+---------------------------------------+
| X X O . X O O . X . . . . . . . . . . | | X . O . X X O . X . O . . . . . . . . | | O O O X . X O . X . O . . . . . . . . | | X X X X X X O O X X O . . . . , . . . | | . . O O O O . O . . O . . . . . . . . | | O O O . X O O O X X O . . . . . . . . | | O X O . X X X X X O . . . . . . . . . | | X X X X X . . . O O . . . . . . . . . | | . O . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . O , O . O . . , . . . . . , . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | +---------------------------------------+
tderz: Black could link up, W would die ...
tderz: W is saved ... (in the end it works for W)
Editing difference
tderz: I would like to introduce variations about the (un-)equivalency of this immideate . What will happen after black connects at a.
improved! New best variation!
tderz: I consider this a 'virtual' ko, e.g. at a-b a/o c (there is even a variant wit a ko at d.
It is a question of skill to correctly define the status of that group and see that there is a ko involved here.
Yet this example demonstrates too that 'dead ko' is not a prima facie-derivable characteristic from a very local position, rather an end of a thinking process, more precisely the one if both players play technically most correct[5].
tderz IP test