I tried to show that, according to my analysis, the position is sente for white and your answer was the following general statement : no if the position is sente then it is necessarily a BLACK sente position. I tried then to bring some more information showing why I consider it is a white sente position and now you answered that my explanations are only nonsense.
What do you bring yourself on this position? You never said what is for you the correct move value, you never said what is for you the correct count, you never said what is for you the best sequence for black (the sente or the gote one) and for white (the sente or the gote one).
Robert, it is very easy to be systematically negative by using general statement but it is far more difficult to bring positive criticism (like counter example) or to bring another analysis. I can easily understand you have no time enough to bring concrete information on this position but in that case please avoid negative (if not agressive) statement which are completly unuseful and instead try to encourage new participations to the discussion.
Why on earth do you avoid any cooperative work to have a better understanding of such position?
One certainty for me: you cannot be interested by my "rough" method.

Approximations are not per se bad and I have not seen your final method so cannot comment on it. I have commented on your analysis of this example. More specifically:



Ok.



How do you derive these intersections from dfan's diagrams and 8 points territory difference?



Why may you speak of a count of the [local] position when you consider 5 intersections but ignore the adjacent affected intersections?



Why may you form the average on these intersections in the context of the whole local endgame?

What is the meaning of assigne 2.5 to each player so that the impact is 0 because 2.5 for Black minus 2.5 for White from Black's perspective is 0?

Since you make it 0, why may you call it an average?



Why may / do you mean sente moves at this moment of analysis? (Also "sente point" twice below.)



Ok.



Better than what? (I can guess, but it is your analysis and must be clear from it.)



This is an adventurous implication. You presume that a) White must answer, b) if White does answer, necessarily it would be bad for Black to maintain the initiative by playing the exchange in a local sente sequence, c) there cannot be a general condition comparing gote sequence option to sente sequence option sometimes determining one or sometimes the other to be correct. Your implication is premature without these considerations or justifying an approximative method with which they are ignored on purpose.



Ok.



As before.



Now this is better: you consider the sente as a presupposition and case.

However, you make the statement that, assuming sente, White b was correct. As before, this is a premature implication for analogue reasons.



Why is the ogeima sente? By experience (Sensei's Library, Bill Spight, I) with careful endgame value analysis, a monkey into two rows of possible territory along the edge is a local gote move.

Therefore, also your "Obviously" must be wrong.



Wrong statements prove nothing.



See above.



Writing lots of implication symbols does not establish a proof by itself.



You have made too many mistakes and left too many analysis gaps (more than zero) to make your final "implication".

Your questions are valuable questions Robert but I do not want to simply answer all your criticisms without seeing you taking risks by giving your own feeling (analysis?) of the position.
Let me remind you that you never said what is for you the correct move value, you never said what is for you the correct count, you never said what is for you the best sequence for black (the sente or the gote one) and for white (the sente or the gote one).
I decided clearly to wait for more information before answering to your questions. That way I will be also able to discuss your method. Isn't it more fair Robert?

BTW what is for you a proof?
Assume my own move value calculation is different from yours. Does that mean that one of the two move values is wrong? It's not sure because our defintion may be different. To my knowledge you never gave your own move value definition on this forum (I guess this defintion can only be found in your book but I fear a great majority of readers has not got this book).
What do you propose to decide witch approach will be the more correct?

I do not evaluate local endgames by guessing but by exploring the game tree and applying theory. Without, I do not know the correct values and sente / gote types.

Endgame evaluation is not a matter of competition. Instead, it is application of theory. Depending on the quality of the theory, we can or cannot trust application results.

In a strict sense, a proof is what mathematics does: transformations of truths. For informal theory, proof might have an informal meaning and be weak.

Actually, I do not recall whether there have other mathematical definitions of move value; I would need to look it up. Berlekamp? Previous definitions focussed on CGT and used other terms with different intentions, especially related to infinitesimals. I have defined move value for some standard cases. For practical purposes (let us say: modulo infinitesimal), the different definitions are the same.

If you or anybody uses different calculations, the resulting values should be the same nevertheless. (There are extra considerations if options occur.)

