RobertJasiek wrote:The usual case is to assume White's privileges. Under exceptional global circumstances (such as currently Black to move and only tiny endgames available elsewhere), Black's reverse sente can occur. Therefore, in the general case, the set of solutions contains more than one answer.
in 19x19 board you are saying that white doesnt play that privileges until only tiny endgames available elsewhere? lets stick to what is real. current question is asking what is the value of the black territory. if you say anything other than 3 then you so dumb that you dont understand the point of the question.
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown" Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson
I don't know if reading those books are right at this stage, but I agree with those who've said attention to the endgame is worth it at this stage. If trying to get stronger is a thing you want to do (and it doesn't have to be to enjoy the game) then it is definitely worth it. It is a thing of beauty in its own right. And if you want to win more games, it helps.
About getting stronger: Assessing reasonably your endgame moves is easily doable at 8k. The branches of the tree are so much smaller and so much more assessable that you can do a basically good job without a lot of trouble. Sure there are complexities and subtleties that are way too much, but that has no bearing on whether it is easy to learn the basics. The real kicker to me is that all the skills you use to manage the endgame ... counting the board, assessing sente and gote, counting the score difference between pairs of positions, reading out small tesujis ... are skills you can use throughout most of the game but are most easily applied in the endgame. Carefully apply these four kinds of skill in the endgame and it gets easier and more natural to apply them through-out; your knowledge and facility can grow from the endgame back through the rest of the game. One can't solve go completely, but the concept of solving by backward induction still applies. Endgame can also be good for mental toughness and fighting spirit.
A different sort of argument, and I suppose a subjective one, is that the patterns and skills applied in the endgame are an elegant landscape in their own right. Maybe not everyone's first choice of beauty, but still beautiful. (Not everyone would choose to study calculus, but if you have to as part of your other studies, try to enjoy it. It is one of the astonishing achievements of the mind and beautiful in its own right.)
At a slightly grubbier level, you can win games at your level by knowing good endgame. Lots of them. For some reason, not many people agree with me that endgame is beautiful and they don't study it or put energy into it in kyu grades. The result for me was that until I got to about 2k, if I was less than 15 points behind in late middle game, I could win a lot more often than I lost. Put a different way ... an 8k with really good endgame _is_ a 5k. A bunch of people have said that the score differences are so much bigger at 8k that endgame isn't a factor yet. True about the dispersion, but not about the factor. Theoretically, perfect endgame between two strong players produces no difference; they both identify who gets that last point and make sure that is the result. You're not playing against them. You're playing against people who don't know quite what they're doing and don't count much. You can get a 15-point swing from their mistakes. Even with a wide dispersion of scores, moving the bell curve 15 points in your favor is good.
aokun wrote:...Put a different way ... an 8k with really good endgame _is_ a 5k. ...
I agree with most of what you say - endgame is certainly important. But to me, an 8k is... an 8k. If his endgame is good enough to have a winning rate equivalent to 5k, then he's a 5k.
[go]$$Wc Black blunder $$ +-------------- $$ | . . . 2 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O . X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .
[go]$$Wc Black blunder $$ +-------------- $$ | . . . 2 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O . X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]
gives Black the chance to make this blunder. Why is it a blunder?
W B19
$$Wc Normally a mistake $$ +-------------- $$ | . . 4 3 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O 2 X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .
[go]$$Wc Normally a mistake $$ +-------------- $$ | . . 4 3 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O 2 X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]
gives Black the chance to make ko, if he has enough good enough ko threats. White can avoid the ko by jumping to 4. Assuming that Black can win the ko, who has normally made a mistake?
I tend to think W has made a mistake, because B will end up with one extra point
$$Bc Reverse sente $$ +-------------- $$ | . . . 1 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O . X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .
[go]$$Bc Reverse sente $$ +-------------- $$ | . . . 1 O . . $$ | X X . X O . . $$ | O . X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]
Black has two reverse sente plays. The one on the left makes the standard assumption that the surrounding region is White territory. How much does the reverse sente gain? Which play is better in terms of ko threats? If ko threats do not matter, which play is better?
The play on the left gains 1 extra point, the play at the top 2. However the play at the top leaves 2 ko threats, the play on the left leaves one. So if ko threats matter, play on the left, if they don't play at the top
Last edited by zac on Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
$$Wc Normally a mistake $$ +-------------- $$ | . . 4 3 O . . $$ | X X 6 X O . . $$ | O 2 X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .
[go]$$Wc Normally a mistake $$ +-------------- $$ | . . 4 3 O . . $$ | X X 6 X O . . $$ | O 2 X O O . . $$ | . X O . . . . $$ | 1 X O . O . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . .[/go]
elsewhere
On the assumption that Black can win the ko, when he does so he gets 4 pts. in the corner instead of 3, a gain of 1 pt. over simply connecting with . Normally this is a mistake, because White will play and when plays elsewhere on the board gain at least 3 pts. In that case spending one extra move to gain only 1 pt. will not be worth it.
N.B. and simply represent the results of the ko fight. That's not actually how play would go.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Thanks Bill for the explanation. Seems so obvious now- but a problem being a weaker player, is sometimes forgetting that a good result locally is not always best globally. And in this case, the local result is only 1 point better!!
gives Black the chance to make this blunder. Why is it a blunder?
gives Black the chance to make ko, if he has enough good enough ko threats. White can avoid the ko by jumping to 4. Assuming that Black can win the ko, who has normally made a mistake?
elsewhere
. Normally this is a mistake, because White will play 