I compiled a few recent topics from both here and OGS into a sensei’s page:
RulesAndAreaAndTerritoryScoring.

The idea is to take a look at go rules from the view of expecting (reasonably) coherent gameplay and behavior between area and territory scoring. Basically, to find out what rules work - and what don’t and why - universally, regardless of scoring method. This simple requirement already excludes a few things so may be a useful guide.

Anybody with interest in rules is welcome to look at or edit the page. Is there something wrong, did I forget something, are there further rule components that could be evaluated on this basis?

I read the page with interest, but felt that you could have spelled it out a bit better for the average reader, both in terms of summarizing the points you were trying to make, and why they are true. I guess my level isn't good enough to understand the assumed knowledge. I think you could maybe nail it down without talking down.

Thanks for the insight! Most of this was copied from forums, but I tried not to assume rules experience and phrase clean and plain - apparently didn't succeed. Should I add further details, like sequences for some diagrams or more explanations? Or rather there are specific problem points to be rephrased within the existing text?

Some not comprehensive feedback:

So from this I am getting the impression that each of the headings represents a problem under some rule set? If that is the case then the overall name of the page "Rules and Area and Territory Scoring" doesn't really say what your page is actually about, rather it should be something about "Rules Problems" for each of area and territory scoring systems. Furthermore, if that is the case, then maybe put in a list of specific rulesets where you think this rule is applicable, or whether this is something that would pose a hypothetical issue if it was a feature of a particular ruleset.



I think here you could have referenced an existing page to provide a little context, like https://senseis.xmp.net/?PassAsKoThreat. This is after all something you have done with the last section, talking about black's extra move.


If you mean something more expansive than Japanese/Korean rules, I don't know which common territory rulesets you mean.

I think you could do the same, and maybe hyphenate and quote "area-fied", linking the full term to some example of what you mean by that, rather than take understanding that for granted.


As an aside, not a criticism of this last section, I have never seen a real reference to this so-called "Taiwan" rule anywhere outside of Ikeda, and I am very curious about it. To me it seems exceptionally nice idea, It feels more natural--mechanically--than Ikeda's rule for compensating white for passing first. I wish one of these ideas had been adopted by AGA.

Thanks again. Apparently, the first issue is that the theme itself is not clear enough:


This meant to be an objective list of rule components or combinations that are problematic for the area-territory consistency, deliberately ignoring specific rulesets where that component is or isn't used. So it is about the general rules implications of area~=territory (and/or trying to support both). I'll try to edit the preface to make this clearer - hopefully this will also help others maintain and update the contents later.


The reason I didn't is that this issue is not specific to passes. The problem manifests under simple ko (regardless of passes) AND under superko but then only with ban lifting passes. Maybe it could link all related pages.


I recall having read a claim somewhere, that just a few decades ago something like this was (sporadically?) in actual use throughout China, not just Taiwan. I'm not sure if this is true or not - sadly I forgot to bookmark so cannot even find it since then. However, ancient chinese rules are speculated to have used a similar thing (undo B's extra move, for stone scoring). This specualtion is not necessarily correct either (ancient chinese as territory scoring with group tax seems better documented), but apparently this was the motivation behind WMSG rules. Actual adoption of such ideas, however, have obvious obstacles.