skydyr wrote:darWIN wrote:snorri wrote:
No. There are even occasional professional games with no captures. The boundaries of territories may be more efficient for one side than another.
But how, they both placed the same number of stones, they should be taking up the same amount of space.
For the sake of argument, here's a diagram where each player has played exactly the same number of stones. Black has enclosed twice as much space as white has. There's no way for either player to play stones inside the other's enclosed space without being captured, so instead of playing it out, we just count it as theirs to save time.
For example:
So long as both players agree that one can't survive without being captured in an area surrounded by the other, it's a way to decide that there are no more meaningful plays. Otherwise, play could continue until there are no more legal moves, but the side with the larger empty space would win by being able to capture more so long as both players kept playing. When you pass to end a game, you are basically admitting that you don't think you can keep playing and gain anything. If both players were to keep playing infinitely, the player surrounding less empty space would lose, because he would have to fill his eyes for his groups first, giving his opponent a huge capture.
Does this make sense?
Not really. The game you showed me has absolutely no strategy involved. It's luck. Whereas in a capture, the strategy is tricking your opponent, finding their weaknesses, and making your stones solid from attack. If two players were able to make their stones unable to capture, they both showed a solid admirable strategy and I think that makes it a draw. Who cares about territory when it takes so much thought just to keep your stones safe.
The key question then becomes how to make the most territory with the fewest plays. I. e., efficiency. 
It was like playing a wedge on the third line on a larger board. 