snorri wrote:
Remember this is in the Beginners forum,
It is always a problem that discussions evolve. Some become more advanced, others become more basic. Others fluctuate in both directions. It would just add unnecessary confusion if forums would be changed frequently while the same thread of discussion is being developed.
Quote:
The position seems needlessly complex to show the point you are making.
Really? I have already simplified it well. I have not wanted it to simlify it to an extent that it would entirely look like an endgame position.
Quote:
in the position shown the prisoner count does not change during the hypothetical play
Yes. I have wanted to keep things simple and start illustrating only one aspect of prisoners.
Quote:
and you are only disclosing the difference in the number of prisoners.
Exactly. This has advantages: 1) One needs to keep in mind only one instead of two numbers. 2) The number can be smaller in many cases; the overhead of further prisoners of both players need not be carried along. 3) The difference of prisoners is already calculated; one need not do that in future.
Quote:
Why would anyone conclude that if they only know the prisoner difference?
Because numbers and signs don't bite back and warn the player using them! If he does make such mistakes, then he needs to become aware of them by himself. He must understand whether his calculations are done correctly. Chances are that he does not necessarily notice if is already making the mistakes. It is better if he develops the related understanding before starting calculations.
Quote:
This +100 can't be a positive number for both black and white.
It is good to see that you have enough understanding to find your own mistakes! Was your understanding also good enough to describe prisoner handling during the previous weeks, while I waited to see if somebody could describe it? Now, that I have offered some description, suddenly everybody comes and proclaims how simple and obvious everything is. I said so weeks ago:)
Quote:
This kind of difficulty only arises if you are:
No. The difficulty arises also if you keep track of two different prisoner numbers (#black stones and #white stones) for every purpose. E.g., alternatively you could mentally store two numbers for the initial prisoner difference, two numbers for the prisoners removed during the imagined sequence for determining black
territory, two numbers for ... sequence for... white
territory. (I prefer 3 instead of 6 numbers for prisoners.)
Quote:
1. Trying to keep track of a prisoner difference.
Keeping track is necessary anyway (if we do
territory counting). Why one number 'prisoner difference' instead of two numbers 'black prisoner stones' and 'white prisoner stones', see above!
Quote:
2. Trying to make a prisoner difference count as part of a particular color's territory.
How do you do it in writing? Do you prefer to state two numbers instead of one number?
Quote:
3. Somehow losing track of the fact that you made choices 1 and 2.
Mistakes as I have described them do not occur because one expresses prisoner numbers as prisoner differences. The same kind of mistakes can occur also when one expresses prisoner numbers as numbers of black prisoner stones and white prisoner stones. Always does one have to add / subtract correctly.
The perspectives vary: When determining Black's
territory, then it is Black's perspective. When determining White's
territory, then it is White's perspective (opposing sign!). When both are already known and the total is calculated, then, by convention, from Black's value one subtracts White's value, that is, it is Black's perspective.
Black's perspective means, if you manage two values on every occasion, to add white prisoner stones and to subtract black prisoner stones. White's perspective means the opposite: subtract / add.
Quote:
1) is arguably unnecessary,
Argubly, yes, because one can also do all the calculations with two instead of one value for the prisoners.
Quote:
2) is dubious,
Suppose you are determining a particular player's
territory. Why dubious? Are you suggesting to ignore all prisoners? Sure?;) Of course, you must consider prisoners! So, please, specify your preferred method for this case of application!
Quote:
Keeping track of prisoner differences locally (e.g., to associate it with specific territories) is required when analyzing josekis, but I am not convinced of its utility during actual game play.
Imagine any example of
territory with dead stones in atari and near the boundary of a region. When the opponent reduces that region, you create prisoners.
Proceed to a more complicated kind of examples: teire with throw-ins. You will see that simply keeping dead stones on the board would be an insufficient model in general for assessing a region's
territory value.
Quote:
in which case this problem is not going to arise.
Of course, one can pretend simplicity for its own sake;)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Uberdude
