RobertJasiek wrote:
If you want to represent it on the board for area scoring, multiples of 1 seem necessary while 1/2 is impossible. Do you see a necessiety for 1/2?
I agree with you, multiples of 1 is necessary.
BTW it was just a question for all those (like me) who use area scoring.
I am not against a drop equal to 1. I just note that the anomalies you mentionned earlier occur more easily when the value of the drop is higher.
So far my understanding is that, with different definitions, the miai value according to thermography or CGT and the move value according to your theory or according to mine seem identical (no counter example identified).
The main differences of the different approaches concern the use of an (ideal?) environment.
Basically, I use only one environment I qualify as a "sufficiently rich environment". The basic idea behind is the following.
Though no ko is introduced, this "sufficiently rich environment" is a kind of average of all realistic environments encounter in practice. Considering a local position, the idea is to put this local position into this environment and to identify at which temperature the players MUST play locally to reach the best result. That way if temperature corresponding to position P1 is higher that temperature corresponding to position P2 then I conclude that there is a good chance that you must play in position P1 before playing in position P2.
OC it may not be true in the real environment in which position P1 and P2 appear but anyway it is good indication for the player who can complement the analysis by a reading process.
I understand you calculate a move value without the need of an environment which is fine. Knowing that in a real game an environment is almost never an ideal environment (with your definition) I do not see what is the purpose of your ideal environment. Is it simply a pure theorical use (as example?) or do you propose to real players a new tool, as complement of the move value itself?