Life In 19x19
http://lifein19x19.com/

Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10394		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  RBerenguel [ Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
saxmaam wrote:
RBerenguel wrote:
You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.


So the text is just in error, then?


No, you lose a liberty in sente, this is the way it's expressed. The point of the phrase is that: you are not supposed to lose liberties in sente, but in gote (your opponent's gote). In other words, semeais in this case should be gote for both players. Since one got away with sente, it is different and should be remarked.
Author:  SoDesuNe [ Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
No, "in Sente" is just the way to describe a sequence of moves where a certain player still has Sente after the sequence ended. Which player is meant has to be read from the context.

The opponent has Sente and threatens to cut you, you defend and it's your opponent's move again. So he forced you to lose a liberty in Sente. Your defense on the other hand was in Gote - the defense started with your move and after that move your opponent is free to play somewhere else.

Never thought about that before, I hope it makes sense ^^
Author:  RBerenguel [ Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
SoDesuNe wrote:
No, "in Sente" is just the way to describe a sequence of moves where a certain player still has Sente after the sequence ended. Which player is meant has to be read from the context.

The opponent has Sente and threatens to cut you, you defend and it's your opponent's move again. So he forced you to lose a liberty in Sente. Your defense on the other hand was in Gote - the defense started with your move and after that move your opponent is free to play somewhere else.

Never thought about that before, I hope it makes sense ^^


Same here, it's hard to explain :) I guess you just get used to it
Author:  saxmaam [ Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.
Author:  Aidoneus [ Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
saxmaam wrote:
So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.


The subject of the first clause is the opponent pushing on your link, so while the liberty loss refers to you, the sente refers to the opponent who would begin the sequence to which you must respond in gote.

Edit: Maybe I am just used to seeing it written that way now. If I think about it too much I may get confused, too. :lol:
Author:  Uberdude [ Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
Perhaps this way of looking at it will help: replace "in sente" with "for free". "A problem with bamboo joints is your opponent can take a liberty in sente" => "A problem with bamboo joints is your opponent can take a liberty for free". In Go we take turns to play stones which (hopefully!) achieve something. The stone gains something (some territory, eyes, influence, strength, taking a liberty in a semeai, whatever) and costs you a move to do so. If you play a move and your opponent answers it and your move achieves more than your opponent's move then you gained something without the usual cost of playing a move: it's your turn again. So doing useful things in sente is like getting things for free. This is why weak groups are bad and attacking is good (usually): in a skilful attack the attacker gains more with his attacking move than the defender does with his defensive move: he gains for free and this can continue for many moves. But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).
Author:  skydyr [ Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
Uberdude wrote:
But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).


On the subject of capturing races, one thing to be very careful about is playing a move that is sente (that your opponent must respond to) but which removes a liberty from YOU.
Author:  Uberdude [ Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
skydyr wrote:
Uberdude wrote:
But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).


On the subject of capturing races, one thing to be very careful about is playing a move that is sente (that your opponent must respond to) but which removes a liberty from YOU.


For example: white 10 here: viewtopic.php?p=167325#p167325
Author:  EdLee [ Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:35 am ]
Post subject: 
saxmaam wrote:
The section is "Counting with Connections" (page 20)
"When your string links to another string and your opponent can push on that link (...), then you will lose a liberty in sente."

So the text is just in error, then?
Hi saxmaam,

You asked a good question. Here are my 2 cents:

I think in this case the text was poorly phrased.

I'm guessing the writer meant to express that in some cases (for certain shapes),
your opponent can reduce one of your liberties in sente -- in his sente.
Would this be more clear for you ?

So, the above rephrased, more general form:
"If <some conditions>, and your opponent can <play a sequence that you must reply>,
then your opponent can reduce your liberties in sente -- in his sente."

Example A (of phrasing).
Example A (of phrasing). Here's a common joseki.
Black starts with :bc: at the star point, W approaches with :wc:, and we have this sequence:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Joseki A
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 8 2 4 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 6 3 B 5 . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . 7 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Resulting in this joseki shape:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Joseki A cont'd
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Now, if B pushes with :b11: and W blocks with :w12: ...
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm11 NOT Joseki
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O O 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O X X X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]
…then we say "Black reduces his own liberties in sente."
In this case, this happens to be a bad exchange for Black. (For various reasons. We can discuss them separately.)
So this move, :b11: , is a bad sente for Black.
To add to what Uberdude said, there are good sente moves and bad sente moves.
Just because a move is sente says nothing about whether it's good or bad.
Example A above shows an example of a bad sente move for Black.
Author:  saxmaam [ Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
EdLee wrote:
So, the above rephrased, more general form:
"If <some conditions>, and your opponent can <play a sequence that you must reply>,
then your opponent can reduce your liberties in sente -- in his sente."


Now that I can parse!
Author:  saxmaam [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
I've learned some great stuff from Contact Fights, but sometimes (often!) I wonder if a situation is a contact fight or not. Does anybody have some principles they can give me?
Author:  Bill Spight [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
saxmaam wrote:
RBerenguel wrote:
You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.


