Life In 19x19

iopq wrote:Let's say you wanted to create the perfect set of problems to take someone to 1d. You wouldn't include clever problems.

You would start by drilling all of the live/dead shapes and how almost filling works. Then you'd learn all the joseki patterns that are relevant to life/death in the corner. Then some live/dead small groups like L shape group, tripod group, carpenter's square (I get a lot of traction on this study, it just comes up from time to time). Then drill all of the common tesuji problems.

This is pretty much what the Essential Life & Death books from Baduktopia do. There are four volumes that start with DDK-level patterns and end with ones I see dan-level players get wrong in actual games. It's pretty much all stuff that shows up in actual games. They get my highest recommendation.

Knotwilg wrote:You refute "broad and deep" by refuting "broad or deep". As a mathematician, faut le faire.

I have been aware of this but it is a matter of practical complexity - not one of algorithmic complexity or upper bounds. You can have 10 moves broad and one ladder sequence 100 moves deep but the practical complexity might be to read the ladder and 9 very short, unbranched sequences.

SoDesuNe wrote:I guess the point of "clever" tsumego is not to drill common life-and-death shapes but to develop a feel for candidate moves and the ability to read them through. This ability you can use throughout the game, which makes it argueably more useful then just solving standard corner shapes - which also don't appear really that often.

Though the main point for me: "clever" tsuemgo are just more fun to solve. I had my fair share of tackling All about Life & Death or similar or even more specialised treatise on common shapes. Gets really dull really fast.

I see this shape or variations like every other game

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdqfncqcqdrdrercqeobnbocod

but what if it's like this?

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdttpfqcpcpbobqbncqeqfre

why is that bad according to josekipedia? can black kill?

It's the problem that I am good at surprising moves, but I can't tell the life and death of common corner shapes because probably most people think they are too boring

I would do 90% difficult problems;where it at least takes 5-10min to solve the problem,otherwise i believe people are not really thinking,just randomly guessing

iopq wrote:
I see this shape or variations like every other game

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdqfncqcqdrdrercqeobnbocod

but what if it's like this?

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdttpfqcpcpbobqbncqeqfre

why is that bad according to josekipedia?

Because black has much better shape on the outside with the hanging connection.

iopq wrote:can black kill?

No, but white doesn't have the annoying stone at r14 aiming at s14.

iopq wrote:I see this shape or variations like every other game

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdqfncqcqdrdrercqeobnbocod

but what if it's like this?

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdttpfqcpcpbobqbncqeqfre

why is that bad according to josekipedia? can black kill?

Sorry, the josekipedia links do not work for me. Can you make a diagram or SGF file? Thanks.

Uberdude wrote:

iopq wrote:
I see this shape or variations like every other game

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdqfncqcqdrdrercqeobnbocod

but what if it's like this?

http://josekipedia.com/#path:pdttpfqcpcpbobqbncqeqfre

why is that bad according to josekipedia?

Because black has much better shape on the outside with the hanging connection.

iopq wrote:can black kill?

No, but white doesn't have the annoying stone at r14 aiming at s14.

Actually the problem is that josekipedia is just wrong, as it is so often. Be careful using it! However, along the way the original comparison is only superficially similar.

In the first case, White has played six stones to Black's seven and it is White to play.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W Search Pattern
$$- - - - - - - - - +
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . 8 7 . . . . |
$$. . . X 9 b 1 5 . |
$$. . . a 0 X 2 3 . |
$$. . . . . . 6 4 . |
$$. . . . . . O . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |[/go]

In the second case, White has played five stones to Black's six but it is Black to play.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W White invasion under a 1-space extension
$$- - - - - - - - - +
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . 4 3 5 . . |
$$. . . 6 . 2 1 . . |
$$. . . . . X . . . |
$$. . . . . . 7 9 . |
$$. . . . . X 8 . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |
$$. . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Let's throw an example of each variation into katago and see what happens...
In the first game Black invades at 3-3 on move 26. It is the quickest such invasion in GoGoD. What does a quick and dirty look reveal?
Black should slide at D2 or play on the right at Q12 with a small lead (~57% and 0.8 points). The timing of this invasion is a mistake, losing over 10% and giving White the lead
The best choice, White is now a little ahead (~55% and 0.5 points)
Locally best although Black would be better off to shift to the right side for now
The best choice
The hanging connection is preferred but the difference is not so big.
The best choices
Black should test White's response by descending at F2 first.
The best choice (White leads ~62.5% and 1.5 points)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Yi Se-tol (White) vs Kweon O-min 1998-12-18
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . X . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . 8 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . 7 9 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . 1 2 6 X . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This example for version 2 will have to be theoretical. GoGoD has no example of the line shown in josekipedia. This game is the quickest 3-3 invasion under a 1-space extension. In the game, Rin played the far more common . Takemiya played instead of the normal jump to S6. Play proceeded as shown.
katago calculates that White would be better off to play a knight's move on the left at C6 with a small lead (~52% and 0.2 points). On the right side White would be better off to invade at R12 (~49%)
The best choice and Black leads (~59% and 1.1 points)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Rin Kaiho (White) vs Takemiya Masaki 1978-12-14
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X 4 3 8 |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 9 . 2 1 0 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Let's use katago to check the alternative choice for White next
White would be better off to turn back to C6 on the left for now. However, this alternative would be only slightly worse than the diagonal play at S4 in the game (~1% difference).
Best choice
White should play the hanging connection at S2, expecting ko. This move is much worse, minus 16% and almost 3 points
Black throws everything away. The "ideal move" in josekipedia is -41% and 6 points in katago. Black falls behind. Instead Black should jump to S4 for an 80% winrate.
White should slide to S5 with a safe lead (~62% and 1.5 points). This move loses 8% and more than a point
Black blunders again, minus 21% and almost 2 points. Instead Black should push through at R5 and cut at S3 in order to seal White into the corner.
White gives some of it back. This should be the hane at S6. Descending gives up 11% and close to 2 points. White is "only" about 63% and 1.7 points ahead.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Looking back to the original question the take aways should be:
1. Be skeptical of what you read in josekipedia (alternatively don't read it at all!)
2. The two corners are quite different, be careful in trying to compare them
3. Joseki do not appear in isolation. Historically the version 2 invasion typically occurs after Black plays a stone in front of the extension (e.g. K4 in the example game). This means that the hanging connection at O3 will be over-concentrated/unnecessary as often as not.

