I think the old box and tray comparison is a red herring here. True the shimari has directionality, but then we should speak specifically of the direction of development of the shimari rather than the direction of play. The difference becomes apparent best if we look at the directionality of all the stones on the board. So if Black can make a box at the bottom of the board but has a weak group at the top, completing the box, and so giving White easy reducing moves which also create a wall and a remote threat to the upper group, may be asking for trouble.

Obviously all other things being equal a box shape will be preferred, and furthermore the player in the process of making one will have already tried to ensure he has no weak groups or other problems around that would be affected if he ploughs on with his boxification. We can thus expect to see the box-making plays more often than tray moves in practice. Yet when we look at a database, we see that tray-making moves make up about one-sixth of the first developing moves from a small, low shimari, and that is not an insignificant proportion. It does seem to indicate that factors other than size of prospective territory are being called upon. I'm suggesting that all these other factors come under the heading of assessing the directionality of all the stones over the whole board.

Does it help to point out that "stones" and "groups" are the same thing in Japanese? It's deceptively easy to concentrate on the single-stone shapes of the early fuseki, but actually the late fuseki and middle game can be easier to understand simply because there is more information - i.e. defined groups - at hand.

I don't think it goes amiss either to recall that when pros were faced with the problem of rethinking their opening theory (daal, you have never been alone!) in the New Fuseki period, they did not talk about quarter boards, but about the opening as a whole. Of course that led them to re-examine the corner plays, but you will recall that some players concluded that 5-5 was the best move there, because of directionality, adaptability and the theory of equilibrium (or averaging). In other words, because of global factors and not grubby factors such as corner/side territories.

Take Wang Runan's advice and go up in a helicopter and then draw a map of what you see. That is the best way to decide where to dig for treasure - or play a good move.

Why?

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

My brain is telling me that 2x10 is smaller in volume to 3x9, which is smaller than 4x8, which is smaller than 5x7 etc etc etc

It could be telling me misdirectional fibs though.

But, since we have already agreed on the fact that the size of 'shape' does not necessarily denote the size of the mapped-out area - what does the size of the shape really matter? The shapes you mention denote center areas, but longer and leaner shapes stretch more along the side - and as we all know sides are more efficient in making points than the center is.

Still, let me rephrase the question in this light:
Why is it 'obvious' that a bigger triangle you can draw makes a better play?

It does *not* necessarily mean safer or more points, so what? Or it *does* mean safer or more points... and then *this* correlation is what we have to define. Saying that this is 'obvious' is not always sufficient, I think. Even if it may be obvious to you and me.

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

This gets into ideas about teaching, which are interesting.

Two scenarios. P=Player. X=beginner X. Y=beginner Y.Often, it is one reason (among others) why little children (Y) can make high dan in a few years,
whereas why some adults (X) get stuck at kyu levels for many years.

Of course, YMMV.

Exactly. Different concepts better have different terms, instead of continuing the earlier ambiguity of the same term for different concepts. (But for reading old texts, one still needs to be aware.)

In other words: we have no clue why we do what we do, we just follow what the pros do or say - like a mantra, and who cares about understanding?
And out teaching method is: do what I say, it is correct, and if you want to try something else - its your problem?
And good student is one who does not ask questions we cannot answer, he just follows?

I grant you that children have more intuitive approach to things than adults, but you are not talking to children here, and is certainly not a child which asked this question.

Also - even if we assume that less explanation and more 'blindly follow' is more suitable for kids... This does not mean its OK for the teacher not to know the explanation. Regardless of the fact that he finds the situation suitable to go into details or not. Dogmatic approach and lack of understanding is never a good thing, in my book.

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

Haha, nice remark!

Cheers,
Rainer
(GoChild GoRo with 1915391 points)

I always think about it in the terms of two cage fighters. If you think you can knock him out with a punch, you wouldn't try to get into kicking range.

@Ed, I agree, but I'm not sure I'm happy with it either

Case 1 sounds like an adult wanting to understand as a guide to feeling like he's improved.

Case 2 sounds like someone wanting to get better, but doesn't feel the need to really "get" why moves are good, as long as he can remember that they are.

Case 2 may offer quicker improvement, but case 1 feels more satisfying to me afterwards!

I feel the argument for supporting Case 1 lies in the philosophy of thinking for yourself. You make your own evaluations, use your own brain, and... think! I'm quite used to this type of idea, and it can be seen by some of my strong opinions, perhaps.

But I think the argument to support Case 2 lies in the philosophy of trusting and learning from another person. Not that you can't learn via Case 1, but Case 2 is more open to receiving information from another individual rather than filtering with your own thought process.

Perhaps some sort of balance is best. Go for Case 1.5, maybe.

