However I don’t really buy into this arbitrary distinction.
I feel like the expressed intention depends on the context of the sentence.
If someone said one of
I may kill you…
I could kill you…
I might kill you…
I would be more worried about the sentences with ‘may’ and ‘might’ than ‘could’. ‘Could’ suggests to me that it’s possible, ‘may’ suggests considering doing it, and ‘might’ suggests considering it but not as strongly.
Let’s take (and slightly modify) the example in the dictionary link
The shop may close at the weekend.
The shop could close at the weekend.
The shop might close at the weekend.
These sentences aren’t very severe in their context (if anything they’re a bit vague), so maybe that’s why I might interpret the meaning in a more relaxed sense. I still think ‘could’ suggests they could do it, it’s possible but not that it’s really being considered, while ‘may’ and ‘might’ suggest it’s possible that it will happen.
I think adding some more urgency and context to the sentence
The shop may close at the weekend, so you should get food if you need it.
The shop could close at the weekend, so you should get food if you need it.
The shop might close at the weekend, so you should get food if you need it.
Then maybe I would consider ‘could’ and ‘may’ with similar urgency, (possibly even ‘might’) if I happen to need food for then.
I do highly doubt that a strict ordering can be applied to the words as to how they express a level of certainty independent of context.
You can go on a similar pedantic debate about the meaning of the words ‘sometimes’ and it’s synonyms ‘occasionally’, ‘at times’, etc and try order them by which occurs more often, but again I imagine it would be subjective and am not sure it is even worthwhile if it’s not commonly interpreted as such.
(Ok maybe in a legal context you could assign distinct meanings to these if you wanted, but then you also would like clarity if people have to interpret the meaning.)
I interpreted “could” here as that they had the choice to capture it or to not capture it. Like I could play a game right now (and succeed if I try). However, in this case it is possible that they decide to capture it and fail, hence I thought “might” was a better description. But it’s not really worth discussing over in this thread
I see “I might kill you…” as either equivalent in meaning to “I could kill you…” or to “I’m not meaning to kill you, but it might happen accidentally…”
With might the intentionality is unclear.
I’d like to quote something I mentioned about this variant regarding Maharani and yebellz moves
So Maharani and yebellz aren’t actively making eyes. They kind of have a base on the topside but really they’re just extending across the board. In theory while at peace they could just focus on making as many eyes as possible to be uncapturable but I think with this variant, while everyone else is fighting, just get a big enough group with the most stones and enough space for like 2 eyes and it seems like a good strategy.
Yeah it’s definitely trying to stir something up. I’d say two players working together might be able to invade the upper side. I mean ideally four players working together could. Imagine offering Sanonius, Gia and someone else the chance at getting something in the top left maybe as Martin. I mean technically he has to do something now against piggy in the bottom left too soon.
I think eyes are actually worse than outside liberties. Because you cannot be killed as long as you can submit the same move with the same submission number as the guy who is trying to kill you. What is the risk? You play one of your liberties which noone else has played. But its way worse to close your own eye than playing an outside liberty. Because 1. playing an outside liberty can increase your liberties and 2. an outside liberty is always more likely to be played by someone else as well.
Ouch, not so much luck for Gia this round. Although it would’ve been truly amazing if le_4TC had played K9, hats off to that idea
Haze is looking like they’re panicking by playing N4. Surely something like K3 would’ve been better?
Martin not falling for it, although there was a lot of talk in last round, it might be they sniffed out Piggy’s betrayal. Martin has been excellent at finding other people’s motives in this game, as well as the last, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
le_4TC finally has some safety. Now the corner is surely theirs.
Sanonius getting some shape, looks like Gia might become the first one to be eliminated…
Even though players keep claiming that go skill or rank is not so important, diplomacy is etc, at the end of the day it’s still a go variant. Life and death concepts will still transfer to a 1v1 scenario, even though they don’t hold up in a 1vMany scenario. Move efficiency is something you pick up too…
Seems like Martin’s pessimism is setting in again. I’d say, when Piggy and yebellz are becoming the largest problems, ask the weakest players to help bring them down. Surely Sanonius and Gia can be convinced to work with Martin to attack Piggy? Even le_4TC has a good reason to help, now that they’re more or less connected.
I don’t think they transfer too well. Syncronous go is really something else.
I tried some classic tsumego problems with two friends (black, white and referee) and only 1 move submitted per player per turn. Our experiences (rather guesses) were the following:
The player who has more stones on the board has a huge advantage, because time works for him/her and stalling is pretty easy.
The most interesting situations are where there are multiple ways to kill and multiple ways to make two eyes because either nothing happens or both things happen simultaneously. This leads to a new dynamic which we found quite similar to an entangled state in physics.
Go can become a game where luck matters a lot. If you have less stones on board, you sometimes want to force a situation where both players best choice is playing a mixed strategy, similarly to the solution of the El Farol problem.
I don’t think rank helps a lot above 15kyu. Vital points are still important, but for a stronger player it can be harder to unlearn standard life-and-death patterns that no longer hold.
