Explanation of Firm Capture in the Kageyama

[RobertJasiek]

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=147655#p147655

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 -
[...]
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'.

If you are referring to the firm capture in getas, the explanation is given in my book Joseki 1 - Fundamentals in the chapter 12.4.2 How to Play Nets, pp. 245+:

"[...] the opponent has the fewest number of forcing moves related to the captured string. Generally, sacrificing additional stones is good only if they allow effective additional forcing moves and not just a considerable increment of opposing thickness. If several nets leave the same number of forcing moves of about equivalent aji, then the most efficient of these net stones is played."

These are the fundamentals of how to capture in a net. (As fundamentals, they are not absolute truths, but special positional contexts can require special, other moves. As long as special contexts are absent, apply the fundamentals above.)

I needed ca. 5 or 6 years to find the conditions above. Before, I tried earlier drafts with a trial and error approach.

[Bantari]

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=147655#p147655

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 -
[...]
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'.

If you are referring to the firm capture in getas, the explanation is given in my book Joseki 1 - Fundamentals in the chapter 12.4.2 How to Play Nets, pp. 245+:

"[...] the opponent has the fewest number of forcing moves related to the captured string. Generally, sacrificing additional stones is good only if they allow effective additional forcing moves and not just a considerable increment of opposing thickness. If several nets leave the same number of forcing moves of about equivalent aji, then the most efficient of these net stones is played."

These are the fundamentals of how to capture in a net. (As fundamentals, they are not absolute truths, but special positional contexts can require special, other moves. As long as special contexts are absent, apply the fundamentals above.)

I needed ca. 5 or 6 years to find the conditions above. Before, I tried earlier drafts with a trial and error approach.

Hmm...
How do you know that in 5-6 years - with more knowledge, wisdom, and maturity - you will not completely revise the above?

[RobertJasiek]

How do you know that in 5-6 years - with more knowledge, wisdom, and maturity - you will not completely revise the above?

Because the 5-6 years were from ca. 1993 - 1998, since when I had no reason to alter the explanation. If anything, I have got additional reasons confirming it, such as a better understanding of efficiency and of gains per number of played excess stones. Fundamental! The reasoning is more generally applicable than just to nets.

Quite contrarily, trying to understand extensions and nets belonged to my starting points of developing my more general understanding of efficiency.

To revise the citation completely, I would have to abandon the idea to get the maximum out of every single stone. Stupid!

[Bantari]

How do you know that in 5-6 years - with more knowledge, wisdom, and maturity - you will not completely revise the above?

Because the 5-6 years were from ca. 1993 - 1998, since when I had no reason to alter the explanation.

No reason you see... right now. But with more knowledge, wisdom, and maturity... you know.

Science would still be in middle ages if we did not have to take a step back and abolish old dogmas now and again - dogmas which have apparently served us well for a long time. This does not mean we abolished everything, but open mind is an important quality, I think.

Or are you saying you are 100% certain there are no surprises lurking behind the next curve in your path?

[RobertJasiek]

with more knowledge, wisdom

My knowledge at least tripled since then. My go theoretical wisdom greatly increased since then (change from making mostly random specialised findings to knowing how to discover systematically and within reasonable time for various topics).

Or are you saying you are 100% certain there are no surprises lurking behind the next curve in your path?

It is not a matter of "my path" but of go theory itself, see earlier messages. And since you still don't get it, start with the absolute fundamentals: The players alternate, one move at a time. Therefore, it is better to achieve more with the same number of plays (not: passes) and to spend fewer plays on achieving the same and preventing the opponent from doing likewise.

And now it is time for you to stop meta-discussion and actually understand what I say above. Period.

Besides a possible formalism, the only missing thing is a complete description of the exceptional positional contexts (such Kageyama did not show in his book) and an embedding (not: change for the non-exceptional cases) of the principles in that broader context.

[Bantari]

And now it is time for you to stop meta-discussion and actually understand what I say above. Period.

Don't take that tone with me, young man!

[Bonobo]

[..]

And now it is time for you to stop meta-discussion and actually understand what I say above. Period.

[..]

[..]

Don't take that tone with me, young man!