Hi, that was very enlightening. I was thinking something along the lines of your first example. So I guess the person in a defensive situation can’t never “exploit” this extra point in a fair way because if they can make a move, then that move should be valid and there’s no problem. But I didn’t get the logistics of your example. How can black force this bad faith situation simply by passing? White passes too and black loses. I’m on my way to almost understanding the second example and the third is still way over my head.
I’m not sure which example you are talking about.
Can you please clarify? Do you mean this:
I wish … now that I started with japanese rules, I think chinese rules very weird. I think I’m safe for now, because as a novice playing with other novices in smaller boards I don’t encounter difficult cases to analyze. But I finally understood the main idea of scoring and manually checked in some games of mine.
The game should not be simply resumed to settle life and death disputes under Japanese rules, despite many people doing so. It’s simply not possible to algorithmically support all of the complexity of resolving life and death under the Japanese rules, so on OGS, you just need to work things out through discussion with your opponent.
You mean this idea of making a copy of the board and then coming back to check the score in the original board, right? That sounded the strangest thing to me. Am I going to the Go jail if I always play the game until the end if there are disagreements about life/death situations and score in that final state? 
After all, I think that’s what OGS taught me.
If you’re trying to convince your opponent to do that in Japanese rules, wouldn’t that be attempted score cheating? because playing out a finished position in Japanese rules can change the score?
Of course, you can avoid all this with NZD Rules, where you can play it out
1 Like
“copy the board, figure out what is alive, then use that information to score the original board” is the essence of what makes territory scoring what it is.
If you find it odd, then perhaps the Chinese rules aren’t as weird as you think they are.
In particular, if you want to do this, the Chinese rules are what you should be using because they allow you to resolve disputes about life and death via normal play.
4 Likes
Yes, that’s it.
I really don’t think I’ve ever played a game where the ruleset used would have changed the outcome 
i think just don’t worry about it too much 
and enjoy the game 
2 Likes
I’ve had multiple draws, something which would not happen if I didn’t play NZD Rules
2 Likes
Fair. I wasn’t considering komi as ruleset specific, but agreed, draws are significant.
1 Like
Yes, determining life and death should be considering hypothetical ideal lines of play, so it’s like using a copy of the board, while leaving the final board position untouched. There also other complexities when figuring out the life and death status under Japanese rules, such as applying a different ko rule that essentially nullifies ko threats.
I made an entire thread about Odd Cases 🤔 in the Japanese Rules
For beginners, it’s a reasonable mistake to make, but playing out life/death disputes under Japanese rules can lead to incorrect outcomes, which is not ideal.
3 Likes
As others have pointed out the situations where area and territory differ are minor and uncommon even at the professional level.
As a beginner, it is unlikely that the score in any of your games will be within the margin by enough to even worry about the difference.
I suggested thinking about it in terms of area because it makes questions like yours a lot easier to think about without having to know the details of the rules for territory scoring.
Going back to your original question, you can count spaces with dead stones as 2 points and empty spaces as 1 point. That’s the same thing as removing prisoners and filling them in on the other side.
Doing area counting is usually the same thing as well, after removing dead stones, count all territory as 1 point and every stone of your own color as 1 point. If both players have made the same number of moves, this generally works out to be the same thing. (Since the number of moves = stones on the board + prisoners).
This is true for all of your examples.
In the specific example you asked about, the exploit is falsely marking dead stones as alive and live stones as dead hoping that you aren’t paying attention and won’t call the moderators. Since they are demanding that you prove the black stones dead, you have to play 1 stone in your territory to remove them from the board.
If you then score the board in this final position you will have 8 territory + 8 prisoners instead of 9 territory + 8 prisoners. That’s why, under territory, we go back to the way things were when the game ended and score it there. Under area, it doesn’t matter since stones and territory both count the same. So you’ll have the same score.
Did this help? It’s kind of hard to understand exactly what your misunderstanding / question is.
2 Likes
It sometimes happens for online games, where both sides need to mark “dead stones”, you know they are dead (like in your example), but your opponent insists they are alive, and refuses your “marking” and unmark them. If you refute them by showing them, they can be captured, then they just say “You play one extra stone, and I get one extra point over you”.
I hope this makes sense to you. There are beginners out there legit couldn’t tell the difference and think one eye (even a false eye) would mean their group is alive. But there are certainly some players who know they are dead and just try to trick you (online or over the board).
4 Likes
Yes, it helps, thanks. The opponent would have to mark its group as alive in that phase, while I keep clicking dead, understood 
1 Like
The estimation and a rough statistic indicate it happened about 1/50 for pro games. I wonder what is the ratio for other ranks. I suspect below mid-dan, they would probably be extremely rare to the point of nearly non-existent.
2 Likes
Honestly, as a kyu… it’s rare enough for komi to effect the result, let alone ruleset haha
A quick look at my online games looks like only 10% finished within 10 points
I certainly remember I had games that ended in B+0.5, which almost guaranteed to be different from Japanese rules and Chinese rules (and white won with 177, which has a high chance of also being different). And at least a couple of times for extra moves for being komaster (not necessarily flip the winner though with different rulesets). Definitely not as often as pros, since I often had to play against weaker opponents or teaching games. They happened, maybe once a hundred more or so? (0.5 komi games can also have different winners, just the situation in reverse, so even against weaker players they can happen). And most games ended in resign, even pro games are (maybe like 70% and only 30% into scoring?)
2 Likes
For players who are a decent distance from pro or very strong amateur, I would guess the overall variation of scores should be wide and spread out enough that each parity-favored score that is within +/-10 points would probably be similarly likely.
There 10 commonly possible scores in Chinese rules within +/- 10 points, with only one of those outcomes being a half-point game. With ruleset differences most commonly making about 1 point of difference half the time (with other differences due to odd sekis or such less common), extremely rough rule of thumb would suggest that you could approximate the chance of the rules mattering for yourself by taking the fraction of games within +/- 10 points, and dividing by 20.
I don’t think it is that simple, I think the chance of going into scoring when you are winning is often higher than when losing (especially winning against weaker opponents). And as players get stronger, fewer high-difference scoring. So they are not evenly distributed. The styles also have an effect, some fighting styles players simply don’t have many games with scoring, and even if going into scoring, the difference is still pretty huge (the middle of close results are few)
Ok, I now see where your doubts are. I think it can be shown why the territory unit is the correct one.
Consider the 9x9 opening analysis I linked earlier. The territory one shows what are the correct W opening moves, and what are suboptimal moves that lose 1 point. The area analysis shows that all those point-losing W openings are still “perfect” under area scoring (and @Samraku is pleased by thinking there are more viable openings under area).
But the problem is that the rounding (OR 0x01) happens only on the final score. So it is not individual mistakes that will get masked, but their cumulative sum. For imperfect players, losing a point of territory this early WILL also reduce their expected area score EXACTLY by 1 point (measurable by playing lots of area games from the position for example) - contrary to what the area analysis shows.
Also think about this duality view. The game IS always about surrounding more territory, regardless of rules. And even area scoring “sees” the difference between B+7 with an extra stone or without it, it just cannot express this difference in its numerical result (w/o button).