In area rules it is extremely natural to be aware of the point at which sente no longer has any value and indicate by passing that this point has been reached. Even in area rules I and II, in actual play the game can end by agreement at this point and the players can immediately proceed to count the score. Applying a half-point correction at this point for the asymmetry that arises from Black's playing first in the game may seem unnatural, but it turns out to be extremely logical.

I proposed territory rules I in order to have a set of rules that counts territory and prisoners. Since we have proved that territory rules I are theoretically equivalent to area rules III, which recognize the last competitive move as occurring immediately before the first pass, there is no need to argue about the differences between territory rules I and area rules III. Although they are formulated in very dissimilar ways, which might be expected to lead to large differences in actual play, it can be verified that no differences exist.

I would like to recommend territory rules I to those who are accustomed to counting territory minus prisoners, and area rules III to those who are accustomed to counting territory plus stones. Then go can be played both ways under essentially the same rules, which will be a great convenience, and there will be no rules problems.

Area rules III are shown in Part I. They have the same definitions (1) to (5) as area rules I and II, and rules 1 to 5 and 8 apply without change. The only difference is rule 6 (end of the game) and rule 7 (scoring).