Thanks, Dave, for the diagrams and analysis.

And yes, the second diagram is decidedly bizarre.

baduk wrote:I would do 90% difficult problems;where it at least takes 5-10min to solve the problem,otherwise i believe people are not really thinking,just randomly guessing

if you solve the problem 100% and it takes 1 minute it's good

I mean just staring at it and then just checking the solution

ez4u wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

iopq wrote:

$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

4 is worse when black is strong locally, but might be necessary when the situation is different, like not having that hoshi stone on the lower side

iopq wrote:

$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . O . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . 4 . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

4 is worse when black is strong locally, but might be necessary when the situation is different, like not having that hoshi stone on the lower side

Here is the closest thing I have found in pro play. From GoGoD 2006-02-23c, Takemiya (W) vs. Hoshino Masaki, 8 dan. Hoshino played at a, but here is the mainline variation from the Elf GoGoD commentary. After taking kikashi elsewhere, White plays the hanging connection. The hanging connection for also looks playable, as it is within 1% of the mainline sequence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm47 Variation for :b47:
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . a . X . O . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . 1 X . . . . . . . . O . O X X . . . |
$$ | . X O O . O . . . , . . O . O , X 5 . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . O . . 3 2 . |
$$ | . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . O X 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X O X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . X . O . O . . . , . . . . X , X . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . O . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVl9RhqsFV8

This is exactly the kind of tsumego that's useless. This shape never comes up. Besides, the solution is kō, so you may spend way too long trying to live without it

I once spent well over 30 minutes trying to find a way without kō in what I thought was a tough problem and the solution ended up being kō anyway

iopq wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVl9RhqsFV8

This is exactly the kind of tsumego that's useless. This shape never comes up. Besides, the solution is kō, so you may spend way too long trying to live without it

Are we talking about the same tsumego? Sometimes links go to unexpected places. {shrug}

I am not one of the tsumego-tsumego-tsumego people. There is a lot more to go and than that. But I don't think that this problem is at all useless for players at its level of difficulty.

The problem I see indeed never comes up. But elements of it do. My guess is that this may be around a 7 kyu problem. To be sure, it has a depth of 7, but most people, I think, would regard the solution as a one lane road. It seems to me that it contains at least three lessons for players in the 10 kyu to 7 kyu range.

Yes, it's a one way road. But note the solution is the corner, the shape is very irregular.

It's got some lessons for sure, but I doubt real life strength improves quickly studying strange problems like this. First of all, you are likely to spend longer as a beginner verifying the solution is kō and also the best kō you can get.

This can be a lot of time spent on a problem. In real life it's not necessary to read out a situation completely. You only need to find the best next move. So I disagree that you need to solve the problem by staring at it, although I often do. But it's quite useful to play the only correct first move to get a bit of visibility.

In reality, you'll play the first move anyway. So the video approach I am not a fan of for problems with obvious first moves.

In general, I suspect playing skills benefit from being able to get to the correct solution one step at a time in difficult situations rather than being able to see all the variations of a simple problem.

I need to be warned about kō in a problem beforehand before I spend too much time doing the "explore every possible variation" solution. It's just a practical thing, you only have so much time to spend on problems, a single shape shouldn't take most of your study time.

My perfect problem regiment would involve all the common shapes you see in real life, tell you what to do (do you want to live in the best way possible? Best shape? Best kō?), then mix all of them and show it to you in order of progressing difficulty. Then it would repeat them according to spaced repetition algorithms.

