As stated in section 5.1, regardless of whether a game is played under
area rules I, II, or III or territory rules I or II, there comes a
boundary point at which the result is not affected even if one side
makes consecutive moves. If there are unusual positions still needing
to be resolved at this point, with the potential for further major
changes on the board, then it is of course illogical to end the game.
But such positions occur infrequently. Ordinarily the game can stop and
be counted at the boundary point with the same result as if it had been
played out to the final end according to the rules. In the ordinary
case, the outcome of the game is decided when the boundary is reached.
If the players can score the game correctly without further play, they
can realistically agree to stop playing and start counting. This is
such a practical idea that traditional territory rules attempt to end
the game at this point, but that is the source of their theoretical
Under territory rules I, if there are no unusual positions, the players
can agree to stop playing at the preliminary end and count. This is
nearly the same as traditional rules, so Japanese players, who are
accustomed to counting territory and prisoners, will find territory
rules I more convenient than counting territory and stones as in area
Area rules III were created to solve the problem of the even number
of neutral points in area rules I and II. Not only do they solve this
problem completely; they are essentially identical to territory rules I,
which count territory and prisoners. Even if area rules III, which can
be expressed in simple and easily understandable language, are formally
adopted as international rules, the important role played by the concept
of territory and prisoners in the progress of go must not be forgotten.
For the sake of the Japanese players who are accustomed to this concept,
I think it would be better for Japan to adopt territory rules I.