IIRC, You do not seem to intend to redefine move value but you only intend to determine it differently. Therefore, you should produce the same values. Or their approximations.

I have stated my move value definition several times. The definition is two steps more formal than you currently need. Without options, compare move value to each follow-up move values. With options, it is more complicated.

An approach is correct if it conforms to mathematical theory. An approach not conforming to mathematical theory is outside evaluation for correct or wrong - it is so weak that it needs translation to mathematics or admitting of invalidity due to informality.

I see: you are the God of go theory, the only correct move value is NECESSARILY YOURS and any different value is necessarily wrong => I have to proof that my own values are the same as yours. Do you really think I can agree? BTW how can I know if my result are correct if you are unable to give us the result of your magic method?

Be serious your method is unable to give the result of the 48 flashcards in the file mentionned earlier within an acceptable time (let's say one or two days) is it?
Sure your method is fine for a theoritical approach but what is its value for practical game (I mean positions like the 48 flashcards) ? Note that the flashcard 24 we discussed is far to be the most difficult, is it? Can you tell us if a player uses really your method in actual game. Do you use yourself your method in actual game?

That I have invented the theory does not mean that I would be the owner values calculated with it. Mathematical theory, once invented, is for everybody who wants to apply it. Applying the theory gives values that are correct in it. A calculation that wants to determine such a value but is done wrongly is wrong due to the calculation mistake.

A calculation not done according to any sound theory is pretence of doing something useful or sometimes research in an attempt of creating another theory.

If you want to determine what everybody understands as (per-move) move value (for a scoring method), then calculate correctly and according to the established theory. Like you were asked to do in school at mathematics. By doing so, it is immaterial whether I have calculated the same value but if I did and did so correctly, too, our values should be equal.

My theory, or should I say Bill Spight's conceptual idea further developed by me and brought into a consistent framework of definitions and theorems by me, is established in this form.

If you want to develop a different theory with different definitions of values, you are free to do so. Write your definitions, formulate and prove your theorems. Then we can compare the theories and their usefulness.

You are free to agree or disagree to my theory but as long as you do not fully know it, what is your disagreement worth other than expressing some ignorance? If you want to invent something, you should be able to compare it to already eisting theories. My (and Bill's) theory is much more practical than CGT theory because I dispense with infinitesimals and infinite limits while being closer to decisions during games and analysing more classes of positions. Your motivation is also greater usefulness by faster execution speed. Good aim.

However, you downplay the complxity of the game tree on which we make calculations and which can have alternative options. Naive approximation and simplification can easily mislead calculations and indeed has fooled very many players.

My method is not magic. It is mathematical definitions, theorems and procedures.

Why do you speak of inability when I lack time? If you apply my method to your example because you have the time, I can then verify your calculation.

I have not looked at the flashcards yet so do not know their calculation difficulty. And no, currently I do not have the time to spend two days on them. Organising tournaments, having played in one, rewriting official tournament rules, installing my new computer, some time correcting Get Strong At the Endgame, teaching / writing work and necessities of life are more urgent.

Like older endgame value calculation methods, my mine are suitable for practice during games if there is enough thinking time and the endgame evaluation problems are not too complex for that time. Like tactical reading, there are quickly reached limits when the calculation complexity explodes. Then the first aid is partial application, such as not verifying types or alternative options. The second aid is approximation.

Of course, I use my methods in my games. In fact, by far most of what I use in my games is my own go theory because it is often by far superior for my play than other go theory. As to endgame evaluation, it is mostly a matter of time how fsr I can apply theory or need to make educated guesses.

The basics of my theory might be applied by many players but most would not know that I have confirmed as theory what previously had just been an informal conjecture among players. I think that very few players apply the slightly to far advanced aspects of my theory. This is good for me as it increases my winning chances;) Of course, some of my non-endgame theory has grester impact on winning chances. Many of my opponents are so kind to let me win easily because they do not study and apply the practically very relevant results of my theory. It has been an important reason why I have just qualified to the German Championship Finals:)

No Robert I do not disagree with you theory which is fine in a theoritical approach. Especially I agree with you your following statement

For a theoritical point of view all options have to be taken into account to be sure of the result. This is fine but in practice this is a major issue because the tree becomes too complex to be handled by a human.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . O O X . .|
$$ . . O X O . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

A simple question which needs zero calculation: in the position above, at the first move how many options have to be taken into account by your method if you prohibit any pruning?

