Sub-page of AmbiguousPosition

Black has a one-point gote play (miai counting) with Black *a* - White *b*, Black *c*, or a one-point sente play with Black *c* - White *a*.

Not sure if I can follow your counting here. If Black plays *c*, then White will get the additional point at *b*, since in the given position, there's no need to defend further. Consequently, if the gote move is considered to be worth one point for Black, then the sente move is worth zero (ignoring the reverse gote possibility for White, of course). --Georg Mischler 2k

Let's normalize the count, so that the result if Black plays *c* and White plays *a* is 0. Then we may represent the position like this:

{{Big | 0}, 1 | -1}

("Big" means big enough for sente. Here it is more than 5, I think. Negative numbers are White's scores. Positions or scores to the left of the bar are reached by Black's moves, those to the right are reached by White's moves.)

{1 | -1}

is a one-point gote play.

{{Big | 0} | -1}

is a one-point sente plaY.

Make sense?

-- BillSpight

Assuming that I understand your notation correctly: If the {{Big | 0} | -1} is meant to be one-point sente (0 - -1 = 1), then {1 | -1} still looks a **two**-point sente to me in comparison (1 - -1 = 2). Please don't get me wrong, I really like the discussion about chosing the "right" move here, especially considering the (still sente!) "Big" follow-up. I just don't see the ambiguity. Or maybe my real world understanding of the term "ambiguity" is too narrow to be applied here. Now if we could determine the exact point value of getting sente, things might become much more obvious... --Georg Mischler

Sorry. I have amended the original to state that I am using miai counting. That's the one to use when comparing plays. You are using deiri counting, which is more common. The rule for comparing deiri plays is to multiply sente values by 2 (or, equivalently, to divide gote values by 2, which gives you miai values). So the two-point gote and the one-point sente are the same size.

-- Bill

*Ah well, even I can understand it if you explain it this way! ;-) --GeorgMischler*
*(PS: Maybe this difference between the value of sente and gote moves should be explicitly mentioned in MiaiCounting then?)*

Sebastian: Another definition is: A position is ambiguous, if a move does not change the local temperature.

Bill: The second definition is wrong. Aside from kos, terminal positions need not change their temperature if a move is made. The two examples below illustrate the two kinds of ambiguity.

Sebastian: I took this from Temperature: "A gote play lowers the local temperature, while a sente play raises it. If the local temperature stays the same, the play is ambiguous.". Should this be changed there, then?

Bill: I suppose that I am the guilty party. ;-) I have altered the statements on Temperature. Thanks, Sebastian. :-)

Robert Pauli: (14 years later :-) It still seems to be more or less the same: "Generally speaking, a gote play lowers the local temperature and a sente play raises it, while if the local temperature stays the same, the play is ambiguous.", not?

Robert Jasiek: Yes.

Bill (Even later): But there is also a kind of ambiguous position where there is a choice between a sente which temporarily raises the temperature, and a gote, which does not raise the temperature.