This 'n' that

Talk about improving your game, resources you like, games you played, etc.
Post Reply
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

skydyr wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
skydyr wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ Black by 1
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 1 O X 5 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 4 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 2 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 6 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ Black is quite ahead
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 2 O O 1 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 5 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 3 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 4 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White by one
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 5 O O 2 O X 4 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 3 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 6 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White by 2.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 2 O O 1 O X 6 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 5 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 3 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 4 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White by one.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 1 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 4 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 2 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 5 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Black by 2
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 2 O O 1 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X . X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 4 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 3 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


I feel like I must be missing something, unless it's that the ko is bigger for one side than the other?


You show a number of variations, but do not explicitly answer the questions. :)

For extra credit, evaluate the three gote and the ko. :)

The leftmost play at A7 is 4 points gote for either side.
The next one over at D7 is 5 points gote for either side.
The lower play at G1 is 2 points gote for either side. However, if black takes it, it creates a 5 point ko threat for black.
The ko, if white fills it, saves 6 points and creates a one point sente followup. If black fills it, he takes all 7 points, but he does so over two moves, so each move is 3.5 points. However, the two left side plays are miai-ish and both more valuable than 3.5 points.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ :w4: at marked, :w6: at :w1: White by 1
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 2 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 7 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 W X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 5 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


I suppose the crux of it is that the ko is worth less than either of the two plays on the left, but that they can be used as ko threats because they are almost miai, being a net gain of 1 point for the first side to play and more valuable than an individual move for black in the ko. Also, the total value of the two moves is equal to the total value of the ko and G7.

White has an advantage in the ko in being able to finish it in one move rather than two, as can be seen when white fills the ko for the first move and wins, but black can't take the ko first and win. So, as mentioned earlier, black has to play out the miai-ish moves on the left first. Once black starts that, though, white's play to fill the ko is 7 points vs. 4 points for the gote at A7.

Black starts out 3 points ahead without counting any of the moves, so white has to gain 4 points on black to win but has no ko threats. However, due to the ko, black is 3.5 points behind white locally, and really only half a point ahead before play commences. The key for black is to clear the ko threats first, while white needs to fill first due to the lack of ko threats.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ Best for black, victory by 1
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 1 O X 5 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 4 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 2 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 6 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Best for white, victory by 1\n :b2: and :w3: can be exchanged
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 5 O O 2 O X 4 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 3 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 6 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

If white lets black play at :w1:, black can trade A7 for G1 and the ko threat is enough to win the ko later.

It's hard to use words to explain what's going on, I find. Perhaps it's best to say that every other move on the board affects the value of the ko, or that there's a value that's attached to the ko threat black can create, but it's very hard to define.

Maybe the best way is to say that the two sides appear equal, but white needs to remove the value of the potential ko threat while black needs to create it. However, playing the move that creates the threat isn't valuable enough to play so it needs to be dealt with indirectly. This seems to miss the single/double move required for the ko though.

Did I miss anything? How would you explain this?


Thanks. :)

Actually, things are simpler than you suppose. :)

Also, to compare the ko with swing values of the gote, you take 2/3 of the ko swing, which gives you 4 2/3, slightly less than the swing value of the largest gote, and more than the swing value of the second largest gote.

I'll save further discussion for a while, to give others, if any, a chance to respond. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
skydyr
Oza
Posts: 2495
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:06 am
GD Posts: 0
Universal go server handle: skydyr
Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
Location: DC
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 436 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by skydyr »

Bill Spight wrote:
Actually, things are simpler than you suppose. :)

Also, to compare the ko with swing values of the gote, you take 2/3 of the ko swing, which gives you 4 2/3, slightly less than the swing value of the largest gote, and more than the swing value of the second largest gote.

I'll save further discussion for a while, to give others, if any, a chance to respond. :)


I eagerly await your more detailed explanation. Why 2/3, for example, and do you see the threat black can create as relevant or not?

Wouldn't evaluating at 2/3 imply that white should start with the 5 point move, black takes the 4 2/3 point ko, white takes the 4 point move, and black takes the 2 point move and wins due to the threat? Alternatively, white takes the 5, black the ko, white the 2, then black the 4, and white retakes to win, or black finishes the ko, and white takes the 4 to win, but then how do you value the G7 gote to get things to add up?
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

skydyr wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Actually, things are simpler than you suppose. :)

Also, to compare the ko with swing values of the gote, you take 2/3 of the ko swing, which gives you 4 2/3, slightly less than the swing value of the largest gote, and more than the swing value of the second largest gote.

