Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:(BTW, this is straightforward, but I have seen 4d players not being aware of such strategic planning at all.)

Bill Spight wrote:

Bantari wrote: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:

$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . 2 . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

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.

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.

Bantari wrote:And for this purpose I thought we agreed (at least RJ mentioned it) that we neglect sente/gote concepts.