Life In 19x19

skydyr wrote:If you can be relatively certain of a kill, then by all means go for it, but it takes experience to tell when one can be relatively certain of a good result without being able to read to the end of the sequences.

Boiled down to the most basic game theory, it's an exercise in risk and reward. This applies both to the result of the game (winning and losing) and the take-away from the game (what you learn).

"Screw it, if I kill this group I win and if I fail to kill it I lose. I'll take my chances," is usually the wrong assessment of risk vs. reward options in a situation where you can't read the kill and the game is too close to count. If the game is too close to count, then you only need a small advantage to win. If you can get that modest advantage for little / no risk then game theory says you shouldn't be taking a huge risk to try and win by resignation.

Marty Lund

A modest lead a move 100 does not mean you will have a modest lead at move 300. A resignation at move 100 means there is no move 300.

@skydyr, sure some people try to kill too much, but others don't do it enough.

Uberdude wrote:A modest lead a move 100 does not mean you will have a modest lead at move 300. A resignation at move 100 means there is no move 300...

True enough. If you try and fail to kill, hence have to resign early, then you never have to find out whether you could have nursed your lead through to the end. Oh, wait! That was Kirby's original point.

ez4u wrote:

Uberdude wrote:A modest lead a move 100 does not mean you will have a modest lead at move 300. A resignation at move 100 means there is no move 300...

True enough. If you try and fail to kill, hence have to resign early, then you never have to find out whether you could have nursed your lead through to the end. Oh, wait! That was Kirby's original point.

My post was not about those situations Kirby mentioned where you chase them through your territory and lose if you fail to kill (if I failed to kill in my game I posted I wouldn't need to resign), but was in response to:

mlund wrote:I've been taught never to try to kill unless it is a last resort. "Do or do not - there is no try," as Yoda says. When a group's life is actually in question, I make profit forcing it to live. Diving in on a gamble kill is something I'm only supposed to do if I'm otherwise so far behind I can't salvage the game. If I win because I killed something that I couldn't read the kill on, I've already failed my strategic objectives for this game and the important take-aways in the review will have nothing to do with this attempted kill.

Trust your instincts, Kirby. Backed up by reading, of course.

If you make a move that you think your opponent must defend against, and they thumb their nose at you and tenuki, then kill the group. That is fighting spirit. And for sure, at least one of you will learn something.

Did you know that "taking your chance" often has a completely different meaning in Britain than America?

In Britain it can mean you had an opportunity, and you took advantage of it. I often hear it in football commentaries, when a player has a clear scoring opportunity and fails, announcers will often exclaim something like, "You simply must take your chance in this situation!"

In the U.S., it merely means taking the risk in the first place, irregardless of whether you succeed.

Dont even get me started on "tabling a motion" having opposite meanings in the two nations. Languages are weird.

Uberdude wrote:

ez4u wrote:

Uberdude wrote:A modest lead a move 100 does not mean you will have a modest lead at move 300. A resignation at move 100 means there is no move 300...

True enough. If you try and fail to kill, hence have to resign early, then you never have to find out whether you could have nursed your lead through to the end. Oh, wait! That was Kirby's original point.

My post was not about those situations Kirby mentioned where you chase them through your territory and lose if you fail to kill (if I failed to kill in my game I posted I wouldn't need to resign), but was in response to:

mlund wrote:I've been taught never to try to kill unless it is a last resort. "Do or do not - there is no try," as Yoda says. When a group's life is actually in question, I make profit forcing it to live. Diving in on a gamble kill is something I'm only supposed to do if I'm otherwise so far behind I can't salvage the game. If I win because I killed something that I couldn't read the kill on, I've already failed my strategic objectives for this game and the important take-aways in the review will have nothing to do with this attempted kill.

I admit that you would know best what your post was in answer to. That said( ), you seem to be replying to

mlund wrote:I've been taught never to try to kill unless it is a last resort...

without the rest of the thought.

mlund wrote:... "Do or do not - there is no try," as Yoda says. When a group's life is actually in question, I make profit forcing it to live. Diving in on a gamble kill is something I'm only supposed to do if I'm otherwise so far behind I can't salvage the game. If I win because I killed something that I couldn't read the kill on, I've already failed my strategic objectives for this game and the important take-aways in the review will have nothing to do with this attempted kill.

[Italics added]
I don't see anything here about zen or philosophy. Rather I see a very practical and hard-headed reply to the OP. Thanks for posting your off-topic game Uberdude, it led me to go back and read mlund's post carefully, which I hadn't done before.

wineandgolover wrote:Did you know that "taking your chance" often has a completely different meaning in Britain than America?

In Britain it can mean you had an opportunity, and you took advantage of it. I often hear it in football commentaries, when a player has a clear scoring opportunity and fails, announcers will often exclaim something like, "You simply must take your chance in this situation!"