I'll save further discussion for a while, to give others, if any, a chance to respond. :)


I eagerly await your more detailed explanation. Why 2/3, for example, and do you see the threat black can create as relevant or not?

Wouldn't evaluating at 2/3 imply that white should start with the 5 point move, black takes the 4 2/3 point ko, white takes the 4 point move, and black takes the 2 point move and wins due to the threat? Alternatively, white takes the 5, black the ko, white the 2, then black the 4, and white retakes to win, or black finishes the ko, and white takes the 4 to win, but then how do you value the G7 gote to get things to add up?


Why 2/3? Because the swing for a gote takes 2 moves, while the swing for a simple ko takes 3 moves. This may be easier to understand in terms of how much each move gains on average. A gote move gains 1/2 of the swing; a ko move gains 1/3 of the swing.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | . O O . O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X . X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O . O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X . X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Black to play. What result with best play?


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 1 O X 5 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 4 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O 7 O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 2 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 6 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Result: Black +1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 4 O O 2 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 3 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 5 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Result: Black +1

White to play. What result with best play?


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 1 O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 4 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 2 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 5 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Result: White +1

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | 3 O O 2 O X 6 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 5 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O 7 O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X 4 X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


Result: White +1

:)

Is it better to take the largest gote or to play in the ko? It does not matter. :)

Obviously, I constructed the board that way, but the position is not particularly unusual. On a larger board, with more plays in the environment, it would look even more normal. That was my point, to show a fairly normal position where playing the ko was equivalent to taking the largest gote.

How much does taking the largest gote gain? If Black takes it the local result is 0, if White takes it it is 5 points for White. We may write that as {0|−5}. Black moves to positions to the left of the bar and White moves to positions to the right of the bar. The score is from Black's point of view, so 5 points for White is −5 points for Black. The value of the original gote position is −5/2, or −2.5, and each move in the gote gains 2.5.

The ko is a little tricky to evaluate. First suppose that White wins the ko.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | . O O . O X 4 X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 3 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X . X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


:w1: wins the ko and later :w3: - :b4: is a sente sequence, which we assume that White will be able to play. The local result is 0.

Now suppose that Black takes and wins the ko.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | . O O . O X C X . |
$$ | X X O X O X 3 X . |
$$ | O O O X O X W X . |
$$ | . . O . O X W X X |
$$ | . O . O O O 1 W X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X . X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


The local result is 7 points for Black, the three :wc: stones plus the empty point, :ec:.

The original ko position is worth −2 1/3, and each move in the ko gains 2 1/3 points.

2 1/3 is a little less than 2.5, yet the two plays are in this case equivalent. As I mentioned earlier, a small komonster effect is normal. :)

Gotta run. More later. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

OK. The above study illustrates the equation,

Code: Select all

K = G + t


where K is the swing value of the ko, G is the swing value of the largest gote, and t is the (ambient) temperature of the environment. The ko and gote are the only plays hotter than the environment. That is, K > 3t and G > 2t. K = 7 and G = 5, so t = 2. If the ambient temperature is 2, then the player to move is indifferent between taking the gote and making a ko move. If t > 2 then the player takes the gote; if t < 2 then the player makes a ko play.

It may not be obvious why we may consider the temperature to be 2 on this board. After all, we can read the whole play out at temperature 0. Well, we can do that, but it would have been tedious and error-prone for me to provide a realistic environment at temperature 2 that it would have been impractical to read out. So I took a short cut. ;)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$ Japanese rules. No komi.
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . O X X . . . |
$$ | X X X X O X O X . |
$$ | . O O . O X . X . |
$$ | X X O X O X . X . |
$$ | O O O X O X O X . |
$$ | . . O . O X O X X |
$$ | . O . O O O . O X |
$$ | . . . O . O O X X |
$$ | . . . . O X . X . |
$$ ------------------[/go]


The swing values for the second and third hottest gote are 4 and 2, respectively. If we takes the second largest gote as the hottest play in the environment, then the temperature is 2, which is how much a play in that gote gains.

