Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:46 am
Haha... that approach to numbering on diagrams does seem... how to put it politely... a programmer's idea 
Life In 19x19
Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
A strange Fuseki move
Page 2 of 2
Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:10 am
No, a programmer would definitely make you start counting from 0.
Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:20 am
palapiku wrote:Haha... that approach to numbering on diagrams does seem... how to put it politely... a programmer's idea
When I first proposed it, I suggested the numbers should follow the last digit, so if you wanted 13,14,15..20,21,22 you would use m13 and in the diagram use 3,4,5...0,1,2. But it was decide that the current implementation was better, because there are many existing diagrams on Sensei's Library that would be much easier to convert. Before the option to go above 10 existed at all, it was common practice to just start follow-up diagrams at 1 again (what other option was there, after all?). With this implementation, all you would have to do to update it is to add something like "m8" at the top to have it number from 8 instead. With my proposal, you would additionally have to renumber the whole diagram.
Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:44 am
RobertJasiek wrote:OMG, I need to write 1, 2, 3 to get 8, 9, 10? Terrible!
See other post
How do I do it for diagrams with more than 10 plays?
This is not possible. It has been discussed before also on SL. The basic reason is that the diagramming software was deliberately kept extremely simple with a 1-to-1 mapping of characters to intersections. A more complicated scheme would be possible, of course, but you have to weigh the pros (experienced diagram editors can create more complex diagrams) with the cons (it is harder for beginning editors to start making diagrams).
An additional benefit, IMO, is that this forces editors to keep diagrams short. Diagrams with dozens of moves are often almost impossible to follow, especially for weaker players who do not have as much experience visualizing deep variations in their heads. Of course, 10 may not be the ideal cutoff point for the number of moves, but you can give yourself some leeway with other markup. E.g:
Here's a common 3-3 invasion joseki that comprises 13 moves if we count the initial 4-4:
After the invasion
, black blocks on the top with 
, the joseki then goes like this. By using markup like
, in combination with an explanatory text like this, you can fit the 13 moves in a single diagram. This only goes so far, of course, but from about 13 or 14 moves forward, it is often better to just split it in two diagrams anyway.Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:05 am
No easy diagram editing continues to prevent me from adding relatively more diagrams. Simple. I rather spend time on writing books.
Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:33 pm
Looking at all of this analysis, I'm surprised that I have not read the word 'heavy' nor the word 'light'. IMHO, that distinction is the most relevant issue.
Black has a choice between attacking a light stone with 'b' or 'c', or some heavier stones with 'd'. White cannot really ignore 'd' because he has too many moves invested in the corner. He can, however, ignore 'c' because
is light.IMHO, it is a no brainer: black must play 'd'.
Re: A strange Fuseki move
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:50 pm
Well, 4 just doesn't look good, pretty sure that's not how we want to follow-up the 1-space low.
Normally though, white would leave the bottom left with sente, This is as though white left the bottom left with sente, and approached black from exactly the wrong direction.
I think if it were me, I'd go with one of the following:
the logic being,
"a" makes splitting the right side difficult,
"b" either makes white heavy or makes black so thick that invasion of the lower side is untenable
"c" takes care of the long extension from the lower left, but risks black becoming overconcentrated when white jumps to 3x3. However, if white DOES jump to 3x3, black keeps sente, solidifies his lower side and gets to move to the upper left. So I think it's playable.
I lean toward "a" or "c", b could very easily end up being slow.
The danger to my approach is that the white stone in the bottom right becomes light, and black has lost an opportunity. I will readily admit that, but stabilizing the bottom right and the right side feels so good.