_________________
be immersed

I'm not incessantly asking "why," I'm incessantly asking "what." As in: What does "the direction of play" mean? "This direction is better" is meaningless if I don't understand what you mean by the word "direction."

I suppose I have no recourse but to get the book back down from the shelf.

Here is a diagram from the book I would like to offer up for discussion (beware, it's a trap):

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B White to play - how should black respond?
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . O . . . . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . O . O , X . . |
$$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . O X X X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O O O . O . . . X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Per Daal's request, pulled to here -- ideas on teaching

My reply would be that I am starting to resent this off-topic discussion, and I'd like to request that you take it elsewhere, and I can give you some quasi-logical explanation as to where I would play, and I expect you will be satisfied with it.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

The position above is an excellent example of the flaw of thinking about the direction of play only in small regions.

It is true that White will predominantly play on the central lower side (and never on the left side), but in passing it might be noted that there is database evidence that they are not entirely sure which point to play there. That uncertainty may also explain the few, but still pro, experiments in this position such as E3 (attachment) or D6 (shoulder hit), or playing a kakari in the upper right first (either side). Perhaps the pros in these cases were seeking some definition in the position before deciding exactly where to play on the lower side.

However, if you make an apparently small change and put the upper right black stone at R16 (komoku) there is a massive change in where to play next. Almost exclusively White's next play is the low approach in the upper right. There is only one case of a play on the lower side (but tantalisingly it was Go Seigen who deemed that worth a try!).

So if you were to look at these two positions in terms of shapes (the shimari) or in terms of a simple count (stones and points in local areas, or number of groups) you would get an identical result, yet there is something in the position that clearly overrides that. It's too simplistic just to say "corner sides, centre" because this something is also telling pros to play specifically the LOW approach, and in any case there are many pro examples in other positions of not rushing too play a corner approach against komoku.

I'm not sure that direction of (the run of) play explains this difference either, mind you, but that's what a discussion forum is for. Um?

Daal, I'm curious: do you mean you don't understand what "direction" means only in that book,
or, in another specific usage (another book, article, webpage, thread, etc.),
or just in general you have no idea what people mean when they talk about "direction" in Go moves ?
After the discussions so far, what is your current understanding of "direction" ?

(For example, your experience could be that you have no problem when so-and-so talks
about "direction," but are at a complete loss in a particular book/article.)

At the risk of repeating myself, the term I am unsure about is "direction of play," specifically as used in this quote:

"The most fundamental point was said to be deciding where to play and for this the essential mindset to ingrain was 'First, direction of play; second, the actual point.'"

My current understanding of the word "direction" in this context is: "The place where the stones currently on the board would prefer to develop."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

But again this is changing Kajiwara's words, so it's no surprise if his message does not get through. Why the emphasis on development?

He starts of his book by an even higher principle than stones/groups having directionality - stones/groups represent power. Therefore power has directionality.

But he does not say directionality has to mean direction of development. He specifically distinguishes between "direction of development" (hatten houkou) and "direction of power" (chikara no houkou).

Imagine a well-made wall. It clearly (Bantari notwithstanding) has directionality. But how would you use that wall? You could develop from it, yes. But you could also use it to drive the opponent towards it.

Much of what Kajiwara says is not so much about missing the direction of play from a given position but about, before that, getting your stones aligned properly so that they can exert their true power in various directions (inwards and outwards).

Even if it's ugly, you might find the phrase "directionality of power" more useful than "direction of play". In short, the "what" you seek is "power".

I don't know if this is too obvious. I went back and re-read all the posts a few times.
Some people mentioned "flow"; some people mentioned "from" and "to" in different contexts.
To me, one meaning of "direction" here involves "from" and "to." The "from" and the "to"
change in different situations -- for example, mentioned so far --
- a group running from (obviously) its current location, to a friendly group, to connect up;
- pushing an enemy weak group toward your strength; this means your moves have to flow "from" a certain region "toward" another region;
- "from" a friendly group "toward" an unclaimed region (say, to develop a moyo);
etc.

But in some cases, another meaning of "direction" does not have to have a "from" and "to":
for example, your opponent is building a big moyo, and it's urgent that you do something about it --
in this case, it could be a placement.

I lost track of all that, heh...
Are the words in question, the quote, directly from Kajiwara, or is it something John came up with, or the translator?

And, in either case, are we interested what Kajiwara means (or would mean) by that, or what was that John meant when he quoted what he quoted? Was it even a quote, or not?

I think all this needs to be cleared between daal and John first. Or at least - it would help *me* understand what is going on here.

It might all be repetitive, but I really lost track, and my head is buzzing from all kinds of other threads now...

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