If a Japanese pro from Finland has the same belief about go terminology. Interestingly he mentions a term that only really exists in Finland: the Airport, which happen to be exactly the kind of game I'm interested in what AI thinks of it, such as the game he had against Nakamura Sumire in which he used his new 'tunneling' strategy'. So now I'm wondering if even there are different go terms between countries in the west or even states in the US that affect their playing ability. Is the 'Airport' the secret Finnish terminology we've all been missing to get a pro-level player? As I said before, a lack of diversity is inherently bad, especially biodiversity the lack of which might be considered evil, and diversity of thought, which makes forcing thinking life to think the same in the name of biodiversity perhaps not real diversity. East Asian seem philosophically introverted in more philosophical tunnels but even compared to them, Japan stands out as philosophically introverted in a huge number of domains, and this will lead to go terms needing to be more actively descriptive to meet their standard due to high introverted thinking In the middle east they tend to seem in between the west and east asia (debates about whether these phenetics are caused by genetics or memetics to me are utter stupidity for people with too much time on their hands. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture-- what matters is that it exists. Only those with nefarious intentions would be obsessed with that distinction because we don not have even a half of one percent to even begin to understand the biological and social systems, the first of which has been proven. It's a nice excuse though for people to say 'I was made this way I can't change', they will be attracted to saying I'm not in a cultural environment that will allow me to change', both can be excuses to not bother to analysis their conceptual understanding of go terminology for weaknesses either. I could go on about nature&nuture of korea's universal competency phenetic, a permutation of the local competency one in much of china, a better version of china's in my personal opinion, and how that influenced the development of the concept of haengma, as you must see how a shape is performing in the present moment, but my rant will probably be long and barely on topic and schizophrenic enough as it is. So in my view it's actually having a negative impact on go in saudi arabia the way Korea is teaching go to them, especially considering their views on patriarchism, it's almost like negative teaching, sorry if I may sound disrespectfull
everything I say is doubly important in those type of countries. I mean if I wanted to stunt go in Saudi arabia, obviously I'll teach it the guy who is going to teach it to his 9 brothers only, so half the population won't get a leg--or hand--in, and they now think they're 'not the right kind of person for go' anyway. On the other hand, I would take great care to ensure that underprivileged elements in a society are seen to first, much more than in a 'liberal' society. Also, why isn's Xiangqi included in the sports for the future? Or Shogi for that matter? I can understand for go but I don't see why chess is more valuable than xiangqi, from the world's future rising power so should definitely be considered a mindsport of the future, and shogi, the mathematically most complex chess. Hopefully, although I doubt I will, I can survive to make in other parts of 'Africa' (Arabia really is Africa), and I'll quote Kate Raworth quoting Samuelson in saying 'The first lick is the privileged one, impinging on the beginner’s tabula rasa at its most impressionable state.' Hopefully might get first pen-stroke on the tabula rasa. So I'll focus on women and those neuroatypical first, and probably, to guarantee long-term, sustained growth even if external help were not there. And maybe they'll invent new go, or even terms only women or those nuerotypical, although maybe I'm running into the same problem as 9 years ago when I was 13, but I assure you this is absolutely nothing to do with PC and everything to do with strategy, I may not even live to see the results, haha
, although I literally have personal experience of people's impression of go players reducing their want to play go, so I'm not lying.
Imagine you have four people in two countries. Two of those people would do best using and understanding a certain set of terminology, because their talent operates through viewing go from that perspective. The other pair would do best to see go from a different lens, however, and through only that lens would their talent.
But the problem is that each talent pair lives in two different countries. And each country uses one or the other of those terminology sets. So in one country one person does well while in the other country the person with the other style of viewing go does well. And in both countries they say the person who did well has inherent talent for go, the other not so much. I won't be surprised if in the future I discovered a scenario in which exactly this has happened.
