There are two general types of scoring system of Go.

Area scoring (including Chinese): A player's score is the number of stones that the player has on the board, plus the number of empty intersections surrounded by that player's stones.
Territory scoring (including Japanese and Korean): In the course of the game, each player retains the stones they capture, termed prisoners. Any dead stones removed at the end of the game become prisoners. The score is the number of empty points enclosed by a player's stones, plus the number of prisoners captured by that player.

Reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

I want to use Area scoring in brainking.com.
Because area scoring is understandable for beginners.

If there is disagreement about which stones are dead, then under area scoring rules, the players simply resume play to resolve the matter. The score is computed using the position after the next time the players pass consecutively. Under territory scoring, the rules are considerably more complex.

Please take into consideration.

This has already been adressed in http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1164&utf=GO and I agree that it's not a bug - but it's still an unresolved Problem. (In Go 13x13 (heyo vs. goldhaus) my opponent wants to prove that he just can't loose)
My suggestion to handle this: after the game has ended and players don't agree about dead stones both are forced to place at least one stone befor they may pass again. A player who can't legaly place a stone looses the game.
This may lead to a new problem if the game's ending is slightly in favor for white (only by komi), but would solve the problem that by the rules as they are now nobody can ever win a game of GO if the opponent doesn't agree.

joshi tm: Then surely you deserve to lose? I was under the impression that ending a Go game by passing and marking dead stones was just a way to finish it quicker if it is obvious one person has won.
If you would lose by continuing on then you have lost the game fairly and should accept that, rather than trying to cheat your opponent out of a win by passing and hoping they make a mistake in your favour while marking the stones.

pauloaguia: Because
A) He shouldn't have to
B) It reduces his score, which is not something that he wants to do. In this particular case, if he captured the 4 dead stones at J8, G10, F10, & A12 and faith passed on all 4 turns, then he would actually lose.

I think some BK staff should be also a Go-Judge, a player who can ''judge'' the mark dead stone procedure. In this game Go 13x13 (joshi tm - faith) I'm having trouble because my opponent refuses to mark her stones as dead.

tonyh: I don't think you can claim a game. If you are playing a game of Backgammon on a real board against a real opponent, would you go away with the words: I would win? That's nonsense!

Oh, and by the way, a game of Maharadjah Chess or Horde Chess with that 'claim victory button' would be very quickly then.

But there is a difference; there are Go-players who (when the board is full and doing a move would be useless) play stones in their own areas just for the AP's. I have also a game running where my opponent would lose but he just won't give up for his AP's (I think).

Back to my opinion: Just when you would win, give a 'good game' phrase that you would win, and don't claim anything cause that would reduce the friendly 'atmosphere' here at BK.

PS: I always resign a very lost game of Gammon, Go or anything else because I hate to play further in those (already lost) games.

PS 2: I've also a Go game running where my opponent still rejects my ''dead stone offer'' cause he would lose then. But I am really right. What can I do? (Maybe this is for the Go Board instead)

Daniel Snyder: I very much agree with this.
Maybe the sequence could be that after two passes and the marking of dead stones, the other player has an option to remark differently (rather than reject) or accept and finish the game. In case of remark, the first player can now accept and the game is over, or, both players are forced to play a stone on their next move after which the game proceeds normally.

When a Player Passes and then chooses what pieces to make dead stone and the other player rejects the dead stones.... This could go on for ever... They should have a way after 2 rejections to determine who the winner is... Some players will not accept the dead stone, so there is a stalemate... There should be a better rule statement for Go...

Fencer: Fair enough. Certainly the code needs to be able to count territory if it's going to determine who is the winner. Identifying dead stones, though, is a separate issue, and counting all stones as alive doesn't necessarily break the game. But I'm sure you'll come up with a good system, and I can be patient. :)

One more question, and then I'll leave you alone:
Will Black play first, as is standard in Go?

Fencer: Go is coming! This is truly good news. Can you tell us which rule set (Japanese, Chinese, American,...) will be implemented?

Is it necessary to have the code detect live and dead groups? Even if all stones were counted as alive, in practice this would just require the players to contine playing until any dead stones were captured. Better yet, you could use the procedure recommended by the rules of the American Go Association, in which each player indicates which of his opponent's stones he believes are dead, and if they disagree, they play on.

If you're doing Go, make sure you get the only correct scoring algorithm: none at all. Just let the players mark the dead stones until they agree on the score, then simply count enclosed spaces.

IYT has an automatic algoritms to determine dead stones, and it invariably fails, which is the mean reason I let my IYT membership expire.