I admit I skipped over the thread but that's because I think the question doesn't make much sense. I mean how are you supposed to make a good decision without

???
(Btw. isn't 3. a part of 2.?)

You'd have to elaborate what you mean by "playing according to strategy" anyway. I can only interpret it as having some kind of game plan.
And as I see it, yes it is kind of meaningless. We always will have to adapt to the opponents moves which will catch us by surprise at some point.
Any kind of planning or - if I may say so - calculation will only work for the short-term future anyway, so it actually belongs more to the realm of tactics.

The way I see it, for every given board position there is a best move (maybe multiple) that we aim to find. Nothing more.
Making plans is an illusion. We can just try to play the best move according to our judgement and wait for our opponent to make mistakes to take advantage of.

Live in the present, my friends.

Historically or not, I don't like the "risk-based strategy" dichotomy that was being drawn. As you stated, risk cannot be eliminated:


Here, you mentioned reducing the risk of uncertainty:


But if that increases the chances of losing the game, that can be seen as "risky". Perhaps it's because the word "risk" can be interpreted in various ways that I find it potentially misleading to claim an entire nationality/organization of go players to have a risk-based strategy. It's less misleading to suggest that one's style aims to minimize complexity, for example.

_________________
be immersed

Yes, it seems we are poles apart in what we associate with risk and uncertainty, and I also cleave to risk of uncertainty as different from risking of dying. To muddy the waters more, what’s in the background are two things. One is the need to take risks when komi does not apply (or when giving handicaps). This is when the historical dimension matters most. The other concept is souba. I’m sure that you’ll appreciate its significance but I haven’t the patience to dilate on it for a wider audience. I have got the proof copy of Ogawa Doteki, Go Prodigy which demands my attention.

Can't say I disagree with much of that.

Handicap games have always been interesting to me. Playing the board, strictly speaking, you've already lost and there is no pure winning strategy - similarly with the wrong komi. So in order to win, the opponent must make a mistake. To better increase your chances, making the game more complicated is one route to go - maybe the opponent is more likely to trip up in the midst of complexity. Another strategy is to just play normally, under the assumption that the game is complex enough and the difference in strength will lead to the stronger player winning.

But the result ultimately depends on the opponent. So it's hard to say what's best in this case. It may require some assessment of the opponent in order to best increase one's chances.

_________________
be immersed

Before the rise of Korean-style and Chinese-style go, there was a feeling in Japan that complicated fighting was infrequent in long time limit games because both players would be able to assess, read out, accurately whether the fight was going to end with a profitable result. It was also felt that chaotic fighting occurred more frequently in fast games, such as TV-games. AI doesn't need much time to read out complicated situations compared to human players so the prevalence of fighting in AI games would seem to contradict the idea thatI mentioned previously regarding fighting in long games in Japan.

I'd agree with that

_________________
be immersed