
Is that OK?
BTW, thatâs not the only reason to play weaker playersâthe other one is to give back to the community, i.e. there will be weaker players who are eager to learn from you just like you liked to learn from stronger players
<edit>
And if you give them the appropriate handicap, they will have a chance to win (and rank up as well), and youâll have an enjoyable (i.e. challenging AND teaching) game as well.
</edit>
In this initial period of changeover to a new ranking system, I think handicaps might be a little risky 
(just my personal opinion)
Better to wait a few weeks for the system and all the outliers to settle down a little IMO
Hang on, how can it be that if I give someone a handicap and they beat me they rank up, but if I donât give them a handicap and I win they do not rank up?
The same players, the same skill. This should produce the same result ranking wise shouldnât it? IE the ranking system knows about handicaps, surely?
Well, perhaps rather entertaining? 
The way I understand it is that if a handicap game is played, the system regards it as âevenâ as if both players were the same rank. And will adjust a win or loss to either player accordingly. If the game is not handicap, then the system takes into account the difference in rank when adjusting each playerâs ranking.
So itâs kinda like handicap games are low risk, low gain⌠whereas playing without handicaps has higher risk and possibly greater rank deviation.
Ah - I see, that makes sense.
i usually pause teaching games alltogether. so⌠time settings dont really matter. its ok to play correspondence style for the most part, but its also nice to get a few moves in should we both be online . in my experience it doesnt do much good to drag out teaching games for too long, but of course theres no rush. you can take time to ponder whenever you need it.
its probably easiest if you just challenge me. i ll know its you .