@moha
I would like to reply without going comment by comment.
Traditionally, for centuries if not millennia, the game ended by agreement, not by passes, and dame were typically left unfilled. There were no written rules until relatively recently. Humans can handle that, with rare exceptions. But then you got the Segoe-Takahashi dispute, where the players did not reach agreement. But it was hardly because they were unfamiliar with 10,000 year kos. The root cause was the failure to reach agreement, the ko was just the pretext. (Nihon Kiin politics was also involved.)
How do you end the game without agreement? As rules became codified, the answer across the go world seems to be by passes. One of the first set of rules to be proposed, by Yasunaga Hajime, ended play by three consecutive passes. Most rules today end play by two consecutive passes. Ing rules require four passes, but few amateurs know why. It is because resumption of play in the encore after two passes starts with no ko bans. Similarly, the hypothetical encore in Japanese rules starts with no ko bans, and only hypothetical passes can lift ko bans. You and I may think that it is better just to have passes lift ko bans in the first phase, but we are in a small minority.
Another thing has happened with the adoption of written rules is that disputes are resolved by play, actual or hypothetical, and not by appeal to the opinion of a top play or players. And that means encores, actual or hypothetical. Unless some mistake has been made, actual encores occur below temperature 0 by territory scoring. The J89 rules avoid that, because hypothetical play addresses only questions of the life and death of stones. But the traditional ruling about Three Points Without Capturing makes perfect sense by play at temperature -1. If the Japanese rules allowed actual play at temperature -1, however, then a player might score a point by filling a false eye in a seki, thus violating the idea that there are no points in seki. Something had to give, and it was Three Points.
I get the impression that you would be happy to return to the days of the Japanese '49 rules, where games ended by agreement, dame were not played out, and disputes were rare. I probably would, too. (OTOH, ancient territory rules with a group tax are attractive, too.
) But those days are gone, and we seem to be stuck with encores, actual or hypothetical, which determine the final results.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Bill Spight
For ending, I'm confident my tiny suggestion itself would not cause trouble. After first two passes, either agreement (99.9%), or play resumes first, without significant rules changes. There can be complications after this 2nd phase, but these are the same without it and can be dealt with as before. But there is no need to pollute the first phase, the main game itself, neither with dame fill, nor extra rules or special moves. (With territory scoring not even extra ko rules are necessary, beyond the simple ko rule.)