Please look at this part: Triple Ko
To quote from the source:
If both players are happy with the outcome, they can take the three kos in turn and get a Void result. Black has no choice, but White can deviate, if he wants.
…
(if White chooses to deviate) White wins unless Black has two threats that cannot be ignored and ignores two White threats himself.
…
In the present game that was a real possibility and White (Cho Chikun) chose the Triple Ko outcome.
So I would suppose this game can be considered triple ko, because both player agreed with this result.
@avant, I think everyone has been in agreement that the “no result” outcome is appropriate since neither player was willing to deviate from this triple ko cycle and that it could be called a “triple ko”.
The subsequent discussion has not been about whether we should call the actual game outcome a “triple ko”, but instead about how black could have hypothetically won by deviating from the triple ko cycle. In particular, the discussion clarified details in the Japanese rules about how life/death determinations should be made after following this variation.
The conclusion seems to be that black made a mistake in allowing the game to end as a no result in triple ko, when he could have otherwise won.
Wasn’t there a rule about the board not being able to look the same?
The triple ko starts at move 63, at move 69 the board is the same as move 63, so black shouldn’t have been allowed to play at g2 and has to play somewhere else,
I disagree with the “special rule”. If it can’t be killed then it isn’t dead. If it doesn’t have 2 eyes it isn’t alive. Neither dead or alive just make the area seki and worth no points. The “board not look the same” rule would work there too to end the game.
The game in question was played with Japanese rules, which permit recurrences of earlier board positions (except for the immediate retaking of a single ko), but declares a game as a “no result” if neither player is willing to deviate from an endless cycle.
Some other rulesets (such as Chinese, AGA, and others) have a “Superko” rule, which forbids recurrences of an earlier board position. The specifics of the rule is a bit more nuanced than simply forbidding the board from “looking the same”, and there are some subtle differences across various rulesets (see Positional vs Situational vs Natural Situational). This Sensei’s Library page Superko at Sensei's Library has more details.