JF:
Quote:
I forget the precise figure but Rob van der Zeijst (apparently following professional advice) supposedly learned the values of about 1,000 boundary plays.
Wow.
Quote:
the thicker player will emerge with a numerical advantage in each case, on average.
Hmm, perhaps. But perhaps when you are thick you may want to set up more groups further from the thickness to prevent overconcentration, and there is subtlety in how far away they can be while remaining safe. It is always nice to squeeze extra points in the endgame by capturing stones when your opponent has ventured slightly too far from their thickness as then you have the added bonus of nullifying their thickness in the process (which is often the biggest move anyway). Even one space jumps from a wall can be attached to and exploited. But I guess you mean using thickness to play safely enough that you can read all the follow ups and not get captured!
Perhaps my point at the end of this post is also relevant.
RJ:
To clarify your penultimate point
Ignore equal options - i.e. pair off miai moves (e.g. to simplify reading, counting).
Well, there are always more complicated "principles" that you can generate in addition to the fundamentals you have mentioned. This may already be too detailed compared to what you are looking for, but I can't think of others that you haven't already mentioned at the moment.
For example, how about read the follow up and estimate the size of the first move via
"count half the value of the follow-up in the value of the first move"
(of course, miai counting requires you read all leaf nodes, but sometimes you can estimate/bound them)
Similarly, you can probably generate the principles for one move look ahead on standard principles. For example:
"if playing the largest gote move means your opponent gets tedomari, then consider playing a smaller reverse sente instead to fight for tedomari"
or
"sacrifice a small amount locally to add or remove a follow up move, in order to change the parity of moves of the next common size in order to fight for tedomari on them"
CGT:
I'm not familiar enough with CGT to be sure, but I think there is the principle that among corridors of otherwise equal value where you have a sente at the end,
"play in the corridor that ends in the smaller sente"
in order to save your larger sente as an intermezzo move in response to your opponent's smaller sente at the end of the game. There is probably a slight generalisation to larger endgames but it is beyond me at the present time.
This is somewhat related to mutual reduction as well. Often mutual reduction means that you still have a big move to play after the opponent plays, whereas if you make the mistake of defending your own areas first (all else being equal), then the final plays are in the opponent's sphere of influence, leading to the opponent to get tedomari when they respond to your attack.