As you mentionned yourself a pruning has to be done in order to have a method applicable in practice.
Basically my method consists of a drastic pruning allowing a simple calculation. I have no doubt that, on this pruned tree, my calculation is really the same as yours (same formulas) and as a consequence no proof is necessary concerning the calculation itself.
The real issue concerns the pruning of the tree.
As soon as I consider a move sente (that means that I pruned a tenuki option) or more generally as soon as I pruned any option, you react by saying that I have to proof that such pruning is justified. That make sense OC but such proof is impossible because, unless the position is quite simple, a human cannot handled a tree which is not pruned.

BTW you mentionned yourself that, in order to apply your method you have in practice to take the risk of pruning it and here again you cannot prove this pruning is justified because this proof implies the handling of the tree without pruning.

Do you see the point? You constantly claim for a proof but the proving method is simply not applicable in practice.

If our move values are different that means only that our pruning trees are different. I agree that one move value must be wrong (bad pruning) and OC it may also happen that both values are wrong.

BTW it seems not that difficult to find the move value which is surely wrong.
Assume my result is better for white than yours. Providing you know how to play a game in which the position appears with an ideal environment (like for example Bill's one) then we only have to play such game were I take white and you take black and the game will quickly reveal who is wrong won't it?

Assume no kos elsewhere, simplify the position, consider either player's a or b options, evaluate, then assume that the values and types approximate those of the original problem:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ simplified
$$ . . X X . X X|
$$ . . X X X X .|
$$ . . X . X . .|
$$ . . X X X . .|
$$ O O O O X a .|
$$ O . O . O b .|
$$ O O O O O . .|
$$ O X X O . . .|
$$ O X X . . . .|
$$ O X X X X X X|[/go]

For Black a, identify the type. If it is gote, Black b gote dominates.

White White b, identify the type. If it is gote, White a gote dominates.

If one player's one option is a local sente, apply the evaluation theory comparing his gote and sente options.

EDIT: diagram

Oops I suspect you become a little unfair Robert.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . Y Y|
$$ . . . . Y Y .|
$$ . . . . Y . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . O O X a .|
$$ . . O X O b .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

If you add the black marked stone to original position then OC white b is no longer sente.

In addition why did you avoid to add the following white stones?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . Y Y|
$$ . . . . Y Y .|
$$ . . . . Y . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . O O X a .|
$$ . . O X O b .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . Q Q . .|
$$ . . . . Q Q .|
$$ . . . . . Q Q|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

and now the value of black hane at "b" changes also.

BTW let's take simple flashcard 7:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O O O a|
$$ . . . . X X .|
$$ . . . X X . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

Do you think really it is fair to add the following white stones in order to say that black a is not sente?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . Q Q|
$$ . . . . Q Q .|
$$ . . . . Q . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O O O a|
$$ . . . . X X .|
$$ . . . X X . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

Simplifications that are heuristics can be unfair indeed. Add a sufficiently large white dango far in Black's region if you want to make the monkey follow-up there sente (from the initial position, I did not ecpect such but I do not care as long as it is clear). However, maintain that White's region is more valuable and a black monkey or other jump is possible if White tenukies.

I believe I see your point. You consider that the flashcards as they stand are not well-defined because the exact region where black and white can play is not clear => you cannot know all the possible options for black and white at each node of the tree => you cannot run correctly your method due to lack of information.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . X . c|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . O O X . .|
$$ . . O X O b .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

Yes I agree that depending of the black stones you can add at the top of the position, white b can be sente or gote.
By default seeing no adding black stones at the top of the position I assume a very large empty black area. On contrary, by default, you seem to assume a quite small area after adding the black stones you mentionned.

No surprise we can reach two different results!

Flashcard 7

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O O O a|
$$ . . . . X X .|
$$ . . . X X . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

BTW what do you assume for the white area at the top? IOW where are you adding white stones in order to clarify what is the exact area concerned by the flashcard?

