EquivalenceScoring/WME

Bill: I am not exactly sure of the definition of this term, but the one given seems to have caused some confusion. Let's get a better one.

How is this?

Equivalence scoring is a form of territory scoring that gives the same result as area scoring. Unlike Japanese scoring, equivalence scoring counts territory in seki.

Area scoring counts territory plus living stones. Territory scoring counts territory plus prisoners. To count by territory scoring prisoners are placed within the opponent's territory and the remaining territory is counted. If each player has the same number of stones on the board during counting, the difference between the territory scores will be the same as the difference between the area scores, and the result will be the same by both methods.

To ensure that the number of stones on the board is the same, equivalence scoring uses pass stones. When a player passes she hands a stone to the opponent as a prisoner. In addition, White must make the last pass. That way each player will have the same number of stones on the board for counting.

blubb: I agree that the page could be improved.

Your suggested wording looks pretty good to me, with the following exceptions:

1. In some sense, it is not as clear as "Equivalence counting would be a better term. It's area scoring." I think, such a hint about "equivalence scoring" actually being a misnomer can help a lot to get the point.
2. I know what you mean by the "number of stones on the board during counting", but since the filling is usually considered a part of the japanese counting procedure, that phrase is confusing.

Bill: Thanks for your comments. I made the equivalence counting remark before I thought more about equivalence scoring, and realized that it makes sense as a form of territory scoring. I'm probably not the best person to try to offer a definition. But I do think that the current page is confusing, and needs a WME.

blubb: Such a "remedying" definition would be nice indeed, since the term "equivalence scoring" is quite prominent. I have slight reservations about it being feasible, though.

Both territory and area scoring can be applied to an arbitrary game. On the contrary, what is referred to by "equivalence scoring" requires passing stones, as well as an even move count, so I am not sure if we really should see it as a way of scoring. If it was just about a pass tax that stops after White`s last play, we certainly could, but that would not ensure equivalence anymore.

Anyway, as long as the definition of "equivalence scoring" depends on passing stones and move counts, and hence directly affects what is happening in the games it applies to, it rather looks like an additional set of rules that avoids games where territory and area scoring would differ. Ah well, maybe I am being petty here, don`t know.

Flower: I do not think you are petty there Blubb :) I just wanted to add Equivalence Scoring to the Counting methods page and refrained from doing so as it just did not feel right. I mean, it is sure that it is a misnomer for it has been mathematically proven that it is area scoring. Yet that does not make it a counting method automatically. A counting method only deal with how to count the score for its compatible rulesets. Equivalence Scoring though does not really deal with counting the stones. It rather deals modifying the rules in order to allow the use of more than one counting method to determine the score. But anyways I guess we are more or less stuck with the name 'Equivalence Scoring'... (and if it were not such a horrible misnomer inspiring direct misinterpretation I would not be bothered :-/)