![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
Why can't you just say that eyes shouldn't be too big for 100% aliveness?
but, in a real game, white just would defend.
you are confusing too many things: the black group in the upper diagram does NOT live. can't see two eyes there.
but, if it can make just one eye, the situation may turn into a semeai in which black has the advantage of having one an eye.
i think this page should be rebuilt from scratch.
I would like to keep the page, but maybe rename it to eye in the belly or something like that.
(becaue the problem is that the opponent can create an eye inside the group)
if you ask me, it is one of the cases where definitionism, jokes and we-never-remove-anything policy lead to a totally useless page. the only content i would keep is bill's comment and the superko-example (as a case where superko rules simply fail), which both can be moved elsewhere.
moved example to its own page superko puzzle 2
but would prefer to rename the page rather than just to remove it./
(we can then also refer to the treasure chest enigma that also ends with a group in the belly)
please go forward eye in the belly. still i would like to wme, after merging. having a page on independence (CGT) would be useful. if bill is reading this :)
I reverted the move to eye in the belly. That page makes a relevant point about capturing races and should not be obscured by a fallacy may occur with some beginners who believe an eye is any part of the board surrounded by a group. This misunderstanding may have to be addressed, but then by pointing out that an eye is the more common form of an ''unremovable liberty', the other being seki dame, and things leading up to it are eye spaces, eye shapes or eye potential.
Maybe we should refactor and even rename this page, but the content should not blur pages that have reached a mature state.
Where exactly does this page make the point you refer to, and what is the contribution of the other 90% to it? This page is a mess since 2002, you tried a WME five years ago!
Edit: The eye in the belly or "two eyes in the belly" is what makes this page possible. Obviously it is not very clear to many beginners what an eye is and when it ceases to be one. The introduction of eye potential in this discussion is misleading, e.g. the rectangular six in the corner isn't "eye potential" it is an eye - otherwise the explanation of an eye becomes pretty meaningless - but it ceases to be one if you ignore some moves by white. Otherwise you end up explaining small eyes as the only true eyes, and i wonder what the result with beginners exposed to such explanation will be.
Not this page. The other page eye in the belly is a basic explanation on how an eye in the belly can turn a big eye into something that has few liberties. The beasts from this page were moved to the start of that page. I didn't think it helped that page.
I really don't care enough about it to see my personality and my actions of years ago get in focus. I just took wiki action and explained it. If the community likes the merge, fine.
I did not find eye in the belly very mature (no intro, just a bunch of diagrams with not much explanation,
Maybe it was better if I added the remaindder of this page it lower down on that page, (my idea was to add it and than later rewrite the whole page.
I do think it does belong at that page (at least as warning about things that could happen)
Any player can fill in their own eye(s), so I don't agree with the concept of 2 unremovable eyes