By accurate scores and better komi, I take that you mean (please correct me if you meant something else) that territory scoring has finer scoring granularity, which also allows a more precise setting of komi? Thus, these two are basically the same thing. I concede that the major, common forms of area scoring rules have less granularity (i.e., games most often end with an odd scoring margin), however this issue is quite simply addressed by just introducing a button.
Of course, the setting of a specific value for komi is an independent issue the can be further refined based on better data about which choice is the most appropriate. Under any of the major rules sets, I think there is strong empirical evidence that a fair integer komi does exist. Actually, I think Japanese rules, in principle, introduces another angle of doubt as to whether there even exists an integer komi that results in jigo, given perfect play, since one would have to rule out the possibility that “no result” is not the theoretically optimal outcome.
As for the other three points (dame omission, easier counting, simpler ko), I argue that area scoring rules have the clear advantage in all three.
Dame filling is not necessary with area scoring rules (but formally required for Japanese rules)
It is a common misconception that all dame (except those that preserve sekis) should be filled, when playing with an area scoring rules set, and that Japanese rules allows players to skip filling such dame. However, ironically, the reverse is actually true! When formally following the Japanese, one should fill in all dame (except those needed to preserve sekis). Of course, many people take the informal shortcut of skipping dame filling in casual games. Under area scoring rules, it is possible to leave an even number of inconsequential dame unfilled without changing the outcome of the game.
Area scoring rules have more flexible and easier counting options
First, with Japanese rules, one has to first identify seki positions and handle those differently. Second, with area scoring rules, one has at least two different ways to count:
- Use area counting, which is sometimes quite easy to do, if the board is roughly split in half. Also, in this broad class of counting methods, one technique is to only count the score for one player.
- Use territory counting with pass (accounting) stones. Of course, counting the difference in the number of living stones for each player is easily approached via the proxy of counting the difference in prisoners/dead stones + how many times each player has passed. Since this is an option when using area scoring, there is basically no over-the-board counting convenience exclusive to only territory scoring.
Thus, counting for area scoring is at least as easy (or more so) than for territory scoring. Of course, the aspect of area scoring that is overwhelming easier to handle is the life and death determination phase. Counting is anyways a much simpler and purely mechanical task, which is made completely trivial in online or other settings where a computer assists.
Area scoring rules have much simpler ko rules
This is especially the case for the simplified Chinese rules (as implemented by OGS and omits “no results”) and other area scoring rules that use just a superko rule.
Japanese rules not only have the simple “basic ko rule” (forbidding two-move cycles and lifting all ko bans with a pass during alternating play), but also several other further intricacies involving ko:
- A special ko rule that is applicable only during the considerations of hypothetical play for life/death determination. Specifically, in this situation hypothetical ko threats are essentially nullified by the requirement that a ko can only be retaken by passing specifically for that ko. This technicality is essential for properly handling things that are ruled dead during life/death determination, even though they cannot be captured during normal alternating play with just the usual ko rule.
- Special rules to handle the potential for infinite cycles. Some cyclical cases cause the game to end in a “no result”, while other seemingly endless cycles should not cause the game to end in a “no result”, because the cycle is unbalanced (such as with sending two, returning one), or if a player is simply cycling a position that really should not be endlessly cycled (for example, repeatedly asking for game resumptions just to cycle a double-ko seki in order to delay accepting a loss).
Frankly, even explaining all of the intricacies regarding the ko rules in the Japanese rules seems beyond my understanding. Recently, as I’ve already referenced above, there was a discussion in another thread about the status of a moonshine life position. There was plenty of confusion about whether or not it should be a seki or possibly even a no result. Honestly, I have a tough time rationalizing and explaining why moonshine life should be ruled as it is under the Japanese rules and basically have to just point to the given some examples in the official commentary as authoritative and practically treat them like special rulings for special cases.
It’s one thing to say that just the basic ko works fine in most common situations, but there is still a problematic gap in the rules, if there are all these rare (but still possible) cases that require additional complexities and special rules. I think if one wants to consider the complexity of Japanese ko rules, one needs to consider these all as a whole. Otherwise, we’d be left with an incomplete or approximate description of the rules that do not correctly specify how to handle all situations.