: How I see these terms
(2006-05-04 17:14) [#1497]
A sente move forces the opponent to respond. So you see a forcing move as both good and bad kikashi. I think what constitutes good or bad depends a lot on the strength of the players.
Well go is certainly a relative game in a few ways. But I think there is a genuine distinction here.
sente, adjective: a move whose threat is too big to be ignored.
Personally, I do not feel there is an objective measure of sente, and it bothers me somewhat that the simplest definition gives an air of objectivity. A move, in hindsight, was sente if it was answered. We cannot know in advance if our moves will be answered. If the stronger player says, "This is the move here, this is sente," he can only mean, "I would never ignore this move in this situation." If we respect the player as an authority, then that is about as objective as we can get.
forcing move, noun: a sente move which threatens to undermine the efforts of your opponent; if an opponent ignores a forcing move, his own previous plays because pointless or counterproductive. There is likely only one response to the forcing move in question which will prevent or counter its threat. That the opponent will (expectedly) answer the move shows that is is considered sente. The consequences of ignoring the move is what would qualify it as a forcing move.
For example, we might say that driving tesujis work on the principle of forcing moves: each stone that is added makes it more important to keep adding stones lest the entire position be undermined.
Of course these two overlap (forcing move is a kind of sente move), but that does not make them the same. A hane on the first line could easily be sente in the very late endgame merely because of the points it threatens, not because it threatens capture, cut, or kill. So I wouldn't call a hane in such a situation a forcing move.
kikashi: a forcing move or series of forcing moves whose response confirms what both players already know (e.g., two groups are connected, a stone is captured, etc.). Because such moves are answered, the stone or stones have done their work and can be disposed of. We could also say: because the move or moves have been answered, the local tally is the same so there is no immediate need to try to save the kikashi stone or stones.
aji keshi: a forcing move that only confirms what the opponent hoped for in the first place; for example, making a connection that could have otherwise been undermined.
Now, I agree with you that the difference between kikashi and aji keshi becomes more apparent as one gets stronger. I am certain that what I see as kikashi in some situations a much stronger player would see as aji keshi. But I think this only means something like: reading a novel is simple when you are fluent in the language. The possibilities of plays that aji keshi moves eliminate are there in the stones whether the player sees them or not. (Perhaps a bit philosophical.) In the case of kikashi, there was no expected way to take advantage of anything.
Stones which are aji keshi are not necessarily disposable, so aji keshi is not the opposite of kikashi.
So kikashi and aji keshi are kinds of forcing moves. A forcing move is a kind of sente move.
Would you agree with this? I'm not setting myself up as an expert, just saying what I've gleaned from books, play, and SL itself.