@teapoweredrobot is right. The fact that this misconception is widespread even among non-beginners such as @dragon-devourer, who might spread it further to beginners they teach, makes me feel that using area scoring to teach beginners may be harmful and promote redundant point-losing moves inside ones territory.
To me, the only advantage of using area scoring to teach beginners, is that it avoids the complications of settling group status disputes under Japanese rules. Under area scoring, you can just resume the game. Apart from that, I donât see an advantage of using area scoring to teach beginners.
The goal of the game could be more clear with the #we count all# rule. Saying we count only the emptyness is less intuitive and need to explain why the prisoners are deduced from the score.
I think you probably know that half the beginners one teaches probably will stop playing anyway. Half of whatâs left might get to a certain level beyond beginner, half again further etc.
I think it can be quite frustrating to tell a beginner one game âWell you lost because the moves you played in your own area lost you pointsâ and then in the next âWell you needed to play in your own area to defendâ.
Really though, it is a fine line between playing enough moves to be safe, and losing points. Lots of stones live and die that probably shouldnât with better play at all levels.
Actually Iâve also heard that area scoring, if one does it the Chinese counting way can be a bit more intuitive for younger players Chinese Counting at Sensei's Library. Being able to clump things in tens is pretty nice and treating empty points and stones equivalently.
Obviously the downside is that if the player stays playing Go they might need to learn territory rules/counting if thatâs the rules for local tournaments etc.
But IRL this makes a nice story. Itâs a war and prisoners are prisoners of war. When the war is over (two passes) the prisoners are returned to their own side. Now they take up intersections within their own territory and we are still just counting empty area.
Quite a natural way to think about it and helpful for manual counting too.
Only drawback is in beginner games when there might be a few points of territory and a bazillion prisonersâŚ
If you start from #stones+emptyness# counting you can then later explain why emptyness counting will give the same result, managing the prisoners. You can use logic explaination.
But surely the sooner you get out of the mindset of thinking that something is âyour own areaâ when it isnât the better.
In fact I think this is one of the magical things about Go. Explaining the balance and the rollercoaster ride of trading territory is something that hooks people in.
I cannot follow the logic of that statement. The term âsacrificeâ suggests giving something of value away (losing stones loses points under territory scoring and under area scoring) for something else that hopefully compensates for that loss.
Not really no. You have to believe something is your area until someone proves you wrong. If a 25kyu doesnât know about a 3-3 or other invasion that has a chance of living, theyâll be happy to call an area with weakness their area until proven otherwise.
In fact they should, how else can they score the game if they donât think something is âtheir areaâ especially since Japanese/territory rules is discouraging them from playing extra, possibly unnecessary moves.
My issue with starting by area scoring, is that at some point you need to make the jump from making a big dango to put as many stones on the board as posssible like a big oil spill, to surrounding parts of the board, like building a castle wall around a courtyard. How to explain that without referring to territory or some similar concept?
What i mean is that rewarding the capture of stones can be misleading.
If i tell a beginner we count who take the most place itâs very clear.
The point is i can then explain that the japanese way is EQUIVALENT and itâs easier or more convenient to count only the emptyness if we keep track of prisoners.
Itâs less intuitive because without a bit of logic beginner has to admit the mechanism and the equivalence.
I donât understand your point. If you explain A, then B, and show that A and B are equivalent, then this cannot be more complex than explaining B, then A, then showing that A and B are equivalent.
So we are back to the difference between a game in progress and a game which has ended. In the former case an invadeable 44 stone doesnât make the territory in the corner âyour territoryâ but if both players have passed then it does. (And I would explain to the beginners playing that the opponent was very kind not to invade in this case)
Japanese FTW!