The best Go ruleset is New Zealand

written 2026-04-20

Go has many slightly different rulesets: Japanese, Chinese, Korean, AGA, and more. Japanese seems the most common and Chinese the second most, so I'll mostly compare New Zealand with those.

Area versus territory scoring

The biggest difference between rulesets is how they count score. In Japanese ("territory scoring"), it's how much empty space you surround + how many stones you captured. In Chinese and New Zealand ("area scoring"), it's how much empty space you surround + how many stones you have on the board.

This doesn't very affect strategy because it's almost the same in practice, because when you capture a stone, your enemy has 1 fewer stone on the board. But there are some notable consequences:

In area scoring, filling a neutral space gains a point. In territory scoring, it doesn't, so neutral space is often left unfilled.

In territory scoring, an unneeded defensive move inside your territory, or a move inside the enemy's territory that doesn't force a response, costs a point. In area scoring, it doesn't.

Both mostly affect endgame and very slightly.

Now let's think about the pros and cons:

Area scoring is simpler. In territory scoring, the rules have to specify that stones stranded in enemy territory and doomed to be captured don't have to actually be captured; the enemy gets credit for capturing them just because they could. Otherwise, you could reduce enemy territory by playing inside it even if your stone had no chance to live, since it takes multiple moves to capture a lone stone. And so there has to be a dispute resolution process if the players can't agree whether something is doomed. This very confused and upset me when I was new, and has also been a challenge to explain when I teach others. I consider this the biggest reason to prefer one or the other.

Territory scoring at least sometimes punishes speculative invasion, which is an annoying dynamic of Go where, when all the area is claimed and both players must pass to end the game, a player might try many hopeless invasions of the enemy's territory just incase the defender makes a mistake and lets one succeed. This stresses the defender because one mistake can cost them the game, and annoying because it can take a long time and successfully defending has no reward; as long as you respond to each move the invader makes, the score is the same as if they hadn't invaded. But in territory scoring at least the attacker loses 1 point if they play a move that the defender can ignore. This used to be a big deal to me when I was more bothered by speculative invasion, but I don't really care anymore because I don't see it as often and this 1-point punishment does barely anything to deter it, especially if the invader knows they're going to lose if they don't invade.

Area scoring is easier to count, because you don't have to record captures, and the total score of both players must add up to the size of the board, so you only have to count 1 player.

Suicide

In Japanese and Chinese, suicide is illegal. In New Zealand, it's legal. I like this for two reasons:

Forbidding suicide adds a rule

Though it's extremely rare, situations where suicide is a good move are cool.

Draws

In most rulsets, komi (a few extra points given to the player who plays second, to balance the advantage of playing first) is either 6.5 or 7.5. The half point is to prevent draws. In New Zealand, it's 7, allowing draws.

I like this for two reasons:

Draws are awesome

Theoretically, with an integer, it's possible for komi to be balanced so that optimal play leads to a draw. I think that's awesome (even if we'll never know what that perfect komi is). With the half point, the game must theoretically favor one side.