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."