Logical players, intuitive players ..

topazg · **#101**

Interesting problem. I wonder where that starts to become intuitive

Splatted · **#102**

Why is

better than "a"? As far as I can see the both kill and leave white one ko threat for life.

topazg · **#103**

Splatted wrote:

Why is

better than "a"? As far as I can see the both kill and leave white one ko threat for life.

Splatted · **#104**

I feel kind of stupid for not seeing that. Orz Thanks for the explanation. :salute:

Uberdude · **#105**

It's not quite so simple as killing with the placement means that if you ignore the threat and white lives then she has 1 more point of territory and better yose on the top edge. Also it gives white a sente move on the 2nd line outside to connect up on the 1st line. It is hard to say which of these or the extra ko threat is more important (whether the outside sente move is relevant will depend on the whole board position) but I would probably kill with the throw in.

lightvector · **#106**

Logically, I agree with Uberdude, but actually my intuition suggests topazg's move much faster than it suggests the throw-in. I see it on sight whereas I see the throw-in only after a second or two of more thought. I think the reason is that there are other cases where the equivalent of topazg's move works whereas the equivalent of the immediate throw-in doesn't. I've internalized a pattern that says "to kill a straight 5 space that has a defect, play *here*", and my intuition isn't fine-grained enough to distinguish these other cases from the case in daal's problem.

Here are some of these other cases. The difference is that if the immediate throw-in is captured, there is still the possibility of an eye there, whereas in the previous problem there isn't.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W White to play $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . . X O . . . $$ | X X X . X O . . . $$ | . O . X O O . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . O . . O . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W White to play $$ +------------------ $$ | . . . X O . . . . $$ | X X . X O . . . . $$ | O X . X O . . . . $$ | . O X . O . . . . $$ | . O O O . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W White to play $$ +------------------ $$ | . X O . . . . . . $$ | . X X O O . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . $$ | X . X O O . . . . $$ | . X O . . . . . . $$ | O O . . . . . . . $$ | . . O . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Uberdude · **#107**

lightvector wrote:

but actually my intuition suggests topazg's move much faster than it suggests the throw-in.

Interesting, my instinct is the throw in. "There is death in the hane" and all that. I probably wouldn't even consider the placement.

Loons · **#108**

In tsumego in a vacuum as on the real board, all the answers should be found and considered. Arbitrarily not considering some answer variations should not be a trait of intuition, I would think (of course, how do you quickly decide if you have all the pertinent answers). I wonder if tsumego are in fact a good microcosm of logic vs intuition; maybe related to tsumego skill instead.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +---------------------------------------+ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | X O O . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . O . . X . . O X . . . . . | $$ | . X X X O . . . X O O . O O X X X . . | $$ | . . X O . . . X X O . O . O O O . . . | $$ | . . . O O . . . . X O . . . . . . X . | $$ | . . X X O . . . X X O . . O . X . . . | $$ | . X X O . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . X O O . . . . X . . . . O . O . . . | $$ | . O . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X X . X . . . . . O O . . . . . | $$ | . O O X O X . . . , O . O X X X . . . | $$ | . . . O O . O . . . . . . O X . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

DeFlow · **#109**

Nice tsumego, people!

I think the distinguishment between logic and intuition in go stems from the fact that some people read deeper then others. We all use shape knowledge and algorithms while playing (eg. "Oh, I need eyes fast, let's finish this table shape", or in fuseki "Extend from your n-stone wall n+1 spaces"). In addition, we can read some other options and decide between the candidate moves. The balance between reading and shape knowledge is the balance between logic and intuition.

Furthermore, I totally disagree with Robert (or anyone else for that matter

) rejecting the notion of intuition. It is the name we give to the grounds we act on if we do not apply a lot of counscious thinking c.q. reading.

Btw, B14 seems to kill, right?

RobertJasiek · **#110**

DeFlow wrote:

"Extend from your n-stone wall n+1 spaces"

This is a weak proverb to be replaced by a better principle.

Quote:

the grounds we act on if we do not apply a lot of councious thinking c.q. reading.

"c.q."?

DeFlow · **#111**

Mmm I've used c.q. wrong here, after looking it up. It means 'casu quo', 'if not, then' (lit. 'in which case'). We use it in Dutch, maybe it is not used in English? I meant the simple two letter word 'or'.

Boidhre · **#112**

DeFlow wrote:

Mmm I've used c.q. wrong here, after looking it up. It means 'casu quo', 'if not, then' (lit. 'in which case'). We use it in Dutch, maybe it is not used in English? I meant the simple two letter word 'or'.

It's not used in English commonly.

jts · **#113**

DeFlow wrote:

Mmm I've used c.q. wrong here, after looking it up. It means 'casu quo', 'if not, then' (lit. 'in which case'). We use it in Dutch, maybe it is not used in English? I meant the simple two letter word 'or'.

In this case it seems, in any language, you want either i.e. (if you think that's the only or primary example of subconscious thinking) or e.g. (if you're just giving one out of any possible illustrative examples).

RobertJasiek · **#114**

DeFlow wrote:

the grounds we act on if we do not apply a lot of counscious thinking [or] reading.

In go, I try to always apply conscious thinking (such as reading).

crux · **#115**

HermanHiddema wrote:

So here's an experiment to see how logical/intuitive players are.

Here's a go problem. Please time yourself. How long did it take you to solve? How strong are you?

Black to play and live.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ------------------------ $$ . . . . X . . O X X . . . $$ . O . O X . . X O . O O . $$ . . . O X O O X O . . . . $$ . . . O X O X X O . O . . $$ . . . O X X X . O . . . . $$ . . . O O O O O . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Interesting. I intuitively knew the type of solution (as in which tesuji this is going to end up as) very quickly, but it took me about a minute to find the sequence to make it happen.

oren · **#116**

Lee Sedol's commented games have a lot of great examples where intuition led to problems and also where it's almost impossible any other way to make a decision. Great book.

DeFlow · **#117**

oren wrote:

Lee Sedol's commented games have a lot of great examples where intuition led to problems and also where it's almost impossible any other way to make a decision. Great book.

Obviously you secretly are Lee Sedol and are trying to make some fast money here. Shame on you!

Annihilist · **#118**

I like to think I can be both, but not simultaneously. I generally play better as a more logical player though.

p2501 · **#119**

HermanHiddema wrote:

So here's an experiment to see how logical/intuitive players are.

Here's a go problem. Please time yourself. How long did it take you to solve? How strong are you?

Black to play and live.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ ------------------------ $$ . . . . X . . O X X . . . $$ . O . O X . . X O . O O . $$ . . . O X O O X O . . . . $$ . . . O X O X X O . O . . $$ . . . O X X X . O . . . . $$ . . . O O O O O . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Estimated 20 seconds. Around 4-5kyu, I think I'm intuitive.
edit:

?

Annihilist · **#120**

HermanHiddema wrote:

speedchase wrote:

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

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.

I'm going to try this one.

Logical players, intuitive players ..

Who is online