Hrm...
I was consistantly getting 3.5 points, but...

OK, I think I get it now.

This is at the heart of quite a few hotly debated topics in go. It does not make sense to me to use one number in said of two. I can see the equivalence, of course, but I feel more comfortable, in the uncomfortable situation of dealing with numbers, in having maximum information available to me, i.e. two numbers instead of one. Reducing two to one always strikes me as sleight of hand and leaves me feeling uncomfortable. On the other hand, I am perfectly at home with fuzzy words like excellent and sportsmanship.

The world seems split into numbers people and non-numbers people. This thread is meant in part to be a chance to bridge the gap, both ways.

But you don't really have more or less information available. You have two numbers anyway. Either you use 2.5 and 0.5, or you use 2 and 0. It really does not matter from a correctness point of view, you can use what you feel comfortable with. But the advantage of using 2 and 0 is that you have to *remember* only one number, because the other will always be 0. In that example it doesn't seem like that matters much, but when you start calculating with these numbers, it will get complicated very fast. I'm not saying that either way is correct or wrong. It's just that one way is more complicated than the other, and it's understandable that O (and I guess pros in general) uses the faster method.

For example, let's take Diagram 4. You can try calculating it both ways. I'm sure the result will be the same, but it will be less work when using only one number instead of two.

I think the point here is this: You have to try to reduce the raw data you have, while preserving all the (interesting) information. After all, that's what counting does. You have a board with stones on it. But what you really want to know is whether you're ahead. This information is hidden in the data of the stone positions. Therefore you count, reducing the huge amount of data to a few numbers. So you've already thrown away lot's of irrelevant data. There's no harm in throwing away a bit more

Of course that's all speculation on my part. I don't actually *know* why O chose this method over the other. It just seems logical to me...

All: Is this thread about endgame only or also about middle game? Double sente and sente have their practical good meaning in the middle game. So I doubt that disregarding them entirely is the best practical option. Maybe they could be ignored in the endgame though; convince us if so!

When the phrase "boundary plays" is used, then what is the boundary? Is it a sort of hot area between Black and White? Is there an assumption made on multiple threats not existing and all studied endgame regions (or their smaller boundary regions) being pairwise separate in that sense?



Could you explain these statements, please? Why may one not evaluate double sente at all? Why and how can sente be evaluated in terms of reverse sente? Why is not evaluating sente correct? What exactly does it mean that reverse sente gains something (some points?) and that sente does not gain any points? What (other than points) is it that sente can gain? Does it not rather waste something (aji) than gain anything? And why might wasting it be advantegous nevertheless?

"Boundary play" is a more accurate translation of yose. It means moves that settle the border between territories, opposed to other moves that attack, defend, build moyos and so on. Basically, it means "endgame move", but avoiding the confusing term "endgame", because yose moves can also happen in other phases of the game, like the middle game.

That should also answer your first question: The thread is about yose moves. It doesn't matter whether they occur at the end or in the middle of the game

I have done so at some length on SL. I will give some brief replies here.



"Double sente", like other natural language terms, has more than one meaning. In an informal sense, you can talk about the value of a double sente. However, when you try to use the term technically, you run into problems. You can see this in Ogawa and Davies' book, The Endgame, as well as in Kano's Yose Dictionary, both books from the 1970s. Kano attempts to explain double sente in terms of "necessity", but then gives an example that is a not very large simple sente. Recent books have shied away from the term, and OM finally goes all the way. The key is the proverb, "Sente gains nothing." It follows that double sent gains nothing for either player, which is true in the technical sense. Example: seki.



That is how it has always been done. When we say that a move is a 5 point sente, we mean that the reverse sente gains 5 points.



Because beginners (and some others) misinterpret and think that sente gains points.



It means exactly what it means that a gote gains some points.



"Sente" is ambiguous, too. In a technical sense, when a sente is played with sente, the result is the same in terms of points, on average. (This is standard, BTW. )



It prevents reverse sente. You cannot measure the value of preventing reverse sente in terms of points.



That depends.



That depends, too.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.