Yeah I forgot that eyes in seki may be neutral (Japanese rules strike again!) @Feijoa’s example is a good one 
strange, yeah that’s the score estimator though not the stone removal end game stuff. That one has to walk a fine line between being smart but not too smart… that’s pretty bad though.
1 Like
Thank you for the quick response!!
In the past I would have been able to toggle the stone removal to update the estimation. With this feature, that’s no longer possible. As a result, I can’t really use the analyzer function at all for this game.
When I try to analyze it, it tells me that every move we played in the top left was a 35 point loss move, because the white stones were already guaranteed dead, and I can’t correct that estimation…
The AI isn’t saying you CAN’T live in the top left, it is simply saying the timing is wrong because the life and death in the centre is more important.
Understood. I don’t think I explained myself well, apologies.
The way I’ve been trying to learn in the past, would be to play different branches, and toggle different stones as alive/dead, and check how the score changes as a result of those actions. That, in turn, helps explain how the AI is coming up with its estimations. But that doesn’t appear to be possible anymore : )
I see what you mean. I’m not sure @anoek but it seems if you press estimate score inside a review, it estimates off the base branch not the current branch, so as OP says they can’t analyse variations within reviews.
1 Like
Ok weird… it seems you can create new living groups in empty territory but it won’t let you make alive a group it has already decided is dead??? Very strange… check out the black stones bottom right haha
1 Like
Yep seems off, I’ll look into it tomorrow
2 Likes
Awesome, thank you all!
https://online-go.com/game/65493482/217
It feels like esimator became hybrid with scoring system again
instead of working instantly it do something in 2 steps
analysis mode:
(estimate clicked) step 1:
, then second later step 2:
and it paints some coordinates as blue squares
An idea: The red markings could form a minimum vertex cut separating empty intersections (except dame points) that are adjacent to living black stones from empty intersections adjacent to living white stones.
For the position in question that would look something like this.
Here’s a reference including code, although that algorithm constructs a min weighted s-t (edge-) cut. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/minimum-cut-in-a-directed-graph/
All that being said, personally I think the current system is fine.
5 Likes
Some variation of that might be promising, though I reckon we’d need a bit more logic surrounding it - I would hate to draw a big loop around something like this:
or appear to cut off stones like what I think might happen to e11 in something like
Question: can we have an option to remove the red X? I see its use, but it bothers me aesthetically.
1 Like
+1
I see that Pandanet uses the cross of the opposite colour (white cross for black stones and black cross for white stones) and that is still easier to see.
2 Likes
Red cross give an exagerated feeling of careless moves to me. The focuse is shifted on the death, not taking in account that sacrifice is an important part of the game.
Agree.
4 Likes
My kibbitz heart shouting: What a stupid advice!
1 Like
Hey - you edited out my smiley… 
Yay, even more options instead of a coherent product vision!
I posted a picture above, it looks quite good.
Totally agree. The red highlights that something need an urgent attention, but this is not a case here.
6 Likes
I mean it kind of does need urgent attention. Are these dead stones marked correctly? (as now is your last chance).
Basically, the problem of something, people or an autoscore mismarking stones is worse when it’s not strongly visible which stones are considered dead.
Then if you accept the incorrect marking and score, it can’t be changed, only annulled.
2 Likes