Somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes (same solution as speedchase), but what does that tell us? Was I slow because I'm a logical player that thinks things through carefully, or was I slow because I usually rely on intuition and so am bad at reading things out?

You were not slow. I've seen players around 3 kyu give up after 5-10 minutes without solving it.

That's certainly nice to hear.

I always thought I was really slow. XD

What's strange is that I looked at it, had to close the window, and solved it in my head... and when I looked back, it was mirrored. Herman, did you play with the orientation of the diagram for some reason?

About 20 seconds to see the move (more accurately, refute the obviously wrong alternatives) and another 20-30 seconds to verify, KGS 2-3d (but I've also seen the problem before and so know what the goal is).

As a 2-4 kyu, I think it took me a minute, maybe 2. What I'm wondering is how this is supposed to show a distinction between logical and intuitive players?

I think the point is that the problem is counter intuitive, so if you can solve it just like any other tsumego, you are very logical, but if it is especially difficult for you, then you are intuitive

Conversely, I am in the same boots as Shapenaji. "Oh, it's one of these".

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

Yes.

There are only four possible moves, as there is clearly no escape to the outside. There are, then, only three possible answers. And for black's second move, only two moves left. Basically, there are only 4 x 3 x 2 = 24 lines of play to check. A 20 kyu with just some basic knowledge of eyes and dead shapes should be able to solve this by going through all of them systematically.

I've seen a 8 kyu solve it in about 30 seconds, but I've seen strong kyu players fail to solve it.

And these same strong kyu players were able to solve a problem like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White to play and kill.
$$ +------------------
$$ | . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . . X O . O . .
$$ | . O . X O . . . .
$$ | X X X X O . . . .
$$ | . O O O O . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Which has many more points to consider, and a much longer main line.

So these players do not consider every line of play, even in a very small space. They consider only moves which they find intuitive. At some fundamental level, they do not approach the game logically, they approach it intuitively. And they are not weaker players for it.

The same applies to logical players.



This conclusion is not justified by your arguments so far.

Let me rephrase that, because you seem to be taking it a little bit too literally:

They are not weak players, despite failing to solve small space problems which could logically be solved by systematically going through the very small number of lines of play.

I solved it in about a minute, but that was basically by applying all possible moves and follow up moves. I suspect I would not have solved it in a game, because it wouldn't have occurred to me to check - intuitively it looks dead. Here I did because I knew there was a solution.

quantumf, there is always a solution even if it is trivial!

I don't understand your reply, Robert. What I'm saying is that tsumego's encourage looking for a solution, because they are tsumegos and you KNOW there is a solution. Similar shapes in actual games may end up being ignored - because they are "obviously" alive, or dead.

Basically he is saying that there is always a slightly better way to die, and a slightly worse way to die, which really isn't relevant.

So, I consider myself a (mostly) intuitive player, so let me see if I can present the way I solve this problem as an example:

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I gave up on Herman's problem in about two minutes. I was trying to do it systematically, but I'm quite bad about keeping the organization in my head.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Around 3 minutes for the first one (had to resort to a process of elimination), 2 minutes for the second (considered shapenaji's a first, then b. b just looked interesting.). Fun.

Logical or principle based thinking if applied incorrectly or inadequately can also prevent one from finding a solution. When I first saw this problem, I failed to solve it (I looked at the solution, thinking there must have been some mistake) because my mind locked in on the principle that a straight four is alive.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Black to play and kill.
$$ +------------------
$$ | . X O X . . . . .
$$ | . X O X O X X . .
$$ | . X O X O . . . .
$$ | . X O X O X . . .
$$ | . X O O O X . . .
$$ | . X X X X X . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.