RobertJasiek wrote:
"M < Fb, Fw are true for the game {18 | 4 || 0 | -14}."
You wrongly read M < Fb, Fw when I write M > Fb, Fw <=> 9 > 7, 7.
Not < but > !
why you did not comment my post
https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=260758#p260758 ?
In my diagram you can see that
n = score when black plays first - score when white plays first.
For the game {18 | 4 || 0 | -14} that means n = 4 - 0 = 4
which is in line with my common go language for such situation : 4 points in double sente, the two threats 18-4 and 0 - (-14) being far bigger.
When you write
M := the move value in the initial local endgame position.
Fb := the move value in the follow-up position created after Black's start.
Fw := the move value in the follow-up position created after White's start.
if, for the environment {18 | 4 || 0 | -14}, you define M = (18-4)/2 - (0 -(-14))/7 = 9 its completly differnent and in fact you defined something that does not exist. I agree with you in that case
As I try to explain my suggestion is not to create a definition of an object which do not exist but to create a definition which could make sense to a lot of go players including the best ones.
It cannot harm to add such definition: the theory cannot change because we add a defintion can it?
I am not sure it is that difficult to find a good defintion. OC you begin by asking to go players what they call double sente move, with their go player language and then I am quite sure you will be able to find a precise defintion which fit this common understanding.
With my suggestion I only try to translate my feeling concerning a so called double sente but we have to be open to discussion.
The example I gave was really made in the context of my suggestion Robert but we can also try another defintion provided it looks like the common understanding of double sente in the go player language (not perfect of course but that's life).
In any case I am pretty sure go player will be quite satisfied to recognised such notion she knows and uses for years.
Here again, why not try if it could not harm?