Life In 19x19
http://www.lifein19x19.com/

Definitions
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3918		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  daal [ Thu May 26, 2011 2:42 am ]
Post subject:  Definitions
Sometimes I have the feeling that I'd understand more of what people say if I knew what they were talking about.

While some hard to pin down go-related words, such as "thickness" have been discussed to no end, there are other common English words that also have the tendency to become nebulous in the context of go.

Here are a few, and I would like to ask you to offer definitions for any or all of the following words.

1. important, as in: this is an important stone.

2. interesting, as in: this side is more interesting.

3. development, as in: this stone has good potential for development.

4. weak, as in: this group is weak.
Author:  CSamurai [ Thu May 26, 2011 3:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
As I understand them, grain of salt, I'm 5k-4k, depending on my losing streak.

1) Important stones: Stones you can't afford to let die, usually splitting stones that make two groups weak, or a weak group that you've invested the game in.

2) Interesting: To me it means that there's more potential on a side. Let's say...

Go Diagram
Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . O . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . X O O X . O . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]



The top, for white, feels like the most interesting side, since white could use an approach on the top left to sketch out more territory. Playing on the bottom is not interesting for black, because white's strength on the left limits his ability to develop this side. Black's most interesting side (though it's white's move) is the top as well, since he can limit white's potential, and expand his influence along the left with an extension along the top.

3) Development: This is akin to interesting, to me. If you have a good potential for development, it means that this stone has a good chance of making you territory or developing into a strong group.

4) Weak: This group lacks one of the following: A base, a route to the center, two eyes. Also, this group/wall may have glaring cuts that are not profitable to play yet, but allow the whole thing to be split apart later.

Traditional wisdom tells us that any group with one eye and a route to the center is 'safe', but this is only true if you don't mind being chased around. A group with one eye and an out is not weak, but neither is it 'strong'.

Go Diagram
Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm1 Prisoner Count: B-0 W-0
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


The three marked white stones are 'weak', in that while they're not necessarily in danger of dying, neither are they comfortably able to ignore any move that threatens to enclose or undercut them.

Hope that helps some.
Author:  Toge [ Thu May 26, 2011 3:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
daal wrote:
1. important, as in: this is an important stone.


- Important stones allow future plays. For example, a cutting stone that separates a group into two groups, making both of them weak is an important stone. If both separated groups are alive as they stand, the cutting stone is not important.

daal wrote:
2. interesting, as in: this side is more interesting.


- I think this relates to development. Sensei's library article about it.

daal wrote:
3. development, as in: this stone has good potential for development.


- The stone is not sealed in. Usually said when there are multiple sides where you could place a stone while keeping connected.

daal wrote:
4. weak, as in: this group is weak.


- Weak groups can be attacked for profit. They are usually characterized by lack of eyespace.
Author:  perceval [ Thu May 26, 2011 4:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
if i maybe so bold as to add my own question, i recently went through some game commetaries at gameguru , and the comments are full of "play to get a rythm", "good rythm" etc... unless Gu li likes to tap dance between each move and finishes his dance bout by slamming a stone on the board i don't get what that means :scratch:
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Thu May 26, 2011 4:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
Quote:
2. interesting, as in: this side is more interesting.


The OP makes a good point, but the word "interesting" is a special case and is not merely a matter of English. It's often a mistranslation of Japanese omoshiroi, which can be a technical term in go. In go, to quote the great Hayashi Yutaka, "This word is often used in particular when [a position] is somewhat favourable for you and you can play with confidence." (E.g. if if used to describe joseki outcomes, the usual meaning is "slightly favourable for one side".)

The same sort of sense is seen in omoshiroku naru: "A term that describes the case when a game that has so far been difficult takes a turn for the better".

The "having fun" sense of interesting does appear sometimes, as in omoshiroku utsu (e.g. where you try odd moves for fun), but in my experience it's pretty rare in go texts.

Even on the question of the other words, there may be an element of not being quite in synch with the original Japanese that lies behind much of go writing in English. When we hear a sentence like "this is important" we tend to see it in absolute terms. We want to ask: yes, but how much on a scale of 1 to 10? The Japanese are more disposed to think in relative terms, and they are satisfied just to infer that it's more important for one side than the other. This harmonises with a yin-yang view of the world with its everchanging relationships. As a result, whenever you see a phrase like "this is important", try converting it to something like "this is more important for White" and you can get a different view that may be more useful for the very yin-yangy game of go.

To head off at the pass those who may want to take issue with the last paragraph, let me quote the late but great Prof. Samuel Martin: In English we have a special form for the adjective when we make comparisons: 'this is MORE interesting - than...' Japanese normally use the simple adjective without any element corresponding to 'more': 'Yasui' = 'it is cheap' or 'it is cheaper'...." This relativity is often overlooked in translations but can be seen in Hayashi's definition of the go term omoshiroi.
Author:  flOvermind [ Thu May 26, 2011 5:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
daal wrote:
1. important, as in: this is an important stone.


I'd say this one is pretty easy to define:

Capturing unimportant stones is worth some prisoners (and a few points of territory).
Capturing important stones is worth more (usually a lot). You additionally get a strategic benefit (like thickness, fixing weak groups, ...).

Of course, for that to make sense, you need to define "thickness" and "weak group" :P
Author:  daniel_the_smith [ Thu May 26, 2011 7:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Definitions
OK, I'll play.

daal wrote:
1. important, as in: this is an important stone.


A stone or group which has value beyond the points it's worth/surrounds. Generally, this means cutting stones.

I'd say, more important for those <= 6k, is identifying unimportant stones and abandoning them. When I play the 6k at club, a very common mistake of his is to save one or two stones that are nearly dead, giving himself a heavy, weak group.

daal wrote:
2. interesting, as in: this side is more interesting.


I won't try to compete with John. :)

daal wrote:
3. development, as in: this stone has good potential for development.


There's open area near the stone (typically along the side), and the stone's position (typically 4th line) makes the open area relatively more valuable, because an extension will enclose more area than an extension from a less developable (i.e., 3rd line) stone.

daal wrote:
4. weak, as in: this group is weak.


There are different levels of weak, and which one applies depends, I think, on your overall skill level and the particular board condition.

If my opponent plays another move here:
1. This group will die.
2. It will be sente, because another move from the opponent will cause condition 1.
3. It will be sente, because another move from the opponent will cause condition 2.
4. It will be sente, because another move from the opponent will cause condition 3.
5. It will be sente, because another move from the opponent will cause condition 4.

#2 is more commonly described as: this group will live small in gote, and/or this group will be chased around the board, causing unacceptable collateral damage everywhere else.

I'm not sure how many levels there are. I know I go by #3 above most of the time, and sometimes perhaps #4. I'm guessing that stronger players have at least one more meta-threat level than I do.

In general, the more sente moves the opponent has against your group, the weaker it is.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/