hzamir wrote:
The alternative that a game can be no-result (or draw), has the opposite problem: it's agreeably lax detection, but produces no positive result.
...
One last issue: Could it be that forcing adjudication of a game is just culturally unacceptable idea in the heartland in those places where the game has the most history?
I think what you overlook here is the importance of simplicity. True, conceptual simplicity (not textual conciseness which superko aims at for example). People tend to overestimate the acceptable complexity of rules - one tricky rule invention is about one more than acceptable.
Imagine what would happen if the rules would not include ANY special rule about repetition (just the normal ko rule, and territory scoring so prisoners matter). This simple ruleset would theoretically behave like current Japanese rules: in some games neither side could force scoring in a won position, leaving those without a winner. Saying "no result" just acknowledges the fact that the game continues forever. Not an additional rule changing anything, just a consequence of normal go play.
Compared to this, any adjudication scheme (or other rule invention) will likely be seen as unnecessary complication.
John Fairbairn wrote:
It's not really a problem at all. Why must a game end in a binary way? Ternary works well in very many cases. Football has 0-0 draws, chess accepts draws, and you can even have two gold medals for a dead heat in the Olympics. Even go has always had three results. Jigo (or the Chinese equivalent) has a VERY long history.
The only problem for go has been in the TOURNAMENT rules.
How bad this is in reality? When the tournament cannot accept a draw, a rare triple ko with an immediate replay drags things out for sure. But if the repetition arise in middle game, it amounts to something like an 50% length increase - which may not be much more than what normal game length variance could produce.