First, let us look at the case where Black to play can take the ko. As we can see from the sequences in the previous note, all of the plays change hands. At temperature 0 we have this equation:

Code: Select all

7 = 5 + 4 − 2 = 5 + 2


Check. :)

Now let us look at the case where White to play can win the ko. In each sequence White gets the second hottest gote, so it does not figure into the calculations. At temperature 0 we have this equation:

Code: Select all

7 = 5 + 2


Check. :)

The trick is to have the third largest gote be half the size of the second largest gote. Doing so yields an effective temperature in our equation of 2. (This is the trick behind button go, BTW. :D ) On a larger board I could have had a more normal environment with plays having swing values of 4, 3, 2, and 1, to the same effect, but the space on the 9x9 is cramped, so I used that trick. ;)

Aside from the equation, what is the takeaway from all this? Note that the player to move makes a ko play when t is small enough (and K > G). To put it another way, when G is significantly hotter than 2t. OC, we may see that G is significantly hotter than 2t by inspection, but there is a time when we expect G to be hotter than 2t, when the opponent has just played a ko threat and we have to decide whether to answer it or not. If neither player has any other threats at that point, then the above comparison may be our guide.

Now, when I was learning go the rule of thumb was this. Answer a ko threat when G > 2K/3, that is, when a play in the threat gains more than a play in the ko, on average. But often we should ignore such a threat. G > K − t is a better guide. (And it is even better to take other threats into account if possible, as we shall see. :D )
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
Kirby
Honinbo
Posts: 9553
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1707 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Kirby »

Hey, Bill. I don't mean to detract from the discussion, but I was wondering if you ever considered writing a book on this material. The topic seems deep enough that you'd have enough material.
be immersed
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

Kirby wrote:Hey, Bill. I don't mean to detract from the discussion, but I was wondering if you ever considered writing a book on this material. The topic seems deep enough that you'd have enough material.


Thanks, Kirby. I appreciate the encouragement. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
Kirby
Honinbo
Posts: 9553
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1707 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Kirby »

Bill Spight wrote:
Kirby wrote:Hey, Bill. I don't mean to detract from the discussion, but I was wondering if you ever considered writing a book on this material. The topic seems deep enough that you'd have enough material.


Thanks, Kirby. I appreciate the encouragement. :)


No problem... I'll take that as a "Yes" :-)
be immersed
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

To continue the discussion of ko and the environment I need to move to larger boards. :) So today let me introduce a new topic:

Sente and gote

In a way, I was fortunate that the second go book I bought was Korschelt's The Theory and Practice of Go. (The first was Edward Laker's, Go and Go-Moku.) For some strange reason through the double translation from Japanese to German to English, sente became Upper Hand. However, Korschelt was clear that good players tried to take and keep Upper Hand. ;) So I avoided the beginner's trap of following White around the board. :) OC, that meant that a lot of my groups died, but ç'est la vie! ;) Or ç'est la guerre.

Later on, when I was around 3 kyu, I learned that good players also tried to get the Last Play (tedomari) not just at the end of the game, but at earlier stages of the game, as well, such as the opening. OC, if you get the last play of the opening, you give up sente, so those two principles are apparently at odds. There is a go proverb that attempts to reconcile them by saying "Tedomari is worth sente." Sorry folks, but, unlike most go proverbs, that one is just misleading. I'll explain why in a later note. :)

Now, the idea of taking and keeping sente hearkens to the meaning of sente as the initiative. (I think that that would have been a better translation, even though one meaning of te is hand. ;))
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
John Fairbairn
Oza
Posts: 3724
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 4672 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by John Fairbairn »

"Tedomari is worth sente."


I've never come across this in any language. Is it perchance a western invention, Bill?

OC, if you get the last play of the opening, you give up sente,


I await the promised explanation, but I don't mind admitting that I for one do not yet see why "OC". Imagine an alleyway with Batman at one end and the Joker in the middle. If Robin gets the last big point by blocking the other end of the alley, Batman and Robin surely have the initiative (i.e. sente). The Joker has to respond. But if the Joker's accomplice got to the end point of the alley before Robin, the pressure's off. In general it seems that a tedomari in the opening does imply a threat or a follow up. Because the board is so open at this stage, the opponent can naturally decide to ignore the tedomari's threats, but that doesn't seem automatically to confer the initiative on him. At best he may get a local initiative, but the whole-board initiative surely still rests with the guy who got the tedomari.
Top
xed_over
Oza
Posts: 2264
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:51 am
Has thanked: 1179 times
Been thanked: 553 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by xed_over »

Bill Spight wrote: through the double translation from Japanese to German to English, sente became Upper Hand.

