Hello.

I would like to know: What is the most natural, instinctive, logical, intuitive and elegant scoring system? The Japanese territory scoring system or the Chinese area scoring system?

The question could be rephrased as such:
If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?
Or if you don't believe in God:
If all the super-advanced extraterrestrial civilizations of the whole Universe wanted to make a Cosmic Go Tournament, what scoring system would they use?

Note that I am not asking what is the most commonly used scoring system, nor am I asking what scoring system do you personally use.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

If God played Go, what scoring system would He use?

For simplicity, play until there are no more legal moves and then count each side's stones on the board.

This tacks on a lot of trite moves at the end of the game, which nobody sincerely wants. Half of the game could be what happens after yose!

So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

What about an annihilation goal (first to capture all enemy stones wins)? I'm pretty sure it's essentially equivalent to No-Pass Go, but I'm wondering whether it's exactly the same, that is, whether perfect play with from the final position of an Annihilation Go game until the game is also finished by No-Pass Go rules will always yield the same result.

Anyway, it's probably an improvement on No-Pass Go, as it makes the boring final phase of the game a bit shorter.

For simplicity, play until there are no more legal moves and then count each side's stones on the board.

This tacks on a lot of trite moves at the end of the game, which nobody sincerely wants. Half of the game could be what happens after yose!

yeah, I'd start from here, and even go as far to say, why stop? just keep playing (and capturing), until the one with the most stones on the board wins.

but soon, you'll realize that most of the moves will be pointless and not actually affect the final outcome of the game.

so you might naturally decide to agree to stop the game at the point where the outcome is no longer being affected, and just count everything from there -- stones on the board, plus empty territory. That is, in fact the idea of the game -- the one who controls the most area of the board, wins.

but then you might take that to the next logical shortcut, and save yourselves some time by counting only the empty territory minus the captures. Afterall, its algebraically the same thing. But this shortcut introduces some potential problems, that the previous method didn't have, namely: 1) having to keep track of prisoners, 2) playing in ones own area can adversely affect one's own score. So as long as both side can agree on the status of dead stones, this final method seems simplest.

Perhaps. But of course the question becomes, what if they can't agree?

What is your criterion for winning? Only your own stones on the board? Then Black plays a stone on an empty board and wins.

No, because then Black hasn't captured all enemy stones. He hasn't captured any.

(This goal is used in the Redstone Go variant.)

What xed_over is talking about is equivalence scoring,

am I?