billywoods,

"not bearing relation to game play": This can be said about any analysis, whether positional judgement, endgame analysis, life and death status assessment or something else. Usually, actual game play differs. Nevertheless, we use analysis because it guides decisions. - Besides, you are exaggerating. PJ sequences have relation to game play, as it COULD occur, when taking into account that the intermediate moves elsewhere or in a near environment as close supporting stones occur, too.

"example of using a calculated territory count": (Before the congress, I do not have the time to edit diagrams. So now I can only mention the possibility to read the literature and now give a short draft of usage.) Suppose we have (incl. the komi, of course) determined the territory count T in Black's favour, aji is irrelevant, White has the turn and slightly superior influence and development potential. We can use the information as follows: in the still unplayed parts of the board, White must aim at getting at least T new points more than Black. (BTW, this is straightforward, but I have seen 4d players not being aware of such strategic planning at all.)

EDIT:

It is also useful to know which are and which are not the counting territory intersections! Strategy is related also to gaining new, additional territory intersections. By knowing which one already considers to be territory, one can then meaningfully plan for additional intersections and identify them as such, when they occur.

I dunno, it still seems terribly artificial and slightly contradictory to me, not to mention one-sided.





Ok, so you seem to be saying that because of some undefined outside shapes White's attack is performed with good timing, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge these very same outside shapes to evaluate the value of White approach. What's more, as you stated above, the value of White approach is less than zero (when I claimed it should be at least 2 points since we assume it will not die, you pointed out at added Black points due to future attacks on it.) Even putting aside the appearance and then disappearance of outside shapes, two questions beg to be asked:

1. Why would White make the approach move, apparently with 'good timing' as you claim, if this move loses White points? It loses points since it strengthens Black (by 'forcing' him to add another stone in good placement) and the actual value of White stone is negative (according to you.) It seems to me that because of this, White approach is a very poor play which should never be made in the first place. So maybe Black actually have a privilege of playing extension on *both* sides of the 3-3 stone and so has much more than 8 points there?!?

2. How come we dismiss any value of White attacking stone but at the same time can firmly claim values from potential future Black attacks? You seem to be using both to evaluate the same sequence. You claim Black profit from both attack (future attacks on White approach stone) and defense (actually answering to the White approach stone) while at the same time deny White any value from attack and any possibility of defense (his own extension.)

I am also not sure about this whole 'conceptual permanent sente of the attacker.' I mean - why would I attack every if you deny me the ability to actually make points out of the attack? Most, if not all, of the attacks either already have a back-end base to support it and make profit, or the attacker will have to come back at some point and play a gote move at some point. Even if your attack kills a group, I would assume a competent opponent does not die in gote... Or the opponent is really weak, which I think we can agree to dismiss here.

Or are you saying that White *will* make some profit out of the attack/approach, but we just conveniently refuse to include this in our calculations?

In general, what I see you claiming is that you came up with an axiom (I calculate this and nothing else, and I do it exactly like that and no other way) - out of your hat from what I see - and then point to that axiom to dismiss each and any objections or questions. And just because your calculation happen to give you some solid number which happens to differ from the usual evaluations, you claim the superiority of your method.

Expanding on the way you do things, what would prevent me to claim that 4-4 stone is worth 18 point by pointing to the following diagram:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 . 4 . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . 3 2 . . . a . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

We have here Black 18 points in the corner, we neglect any White profit from the attack, and we can certainly say that White can use 'good timing' to play '2' and that it is certainly Black's privilege to play '3' and '5' and so on... If you have concerns about any possibilities in the corner (which you should also dismiss, like you dismiss the possibilities of further White attacks in your example) then you can add the a-b sequence with the same result.

Anyways - this is how I calculate it, and my calculation has the advantage over everything else I have seen in this respect because it gives you a precise number which is exactly 18 points, no more and no less. It does not rely on artificial 'boxes' or line drawing, and is based on actual play, timing, and guaranteed privileges. Now you have the tool to exactly calculate the board after you play 4-4 and exactly evaluate your strategy after your opponent makes this move.

