Bill Spight wrote:
What's the problem?
in the link
https://senseis.xmp.net/?SpightJapaneseStyleRules it exist for example the following article:
Article 8. Territory
After all dead stones, if any, have been removed, empty points that are surrounded by stones of the same player are called eye points, and any empty points that are not eye points are called neutral points. All stones that surround the same eye points belong to the same group. A group is called a seki group if it is adjacent to a neutral point, or if one or more of its stones is in atari. Eye points that are surrounded by a group that is not a seki group are territory. Territory belongs to the player whose stones surround it.
Comment: The current definition is unclear. First, it distinguishes eye points from neutral points, and later distinguishes some eye points from territory in an unclear way, talking about seki stones possessing neutral points that they are not connected to. I replace the idea of seki stones with that of a seki group, and include the idea of atari, to cover double ko seki and other strange seki.
Trying to clarify what is a territory seemed to me a good idea, wasn't it?
What about the repetition and stopping play ?
For chinese rules it doesn't change really the result of the game, at least on a 19x19 board. Your proposal allows to remove anomalies known as beast positions on small board and it for me a good point.
For japonese rule it is quite different due to the "encore". As a consequence even common seki may give a different result and, as you mentionned yourself several time, the rule appears really different.
Example:
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W 1 point in japonese rule and 2 points in Spight rule
$$ --------------------
$$ | . O . X O . X O . . . . .
$$ | O O O X X X X O . .
$$ | X X X O O O O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]
Just for fun how will be handled the following position ?
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ -------------------------------
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X O O . .
$$ | X X X X X X X X X X X . O . .
$$ | O O O O O O O O O O O O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]
With your rule white will OC take the 11x11 black stones, but the strange point here is that white can choose to take the black stones either in normal play or in an encore play. Because white will play first it seems it is better for white to choose the encore play with the opportunity to gain one more point if white can play the last dame.