Citation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=192256#p192256



One possible use of words is using them in exactly the same meaning in all languages in the world; this is a dream. In practice, some (usually) Japanese terms have been taken as words and introduced to English or other Western languages as terms with different meanings than the Japanese terms. One can dislike or like such a development. I like it for cases when the Western terms have established a good and profoundly useful meaning on their own. Apparently you dislike the divergent semantics because it makes translations more difficult. Maybe not - translation has always been difficult and in the past this has led to insufficiently conveying the (full) Japanese meaning of some terms in English translations.

Using some same words differently in different languages not always is misusing or abusing Oriental words or concepts. Instead one can call it accidental different use. The Japanese can have a good meaning for a term and the Westerners can have a good, but different meaning for a term sharing the same word but meaning a (somewhat) different concept.



Yes.



Eh, who? There are players having an only imprecise understanding and others having a precise understanding.



Quite contrarily, inventing new words for terms or concepts is extraordinarly useful whenever they are meaningful and offer a good scope of application. It is even necessary when a) the (Eastern) "masters" have not offered terms or concepts for particular purposes or meanings or b) their thoughts have not been translated (or collected for translation and then tranlated) at all or properly.

New Western terms and concepts do not take as any further away from the words of knowledgeable Asian players (not only "masters" but also amateur players with insight). The knowledge distance is still the same: knowledge must be gathered for translation and translated. Whether it is then compared with English non-term or term language, the semantic linkage requires similar effort.



A very great problem indeed.



1) Different players think differently and it is very unlikely that all professionals would think as you indicate here. Quite likly, there are (we do not know how many) professionals also using careful reading down the branches and using explicit pruning techniques.

2) Careful reading with explicit pruning techniques is so very useful that professionals would be stupid if they all did not use it when useful. (Although maybe a few professionals have a so "fuzzy" thinking way that they indeed do not use it.)

3) Chunk-only reading (without supplying it with careful verification reading on the branching level) DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK and OFTEN DOES NOT WORK because quite a few problems cannot be decomposed as chunks because a) such a decomposition does not exist or b) so many such decompositions exist that distinguishing the successful from the failing ones amounts to guesswork without meaningful confidence about the solution of a problem. I know because I have carefully studied lots of problems as to whether chunking can apply. In fact, probably the greatest hurdle for improvement on reading was the inapplicable concept of trying to decompose each problems into chunks. This mistake cost me many years of delaying a significant improvement of my reading. Despite being very sceptical about problem-only books anyway, still I had trusted Asian problem books too much. One of the worst hurdles for improvement is trusting the idea that professionals would always use chunking when / instead of reading. In another respect, your observation has been much more useful: professionals use meticulous effort when, e.g., "reading".



Of course, nothing but move by move reading is very bad. When applicable(!), pruning, chunking or other means of correct simplifications are important and very useful.



See above; I disagree. (Verification is one use. Immediate calculating-like reading is another, often necessary use.)



(Ignoring the question whether intuition should rather be called subconscious thinking.)

Even when claiming "very, very often", what does it actually mean? OC, one must decide what to read carefully at all. It is very helpful to avoid reading / calculating most aspects. During a forced sequence, one need not always re-calculate everything in between every two moves. Even so, whenever a position is quiet, would we not expect many professionals to do at least one positional judgement for it? I do so, and it does not consume too much time because much can be calculated iteratively and by referring to already calculated bits. Of course, I expect most professionals to have such abilities. Very regularly doing calculations, even if on average only once per quiet position, gives a very different picture than you try to convey about how "infrequently" professionals would do it.



I have never used ichidanraku but frequently think of, and have described carefully, quiescience, quiet and stable positions. Not knowing a hard-to-remember Japanese word does not mean not knowing and using the related concept.

Expert system computer go progreammers have known the concept for a long time.

It is, however, possible that still too many Western players have not bothered to know about quiescience well enough yet.