tbh I find the entire concept of a “winning move” quite strange. If you had a winning move, then it was a punishment to a losing mistake, and this one happens to be unique (or hard to find), or most decent moves become “winning moves” right after a losing mistake that seals the game. It’s along the same lines as why I find a “divine move” to be kind of an odd concept that when you look at things theoretically makes no sense (the common refrain being, “if you had a move that won you the game, you weren’t losing” in a strict, theoretical sense)
1 Like
If a winning move comes, a unfavorable position for your opponent should have emerged before and the reason why can be much more complex as one mistake. The roots of the winning move looks more like a deep review of the game as the punishment of one mistake. The winning move is then a move which make finally clear your lead will become real. The divine adds some difficult or hidden characteristics in finding it.
So “winning” refers more at putting the straight ground leading to the win, as a punishment, a thing against the past. It makes full sense to me, nothing strange. It’s the bookmark when uncertainty change into sure and obvious.
1 Like
I think the point is almost nobody speaks in a strict theoretical sense. Some people might call the “ear-reddening move” the winning move between Shusaku and Gennan the winning move, or move 78 of Game 4 in AlphaGo vs Lee Sedol.
If you want to talk about things in a strict sense, then any position from a Go Game is itself a Game in combinatorial game theory (from the little I’ve read), and one can describe a particular move as the “winning move” if indeed it is the unique move that guarantees the player to move say L playing Black a win, and one can just ignore the proper go game history of moves up to that point.
There might be silly things like just connecting from an obvious Atari classified as “Winning moves” in other games, but I don’t think that’s important. I’m not trying to define a divine move mathematically.
1 Like
I know what you mean, so here’s what I hope is some motivation. There’s tonnes of tesuji just waiting in those joseki. Actually most of the tesuji might only pop up if somebody deviates from the joseki, but that’s part of the fun 
Like imagine somebody deviates with from the small avalanche with s17 rather than r18 and the outside shape is bad so they answer s15 with r14 and then wham, tesuji (at some point) to capture the corner.
I think I just really like seeing cool moves
8 Likes
That’s a pretty nice argument.
This pairs well with another argument about joseki, which is: when someone deviates from good sequences, he becomes vulnerable.
But how to “punish” them?
I don’t like to learn sequences by heart. I’d rather prefer having someone discussing bad replies and the weaknesses they create.
Is there something like that?
A non-joseki dictionary. 
3 Likes
That’s included in josekis dictionaries, and it’s even usually a big part of the book
2 Likes
Wow!
So I should definitely start studying joseki!
5 Likes
It seems curious to have a pedant suggesting that a stone played into an empty corner is an invasion 
(OK, move this comment to the other thread if you must)
I tend to use the term occupation for a play in an empty corner.
claim is also common.
Interestingly (at least to me), invasion, occupation, and even claim all descend from Latin – invasion ultimately from vado (I travel), occupation from capio (I capture), and claim from clamo (I cry out [as if to claim something]).
Possible non-Latinate alternatives are settle, take, and guard (not seize – that apparently passed through Medieval Latin.)
secure is also Latinate, from cura (care); and encamp, from campus (plain).
encampment is a good one…
6 Likes
guard
From French guarde from Frankish wardan…
Not sure this is the right thread but didn’t want to get told off for chat in the meme thread.
The comment for this reminded me that suspenders are not suspenders in America! But I was quite confused for a while until I remembered.
3 Likes
I believe a phrase like “archipelago” nation is more along the lines of what you mean. An “island” nation might still largely be one connected landmass (in the sense of “one chunk of land thing”). On the other hand, “archipelago” conveys the notion of a bunch of islands.
3 Likes
Oh then I had the correct term, since we are largely one connected landmass and a shitload of islands.
BTW Egypt would make a nice goban
(no Evergreens and/ or ko’s tho)
2 Likes
Well, I would call this largest part of a Greece like a peninsula, of sorts, but definitely not an island.
I would call the other part an archipelago (or, alternatively, archipelagoes, if considering them as a union of distinct subsets).
2 Likes
Ah, you mean connected as “one chunk of land thing”. I thought you meant connected to something. (yep definitely a peninsula)
Shitload of islands= archipelago 
Also, there’s lots of them, but not really spread over a huge sea, Aegean is not that big. So I don’t know if they qualify as archipelagoes, we call them island complexes iirc.
2 Likes
An archipelago does not have to be spread out over a huge sea. It just means a collection of islands.
Actually, I believe the word “archipelago” has Greek roots and is specifically linked with the Aegean.
Somehow, I suspect that you know all of this, and are just trolling a pedant… 
4 Likes