Bantari,



Probably not, you are too strong for that to notice an effect on your strength. Nakade definition is ca. 30k level of go theory understanding. Related applied research can make you stronger (unless you already know it), such as semeai theory, which relies on a definition of semeai-eye.

However, as a follower of Kageyama, I believe in the power of the fundamentals. The clearer one's understanding of the fundamentals (such as knowing what is vs. is not a nakade), the more accurately / faster one can apply it (e.g., to solving LD problems). Probably, you cannot figure the effect. As little as you can figure the effect of having solved a few more LD problems. The effect is too small to be measurable, but IMO it exists.

See also
viewtopic.php?p=147287&sid=e6b97b2012c20bf0ba3c096525787571#p147287

So... those who are able to understand it are too strong to benefit from it. And those who could benefit from it are too weak to understand it... All we can say for sure that whoever is interested in formal research might find it interesting.

Research for the sake of research? Or what are we talking about?



Something tells me Kageyama would turn in his grave if he knew you use his name in this context...

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

This is an unkind implication, which I have not suggested. That you are too strong to measure an effect on your playing strength does not imply that you could not benefit from it, if you wanted.



Nobody is too weak to understand "can fill", "cannot partition", "without seki".



It does not require interest in formal research to understand "can fill", "cannot partition", "without seki".



Research for the sake of a) research and b) application.



Read his Lessons again. He would be happy!

Funny, in my mind, what you are calling the defender is what I would call the attacker.

In any case, since "can necessarily" is awkward to the point of being confusing (the uncertainty implied in "can" stands in apparent contrast to the necessity expressed in "necessarily"), I would suggest "the defender moving first can force all but one of the intersections of the region to be filled..." or perhaps "If the defender moves first, the attacker cannot prevent him from filling all but one of the intersections of the region..."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

In a life and death situation about one group, the 'defender' is the defender of the life of the group.

RJ likes to quote Kageyama but I think it's based on a misconception: the use of the word 'Fundamentals' in the English title. This is from James Davies. The Japanese title means "Amateurs and Professionals" and, as far as I can recall, Kage doesn't use the word 'fundamentals' in his book at all. I think his main theme was about players reaching certain plateaus at which they get stuck and he suggested ways to get unstuck. But the plateaus included fairly high ones (shodan?), which hardly count as fundamental, and in neither the process of reaching the plateaus nor the breakthrough process does Kageyama use anything remotely like RJ's proposals - or am I having a senior morning?

How, in a Japanese edition, does the Kageyama read in texts similar to "What really turned me from ama to pro was a firm grip of the fundamentals?"?

Not trying to be intentionally stupid, but in the following diagram, both the black group and the marked white stone are groups wanting to stay alive, but it is the white stone that is in the process of almost filling, and he seems to be the one doing the attacking, is he not?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | . Q . X O . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C X O . . . . |
$$ | C C X X O . . . . |
$$ | X X X O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

When the status of the black group is considered, Black is the defender and can almost-fill, but cannot partition the marked region. (Nakade for the black group.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-------------------+
$$ | C W C B O . . . . |
$$ | C C B B O . . . . |
$$ | B B B O . O , . . |
$$ | O O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . , . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +-------------------+[/go]

When the status of the white group is considered, White is the defender and can almost-fill and can partition the marked region. (This part of the eyespace of the white group is not a nakade for the white group.)

Where to find in the English edition ???

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

page 28

Thanks !!!

I would guess that the Japanese original might say the same, with "fundamentals" being "kihon" = 基本 in the Japanese edition.

I suppose that the main source of misunderstanding might be the usage of 基本 in Japan (please be aware that I am no linguist).
"kihon" also means "basis", "standard", "guideline".

I do not think that "fundamentals" is understood in a meaning that comes near to approximately what Robert has in mind, when using this term. When I let my Japanese books on "xxx no kihon" = "fundamentals of xxx" pass in review, there is one thing that all these books have in common: examples, examples, examples.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Thank you very much for this insight.