Maybe the best way I can show my thoughts on perspectives of approach to would be to go back to around 2012 to 2013 and then I. Perhaps it's an inherent reaction I have against saying a person is not capable of something because they're not the right category of person an not allowing people to prove themselves combined (the Wreck of the Zanzibar was my favourite childhood book, in my head the head the Enid Blyton ones are in the 'good it's a book' category (I have no intent to stoke the flames of people strong opinions on this, I have no artistic sense whatsoever anyway) but the wreck of the Zanzibar is in the 'books that are you favourites' category. Wait doesn't Sayonara my Cramer have plot similarities? My literalistic translation style parts with most translators in that I think you should keep foreign words that are well known in the language you're translating to). But after watching Hikaru no Go I thought it would be even cooler to have a different gendered protagonist, how clever, and I always wanted to write a book anyways. The joke was that Ayana is both a Japanese name and an Ethiopian name. And it's a double joke because Ethiopia was the only country to never be conquered by European so she must be good at go, heck maybe even an unwitting distant descent of Ras Alula or Yohannes so she has latent strategic ability (sorry if I'm the only one who finds that joke funny, hehe). So I even have a little theme song to go with it--surrounding gardens, based on how I view go. Note that Afroarabic checkers, which can be played using go stones, uses the term seeds, and go stones do look like seeds, and maybe the game is related to or perhaps even the precursor of backgammon but researchers haven't discovered so yet, at least that's what I think is highly likely (and maybe they biased to dismiss an african origin for an important mindsport, since it's to do with the mind). But then I thought, 'what if someone asks me why I wrote it? I cannot give such a shallow reason as "HnG female protagist, cool right?," or some similar fickle trobbish. Whishing you had an ancient go master to defeat yo grandfather or wanting to show how difficult it is to become a pro sounds way better'. I didn't quite have the terminology back then but I essentially thought seeming too PC would be a bad idea, although admittedly that reasoning in itself is PC maybe I have a tendency to instinctively develop cringeworthily politically correct philosophies (at probably about 15 or so I thought strongly that I would never propose since it's obviously sexist, so obvious it's not even worth thinking about) ironic since I love listening to non-PC-ness a lot more or those with views opposite to mine. The first thing is to show all my opinions they would disagree with or think are non-PC so they don't get disappointed later on, haha). Although, and not because I'm smarter than then because I'm most definitely dumber than then (moral of the story: trying to be too clean can have the opposite effect, haha
), I could probably restate my reason for it differently than that. The point is making excuses for why you cannot do something because you are not the right category of person is ridiculous. But when you view intelligence or go-playing-ness as a linear thing it's easy to dismiss arguments saying that increasing the breadth of terms you use or angles could increase playing strength, and see talent for a field as a static thing for only the right ethnicity or gender. But in my natural inclination not view talent as linear, a persons passion and interest and ability to see the same thing through multiple different angles. So maybe we need. Perhaps in Asia, where there, the idea of taking handicap stones from them is more prevalent and so strength differences are viewed moreso on the board, in which style and strength and weakness in different aspects of the game are more obvious and
nuanced so it's difficult to imagine your strength as linear. However if who's analysis of gets nothing more complicated than robotic 'my x is y' or 'I tend to do a too much in b situation', without any of the dancing language you would hear in the east, then, of course, a simplistic, internal thought-diversity dismissing intuition of go strength will develop. And, just like I probably should have written my book there and then and not wait until I'm 'good enough' and then let it get too late, amateurs should probably try to develop a style and not wait until they're pro-level, since trying to develop a style may lead one to develop strength in a more authentic way than looking at ranks and ratings, and also lead one to pay more attention to how they view the go board rather than just a tool to improve your rank, naturally leading one to pay more attention to their go terminology.
If every shape on the board is 'living', than it's far less acceptable to have groups that 'don't pull their weight'. So Asian go compared to western go would be like how I used to write (fairly readable) to how I write now (terribly). You can clearly see why a shape is bad.
Speaking of living and moving, would it be correct to say that a Shuriken was actually not usually used to strike enemies, since it isn't so easy to hit a moving target? Although nor is it easy to kill a moving group, I might add! This was a question on something everyone would have thought of as standard to Japan's last remaining ninja, although I haven't watched the interview yet nor have I seen much of naruto so I'm not really qualified here. On the other hand, what one might be more likely to be an invention of naruto due to perhaps being to impractical turned out to be actually quite easy to do, according to Japan's current top ninja. This taught me that what amatuers think would be hard or easy in a profession is often different to what experts--or the pro s--know to be true. One thing he did say is that he was taught the art of shinobi a child and at the time he just thought he was playing fun and games, and apparently ninja have to start out quite young to become ninjas, which I found quite shocking as for martial arts it's usually the opposite to pursuits like mindsports, in that you could learn at any age your body is in good condition and become the best at it. So apparently 'ninja-ing' involves a lot more than fighting, and perhaps is better compared to gymnastics. Japan could fit within the boundaries of it's non-militaristic policy by forcing the population to become obsessed with sports, and I think Taipei-controlled China should follow suit, and the best idea for that would be to appear to train children to become Olympic gymnasts or the next Yuzuru Hanyu, the world's nicest guy, but ironically in reality, they are reviving secret ninja training techniques for a new generation of shinobi. I certainly hope they do so-- the world losing diversity in the form of culture is sad without a good reason to lose it! Although beyond living and moving shapes, ninjas are also related to go problems, being a clandestine matter of life and death . . . . . .