You only need maybe a few levels, since at some point easy tsumego are too easy so you move on to medium and hard. But the point is you just know exactly what to do vs. an L+1 group or what the carpenter's square ends up as.

iopq wrote:It's got some lessons for sure, but I doubt real life strength improves quickly studying strange problems like this.

That's an interesting question. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a lot of research on go pedagogy. We don't really know what works best for most people. As I recall, the question of familiarity was addressed by de Groot for chess many years ago. First, he found that chess masters performed much better than beginners on regular chess problems. But then he did not find that the masters performed better than beginners on problems that had been generated randomly. IOW, the idea that solving chess problems developed players' abilities to calculate variations was false. The beginners were just as good at calculating variations as the masters on the random problems. The advantage of the masters on regular problems lay elsewhere, with their knowledge and understanding of normal, familiar chess positions.

Here is an experiment that I have proposed. Take a group of 30 people who want to learn go and have already learned how to capture and the ko rule and divide them into two groups of 15. Give one group a set of 10 beginner level problems to work on in their heads for 15 minutes. Give the other group the same problems with solution and failure diagrams and have them read the material for 15 minutes. Then test the whole group on another set of 10 problems at the same level, giving them 15 minutes to find the solutions. My guess is that the readers will beat the solvers on the test.

Based on de Groot's research, let's take a look at the problem you linked to.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc Black to play
$$ --------------
$$ | . O . O . O .
$$ | . X X O X O .
$$ | O O X X O O .
$$ | X X X O . . .
$$ | O O O O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

My guess is that amateur dan players would have a pronounced advantage over DDKs on this problem. The dan players would solve this in a few seconds. They would even understand that the ko is an approach ko. And that means that, despite its strangeness, it incorporates enough go knowledge that the dan players can make use of. And that go knowledge is worth learning.

First of all, you are likely to spend longer as a beginner verifying the solution is kō and also the best kō you can get.

Who says that this is a beginner problem?

In real life it's not necessary to read out a situation completely. You only need to find the best next move.

Training is different from actual play. And in actual play it make take reading to some depth and breadth to find the best next move. Or even a good move.

So I disagree that you need to solve the problem by staring at it, although I often do.

Me, too. I recommend playing around with go positions on the board.

To quote myself quoting myself:

Bill Spight wrote:To quote myself from http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 47#p204147

Bill Spight wrote:I especially encourage beginners to do as I did, to play around with positions from their own games. They can learn a lot by doing so.

Finally, let me end with this quotation from chess grandmaster Nigel Davies:

Nigel Davies wrote:It really doesn’t matter what you study, the important thing is to use this as a training ground for thinking rather than trying to assimilate a mind-numbing amount of information. In these days of a zillion different chess products this message seems to be quite lost, and indeed most people seem to want books that tell them what to do. The reality is that you’ve got to move the pieces around the board and play with the position. Who does that? Amateurs don’t, GMs do.

(Emphasis mine) From http://rlpchessblog.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... rtesy.html

Edit: Also this, from here: http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 75#p101175

Bill Spight wrote:Here is what Segoe Kensaku, one of the world's top players in the 20th century, recommended. First, try to solve the problem by looking only at the diagram. If you cannot, then set up the problem with a real board and stones, and try to solve it in your head. (My hint: Try to set up the problem from memory, looking at the original only to check.) If you cannot, then play the problem out to solve it. If you still cannot, then look at the answer.

But it's quite useful to play the only correct first move to get a bit of visibility.

In reality, you'll play the first move anyway. So the video approach I am not a fan of for problems with obvious first moves.

In general, I suspect playing skills benefit from being able to get to the correct solution one step at a time in difficult situations rather than being able to see all the variations of a simple problem.

If you can't read a simple problem to depth 11, how can you read a difficult problem to depth 11?

First of all, you are likely to spend longer as a beginner verifying the solution is kō and also the best kō you can get. . . .

It's just a practical thing, you only have so much time to spend on problems, a single shape shouldn't take most of your study time.

If it shouldn't, then why does it? In his regimen of study, Botvinnik addressed the question of time. A position that takes you a lot of time (unless it is too difficult for you) is one that you don't understand very well, and therefore one that you should study, one that you should take time on.

My perfect problem regiment would involve all the common shapes you see in real life, tell you what to do (do you want to live in the best way possible? Best shape? Best kō?), then mix all of them and show it to you in order of progressing difficulty. Then it would repeat them according to spaced repetition algorithms.

You only need maybe a few levels, since at some point easy tsumego are too easy so you move on to medium and hard. But the point is you just know exactly what to do vs. an L+1 group or what the carpenter's square ends up as.

There are many roads up the mountain.

Let me address one assumption you seem to be making. The first move in the above problem is indeed obvious, and each subsequent play is obvious, as well. That being the case, and strangeness aside, you seem to think that there is little utility in reading the problem out. Why bother?

Well, for the sake of argument, suppose that you face this position in a real game. When is the right time to make the first move in it, for either side? That depends upon the fact that the ko is an approach ko. How do you know that it is an approach ko, and therefore whether to play in that corner, unless you have read or seen to the end?