I am not confuesed, but I consider this discussion about "Double Sente" to be superfluous.

In my opinion, the typical Westerner is looking for a definition of a term that will be true for 100 % of all application cases.

And -- her comes the crux -- at no time having in mind some implicit implications, which I suppose are typical for Japanese thinking / writing.

Sente is Sente, only when there is no larger spot on the board for the opponent's move. As a matter of course, this self-evidence is NOT stated in every third or fourth sentence in a Japanese book on Go during a discussion of "Sente-related" issues.

The author supposes that the reader is able to think on his own, at least partially.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

I don't yet understand Bill's/lightvector's posts about a play in that example position being 20 points, but then I didn't put much effort into trying to understand it. But neither do I see much value in it: the approach I use of simple swing not miai counting of "4 points with 30 followup for white, but 4 points with 32 followup for black" has worked well enough for me so far and I understand it. Maybe there are some positions it will make me play sub-optimally if I play yose experts like Bill or professionals. In timed tournament games I rarely make detailed yose calculations because I am in byo-yomi, but on OGS my approach worked well enough that I usually made significant gains in yose (against mid-dan opponents, against Alexander Dinerstein 3p I did lose some points in yose but not too many to lose the lead, and those mistakes were mostly missing clever tactical sequences rather than miscounting sizes). So if I want to play better yose in my games I see this kind of thing as irrelevant: most important is playing the opening and middle game faster so I have time to play the endgame with my current skill instead of blitz skill, next is better reading to find better sequences, and this kind of counting is way down the list. Of course an appreciation that sente is relative is very important, but I've known that for ages and so do much weaker players: I remember around 20k(?) people would play 1st line yose "sente" hane and connects in the opening or middlegame but they soon realised they weren't sente at that stage of the game because tenuki was a good answer.

I do understand their counting method, but I prefer your simpler approach and consider it more practical. Still, you can see that mathematically your value of 4 points gote plus followup opportunity does not make sense. The only way the true value will be 4 points is if your opponent invests another move here. If he does so immediately, your move was 4 points sente. If he does so later, your original move was perhaps gote, but it was clearly worth more than 4 points pure gote, since it earned you an extra move at some later time. Maybe we should call it temporary gote or delayed sente. Bill's counting attempts to include this added opportunity value up front, at the time the original move is played.

To misquote Stalin:

A mathematician exist, a problem exists.
No mathematician exists, no problem exists.

For kyu players, value-dependent endgame theory is overrated; valueless endgame theory is ten times more relevant. Dan players should already be applying the valueless endgame theory so, for them, value-dependent endgame theory becomes relevant for avoiding most of their remaining mistakes. Different value-dependent endgame theories exist:

1) Territorial positional judgement: imagine a sequence of a few endgame moves, then make a (at least local) territorial positional judgement for the created, imagined position (or at least for its changes), then compare to other imagined sequences.

2) Swing (deire) counting: this works as long as considerations do not involve kos and all local endgames are either sente or gote. As soon as sente, reverse sente and gote (and possibly kos) need to be considered together, the theory fails.

3) Per excess move (teire) counting: values can always be compared but occasional exceptions exist nevertheless. If so, (1) helps.

When I hear somebody (especially a mid dan) boasting to need only (2), he is wrong and can easily become stronger by applying also (1) or (3). When I hear somebody (especially a dan) complaining that all value-dependent endgame theory (i.e., (1), (2) and (3)) would be hated applied mathematics and so better disregarded, he only confirms to have no interest whatsoever in improving. Go is a scored game and therefore value-dependent. One must not avoid value-dependent endgame theory, but one can only postpone it until one has understood and applies all the valueless endgame theory.

Well, it belongs in the 7 point section.

Kano knew that there was a problem with double sente, he just couldn't put his finger on it. I am not casting blame. Note that the latest (1995) edition of the Yose Shojiten does not include double sente (or sente, as far as I can tell) in its section of N-point moves. I don't know about the Mokusu Shojiten.



I don't think that this has anything to do with differences in East-West thinking. After all, O Meien does not talk about double sente at all. (Judging by the hullabaloo when I do, that seems wise. )



Kano was deceived by double sente, and he was not the only one. In real games, I expect that he sometimes did not respond to the second line kosumi, just like Fujisawa. But if you want to apply the proverb, Kano's "two point double sente" is not the place to do so.

Edit: Having slept on this, I think I have to cast blame on Kano for his "two point double sente". Maybe his ghost writer came up with it, but Kano okayed it. It is gote, and not a big one, at that. I did not mention it "just to have a pop at Kano", but to show how the idea of double sente causes problems.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I am going to start a new thread to offer a brief, but hopefully clear explanation of these things.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.