Territory rules II (see Part I) are contrived so as not to count one-sided neutral points and territory in seki. I naturally favor territory rules I, which count one-sided neutral points and territory in seki, but Japanese tradition is against this. The purpose of territory rules II is to show how the traditional view can be incorporated into a rigorous set of rules.

One-sided neutral points and territory in seki are both concerned with seki, so it becomes necessary to define seki. In the final position at the end of the game, a rigorous definition can be given by defining stones which cannot be captured even by consecutive play as immortal, and other stones as non-immortal. Non-immortal stones correspond to the usual notion of seki.

Stones played on one-sided neutral points and on territory in seki earn points only if played after the preliminary end of the game, and only if they remain on the board at the end of the game. The traditional purpose can therefore be accomplished by subtracting the number of non-immortal stones played after the end of the game. Note that seki is not defined at the preliminary end of the game. This allows seki or one-sided neutral points in the conventional sense at the preliminary end of the game to undergo change and become immortal by the final end of the game.

Comparing territory rules I and territory rules II, one is struck by the awkwardness of the rule added to avoid counting one-sided neutral points and territory in seki. In addition, if major changes occur after the preliminary end of the game it may be difficult to determine the number of non-immortal stones played after the preliminary end. This rule is both inelegant and impractical. The substantial differences between territory rules II and area rules II and III are also a major obstacle to creating an international set of rules. I would like to propose adopting territory rules I.