the general idea is that if the ko represents something of value X, then making threats of value > X will force your opponent to answer, and if he does not have as many threats of value > X as you do, then you can eventually win the ko fight (by filling the ko) and gain X-(value of sente) points, or have a threat unanswered and gain (> X - X) points, along with possibly taking sente (which could be worth something near to X, but is probably smaller).
this is really relevant when X is large, or when there are multiple kos on the board of varying values. important kos are often at a critical connection point for one or both players, or at a critical eyespace (such as in the corner or along the edge) strong players can crush weaker players simply by starting kos in important places because they know that they can win the ko or gain points in compensation for starting a ko, since ko fights are generally very hard for weaker players, who usually misjudge the value of ko threats, remove ko threats early in the game for no good reason, or have difficulty finding (or creating a sequence of!) reasonably-valued ko threats. s. On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > steve uurtamo wrote: > >> So I don't think > >> sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really > >> quantify this. > >> > > > > It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS > > will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their > > resolution. or even the threat of a ko fight if one player is weak > enough. i'm > > not sure that even the strongest amateurs count all of their ko threats > > correctly ahead of playing them (the game is quite dynamic, after all) but > > this is way, way deeper water than i tread in, so i don't have any real > idea. > > > > i just wonder if anyone has tried to beat these programs by initiating a > > complicated but critical ko fight. i'd think it'd be a can't-lose if you > chose > > it correctly. i wonder if it's a repeatable way to beat these guys, or if > the > > depth is handled just fine. > > > > the thing that got me thinking about this is that i've never seen an MC > > player really play out a ko fight. (or perhaps they are in their own > cryptic > > MC way that i can't see). > > > Perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about here, but is it possible > that most ko fights can be avoided? Perhaps ko fights introduce too > much uncertainty and they look for a more simple way to proceed? > I've seen lot's of positions where there is a ko back and forth 2 or 3 > times and the computer used every other turn to do something > constructive in some particular area - then when it stopped fighting it > stayed interested in that other area. I don't really know if what I > saw meant anything - it involved only 1 ko point. Is that still > considered a ko fight? It "seemed" to me to know what it was doing, > picking (what seemed to me) just the right moment to abandon the ko. > > - Don > > > > > s. > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