I haven't seen or heard that one before. I like it. I even like it better than initiative. I'm going to start using that one.

What did gote become from German to English?
The best I can think of off the top of my head might be, backhand, afterplay, fall back. None of those feel quite right to me yet
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

xed_over wrote:
Bill Spight wrote: through the double translation from Japanese to German to English, sente became Upper Hand.

I haven't seen or heard that one before. I like it. I even like it better than initiative. I'm going to start using that one.

What did gote become from German to English?
The best I can think of off the top of my head might be, backhand, afterplay, fall back. None of those feel quite right to me yet


I scanned my Korschelt and did not find a word for gote. In the section on endgame plays, he (or the English translators) referred to a gote sequence as Upperhand lost, or U. L., and a sente sequence as Upperhand retained, or U. R. (I misremembered how they spelled Upperhand. ;))
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
Kirby
Honinbo
Posts: 9553
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:04 pm
GD Posts: 0
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Has thanked: 1583 times
Been thanked: 1707 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Kirby »

xed_over wrote:I haven't seen or heard that one before. I like it. I even like it better than initiative.


A bit off topic, but I agree that 'initiative' and 'sente' are different. To me, 'initiative' is like controlling the flow of the game, even if you periodically end in gote.
be immersed
Top
Bill Spight
Honinbo
Posts: 10905
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
Has thanked: 3651 times
Been thanked: 3373 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by Bill Spight »

John Fairbairn wrote:
"Tedomari is worth sente."


I've never come across this in any language. Is it perchance a western invention, Bill?


I thought that I read it in a book by Sakata. Anyway, it was before Ishi Press. (BTW, I brought the first Ishi Press books to the U. S. Bozulich gave me some to hand out before publication. :)) I am glad that it was not widely disseminated. As I said, it is misleading.

OC, if you get the last play of the opening, you give up sente,


I await the promised explanation, but I don't mind admitting that I for one do not yet see why "OC".

{snip}

In general it seems that a tedomari in the opening does imply a threat or a follow up. Because the board is so open at this stage, the opponent can naturally decide to ignore the tedomari's threats, but that doesn't seem automatically to confer the initiative on him. At best he may get a local initiative, but the whole-board initiative surely still rests with the guy who got the tedomari.


Fortunately, sente is more precise than initiative. :) Even gote can carry threats. Globally, as long as there are plays to be made, each play, whatever we call it, threatens to play them. With regard to those threats, the distinction between sente and gote does not matter. In chess, with its relatively limited scope, the initiative has a good bit to do with attack and defense, the attacker having the initiative. In go, with its wider scope, sente (in its sense as Upperhand ;)) has more to do with shifting the scene of battle, causing the opponent to make the last play (gote) in some local area, at least for now.

Carrying a threat can confer initiative, but it is not enough to make a play sente. :)
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.
Top
John Fairbairn
Oza
Posts: 3724
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:09 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 4672 times

Re: This 'n' that

Post by John Fairbairn »

Carrying a threat can confer initiative, but it is not enough to make a play sente.


I agree, though the way I read what you said I thought you were promoting "initiative" for sente.

Didn't Korschelt use Nachhand for gote in his journal version? In English the most idiomatic equivalents seem to be at t'other end of the body: front foot and back foot. To cricket fans especially these seem to convey just the right nuances that "initiative" (too military/strategic?) misses.

It won't be to the taste of many people here, but the Greek tragedicians came up with rather interesting sente/gote equivalents in protagonist and deuteragonist. I have pointed out Shuho's apparent affinity with the ancient Greeks in another connection :)

There is of course also the possibility of using the terms embedded in the legal definition of sente: Whereas the party of the first part hereinafter referred to as Player A may execute a move in a manner so stipulated in the regulations with such effect that the party of the second part hereinafter referred to as Player B gets the heebie jeebies and insofar as aforesaid Pro B responds like a wimp said party of the first part shall be deemed notwithstanding any temporary unrelated responses by aforesaid Player B to have retained his status as the party of the first part and such status shall continue until the party of the second part grows a pair provided said pair is of magnitude at least equal to the magnitude of the conformable appurtenances of current party of the first part.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Amateurs”