Ok, I’ll try to provide some more concise comments:
- I was taught under Japanese rules. For a long time I had the mistaken impression that area scoring rules lead to a strategically different game.
- Now that I recognize their almost equivalence, I guess you can say that I often think under an “area scoring” mentality. It’s worthwhile to switch between the two, however it is only a change in perspective rather than a strategic shift.
- Area scoring mentality does not mean counting territory and then adding living stones, but rather it means just simply counting the area controlled by each player. Controlled area means points securely occupied or surrounded by a player’s living stones.
- Your specific example is peculiar under area scoring rules, since despite a potential teire situation, if it is black’s turn to play, they can actually play next at either A (D4) or E5 or E3, without changing the final score of the game.
- Under area scoring mentality, you can view the point E3 as already under the control of black, but there are two neutral points at A (D4) and E5 left to contest. If it is White’s turn, playing at A prevents black from immediately taking the other neutral point (E5). However, if it is Black’s turn, they can get away with starting play with any of three moves in the top right corner to achieve the same ideal result (splitting the two remaining dame points).
- Rather than viewing the area scoring mentality as capturing a strategically different game, I think it is worthwhile for players to understand that they are almost equivalent despite appearances. I wrote about the potential benefits of teaching and using both perspectives in an older post here: Different Counting Method, different Strategy?