I choose the Simple Rules
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/simple.htmlbecause
- rules ought to be simple and clear,
- area scoring avoids the stone scoring encore of many plays not changing the score,
- area scoring avoids the strategic simplification of stone scoring,
- for practical purposes, area scoring and territory scoring are strategically equally demanding (area scoring has the additional fight about one excess dame, territory scoring has the additional fight about avoiding typically at most one teire if the score is at most one point) but area scoring achieves this with simple and clear rules while the simplest territory scoring rules (such derived from real-world territory scoring rules related to a life concept rather than such by theorists related to pass-fights, buttons or control)
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/sj.htmlare already much less simple and clarity requires an understanding of more concepts than necessary for rules,
- the simplicity of the rules clarifies status by removals according to the regular rules of alternation instead of clarification by exceptional rules for (dis)agreements about removals (such as in New Zealand, AGA or Chinese Rules) or for life definitions (such as in the Simplified Japanese Rules),
- allowing or prohibiting suicide is equally simple and clear in rules but suicide is allowed because strategy becomes more demanding,
- passes are necessary to avoid pass fights,
- the game ends on two successive passes because this is the simplest clear game end condition and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of the number of passes in a game end condition,
- passes do not lift ko bans because this gives the simplest clear game end condition and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of whether passes lift ko bans,
- positional superko is used because this is the simplest clear ko ruleset and, for practical purposes, strategy is equally demanding regardless of the ko ruleset (in particular: the superko rule(s) variant).