I was comparing two copies of what I guess is intended as the same game, SmartGo game s1578-00-00na and GoGoD game g1582-06-30a. There is a remarkable similarity in the games, and yet the moves from 47 to 73 differ. Is this really the same game, with different moves from 2 different sources, or actually 2 entirely different games between the same players? Is one of them the correct record?

(The game features on p329 of Rin Kaiho's Dictionary of Basic Fuseki, Vol 4)

This appears to the famous Sansa-Rigen "triple-ko" game. I can't speak for the SmartGo version, but I'd speculate that their date is from sources that mark the game simply as "Tensho era", though that was 1573-92 so I really have no idea where 1578 came from. We know from the real, historical rebellion associated with the game that the intended date was 1582, although the genuineness of the game itself is in doubt. (See also "Go Companion" on this game.)

As to different moves, yes this is a constantly recurring theme in old games (Chinese as well as Japanese). Sometimes I include a VAR file in the GoGoD database, but if it just one or two moves I may include a note in the Game Comment.

Sometimes I do nothing, as here. The traditional record is the one we have, and can be found e.g. in Hayashi Yutaka's encyclopaedia. The most recent version though is the one by Fukui Masaaki. I can't remember now exactly why I chose not to follow this, or to include a VAR, but one reason would be that I'm not entirely happy whenever Fukui "corrects" an old record. He's a pro, and I've been happy in some cases to mention in the database that he emends A to B, but I suspect he might not always mention when he makes a correction, which leaves me with nagging doubts. He is in touch with lots of go historians, though, and it is entirely possible that he has simply been shown a record he trusts more, and no "correction" has been applied.

In this case, Fukui amends the game result to "W+R". However, he admits this is a change he has made and that the original record simply said "128 moves, complete" (a rarity then, so presumably signals something special). He regards the position as resignable by Black but admits more moves may have been played ("complete" referring to the number of moves recorded as opposed to played, or if only these moves were played was the game interrupted by the rebellion?).

There is one glaring mistake in the very first line of his 2007 book BTW. He gives the date as "Tensho 12 (1582)". That should be Tensho 10.

Fukui's book is to be strongly recommended, however, for his commentaries. Not just because he's a pro but because he's sympathetic to the old style of play. While I personally prefer the commentaries by the likes of Iwamoto and Suzuki in the 1920s and 1930s Kidos (partly because they were no-komi players, too), it cannot be denied that Fukui has done more than anyone in recent times to raise the standing of the ancient players.

Should I include a VAR here, do you think?