Forum for Framework

I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" [#2729]

Back to forum     Back to page

New reply

 
reply
charlesb: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-29 11:21) [#9188]

Hi, beginner here.

The first case in invasion discussion (Moyo#toc2) is misleading: first sentence is saying "If you kill stones played inside your territory, you make no gain" and second is "The framework not being your territory, you have made a gain".

So is it a gain to kill invader or not?

Thanks for clarifying

Charles

X
68.122.11.140: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-29 19:43) [#9189]

Hi, Charles. :)

If a region is your territory then if your opponent plays a stone inside it, you can kill it. Suppose that your opponent plays one stone inside your territory, perhaps as a ko threat, and you reply to kill it. Since his stone is dead, it adds one point to your territory, but your reply took away one point. Net result: no change in the score. :)

108.6.202.86: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-30 04:18) [#9190]

Typically, the effect of killing something in a region is that the region becomes "completely yours". It often becomes heavily solidified, with few possibilities left for the opponent to invade or reduce thereafter.

If a region was already "completely yours" at the start of the invasion, then killing the opponent gains you nothing (except perhaps that the opponent wasted some ko threats, etc). Once you make the kill, the region is completely yours, but it already was.

If a region was not completely yours at the start of the invasion, if it was loose and sketchy and had gaps where the opponent could have reduced or successfully invaded, then if the opponent does invade and messes up so that you can kill it, then that is a big gain for you. The region was not previously completely under your control, and then once you made the kill, it became completely under control.

Does this make sense?

charlesb: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-31 14:40) [#9194]

Thanks for the explanation, I understand now!

69.68.182.121: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-30 17:49) [#9191]

I have tried to make the text more explicit to reflect this question and answer. --Hyperpape

charlesb: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-31 14:39) [#9193]

Thanks Hyperpape, now it's much clearer!

24.60.141.14: Re: I don't get the (1) statement in "further proceedings" (2011-12-31 14:14) [#9192]

The keywords for the main page include "Advanced". The reason for this is that how to handle a framework and what to expect from various maneuvers can't be given a simple, short description. Advanced topics in this subject include whether to invade or erase, when is a region settled territory, how many moves in a row can you let your opponent make in your framework and still kill his group, can sacrifice tactics be used effectively. All of these questions have a bearing on whether one player or the other makes a gain.

 
Back to forum     Back to page

New reply


[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
RecentChanges
StartingPoints
About
RandomPage
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Goproblems.com
Login / Prefs
Tools
Sensei's Library