The players should determine which stones are dead, this includes determining which stones are alive in a seki situation. The atari-rule doesn’t change this.
The counting algorithm just works from what the players agreed on. With official Japanes rules, the counting algorithm still needs to detect sekis to score correctly even when players agree on which stones are dead.
I think that if the atari-rule replaces the seki rule, there won’t be any ambiguity when the players agree on which stones are dead.
Lasker-Maas rules are sort of in between AGA rules with territory scoring and the rules that I’d prefer.
I think the atari-rule I talked about earlier would avoid the DameKoThreat issue mentioned in the sensei’s article.
I also prefer the basic ko rule to any form of superko. Superko may be easy to state as rule, but the actual implementation is more complicated than basic ko. I don’t mind voiding a game in case of triple ko (or drawing it when replaying the game is too inconvenient).
I also prefer integer komi (specifically 6 komi under territory scoring and 7 komi under area scoring).
My preference for that is
In addition to the following long-cycle rule, the basic ko rule still applies,
where pass-pass does lift any basic ko ban that may have been in place.
The following long-cycle rule can have pass-pass end the game even when it lifts a basic ko ban,
but otherwise, a pass-pass that lifts a basic ko ban does not end the phase (main or encore).
long-cycle rule: Repetitions of the 3-tuple
board coloring , player who’s turn it is , the 0 or 1
intersections that are banned by the basic ko rule
such that in the cycle [[the players passed different number of times]
or [the players [played captures that would’ve been illegal if
pass-pass didn’t lift basic ko bans] different numbers of times]]
end the game: If the players passed different numbers of times in the cycle, then
whoever passed more in it wins. If in the cycle, the players passed the same number of times
but [played captures that would’ve been illegal if pass-pass didn’t lift basic ko bans]
different numbers of times, then whoever played fewer such captures in the cycle wins.
Territory komi 6 may be harmless, but for area scoring, there are reasons behind the standard practice (not just ties). Area komi 7.5 (or 5.5 as in the past) is chosen to avoid the 2 pts area rounding error (and B’s surplus move/stone) to affect the winner. Komi 7 would allow that - hurting the area-territory consistency.
With 7.5 komi area scoring, black needs to have 9 points more on the board to win. That is a heavy burden for black. With 7 komi the odds would be more balanced.
I think that is much more important than “area-territory consistency” (what is that even, and why is it more important than fair komi?)
Whether consistency is more important than a more balanced komi is debatable of course. And area komi 7 is certainly more balanced so would be nice to use. But it would also (re)introduce a non-skill-based element to scoring, that is not present under territory scoring and is normally fixed with the standard 7.5 area komi.
Which avoids letting the winner directly affected by whether B also got the last move besides the first one, thereby playing one more stone than W - a thing that is naturally irrelevant under territory scoring (but is an extra area point automatically).
Both 7.5 and the old 5.5 were chosen to avoid B’s ghost area point to affect the winner, while 7 would allow that. Parities go like:
board (odd) = territories (odd or even) + stones_played (odd or even)
Since there are two players (even) and prisoners filled back, whether plays/stones become odd (ie. B gets an extra) normally depend on the territory score. Area scores change in steps of 2, and this is how they round both B+6 and B+7 territory to B+7 area.
But their difference remains visible, as the first case becomes B+7 with B getting the last move (so B one more stone than W) while the second case is B+7 with W last move (so both sides equal moves). Achieving the same area score with one surplus stone is obviously not the same performance as without it - this old area dilemma led to button go or the Taiwan rule.
But the simplest way (and the usual argument) is to choose komi so that B’s extra move never affect the winner (like in territory scoring).
So do I understand correctly that you’re advocating using a button under area scoring (regardless of the komi value)?
In that case, perhaps one could opt for 6.5 komi area scoring with a button?
When black get the last valuable move to reach a 7 point lead on the board (which would then be a 6 point lead on the board under territory scoring), the button would make the result a jigo (as it would be with 6 komi territory scoring).
When white gets the last valuable move to leave black with only a 5 point lead on the board (which would then also be a 5 point lead on the board under territory scoring), the button would make the result a 1 point loss for black (as it would be with 6 komi territory scoring).
I suppose it is also the case that 7 komi area scoring with a button gives the same result as 6.5 komi territory scoring (in most cases).
I didn’t try to argue for any particular rule, just mentioned that area komi has more factors to consider than may seem. I think plain 7.5, plain 7 and button all have merits but flaws too, neither is completely ok (buttons also have some undesirable interaction with kos btw).
Button with fractional komi for ties is an interesting idea, though buttons in general feel a bit dubious to me. They seem to (usually) transform the area result to territory +0.5 for B. But if one wants territory accuracy, why not simply territory scoring? To contradict myself, I guess a similar argument can also be used against the usual strive to neutralize B’s surplus stone and the area rounding with 7.5 komi.