Now I unterstand even better that Igo Hatsuyoron 120 is the final result of a long, and thourough, research, including the very deep knowledge of which moves are counter-intuitive for players near Dosetsu's strength. The latter being the reason for professionals' immens difficulties to find the solution yet.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Here's wishing you many more.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Not to defend RJ, but it may be a senior morning. Kageyama hammers away at the idea that you can improve immensely simply by being true to fundamentals again and again. He connects it to baseball (what separates professional American players from amateur Japanese college ball isn't some racial affinity, but continually drilling in the fundamentals of fielding, throwing, and batting), to cooking (to prepare a solid soup you need to follow a recipe to get a good taste - I think there's a horrible pun on aji, honte, and katachi in there) and shogi (he modelled his own NHK broadcasts on the shogi broadcasts that helped him the most, i.e., the ones that emphasized basic principles).

He gives lots of examples of go "fundamentals" (don't know if it's always the same word in Japanese), of which the most explicit example is firm captures versus loose captures. This is where he discusses one loose capture he made that was heavily criticized, and gives it as an example of his own amateurish instincts. The basic idea is that amateurs play all sorts of nonsense (and think they are being efficient or advanced - reminiscent of the title of an article you once posted, "Professional tactics, amateur delusions"), but you don't reach simple fidelity to the fundamentals until you achieve a very high level of play.

As much as I like the book, I have always been bothered by this example, and some others like this in the book. What Kageyama is saying seems to be that the solid capture in that case was better *because* it was more fundamental, which I am not sure is the truth. It was better because it left less aji for later, or something like that - at least this is what I think. Sometimes solid(er) captures are inferior to loose(er) ones, and it really depends on a situation, not on some basic level of 'fundamentality' of a move.

A case could be made, for example, that hoshi (or san-san) is more 'fundamental' than komoku. Or that san-re-sei is more fundamental than mini-chinese. But this would have been meaningless.

So - about fundamental concepts in Kageyama:
I think some concepts are more 'fundamental' than others because there are specific reasons for that. It is these reasons we have to know and understand, not just that a technique is 'fundamental'. Otherwise what we have is a list of techniques, ordered by their 'fundamentality', and we can always automatically play the ones more fundamental, regardless of the situation. I seriously doubt pros think like that, or that this is the measure of 'pro-ness'.

If I have any criticism of Kageyame, which is my favorite book by far, it is that I wish he went into these reasons a little more.

Having said the above, it is certainly very valuable to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals, as Kageyama suggests, even when you are not always sure of the reasons.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

To me, Kageyama's text in that book sometimes reads like a tirade against cuteness. I'm not sure the attitude is unjustified, though. I think there is a phase many amateurs go through where they try fancier and fancier ways of accomplishing the same things---some of which may be better---but often they are not. While experimentation is great, cuteness can be a distraction, a misguided search for greater efficiency. It's like trumpet players, frustrated with their lack of progress, who seek to solve every problem with a new mouthpiece instead of having a reality check and getting to the core of what needs to change in their practice.

The frustrated go player is Kageyama's key audience. I think he is just saying, basically, if you are frustrated, tough. Don't look for magical cures.

snorri, I read the Kageyama as a motivation to find the magic:)

I can't put my hands easily on my copy of Ama to Puro (senior evenings now ) but this is a good example to discuss. Baseball pros often comment on the difference between the way Japanese pros train (fielding 1,000 grounders a session, literally, and if the knees go you are sent to the knacker's yard) and the gentler way Major League pros train (whereas in the actual game the ML players play much harder - Japanese pitchers apologise if they hit the batter!). Actually the differences have probably blurred in recent years, but the biography of Wally Yonamine is perhaps the best source on this topic.

The Japanese way of baseball, which is akin to the 10,000 hours theory, is no doubt fine to get to pro standard, and quite likely American pros have done something similar on their way to the Show, but the Japanese appear to have made a mistake in not changing once pro level is reached. This can all be easily explained in social and cultural terms (baseball clubs being extensions of major companies and players are slave-employees). Go pros don't behave that way (as pros) because they are independent - lone gunslingers - and that independence is a good part of the reason they have been popular figures with Mr SalaryMan.

Like you were alluding to, I think his point was that the tighter move was the fundamental one, and that by tighter he meant the one that left the least amount of aji behind. Sometimes this is a net and other times it's a ladder, given a choice between the two, but the correct move is guided by the fundamental principle of leaving the least amount of aji.