Flower: (replying to the 'not consider it a problem' entry) Aye I assume that mayhap the word 'problem' should be removed as it has acquired a negative touch in contemporary language use. Yet still the list was about solving the issue desribed by Ikeda Toshio. By not considering it a problem the issue is not solved but rather the need to solve it becomes obsolete :) thus I will move your suggestion in front of the list to denote a informal 'either or' choice. (Or we could include it in the list but not call it 'how to solve it' :)
Flower: Aside from that, what has Granularity to do with free mending in the case of even amount of dame? Ikeda Toshio did not consider the minimum scoring difference at all. That the granularity gets finer is more of a interesting side effect. Furthermore I am kind of missing the explanation of how 'Granularity' and 'not considering it a problem' are connected. In the Granularity article you primarily mention that Button Go can solve granularity problem. Thus I rather see it as indirect link to a solution using Button Go (which was already included in the list :)
The Count: I do think the mending issue is really a specific case of granularity. For the link to be valid, the granularity page should show this. I'll do that, then maybe add a link in again if it seems appropriate... Oh, the link is still there. Okay, well, if you're not convinced it's relevant, feel free to take it out later.
flower: Thanks for thinking about adding a new section to granularity regarding this 'issue' :) (Say what do people nowadays consider positive? (challenge/opportunity) instead of (problem/issue)? I mainly see it as manifestation of the Euphemism Treadmill. Though now that I think of it I could get friends with 'opportunity'... "Ikeda's rule as a opportunity for more interesting play"... yes I like the sound of it :)) Anyways I am looking forward to see the 'special case of granularity explained' :D Have a nice day!
The Count: Nice link, very interesting! Well, as it turned out, the core of my argument against free reinforcement wasn't really granularity as I promised, though it does come into it. Anyway, I think you will agree that it is a fallacy that territory scoring is better because of anything to do with reinforcement specifically. I think unfortunately there will be no problem solutions nor opportunities to speak of :(
flower: Thanks, *smile*. 'Better than Area scoring due to reinforcement issues'. Well to my mind the unintuitiveness of counting prisoners and spaces, as well as the ambiguity of life and death-scoring, as well as the unecessary complexity of the rules make the typical Japanese territory rules a 'no-go' for myself. Yet I prefer the added 'judgement call' that one must make if Ikeda's Rule (or Button Go) is used. Otherwise if there are a even amount of dame I can just reinforce a certain point without reading the situation. (no thought, no skill) With Ikeda's rule you will loose 1 point moku if you decide to to reinforce so you need to read the situation in order to see if it is truly necessary (more thinking, more skill). Perhaps I should add one of the diagrams Ikeda created to illustrate into SL :) Anyways thanks for your constructive comments :)
The Count: What the second example on granularity shows, is that with territory scoring and odd dame, you can "reinforce a certain point without reading the situation (no thought, no skill)." Yes, you lose a point, but if that doesn't lose the match is doesn't matter. With area scoring you would lose two points which might lose the match, and then you would have to "read the situation in order to see if it is truly necessary (more thinking, more skill)." It's exactly the same situation in reverse.
Bill: Well, in the example given, White can see that he will lose by area scoring if he does not play the dame. White does not really have to read the situation out to see if a reinforcment is necessary.
The Count: You cannot reinforce in both examples. The point is that they are the same. Yes, you don't really need to read the situation if you don't mind losing by the whole board, but the comment is just as valid in both examples. I was just mirroring Flower's argument for the odd dame example.
Flower: I would assume that this might be as competetive play ceases earlier with territory scoring than with area scoring. Anyways the issue at hand is not Territory vs. Area Scoring. It is rather how can we improve area scoring. One could interpet Mr. Ikeda's writing in such a way that he indirectly implies that the evolution of Area Scoring scoring went from Area Type I rulesets (Stone Scoring) to Area Type II rulesets (AGA, NZ) to Area Type III Rulesets (his own A3 ruleset, Type AII rulesets modified by Ikeda's Rule or Button go). With a such improved ruleset any gote move that does not grab yourself a dame and will be punished no matter the parity of the dame. (I assume of course competetive play is not yet over but near the end (dame>0, dame are the biggest moves left)
The Count: If we only consider adding a button, the issue is territory vs. area scoring. Regardless, I am specifically saying that free reinforcement is not a reason why the button would improve area scoring. Yes, you can make unnecessary plays for free, but I think this is irrelevant. I think the only relevance is that they are at a different cost. And what my examples show, is that this is sometimes in favour of territory scoring and sometimes in favour of area scoring. I'm guessing this is the only issue that there is any debate about. As far as I can see, the only difference, is that you don't even need to count the score to make a reinforcement with even dame under area scoring. I believe this point is far too insignificant to be relevant though.
Flower: Then do it for the little ones sake! (little changes in komi that is ;-) with an Area type III ruleset it becomes likely that the nearest score difference is only 1. (and thus makes komi steps of 1 useful for area scoring). Anyways you would be correct to say that the results are not too significant. After all it is only '1' point that gets awarded. And while it is indeed just a matter of changing values for different moves I do certainly prefer a ruleset that will award the best possible move with more points than an suboptimal one. That in other cases the punishment is not 'as harsh' would not bother me as long as there is a punishement.