I certainly think so. I’m curious if anybody out there has any additional thoughts on the subject?
There are a couple of aspects of New Zealand rules which are not implemented on OGS. So I will only speak to the parts which do manifest in OGS based games. @GlacialNoivern and I have been playing with it in our own games for a good six months. Before that, our games were 99% Chinese. Chinese has been our favorite ruleset, hands down.
Upon learning about the difference between Positional (Chinese) and Situational (NZ) Superko, it intrigued us to look further. SSK based situations are going to be a super rare occurrence, but the possibility represents one additional micro layer of strategy. After learning about the situations where Suicide would matter, it opened up another micro layer of strategy. For reference: Positions With A Good Suicide and Suicidal Tendencies.
Finally, regarding Handicap, under Chinese rules Black gives White compensation for handicap stones, so that the area which they occupy is not counted. Where (N = number of stone handicap) N stones are given, N÷2 is added to White’s score and N÷2 is subtracted from Black’s score. Under New Zealand rules, no such compensation is given.
The effect of this is that an N stone handicap under New Zealand rules is N points larger than under Chinese rules. Under NZ, White passes the first N-1 moves and Komi is not to be used. Though, OGS does implement a 0.5 Komi in handicap matches to ensure that ties are not possible.
It has been our experience that in NZ handicap games, fewer stones are generally used, since NZ based Handicaps result in a bigger point advantage. Stones also change the tactical and strategic options present on the board. We think the fewer stones on the board in a Handicap match, the better. In our minds, we are playing with Chinese rules, but with a slightly better approach to Handicap games, as well as a couple additional micro layers of potential strategy added into the mix