I look forward to more endgame books, Bill's or Robert's. I will buy them. It is the weakest part of the literature in English and it makes a difference to one's strength. Beyond that, it makes a difference to the enjoyment of the game. A proper game of go, unless it ends early, is a protracted struggle and in the struggle comes much of its satisfaction. A lot of us in the West fight vigorously till all the major questions are decided and then, lacking the tools to keep at it, wander vaguely through the process of cleaning up the boundaries with little understanding of the opportunities. Then we count up wondering till the last moment who won.
At least two books are called for, the complete theory based in CGT and the practical playing guide.
karaklis wrote:
But at the end it is one point or none, depending on whether the opponent responds to your move or not. At the end Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive and not in a state between.
And yet QM is correct. Yes, a measurement produces an allowed answer not a state in between, but the states in between are the central feature of QM and its usefulness as a theory, not the fate of the cat, is the main thing. CGT and QM are not the only fields revolutionized by mixed answers. Game theory's central result involves equilibria in mixed strategies, even though "at the end" you only get to pick one strategy. Sometimes the correct choice is to turn your choice over to a deck of cards. I don't know much about fuzzy logic, but gather than decision rules and deductions can be made better by modelling binary things with uncertainty.
I think fractions, correctly calculated, belong in go to the degree it is practical for us to calculate them.