Or I can use a different sequence and assign different value to a 4-4 point, just tell me a number you want and I will try to come up with iron-clad justification to satisfy your number. Its a virtual world, after all, and the trick is to know - there is no spoon.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Alright, I can get along with that. But then Black's 8 points are only half of the story, right? I mean - sure, we can calculate 8 points the way you say, and the number is good, but then we have to calculate the White points and subtract the two numbers to have the real picture. Otherwise, what is the point of it?

To me it only makes sense (or has any practical value) if we calculate both sides and then determine the balance. To know that Black has 8 points without taking into account how much White makes is useless since it does not help me to decide my future strategy. Its like saying: "in this position, Black has 47 points exactly, now what is your strategy" without also telling you how many points White has and all kinds of other things as well. Its useless other than in the neat fact that it gives you a solid number you can hang your hat on.

To me, for a calculation to have any practical value you cannot perform it in the middle of a forced sequence and you cannot only calculate one side.

So, the way I see things is thusly: Sure, Black has the privilege to make the extension one way or another, but this extension is induced by White approach. And White will never make the approach unless it gives him something as well - in particular, arguably, White will never approach without the approach stone having at least as much value as the Black answer adds to the Black count. Therefore, we simply cannot dismiss all the value of White approach when calculating the result. And the result is that either White approach fits well with outside shapes (and this is its value) or White will next play the extension of his own, making his own 4 points which have to be calculated as well.

I absolutely do not see any point of only calculating only the Black side of the equation here and dismissing the White side completely. If we use future rights and privileges (which I think is a great idea in itself) - we simply *have* to apply the same principles to both sides, and we *have* to look at complete sequences when they are natural and/or forced. Otherwise it makes no sense, even if you do get a fixed number.

Realistically, when you evaluate the first move at a 3-3 point, you have to think: what *net* points can I potentially count on in this corner? And to be simplistic, we can look at the most likely scenario, of 'how will it most likely develop' which is this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . 2 . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

And then you can say Black has 8 points, White has 4 points, so for evaluation of future strategies I have to count the net as 4 points - which gives me the point advantage I will most likely have here due to my 3-3 move. It makes no sense to neglect the value of White '2' (i.e. the natural extension at '4') and what's more, it gives you a skewed result. In real practical game, you will *never* get Black 8 points to White 0 points out of the initial 3-3 stone - especially when you yourself agree that White will pick the right (for him) timing of the approach and the undetermined outside shapes will support this timing.

I think to look at this position as you do can be terribly misleading since it inflates one side of the balance without accounting for the other. Supporting your strategies with such thinking is not advisable, I think.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

This tells me two things:
#1. You consider yourself the most conscientious counter in the world (if you don't do it, nobody does.)
#2. You do not calculate your opponent's points (surely it must happen that 3-3 is played against you on occasion.)

To #1: Not sure what to say to that. A little more modesty? Ever thought you are overdoing it? Loosen up a tad bit, maybe it will help your game?

To #2: This pretty much fits with the rest of your statements in this thread - of calculating only one side of the position while neglecting and denying the other. So two thumbs up for consistency here. But again, I don't think this approach helps your game much.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

If this is how you evaluate then you are saying that it is a 6 pt. double sente (10 - 4 = 6), which is absurd. You cannot even say that the territory part of the value of is double sente. is gote, so to evaluate it by adding plays you either have to add the same number of stones for each player or use the average of two diagrams.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Be careful. That can be interpreted by those of us weaker than 4d as meaning that we don't need to care about this until we are 4d. I presume by now you've played a lot of EGF 4d/5d. What fraction would you say have no clue about this? I hope the answer is: it is rare.

Shush... I am just trying to chip a chink in Robert's armor, not come with the right approach. And for this purpose I thought we agreed (at least RJ mentioned it) that we neglect sente/gote concepts.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Oh, that's a winner!

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.