xela wrote:Do you have any other theories?
It is three or four things that you could summarize differently but I'll say it is the following four:
- number of branches
- tree depth
- difficulty refuting the top candidate move in the initial position.
- level or complexity of techniques that are required
The branching factor isn't the same
The first problem can be solved with a single variation that you can verify by discarding the possibility of black having any better moves. Black just doesn't have any real options after the first white move. Well, maybe you could say there are two branches but you might be able to use a shape argument to alleviate the need to check the second branch. The second problem, in contrast, has a much larger number of branches.
The depth of the reading isn't the same
You could solve the first problem with a three move variation or you could do it with a five move variation (and possibly two branches) but then you are done. There is lot more going on in the second problem. Maybe too much to be able to summarize quickly but let me try. If we assume that the first move is a given then I count three branches, then longest is five moves and the average is just over four moves.
It is hard to refute a wrong first move in the second problem
I assumed previously that the first move was a given and talked about the length of the variations in that case. Now, if we start with a wrong move in the second problem, especially when we start with the throw in, we'll need to refute this move. At least we need to convince ourself it's not the most promising move and decide to change horses midstream. Here I find five branches, the average length is six moves and the longest was eight moves. I don't wish to present a convention on how to count such things or convince you that it has to be done my way, someone else could reasonably count differently and that is fine. Refuting the wrong first move would appear to be much more difficult than starting with the right move, which is in turn more difficult than the entire first problem.
The second problem can't be solved without using many different techniques
I guess you might just have to believe me on this one but it also stands to reason that if there are eight branches (five for the wrong first move and three for the correct move) that there are many different techniques in these variations. If there weren't, then there probably wouldn't be different branches to talk of. Of course, it is simpler if you have internalized all of the required techniques. You'd be able to look at the right moves first and that would allow skipping some of the other moves. For example you only need to look at one first move if you start with the right one. If you can identify the right technique every time then you can quickly see what works and what doesn't. In this case you might even avoid laborious case by case analysis if your solution rests on good insight, which are really just good arguments.
The second problem could for some feel like it was solved instantaneously. That you just know the answers or are able to see them and there is nothing more to think about. It could be a prevalent attitude, there are so many dan players on L19 these days and the kyu players appear to be unusually good at tsumego. Not everyone will, however, find it as easy as drinking a glass of water (that is an English idiom, right? google seems to think it isn't). It really is a more difficult problem!
