No result doesn’t necessarily mean the game must be replayed. It just means no winner, and it is up to the tournament environment to decide how to handle these cases (even if replay was sometimes used in Japan, this is just one of the possibilities).
There may also be a language issue here. For example, Korean rules consistently refer to these as “draw”, with (AFAIS) the same word and characters (“무승부” = museungbu) that they use for score ties as well. And they equate this word to the Japanese mushoubu (“無勝負”), so I guess “museungbu” has a general draw meaning in Korean, while mushoubu means no contest in Japan, different from jigo.
A ruleset that models the Chinese rules, using a logical distinction between types of repetitions without relying on precedents.
Sure, because of area vs territory scoring for example. But as far as main gameplay, legal moves and handling of repetition goes, these three are very close - while AGA is made to be significantly different, even on move legality.
I think the surplus for the suggested alternative of “superko in disputes only”, and “threefold repetition in main game” may fit into one line, or maybe two.
The AGA mod was the first idea, just a simple way to get most repetitions right. It is not perfect (bent4 with double ko seki, some remaining superko flaws, etc), but still seem a huge improvement.
The current approach with minimal superko is not necessarily “fully formed” or final either. It is hard to get even just all three of “1 eye flaw”, “double ko seki” and “0-sided ko” correct (and moonshine oc). Minimal superko seems to work, but this may be partly coincidence. Actually (in light of 0-sided kos), even the human logic is not completely clear about what would make a final position with normal ko! (and hopelessly incorrect with regular superko) Such theory would ideally need research from several people.
Write down basic ko with threefold repetition - as if would it fit into 1-2 lines? Maybe something like:
No capture of a single stone that just captured a single stone. If a board play creates the same position for the third time, the game ends with a win for the side who captured more stones since the last occurrence, or a draw if equal.
I appreciate the effort to write it down in a simple way.
Now let say that for some reason that defy our imagination, a bunch of players won’t appreciate the occurence of a draw. What could become the rule according to your appreciation?
Probably would look similar to proposal 1 or 2 in Lasker Maas Rules With Long Cycle Rule at Sensei's Library . That ammendment is for the beautiful Lasker Maas ruleset, which is non-traditional and falls in the “hybrid” category between Chinese and Japanese, just like Button Go, Lasker Maas or Ikeda Territory Rules 1, which look quite different but have all nearly identical consequences. The “how to count” and the “what to do with repetitions” aspects are to a large degree independent matters, so all the ideas there mentioned could very well be applied to the AGA ruleset instead of the Lasker Maas or Ikeda rules, as it is an alternative to superko.
Well, first of all they should use fractional komi, since by far the most frequent way to draw is tied scores. So that bunch of players won’t like NZ rules, for example.
