A definition in my mind is something which I should be able to quote without fear of being retorted. Hang on, for a player who hasn't studied much about the endgame like myself, I'm not exactly one of those players who "are good at identifying and selecting such in nicely behaving local positions." I would normally rely on the accuracy of a book as giving the last word on how such a thing is suppose to behave when such a book is seeking to define something. Nor can you use it to characterize or classify local positions.
That does not mean that you can draw inferences about correct play or the value of a play or position. OC, you can define double sente in this way. Bill suggests that double sente did not exist, but doesn't this depend on which definition one uses for which study purpose? I wonder whether the other definitions are too miai-value-dependent to make sense. Since, on the surface, the definition is independent of values, problems of undefinedness do not arise. With this kind of definition, distinction from sente, reverse sente and gote is straightforward and consideration of double sente at all is meaningful. * A local sequence started by the opponent ends by the player." * A local sequence started by the player ends by the opponent. "A local endgame is double sente if these conditions apply: What are those definitions? In First Fundamentals and Endgame 1 Fundamentals, I define: In "Yose question" viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11129 a few books have been mentioned that they would provide definitions of "double sente".
0 kommentar(er)