In the U.S., it merely means taking the risk in the first place, irregardless of whether you succeed.

In my dialect (Southern US) "taking your chance" usually means seizing your opportunity. "Taking a chance" means taking a risk. "Taking chances" (plural) means taking risks, and "taking your chances" also usually means taking risks. (But I interpreted the title correctly, anyway. )

And don't get me started on irregardless.

ez4u wrote:I don't see anything here about zen or philosophy. Rather I see a very practical and hard-headed reply to the OP. Thanks for posting your off-topic game Uberdude, it led me to go back and read mlund's post carefully, which I hadn't done before.

To be less hard-headed about the OP's question, I guess my personal equation is probably X (estimated chance to win by kill attempt that loses the game if it fails) / Y (estimated chance to win without kill attempt) > 1.25 or so. That 0.25 weighting is based on the value I put on the learning experience. If it was a matter of literal life-and-death then is is X/Y > 1 - whatever is most likely to win.

I think the key point for me was that just moving to end-game in a game that's too close to score when there's a group that could feasibly be killed suggests an inaccurate valuation of Y. If it can be killed, then it can be forced to live. Y = 0.5 moving to the end-game without forcing the group to live then squeezing that group should raise the value of Y to > 0.5. For me that probably makes an unreadable kill against an opponent of equal skill unlikely to have an X value of 66+%, which is what I'd need to break the 1.25 ratio barrier.

Bill Splight wrote:In my dialect (Southern US) "taking your chance" usually means seizing your opportunity. "Taking a chance" means taking a risk. "Taking chances" (plural) means taking risks, and "taking your chances" also usually means taking risks. (But I interpreted the title correctly, anyway. )

I grew up around Boston and live in Phoenix now.

"I'll take my chances," means (to me) that someone has been made aware of the inherent risks involved in a voluntary behavior (mountain climbing, sky diving, drag racing, etc.) and is going to take the gamble / risk anyway, accepting whatever the consequences may be. I think this meaning is derived from the old saying, "You pays your money and you takes your chances," used to refer to buying "as-is" merchandise that may or may not work / yield adequate value. Similar idioms would be, "It's a craps shoot," referring to the practice of gambling with dice. The key theme here is taking a gamble on losing what you already have in hand.

Also, in any movie the phrase, "I'll take my chances," has an immediate implication. If the character making the statement is the primary antagonist or protagonist then he's going to do something brash despite someone's warning and look like a fearless badass doing so. If the character is disposable he or she will meet an immediate, horrific demise before the conclusion of his or her next scene. If the genre is comedy or horror expect the unfortunate soul to die within the next 30 seconds.

"Now's your chance," is the phrase I associate more with opportunity - an opening. This would be for things like a minor-league pitcher or an understudy getting called up to the big-time or the company CEO stepping onto the elevator with you when you want to pitch a project. I think it's also how the Japanese seem to use the loan-word from English. The key part here is that you aren't gambling, but rather just pressing an opportunity. Generally all you have to lose there is your pride.

Marty Lund

mlund wrote:

ez4u wrote:I don't see anything here about zen or philosophy. Rather I see a very practical and hard-headed reply to the OP. Thanks for posting your off-topic game Uberdude, it led me to go back and read mlund's post carefully, which I hadn't done before.

To be less hard-headed about the OP's question, I guess my personal equation is probably X (estimated chance to win by kill attempt that loses the game if it fails) / Y (estimated chance to win without kill attempt) > 1.25 or so. That 0.25 weighting is based on the value I put on the learning experience. If it was a matter of literal life-and-death then is is X/Y > 1 - whatever is most likely to win.

I think the key point for me was that just moving to end-game in a game that's too close to score when there's a group that could feasibly be killed suggests an inaccurate valuation of Y. If it can be killed, then it can be forced to live. Y = 0.5 moving to the end-game without forcing the group to live then squeezing that group should raise the value of Y to > 0.5. For me that probably makes an unreadable kill against an opponent of equal skill unlikely to have an X value of 66+%, which is what I'd need to break the 1.25 ratio barrier.

It could be that you were losing before he ignored the threat. If you force him to live, the game will be close, but if you kill him, you will win for sure.

mlund wrote:"Now's your chance," is the phrase I associate more with opportunity - an opening. This would be for things like a minor-league pitcher or an understudy getting called up to the big-time or the company CEO stepping onto the elevator with you when you want to pitch a project. I think it's also how the Japanese seem to use the loan-word from English. The key part here is that you aren't gambling, but rather just pressing an opportunity. Generally all you have to lose there is your pride.

That reminded me. At the Nihon Kiin I happened to overhear Takagawa saying to another professional, "Ore no saigo no chansu da." (It's my last chance.)