Strategy vs. Theory of Strategy

SmoothOper · #1

Has anyone else noticed that literature by native English writers tends to focus on the theory of strategy rather than the strategy itself, and seems to be more of list of translated definitions and descriptions of techniques rather than actual strategy. IE sente is, miai is, ko is... etc. Rather than with sente you can grab territory, make a moyo etc.

Uberdude · #2

RobertJasiek · #3

Do you see a difference for non-native English writers?!

SmoothOper · #4

RobertJasiek wrote:

Do you see a difference for non-native English writers?!

I guess I find with non-native english writers, or translated text, such writing is an appendix, and they say up front how many terms are necessary to understand the text when addressing the level of the writer in the preface or introduction. For example: "This text uses pro level games as examples, but the concepts should be understood for 10 kyu to shodan, and only six go specific terms are necessary ko, miai, sente, gote, hane ... etc, see appendix", then they go on to discussing the strategy in terms that are fairly familiar to me as a native English speaker/reader. Generally Asian Go doesn't use a wide vocabulary, since many of the players didn't even go to a proper school and studied go instead. So the text is not a Scrabble :geek:

game of interlocking definitions :ugeek:

if you know what I mean ;-)

.

Bill Spight · #5

SmoothOper wrote:

Generally Asian Go doesn't use a wide vocabulary, since many of the players didn't even go to a proper school and studied go instead.

Have you ever translated any go/weiqi/baduk writing?

Just curious. ;-)

SmoothOper · #6

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Generally Asian Go doesn't use a wide vocabulary, since many of the players didn't even go to a proper school and studied go instead.

Have you ever translated any go/weiqi/baduk writing?

Just curious. ;-)

No but boy sure do I appreciate those that actually to do it, and don't go muddying the water with redefinition after redefinition claiming it as their original writing.

rpchuang · #7

SmoothOper wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that literature by native English writers tends to focus on the theory of strategy rather than the strategy itself, and seems to be more of list of translated definitions and descriptions of techniques rather than actual strategy. IE sente is, miai is, ko is... etc. Rather than with sente you can grab territory, make a moyo etc.

Strategery!

Seem to be more about basic definition of words that do not translate well into western languages.

Bill Spight · #8

SmoothOper wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Generally Asian Go doesn't use a wide vocabulary, since many of the players didn't even go to a proper school and studied go instead.

Have you ever translated any go/weiqi/baduk writing?

Just curious. ;-)

No but boy sure do I appreciate those that actually to do it, and don't go muddying the water with redefinition after redefinition claiming it as their original writing.

I think that you would be surprised at how literate go writing can be.

RobertJasiek · #9

SmoothOper wrote:

redefinition after redefinition

What do redefinitions have to do with describing theory of strategy versus describing strategy?

RobertJasiek · **#10**

SmoothOper wrote:

only six go specific terms are necessary ko, miai, sente, gote, hane

It seems that you read only such non-native writers that can't explain both strategy and theory of strategy well?

lobotommy · **#11**

SmoothOper wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that literature by native English writers tends to focus on the theory of strategy rather than the strategy itself, and seems to be more of list of translated definitions and descriptions of techniques rather than actual strategy. IE sente is, miai is, ko is... etc. Rather than with sente you can grab territory, make a moyo etc.

Well, it looks like the problem is your IGS 8kyu level. Bury all your strategy books you can't understand yet. Do a lot of tsumego, play a lot of games and after a year try to look again at this books you are refering to. Because all problems of beginners are their lack of understanding what they really need to train, and what should be left for the future.
Why are you reading about strategy if your reading, your joseki and l&d sucks? Strategy books are overrated by westerners.

If you don't understand why the books are written as they are - it means you should take more time before you try to read them. Do the basics first.

SmoothOper · **#12**

lobotommy wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that literature by native English writers tends to focus on the theory of strategy rather than the strategy itself, and seems to be more of list of translated definitions and descriptions of techniques rather than actual strategy. IE sente is, miai is, ko is... etc. Rather than with sente you can grab territory, make a moyo etc.

