Life In 19x19

So I just got started with Contact Fights and it looks great so far. What does it mean to "lose a liberty in sente"?

saxmaam wrote:So I just got started with Contact Fights and it looks great so far. What does it mean to "lose a liberty in sente"?

If you are asking about definitions, perhaps this would be helpful http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Go/Lesson_ ... l_concepts

In general, a move that reduces the liberties of an opposing group is sente if the opponent must respond to the threat. (Sometimes the opponent can ignore the threat to make an even stronger threat of their own.) For more than this, I would need to know the exact context. If you are still unclear, or my response doesn't seem to apply, let me know exactly where to find the usage in Contact Fights.

Aidoneus wrote:If you are asking about definitions, perhaps this would be helpful http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Go/Lesson_ ... l_concepts

I've got the basic idea of sente and gote:

I have sente - I'm pushing someone else around
I am in gote - I'm being pushed around.

But some of the statements I read don't make sense to me yet.

The section is "Counting with Connections" (page 20)

"When your string links to another string and your opponent can push on that link (...), then you will lose a liberty in sente."

It seems that I would be in gote when I lose that liberty. The examples certainly look like something I'd want to respond to.

saxmaam wrote:

Aidoneus wrote:If you are asking about definitions, perhaps this would be helpful http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Go/Lesson_ ... l_concepts

I've got the basic idea of sente and gote:

I have sente - I'm pushing someone else around
I am in gote - I'm being pushed around.

But some of the statements I read don't make sense to me yet.

The section is "Counting with Connections" (page 20)

"When your string links to another string and your opponent can push on that link (...), then you will lose a liberty in sente."

It seems that I would be in gote when I lose that liberty. The examples certainly look like something I'd want to respond to.

You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.

In semeais or similar, liberty-tight situations both players have just gote plays to remove liberties from each other.

RBerenguel wrote:You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.

So the text is just in error, then?

saxmaam wrote:

RBerenguel wrote:You are not the one with sente in that example. The opponent threatens the cut (playing sente) you defend, while losing 1 liberty. Since it's again opp's turn, he has still sente and you lost a liberty.

So the text is just in error, then?

No, you lose a liberty in sente, this is the way it's expressed. The point of the phrase is that: you are not supposed to lose liberties in sente, but in gote (your opponent's gote). In other words, semeais in this case should be gote for both players. Since one got away with sente, it is different and should be remarked.

No, "in Sente" is just the way to describe a sequence of moves where a certain player still has Sente after the sequence ended. Which player is meant has to be read from the context.

The opponent has Sente and threatens to cut you, you defend and it's your opponent's move again. So he forced you to lose a liberty in Sente. Your defense on the other hand was in Gote - the defense started with your move and after that move your opponent is free to play somewhere else.

Never thought about that before, I hope it makes sense ^^

SoDesuNe wrote:No, "in Sente" is just the way to describe a sequence of moves where a certain player still has Sente after the sequence ended. Which player is meant has to be read from the context.

The opponent has Sente and threatens to cut you, you defend and it's your opponent's move again. So he forced you to lose a liberty in Sente. Your defense on the other hand was in Gote - the defense started with your move and after that move your opponent is free to play somewhere else.

Never thought about that before, I hope it makes sense ^^

Same here, it's hard to explain I guess you just get used to it

So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.

saxmaam wrote:So the loss was mine, but the state (sente) belonged to my opponent. It'll take me some time to get my head around that.

The subject of the first clause is the opponent pushing on your link, so while the liberty loss refers to you, the sente refers to the opponent who would begin the sequence to which you must respond in gote.

Edit: Maybe I am just used to seeing it written that way now. If I think about it too much I may get confused, too.

Perhaps this way of looking at it will help: replace "in sente" with "for free". "A problem with bamboo joints is your opponent can take a liberty in sente" => "A problem with bamboo joints is your opponent can take a liberty for free". In Go we take turns to play stones which (hopefully!) achieve something. The stone gains something (some territory, eyes, influence, strength, taking a liberty in a semeai, whatever) and costs you a move to do so. If you play a move and your opponent answers it and your move achieves more than your opponent's move then you gained something without the usual cost of playing a move: it's your turn again. So doing useful things in sente is like getting things for free. This is why weak groups are bad and attacking is good (usually): in a skilful attack the attacker gains more with his attacking move than the defender does with his defensive move: he gains for free and this can continue for many moves. But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).

Uberdude wrote:But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).

On the subject of capturing races, one thing to be very careful about is playing a move that is sente (that your opponent must respond to) but which removes a liberty from YOU.

skydyr wrote:

Uberdude wrote:But be careful, there is nothing inherently good about "in sente": if your move achieves less than your opponent's answer then you lost rather than gained something for free (e.g. thank you moves).

On the subject of capturing races, one thing to be very careful about is playing a move that is sente (that your opponent must respond to) but which removes a liberty from YOU.

For example: white 10 here: viewtopic.php?p=167325#p167325

saxmaam wrote:The section is "Counting with Connections" (page 20)
"When your string links to another string and your opponent can push on that link (...), then you will lose a liberty in sente."

So the text is just in error, then?

Hi saxmaam,

You asked a good question. Here are my 2 cents:

I think in this case the text was poorly phrased.

I'm guessing the writer meant to express that in some cases (for certain shapes),
your opponent can reduce one of your liberties in sente -- in his sente.
Would this be more clear for you ?

So, the above rephrased, more general form:
"If <some conditions>, and your opponent can <play a sequence that you must reply>,
then your opponent can reduce your liberties in sente -- in his sente."

Example A (of phrasing).To add to what Uberdude said, there are good sente moves and bad sente moves.
Just because a move is sente says nothing about whether it's good or bad.
Example A above shows an example of a bad sente move for Black.

EdLee wrote:So, the above rephrased, more general form:
"If <some conditions>, and your opponent can <play a sequence that you must reply>,
then your opponent can reduce your liberties in sente -- in his sente."

Now that I can parse!