The literal, arithmetical sizes of the gaps, that is, just count the dots between the two end-points. Sorry, I did not mean to ask you to evaluate the value of a move; rather, just the basic geometric counting of the distance -- and you don't even need to be accurate -- just the relative sizes is enough.
This is good -- we can see more clearly your thought process.
The literal, arithmetical sizes of the gaps, that is, just count the dots between the two end-points. Sorry, I did not mean to ask you to evaluate the value of a move; rather, just the basic geometric counting of the distance -- and you don't even need to be accurate -- just the relative sizes is enough.
This is good -- we can see more clearly your thought process.
Simba wrote:c looks really big for example at first glance, but then I realise "Oh, that's not even the tiniest bit secure, my opponent could invade if I played c so easily."
By this reasoning, the following would be unplayable, wouldn't it?
Simba wrote:c looks really big for example at first glance, but then I realise "Oh, that's not even the tiniest bit secure, my opponent could invade if I played c so easily."
By this reasoning, the following would be unplayable, wouldn't it?
Mmm, fair point. But black 5 there is influence based. It can't be reasonable to expect all of that side to become territory. However, on your diagram, c is low. So we are kind of going for a mixture of territory and influence somehow? I've never seen the low move there before (except when my opponent plays it for an invasion).
EdLee wrote:Simba,
Simba wrote:Well, because black has strength in the top right, so I'd rather take a more secure, low move than a high move.
But you took a high move with (4th line); you did not take the more secure low move on the 3rd line -- this was Aph's question.
Oh, darn , that's annoying, I meant to play it low (see my previous post for my logic behind why I wanted it low) - I just edited the diagram wrongly unfortunately >_< . I thought I had played it low, sorry for the confusion... Ah well >_< .
I just want to point out that when stronger observers ask pointed questions, it can be a pretty big help to the player. Of course it's a learning game so it doesn't matter too much, but it would be a shame if one player won because they were "asked" more "questions". Maybe at least such advice-questions should be visible to both players?
emeraldemon wrote:I just want to point out that when stronger observers ask pointed questions, it can be a pretty big help to the player. Of course it's a learning game so it doesn't matter too much, but it would be a shame if one player won because they were "asked" more "questions". Maybe at least such advice-questions should be visible to both players?
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it would, so of course I already had thought about all this before I posted my questions and comments. Whether each comment is hidden or open to either or both players should be considered individually, case by base. But this is a good reminder. And some comments will be unhidden at the appropriate times. Thanks.
(4th line); you did not take the more secure low move on the 3rd line --
would be unplayable, wouldn't it? 
, that's annoying, I meant to play it low (see my previous post for my logic behind why I wanted it low) - I just edited the diagram wrongly unfortunately >_< . I thought I had played it low, sorry for the confusion... Ah well >_< .
