Maybe this is better here, from this topic Comparing and contrasting to chess - rules complexities - #3 by bugcat
So why is it the case that Black needs to capture stones that appear to already be captured in a snapback?
If this position or the other linked position
showed up on a game on OGS, and it was scored manually or by Katago, and someone claims that it was scored incorrectly to count the stones as dead, and should be played out, would that be upheld by moderators?
Here’s a demo board for the first diagram
ignore the moves up to 33, and then white to play.
I guess one would say the position is seki by reading out the followups and yet in a normal snapback one wouldn’t bother calling it a seki and wouldn’t force Black say to capture the snapback stones.
I guess Black might be the one that wants to play here to avoid a seki, since B would lose, assuming the rules are clear regarding it, and both agree that it would be a seki as is.
Of course if B didn’t agree it was a seki, Black wouldn’t want to play and give White points from recaptures. White also wouldn’t want to play first because it would give B one extra capture than the sequence where B plays first (I think). I guess it has a seki feel to it.
(Maybe White should play F6 to be completely safe in the demo board, and let Black play first)
I guess it is covered in the examples here Article 1. The game of go