gowan wrote:"Most severe" doesn't do it because "severe" itself isn't clearly defined.
The way I've seen it used is that you try to gain the most points or benefit from your move ignoring the fact that a simpler move may be enough to guarantee victory. In a post game discussion during the Asia TV match there was discussion about Iyama playing a simple strong endgame move where a more severe move may have ended the game. Since he wasn't sure of the result of the more severe move, he played the simple move.
Another way of thinking about it is that the 'best' move is a different kind of move in different situations. It may well be that the position is such that a spirited fighting move is the only way to reclaim the lead. When Lee Changho lost to the very young Shin Jinseo, the game was a dynamic one, despite Lee's best efforts. This took him out of his comfort zone and he ended up making a mistake.
Humans have a very limited capacity as far as reading out complex game trees with many candidate moves is involved. This is why we use generalized terms such as 'thickness' and 'influence' to dictate 'best' play. The best way to play within these parameters could only be correctly assessed by some god or maybe a supercomputer. As far as humans are concerned, we do our best with reading and positional analysis, and experience helps a lot here.
Since there is a lot of uncertainty left in Go, among other factors this gives rise to 'styles' and other such specialization. Because we can't crack it, the game is still a very psychological one, and skill specialization remains important.
kwhyte wrote:My guess is that this second, more practical version is what most pros try for. I'm curious about those that don't.
So, you are looking for a professional who completely lacks fighting spirit? Good luck with that.
I think for a while Kang Tong-yun would resign games he was losing by even a half a point. That shows a lot of respect for the level of his opponents' play.
