It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:52 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Shape for DDKs -- and thickness, too!
Post #41 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:12 am 
Oza

Posts: 3647
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4626
I have been reading Yoda's Theory of Sujiba book as opposed to his blog, and although I have some way to go, many interesting points have emerged.

One is that the focus is not really on empty triangles. although they are used early on for examples. For one thing, an empty triangle has one liberty in the crook of the L, but has two sujiba there, and the number of sujiba is important. Also, it's misleading to think about strings. Yoda's focus is on straight lines of stones (so an empty triangle seems best viewed as having two overlapping lines of stones, hence it has two sets of sujiba).

But more important is that (as you would expect) the book goes much further than the blog, and the main focus is on suji rather than katachi, hence the choice of name sujiba (suji points). Suji is used in various ways in go, and is often translated as 'style', but it is the dynamic counterpart to static katachi ([good] shape), and shoud be thought of as describing the local flow or movement of stones. Suji + katachi = Korean haengma, but there is a case that the Japanese division into two components is a more powerful way of understanding it.

What flows from Yoda's theory is the following situation.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Bad suji
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 2 1 O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . X X O . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White 1 is bad suji (it's on a sujiba). It should be at A. Black 2 creates an equal shape. White has thus missed an opportunity to create an advantage.


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White is fine
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 2 O O . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . X X 1 . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White 1 is fine here. There was no scope to get an advantage and he maintains the equality of symmetry.


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B White slightly better
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . b X O . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 1 a 2 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Black 1 is poor suji because White 2 makes the position in suji terms slightly favourable for him. Black 1 is poor because Black A creates an inferior empty triangle next, whereas White A, which we can assume is best answered at Black B, would merely create an equal situation.

As this example will show it's not an easy theory to grasp (and of course there's quite a lot more to it, such as a 2-on-1 rule not mentioned in the blog), mainly, in my case at least but I suspect generally, because the usual but inferior way of looking at shapes is too ingrained and this theory really does require looking at positions through fresh eyes. But the examples he gives are convincing, even when also startling. There are situations where the theory fails BTW, but Yoda lists them himself.

In passing he also gives a way of viewing tesuji (the connection is the suji portion of course) which appears to offer an easy way to find tesujis. I haven't checked it out properly yet, partly because there is a later chapter devoted to "The first definition of tesuji in go history" I need to study, but early signs are that it works. The difference in his first throw-away definition is that he talks about forcing moves, which I already understand, but the second definition is based on sujiba, which I haven't fully absorbed yet.

Yoda's writing style has some of the bluster of Kajiwara, and like all Japanese books lacks the clarity that a Sujiba for Dummies would have, but at this stage I am rather inclined to accept that this book may justify its blurb "A way of playing that will change 400 years of go history."


Last edited by John Fairbairn on Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, ez4u, Xom
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #42 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:45 pm 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8859
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 349
Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
Quote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . b X O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 a 2 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
Black 2 is poor because Black A creates an inferior empty triangle next
Hi John, could you elaborate the above sentence; I don't follow.

I can see :b3: at (a) makes an empty triangle for B:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . X O . . . .
$$ . . . . 1 3 2 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

But what did you mean by "Black 2" ? Did you mean :b1: at :w2: ?
In which case I don't see any empty triangles for B soon:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . X O . . . .
$$ . . . . . . 1 . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]
Or maybe my brain is not parsing correctly. If others understand what I'm missing, please chime in. :)

Quote:
at this stage I am rather inclined to accept that this book may justify its blurb "A way of playing that will change 400 years of go history."
Wow. :shock:

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re:
Post #43 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:59 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2401
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Liked others: 2338
Was liked: 1332
Rank: Jp 6 dan
KGS: ez4u
EdLee wrote:
Quote:
He calls it double sujiba, and it is worse than normal.

Does it follow that (a) is quad-sujiba or sujiba4 :
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . X X X . .
$$ . . X a X . .
$$ . . X X X . .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . .[/go]

Skipping (b), tri-sujiba or sujiba3 :
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X X . .
$$ . . b X . .
$$ . . X X . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

I haven't seen anything on Yoda's approach except this thread but from more general theories of efficiency note that none of the marked stones are necessary to capture an original stone on 'a' (and one is unnecessary to make an eye). So 'quad-sujiba' might fit pretty well! :)
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . B X B . .
$$ . . X a X . .
$$ . . B X B . .
$$ . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . .[/go]

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group