So the text is just in error, then?


I don't know the example, but it is not that the text is in error, it is that English is inexact. It may be that you can take gote to create a liberty, but your opponent can prevent you from doing so in sente. If she does, then we may say that you lost a liberty in sente, when you only lost a potential liberty in sente. As a rule, we assume that sente plays are made and answered, so we do not count such potential liberties at all.

For example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . X O O X . .
$$ . . X C C X . .
$$ . . X W W X . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . . . . . . .[/go]


The blank area indicates that we do not know what is there, nor is it relevant to our question. (If it were, we would show it. :))

How many liberties do the :wc: stones have on the :ec: points? At first glance it appears to be 2. But appearances can be deceiving. If White must connect the stones in the bamboo joint, we anticipate this exchange (or its mirror).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . X O O X . .
$$ . . X 1 2 X . .
$$ . . X W W X . .
$$ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
$$ . . . . . . . .[/go]


So the right liberty count is 0.

If White does not need to connect, then the liberty count is 2.

¿Es claro?

:)
Author:  Bill Spight [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
saxmaam wrote:
So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.


The apparent loss was yours, but in the phrase, "in sente", sente belonged to the sequence of play. In the sequence your opponent made the first play (sente) while you made the last play (gote). First play and last play are the basic meanings of sente and gote. A sente sequence is one in which one player makes the first play and the other player makes the last play. A gote sequence is one in which the same player makes the first and last play.
Author:  saxmaam [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Bruce Wilcox's Go Dojo
Bill, thanks for contributing here. Both of your replies are helpful.

Do you have anything to say about the following question? I understand that contact fights are mainly a feature of the middle game.

saxmaam wrote:
I've learned some great stuff from Contact Fights, but sometimes (often!) I wonder if a situation is a contact fight or not. Does anybody have some principles they can give me?
Author:  EdLee [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:26 am ]
Post subject: 
saxmaam wrote:
Does anybody have some principles they can give me?
I also like Bruce's Contact Fights a lot.
In it, he already gave beginners many "guidelines," and "principles."

Now you need to play serious games, and have them reviewed.
Either here or on KGS, etc.

Principles and guidelines could be useful for beginners,
or at "beginning stages," which we repeatedly encounter
when we are introduced to new ideas, strategies, and techniques, etc.
But principles are also a double-edged sword:
eventually they may become a trap or hindrance.
Eventually, we must free our mind of them.

Contact fights can happen any time, anywhere,
even as early as :w2:. :) Or as late as :black: 200.
Strictly speaking, as soon as you make any contact
with an enemy stone, it's a contact fight — HOWEVER,
the importance and significance of the contact depends
on the specific board. That's why guidelines only
go so far: we must always look at the exact position,
and decide what to do case by case.

So, after you have studied Contact Fights a bit,
you need direct experience. I seem to remember
Bruce explicitly mentioned in his lessons somewhere
that you must stop and play some games before
you should proceed to the next section. :) Do it.
Author:  EdLee [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Hi saxmaam, see also post 36 of this thread.

In particular,
leichtloeslich wrote:
To me this sounds suspiciously like the stories of Chinese kids playing on 19x19 and having no real idea about fuseki, josekis, etc. but totally crushing Westerners who can't defend themselves against the advanced fighting skills of these children.

Basically I think these secondary skills (fuseki, joseki, "strategy") are much overrated in the West
In other words, to repeat: theory and principles are OK, but only up to a point.
Author:  saxmaam [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
EdLee wrote:
saxmaam wrote:
So, after you have studied Contact Fights a bit,
you need direct experience. I seem to remember
Bruce explicitly mentioned in his lessons somewhere
that you must stop and play some games before
you should proceed to the next section. :) Do it.


I'm playing, Ed. That's how I know I have questions.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Susan
Author:  EdLee [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:55 am ]
Post subject: 
saxmaam wrote:
I'm playing, Ed. That's how I know I have questions.
Hi Susan, that's good, and you're welcome.

The next step is to review your games.

Adults like to look for guidelines, proverbs, and principles, etc.
Little kids don't: they just play and play and get tons of experience
from actual Go combats, and they improve their reading skills,
shape skills, tesuji skills, life-and-death skills, etc.
This is how children can improve so quickly (and of course,
thanks to their amazing brain.)

What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ? Exactly what leichtloeslich observed
in his post (above).
Author:  Bill Spight [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
EdLee wrote:
What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ?


Back when I was playing seriously, my favorite opponents were the street fighter types. Why? Because I could count on them to make overplays. ;)
Author:  Abyssinica [ Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Bill Spight wrote:
EdLee wrote:
What happens when a "principles"-person meets
a "street fighter" ?


Back when I was playing seriously, my favorite opponents were the street fighter types. Why? Because I could count on them to make overplays. ;)


I used to hate those types of players and would respond badly. Then I loved them because they were making obvious bad moves I could take advantage of. Then I hated them again because they got better. Rinse and repeat.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/