Well, it looks like the problem is your IGS 8kyu level. Bury all your strategy books you can't understand yet. Do a lot of tsumego, play a lot of games and after a year try to look again at this books you are refering to. Because all problems of beginners are their lack of understanding what they really need to train, and what should be left for the future.
Why are you reading about strategy if your reading, your joseki and l&d sucks? Strategy books are overrated by westerners.

If you don't understand why the books are written as they are - it means you should take more time before you try to read them. Do the basics first.

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

Bill Spight · **#13**

SmoothOper wrote:

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

You can skip the joseki.

I don't mean to be unduly critical, but an open mind will help you to make progress.

SmoothOper · **#14**

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

You can skip the joseki.

I don't mean to be unduly critical, but an open mind will help you to make progress.

Thank you Bill, are you suggesting that ignoring strategy is a more open minded way of looking at things?

Bill Spight · **#15**

SmoothOper wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

You can skip the joseki.

I don't mean to be unduly critical, but an open mind will help you to make progress.

Thank you Bill, are you suggesting that ignoring strategy is a more open minded way of looking at things?

No, what I had in mind was things like your 90% quote. You dismiss learning things without knowing about their usefulness.

ez4u · **#16**

SmoothOper wrote:

lobotommy wrote:

SmoothOper wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that literature by native English writers tends to focus on the theory of strategy rather than the strategy itself, and seems to be more of list of translated definitions and descriptions of techniques rather than actual strategy. IE sente is, miai is, ko is... etc. Rather than with sente you can grab territory, make a moyo etc.

Well, it looks like the problem is your IGS 8kyu level. Bury all your strategy books you can't understand yet. Do a lot of tsumego, play a lot of games and after a year try to look again at this books you are refering to. Because all problems of beginners are their lack of understanding what they really need to train, and what should be left for the future.
Why are you reading about strategy if your reading, your joseki and l&d sucks? Strategy books are overrated by westerners.

If you don't understand why the books are written as they are - it means you should take more time before you try to read them. Do the basics first.

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

I think that we all need knowledge of the basics in order to choose reasonable strategies. If instead we are choosing strategies without reference to the position on the board and its various tactical relationships, i. e. tesuji, l&d, joseki, etc., we are playing blind.

hyperpape · **#17**

SmoothOper wrote:

For me joseki, l&d, tesuji are only a way to execute a strategy, and I only need those joseki, l&d, and tesuji that are relevant to the particular strategy that I am exectuing. So 90% of tesuji, l&d, and joseki are irrelevant.

I hope more people know that..imagine only having to learn one tenth of the life & death!

SmoothOper · **#18**

Bill Spight wrote:

No, what I had in mind was things like your 90% quote. You dismiss learning things without knowing about their usefulness.

Oh I am sure many of them are useful in some context contrived or otherwise, but without a strategy most are useless, furthermore for any given strategy only a subset will be useful, which renders the English text with little or no strategy well irrelevant.

coderboy · **#19**

Pre-made strategy is only useful if your opponent plays along with you, I've found in many games that I had to alter my plans, it is a two player game after all. Rolling with the punches and being more adaptable seems to be how strong players play the game. Or am I wrong?

Edit: Obviously having a strategy is important, but like the famous quote goes: "In battle not even the best laid plans can survive contact with the enemy."

speedchase · **#20**

coderboy wrote:

Pre-made strategy is only useful if your opponent plays along with you, I've found in many games that I had to alter my plans, it is a two player game after all. Rolling with the punches and being more adaptable seems to be how strong players play the game. Or am I wrong?

Edit: Obviously having a strategy is important, but like the famous quote goes: "In battle not even the best laid plans can survive contact with the enemy."

I agree completely strategy without tactics is 20kyu at best, tactics without strategy is Tygem 7dan

Strategy vs. Theory of Strategy

Who is online