Sadaharu: Why not have both variations since now we have the alternate response mode
caranthir: Using the alternate response mode doesn't really work here imo, because in the ko variation, there's nothing additional to it locally. It would say "correct, but what about this response? *opponent takes ko*" and it would end right there; if this comes after the unconditional variation, it doesn't work at all at the user experience level. ------- I put a comment at the end of the unconditional killing variation reminding that the opponent could've at least had the ko. (Educationally speaking there's a danger that people who get to kill this shape unconditionally in a problem might reinforce in their mind that this is a shape to kill unconditionally, while it's not; that's my reason for having the note) ------ It's debatable which way is harder fighting. I'd say (although Ivan had different - not really an opinion but - semantics) that playing the ko is harder fighting, unless you consider starting the unconditional variation as a trick play. Of course the latter could be more poetic at least.
Ivan Detkov: In the real game, the variant with ko is preferable. Here, when you play, you must do your best. However, when the computer responds, what should be recognized as the best answer? Is it a variant better point-wise or a variant that creates maximal hardship for the solver? It is subjective. For this particular problem, as an imperfect human being, I prefer the second. Others could disagree. This is just fine.
caranthir: Yeah, as I too wrote elsewhere: it's the job of the player to player the best moves (in a theoretical sense), with no trickery. Resistance plays or the other hand are there to test the player. They can be, at times, as cheap and tricky (and at the same time, suboptimal from a theoretical standpoint) as possible. I think it's good to have both types of resistance moves in tsumegos here. In some problems, tricky, and in others, more "correct" (i.e. at least less points-losing). Finally, it's worth pointing out that a great deal of resistance plays would be "bad" moves in a real game anyway. Most of the time the best would to play completely elsewhere, or force from the outside; anything but to just waste ko threats. So, it should always kept in mind that most of the time, resistance plays are not to be emulated. They are there as a device for the player to learn the properties of various positions.
TwT: Confession: Sometimes I use AI to brush up my comments. THe following lines clearly proof the surpirior intellect of AI. ^^
It seems like you're reflecting on a deep philosophical or martial arts concept. The idea that an opponent might prefer to "die in beauty" for educational purposes suggests a willingness to embrace loss or defeat as a means of learning or achieving a higher understanding.
If you're looking for a brush-up, consider clarifying the following points:
Context of "no ko": Ensure that the term "no ko" is clearly defined in your discussion. In martial arts, it often refers to a situation where a match ends without a knockout, but it can also have deeper implications about the nature of victory and defeat.
Educational Purpose: Explore what you mean by "educational purpose." Are you suggesting that the opponent's choice to engage in a beautiful or honorable way of losing serves as a lesson for both parties?
Beauty in Defeat: Delve into the concept of beauty in defeat. What does it mean to lose beautifully? How can this perspective change the way we view competition and conflict?
Unconditionality: Reflect on the idea of being unconditional in this context. What does it mean for the opponent to embrace this mindset? How does it affect their approach to the match or conflict?
By expanding on these points, you can deepen your meditation and understanding of the concept.
TwT: Master Ivan, I spent a hour meditating about your comment below. It is no ko because opponent preferes to die in beauty, unconditionally, for educational purpose?
Using the alternate response mode doesn't really work here imo, because in the ko variation, there's nothing additional to it locally. It would say "correct, but what about this response? *opponent takes ko*" and it would end right there; if this comes after the unconditional variation, it doesn't work at all at the user experience level. ------- I put a comment at the end of the unconditional killing variation reminding that the opponent could've at least had the ko. (Educationally speaking there's a danger that people who get to kill this shape unconditionally in a problem might reinforce in their mind that this is a shape to kill unconditionally, while it's not; that's my reason for having the note) ------ It's debatable which way is harder fighting. I'd say (although Ivan had different - not really an opinion but - semantics) that playing the ko is harder fighting, unless you consider starting the unconditional variation as a trick play. Of course the latter could be more poetic at least.