Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
Taking your diagA I am not sure your movegennan wrote:Taking b as net score 2 points (4 + -2) [diagram A], I think a would be the middle ("average") between (black responds) net score 2 points (4 + -2) [diagram B] and (black tenuki) net score -5 points (0 + -5) [diagram C] = -3 points.
So a is 5 points better for white than b.
At least I think this is the endgame calculation method that InSeong Hwang teaches in his online go school (barring privilege / follow-up sequence mistakes that I may have made).
is correct because of the following answer: and 
in the other order:In the position created by the previous move, the average between Black continues or White continues (because Black tenukis) is the count of that position if, at its own moment, it is a local gote.gennan wrote:Taking b the middle ("average") between (black responds) [...] and (black tenuki)
Uh, is it, or do you not know, what is the related method he teaches? If eventually you know, what exactly is it for traditional or modern endgame theory?At least I think this is the endgame calculation method that InSeong Hwang teaches in his online go school (barring privilege / follow-up sequence mistakes that I may have made).
Oops. Fortunately my move order mistake doesn't change the net score evaluation for diagram A.Gérard TAILLE wrote: I think you have to play the move
I admit that my evaluation of diagram B was a bit hand-wavy. It was more an approximation that I might apply in an actual game with limited time available. A more accurate score calculation would involve more variations and take more time.Gérard TAILLE wrote: Let's take your result for diag A and C. I agree here with your count: the white gote sequence allows white to gain 7 suplementary points.
Now the basic question is: in this situation, with a difference of 7 points, do you prefer the sente sequence or the gote one?
Concerning your diag B isn't it better for black to play
Local gote or not may depend on the rest of the board. The provided position is not the whole board, so taking the average is an approximation. It's all I can do with the information provided.RobertJasiek wrote: Therefore, to possibly use this gote count, one must verify whether that position is indeed a local gote. If it is, the use of this gote count for value calculations of the initial position requires justification. With what justification do you want to do so?
I don't know. This is what I understood from his lessons. I don't claim to be an endgame expert, but what I descibed above seems practical and good enough for me to apply in my own games.RobertJasiek wrote: Uh, is it, or do you not know, what is the related method he teaches? If eventually you know, what exactly is it for traditional or modern endgame theory?
Yes, I'm not too well informed about the terminology. I don't remember InSeong being very specific on terminology, but I don't think he uses terminology like 'net score' or 'difference value'. Perhaps his teachers weren't very specific on terminology either, or there may be a language barrier.RobertJasiek wrote: You invent the phrase 'net score' for what I call the 'difference value'. Both have disadvantages. Yours is that 'score' has a very specific meaning and one should not create confusion by a too similar name of a different term.
I think Dutch school maths notation is not as strict. I think that the spacing in the expression "2 + -5" would be accepted by most (including most maths school teachers) as clear enough that the " + " is a binary operator (addition) and the "-" is a unary operator (negation), which takes precedence over binary operators even without parentheses.RobertJasiek wrote: - Writing, say, (2 + -5) is not proper maths annotation but (2 + (-5)) is, as you should have learnt at school.
You are right. InSeong didn't teach me wrong, it's just my mistake in executing what he teaches (I tried to provide a caveat in my first post that any mistakes are most likely mine, not his).RobertJasiek wrote: - You do not distinguish and determine the sente and gote types of a local endgame in every particular position. You use the words sente and gote in an informal sense related to assuming whether an answer is made [to create an alternating sequence of even or odd length].
- Consider your position created in E. Your position F is Black's gote sequence continuation to the count -4. Your position G is White's sente sequences continuation to the count -9. You derive the count of the position created in E as the average -6.5. This alleged count calculated as the average would be right if the position created in E was a local gote endgame. However, a local gote endgame is one in which Black has a gote sequence and White has a gote sequence. However, G has a sente sequence. Therefore, the position created in E must inherit the sente count -9.
Does Inseong Hwang's go school teach you all those conceptual mistakes, are they all yours or which are whose?
Absolutely not! A count of either player's follower could be positive, zero or negative. Therefore, we must not combine signs prematurely. Doing so nevertheless is suggested only by lazy people unaware of the general possibility, or worse, actively deceiving readers about fake simplicity.gennan wrote:I could also just have written "2 - 5" instead of "2 + -5"
No. An average is not for White's one sequence comparing White's other sequence but, once more,
...versus this:
From diagram E and D, I think we can take the middle between -9 points and 2 points = -3.5 points for diagram H?
We do not have enough analysis yet to proceed to answering this question.From diagram H and J, I think we can take the middle between -3.5 points and 7 points = 1.75 points for diagram K?
I simply consider that black will be later able to play 
in sente with white answering I consider white will be later able to play in sente with black answering I did not consider that option for white. Indeed it should be included in the analysis.RobertJasiek wrote: However, in particular, we still do not know if White's sente option might be better:
Black a - White b is a privilege.
OK, but shouldn't we then also consider a different move for white than connecting withGérard TAILLE wrote:
Here after
My conclusion is that black "a" and black "b" in the first diagram of this post are equivalent (net value +2)
, like so?
, a will be black's privilege, reverting to a net score of 2 points (more or less the same as diagram A as it was corrected by you, where white started with the first move at 
).I agree with you gennan.gennan wrote:
Yes, I agree. Even though KataGo may have slight preferences for one over the other, I think that black a, b and c all give the same result of net score +2.Gérard TAILLE wrote: For me this confirm that, in the following diagram, the black move at "a" and the black move at "b" are both gote and lead to the same result (net score = +2). Don't you agree?
I agree with you Gennan, the three black moves a, b, and c give the same result (net score +2).gennan wrote:To humour myself, I tried to peek KataGo's thoughts on the position.
In this position, my KataGo seems to think that black c is slightly better than both black a and black b. I hadn't thought of black c yet, but it's an interesting move.
Black c does make sense, because white c is also a good move in response to black a or b, suggesting that c is a vital point.
From black c we can again evaluate a net score of 2 points (4 + -2)
above is a big move made in a position where the temperature is probably equal to 10 points if not more! my intuition (or my go experience) tells me that the temperature has now decreased and as a consequence black will play tenuki. That means that white will then be able to play the following sequence in sente: which is a major simplification.