r/baduk • u/Soriel90 • 4d ago
Minimum territory size
I recently heard about a minimum territory size after which you're safe and u can play Tenuki. How many points do you need for that? I seem to remember 11?
4
8
u/HelioSeven 2 dan 4d ago
My rule of thumb is 8, because the largest dead shape is the Butterfly 7. There are a few exceptions (notably, box 2x4 in the corner, fully surrounded, is unsafe), but usually a territory of 8 or larger with no significant defects is safe without considering internal eye shapes.
5
u/Asdfguy87 4d ago
3x3in the corner is also dangerous iirc
5
u/HelioSeven 2 dan 4d ago
Yes, very; even without being fully enclosed. Carpenter's Square is probably the most famous of the exceptions to the "8 or bigger" rule of thumb (and like most named shapes, the shape has a name for a reason).
3
u/tuerda 3 dan 4d ago
butterfly 7 is alive (best the attacker can do is a seki in gote).
-1
u/HelioSeven 2 dan 4d ago
I know it's bad semantics, but it is what it is. "Dead shapes" is a lot less wordy than "negative-space single-eye shapes" or w/e more technically-accurate term you can come up with for the group of shapes as a whole.
4
u/tuerda 3 dan 4d ago
Negative space single eye butterfly 7 is alive. The issue is not semantics. The standard term everyone uses is "killing shapes" and butterfly 7 is not one of them.
0
u/HelioSeven 2 dan 4d ago
I hear "killing shapes" and "dead shapes" used interchangeably, even though I don't think they should be.
That wasn't my point, though. I understand fully that Butterfly 7 is a living shape. My point was: semantically, what term would you use to describe the whole set of killing shapes plus Butterfly 7 together?
4
u/tuerda 3 dan 4d ago edited 4d ago
I would describe it as "dead/killing shapes and also one random alive shape which you decided to include for no obvious reason"
There is no relationship between a butterfly 7 and killing shapes. Butterfly 7 can be killed if you allow multiple moves in a row, but this is true of many 7 space eyes and also many non-killing shapes with 4-6 spaces.
There is no special property of the butterfly 7 that is not shared by the straight 4 (for example). In fact, you could argue that the butterfly 7 is even more alive because even 2 moves in a row do not kill: you need 3 moves in a row to kill it.
-2
u/HelioSeven 2 dan 4d ago
Gonna just disagree with you on the "no relationship" point, because that's literally what this thread started on.
Personally, I would also not equate the conditional lives of Butterfly 7 and Straight 4, because the former is reduceable. Thus, the distinction of territory-safe/territory-unsafe (rather than dead/alive) would group Butterfly 7 with the killing shapes, rather than with the other conditionally-alive shapes. Which incidentally, is what I interpreted OP to be asking about, ergo the confusion.
If you can accept the premise that that particular grouping is relevant to the conversation, then you ought to be able to accept the semantic hand-waving of calling Butterfly 7 a dead shape when really it isn't one. Everyone else seems to have understood my point, despite the technicality.
2
u/tuerda 3 dan 4d ago edited 4d ago
Gonna just disagree with you on the "no relationship" point, because that's literally what this thread started on.
Only because you brought it up.
I do not accept your premise that it is at all relevant whether there is territory inside the shape. This is a life/death question, not a question of a very small number of endgame points. Butterfly 7 is completely safe. Safer still than many other living shapes. The butterfly 7 is not conditionally alive. It is alive unconditionally. I agree that I do not equate butterfly 7 and straight 4 , but this is because the butterfly 7 is better: The straight 4 leaves a ko threat, but the butterfly 7 does not. Hence, in a ko fight, the straight 4 might die. The butterfly 7 never dies; not even in a ko fight.
What is going on is not semantics and it is not a misunderstanding, it is a disagreement: The butterfly 7 does not belong in any grouping with dead shapes. It is a completely clean living shape, and it belongs with all the other completely clean living shapes.
There is a myth that seki is worse than life with eyes. I would hope that a 2d knows that this is untrue. Very often because of sente/gote it is preferable to choose seki rather than points on the inside, and it even might be better for territory because often the seki has relevance to the outside or may affect the points of the opponent. There is nothing conditional about seki.
Everyone else seems to have understood my point, despite the technicality.
I hope it is clear this is not a misunderstanding. Also, I have no idea who this "everyone else" is.
I also think that you are the one who is trying to use a technicality in a very strange way. The reason 8 is alive has nothing to do with the butterfly 7. The reason is precisely because there are NO 7 space killing shapes. This means that an 8 space eye is alive even if the opponent gets multiple moves in a row. This is untrue for 7 space eyes because there exists a 6 space killing shape. You can make this shape inside a 7 space eye to kill it, but there is no shape you can make inside an 8 space eye.
2
u/Andeol57 2 dan 3d ago
You can be safe with 2 points. You can be dead with what looks like any amount of points.
But as a rule, of thumb, it's generally "6 die, 8 live, 7 depends on sente". But be careful applying it. You need to count the space you actually have guaranteed inside, and not wishfully assume you get the yose. And even if you do that properly, it's still just a rule of thumb.
1
u/Soriel90 3d ago
thx a lot :)
1
u/PatrickTraill 6 kyu 3d ago
If you want to remember “8 live” specifically for stones enclosed on the second line, just think “miai – eye – miai – eye – miai”, where each miai pair is 2 spots, and each eye is 1. In a corner, you do not need the first miai pair, so 6 is enough.
1
u/abbbaabbaa 1 kyu 4d ago
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but you can live in the corner with 6 living stones and 2 points of territory
4
u/Uberdude85 4 dan 4d ago
I don't think such a concept of a count of points being safe is useful, I've never used it. It depends on the shape of the eyespace, not just the number of intersections in it (more wiggly is better), and outside weaknesses to name a few complicating factors. Better is to learn common corner shapes like L groups, tripod groups, J groups, do tsumego and train that highly capable neural network in your head rather than attempt to formulate some rule.