Is the following diagram your assumption?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . Q Q|
$$ . . . . Q Q .|
$$ . . . . Q . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O O O a|
$$ . . . . X X .|
$$ . . . X X . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

#7 is ambiguous and further stones should clarify the problem.

OK, if I understand correctly a great number of the flascards are then ambiguous:

Flashcard 6

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . Q Q Q Q Q|
$$ . . Q . . . .|
$$ . . Q , . . .|
$$ . . Q . . . .|
$$ . . Q . . . .|
$$ . . Q . . . .|
$$ . . Q Q O O .|
$$ . . . . O X .|
$$ . . . O X . X|
$$ . O . O X . .|
$$ . . O X X . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$--------------|[/go]

as you can verify adding the marked white stones above is enough to impact the move value of the position => the flashcard is ambiguous!

A problem can be set unambiguously, set pragmatically or accompanied by conventions. Here is an example of a pragmatic problem position:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . O O O .|
$$ . . . . X X .|
$$ . . . X X . .|
$$ X . X . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

In an actual game, a local endgame position might be too complex for reasonably accurate analysis. In this case, one can imagine a simplified position (such as I have shown or some alternative simplification possibly better fitting the game), analyse this and apply it as approximation for the actual position.

Robert, it is more and more obvious that your method is unapplicable in practice though you claim you use it in your own games.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]. . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . . . X . .|
$$ . . O O X . .|
$$ . . O X O . .|
$$ . . . . O . .|
$$ . . . O . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|
$$ . . . . . . .|[/go]

I tried several time to ask you some result of your method on the position above and to summarize, the answer was: the position is too difficult and I cannnot afford to lose one hour of analysis on it, in addition the position is ambiguous because we do not know the exact configuration of stones near the position (at the top and at the bottom of the diagram).
Well fine I accept that.

Then you proposed yourself the following position you qualified as a SIMPLIFIED position which is now not ambiguous.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ simplified
$$ . . X X . X X|
$$ . . X X X X .|
$$ . . X . X . .|
$$ . . X X X . .|
$$ O O O O X a .|
$$ O . O . O b .|
$$ O O O O O . .|
$$ O X X O . . .|
$$ O X X . . . .|
$$ O X X X X X X|[/go]

It's time for you to show us now that you can really apply here your method (without losing an hour of analysis).

Again my question: what is the move value and the count of this position according to your method?

As soon as you give us your results I promise to analyse myself the position and I will give you my own results.

Note: on the other hand be sure I am really convinced that your method is a very good one for a pure theoritical point of view. No doubt in my mind on this point.

I do not know yet if the original position is too difficult or I can analyse my simplified position within one hour. It contains options and I am not fluent on their calculation so I need to look up my theory on them. Written analysis is much slower than analysis by thinking so if I need say 1h in writing and would have refamilisrised myself with the theory for options, it might turn out than then I would be able to analyse a similar simplified position within minutes by thinking. So with fluent awareness of the theory, it becomes a task of a difficulty similar to a slightly demanding L+D problem.

However, I absolutely do need to get KataGo running in the GUI programs. There is no way I can spend 1 hour, which might become several hours, on this endgame problem before. I am very curious to test applicability of my theory on options outside the book examples but I am much more curious about the AI softwares...

I do not ask for a written analysis witch would require one hour of work.
I ONLY ask for the RESULT of your fast analysis by thinking: the move value and the count.

Regardless of your modesty, you need to be patient. Computing comes second and may need some more days. Going out in the sun comes first! (It is a really nice day here but i have not taken one minute outdoors yet.) Today, I have not even had breakfast because of the computer problems... I have the computer for two weeks now and still need to figure out how to use the AIs well. This difficult it is still and accordingly my time is occupied.

No problem Robert. I perfectly understand that your simplied problem is still too difficult to be handled by your method in an acceptable time and now I do not expect any result from you on this position.
Anyway Robert take pleasure with katago.

That you think so does not mean that I think so, see what I have said earlier (priorities on my time etc.). However, this problem has an aspect, of which I am not sure yet whether Bill and my theory covers it: each starting player has two options on the first move. Maybe this aspect dissolves or maybe it puts the problem outside the known theory.