Nope, not fixed.
1 Like
When I was looking up high falutin on Wiktionary, I learnt a new word aureation.
aureation derives from Latin aureatus, an adjective meaning “decorated with gold”.
It’s easily translated as “gilded speech” and is defined as “the enhancement of the seriousness of a topic by the use of elaborate circumlocutions or polysyllabic or Latinate words”.
Compare silver-tongued, with the definition “eloquent, articulate, charming”.
There’s also a phrase purple prose, which is “extravagant or flowery writing”.
5 Likes
Situation looks even on the first glance, but its not. Pink can stop cycle and capture Blue. Blue can’t do anything about it.
4 Likes
I did them some time ago as a transition between Seki positions. Some of them are worth recalculating / rereading
1 Like
Hilarious meme, but technically 
Monte Carlo is only this narrow area within Monaco:
Some of the trees highlighted in the meme (like those in the foreground or distant background) are not actually in Monte Carlo.
10 Likes
That’s part of the rejection step 
4 Likes
wait…double rejection is an affirmation! carefully…
Now I’m sucked in
It looks really like 4:7
The 2 and 3 look like they really line up as do the 6 and 10.
6-2:10-3
5 Likes
from this site inspired by a very interesting tweet thread
https://joshdata.me/iceberger.html
7 Likes
Stereoscopic acuity, the ability to judge relative distances of different objects, is considerably reduced underwater, and this is affected by the field of vision. (see also the reading 
)
3 Likes
So is James Galway aboard the international space station.
Let’s continue this discussion in this proper place…
3 Likes
Oh yeah, woops! Can we move those other posts to here?
2 Likes
If you think that’s the case, you’re misunderstanding the game…
3 Likes
The value of the game depends heavily on your opponent’s responses… But they have no impact at all on the value of your moves.
5 Likes
So, if you make a move to setup a snapback, and your opponent falls for it, would that move be more valuable to you than if your opponent noticed you were setting up a snapback and played safely?
You build a wall, and are able to drive an invading group towards that wall and capture it, while securing a good “outside” position. Does the wall have more value because your opponent invaded?
Your opponent shoulder-hits one of your stones, and you are able to extend and make your corner more secure. Is your original stone more valuable because it is now stronger and better protecting your corner?
No, actually. It just means they made a mistake that gave you points. The value of the move itself is found in only the moves that could possibly be optimal depending on the overall situation. Think Combinatorial Game Theory’s “canonical form”. If the opponent can play a move for which there is a better local move for all global situations, then that move is dominated and not to be considered in value.
No, that value was already there. It was to be gained in either attacking an invasion for profit or securing territory upon the lack of an invasion. And the opponent made the mistake of an invasion that got nothing, which is valuable in and of itself, but cannot be considered in the designation of value when playing the stone (aside from the value of them not being able to play that)
Ok, why would this be the case at all? Sure you’re securing the corner more (with 2 stones), but you got shoulder hit, weakening its influence and giving it to the opponent. Not only that but your stones ability to make a stronger corner with adding a stone is already there.
3 Likes
It would be cool if you could use AI to identify and count (ordinal data) different classes of playing mistakes for different ranks, then generate a Pareto Chart of some of the most common types of errors. A personalized chart could be very helpful to DDK players who want to know where they need to improve (or study general patterns in the population to exploit common weaknesses among other players. 
). Identifying some “mistakes” for higher levels of play (not counting obvious errors) would be much more difficult.
1 Like
As noted by others, not really.
This is my understanding of it:
- Value of a sente move is how many points you would gain locally if opponent doesn’t respond and you get to follow through on your threat.
- Value of a gote move is local points difference between the situations of you playing first and opponent playing first.
So, for example:
Let’s say it threatens to capture three stones, so if opponent does not respond you gain 5 points (assuming Japanese rules so 3 points for prisoners and 3 points for territory minus 1 for your stone they capture). Then the value of the move is 5 points in sente. If opponent responds, you do not get the 5 points but you do get the snapback setup stone which might reduce their territory by say one point and you have sente so you can do something else somewhere else. Over the course of a game, all these little one point gains add up. If opponent does not respond, then you can get the 5 points (in gote) but opponent has done something else somewhere else so they will probably gain from that so your net gain is probably less than 5 points.
So, points you gain depends on opponents response but the value of the original move does not.
And this is how I use it in games (primarily in endgame): Always play the most valuable move. If a gote move is worth more than a sente move, then it’s OK to play gote. If a gote move and a sente move have equal value, then play the sente move first. This applies throughout the game but is obviously much easier to calculate in the endgame (or even, this is possible to calculate in the endgame and (nearly) impossible to calculate before the endgame).
1 Like