I never said sacrifices were bad per se. I said that if you compare the solid connection and sacrificing:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . O O X 1 X .
$$ | . O X X O O . .
$$ | . . . 3 X . 5 .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

with the descent and sacrificing

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . 4 . . 1 . . .
$$ | . . O O X . X .
$$ | . O X X O O . .
$$ | . b a 3 X . 5 .
$$ | . . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

It should be fairly obvious that black got more points and white fewer in the descent variation (a plus for black). There is also a not insignificant thickness difference on the outside in that white a is sente to pull out the 2 stones so it's harder for black to use the aji of the cut at b (a minus for black). But balancing those two factors I'd judge the second diagram is an improvement for black over the first.

And giving white the choice to start a fight is certainly a plus for white as more choices are good. This way of thinking about a move: what are the pros, what are the cons versus some other move that you may be more familiar with is one I find very useful when I play and I hoped it would be helpful to others too.

Ok, now your comparison of the two variations is clear, thank you. It does not provide an absolute judgement though.

My earlier post is just about this point - your analysis alone doesn't provide an absolute judgement anymore than uberdude's. It's too strong of a statement.

Regardless of what one calls "absolute", stone difference, territory count and a useful value for influence are essential. Every analysis should be studied in such a context. In particular, it is insufficient to know that variation A is better than variation B as long as one does not know how good or bad variation A is, i.e., whether it creates an equal result or how far it is from an equal result WRT to the mentioned or other aspects.

I hope the "Beginners" are still with us

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

Yup. Still pretty interesting, if not immediately applicable by us yet

_________________
Confucius in the Analects says "even playing go is better than eating chips in front of tv all day." -- kivi

Bolded part of quote above is an important point. Strong players may have different methods for determining what constitutes an equal result, and these methods are not always aligned.

Sometimes, even pros disagree on what constitutes an equal result.

In the end, I think you have to decide for yourself a method you believe in for evaluating a position. If it leads to winning more games, great. If not, maybe you can consider a different method.

_________________
be immersed

Although equality is the ideal, a joseki result need not be exactly equal, but it suffices that Black's and White's aspects approach equality.

The value of the combination of Black's territory, influence and other aspects must be similar to the value of the combination of White's territory, influence and other aspects modified by the compensation for the stone difference and viewed in the global positional context.

Therefore, it is not necessary for different players to agree on exact equality, but it suffices for one player to determine for himself an approximation of equality meaningfully. Since stone difference, territory and influence always are relevant aspects, a player must include these aspects in his consideration, if he wants to determine if an approximation of equality is given. He must consider also other aspects if their impact is significant, but he can ignore insignificant aspects, whose impact is too small to alter the distinction between "approximately equal" and "not approximately equal".

I don't think that's entirely correct, because any particular player considering some sequence of moves as a near equal result doesn't make that sequence a joseki. Joseki transcend individual games. You are talking about something else, that doesn't have its own term (yet).

I encourage everybody to surpass the age of letting joseki determination depend on waiting for general consensus, but develop the skill to recognise josekis by himself and also during a player's own games. During a game, you cannot ask others and wait for their input, but you need to rely on your already existing knowledge and determine josekis / approximate equality on your own.

Joseki doesn't mean equal result... it's closer to established pattern, so it does require general consensus first. That's what badukjr was trying to get at.

You're redefining 定　in a way that millions of people would disagree with. It *can* mean 'equal' but really in the sense of equilibrium of a long established practice, not equal point value on the board. Its kind of confusing because these patterns on the board become established due to equilibrium on the board, but this is not how 定 is used.

This is correct. You can have an even result that is not joseki, and you can have joseki that is not even result.

_________________
be immersed

badukJr, if you read my earlier messages, you will see that I speak of approximating equality. Equality is given for the global situation (which includes the komi) in case of perfect play, but a local position need not be exactly equal, in particular because move-sequences can interact with parts outside the local position.

OK, and? The issue was you redefining a common baduk vocabulary in the beginners forum. Beginners shouldn't have the idea that joseki is a word open to interpretation otherwise when they invariably meet others outside of this forum there will be unnecessary confusion.

This has gone off the deep end of the original purpose of a specific position so I'll take my leave, I just wanted to make a quick point but I forgot who I was talking to clearly.

The problem is that this thread is in a beginner's forum to start with. Not that it is not a beginner's question, but that the answer is far above beginner's level. Maybe the thread should be moved to a different sub-forum. But the discussion is likely to confuse some beginners. That's just how it is.

As for the interpretation of joseki, it is defined as a standard sequence of play. That is not open to interpretation. What other qualities joseki may have is not defined, and is open to interpretation and discussion.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Is that even a kosher way to use the word?

I assume so. Kageyama was Japanese.

The point of quoting him was to back up Bill's assertion that it means a standard way of doing something.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Joseki is not the only go term to be adopted into common Japanese usage. I was unaware of the sense that Kageyama mentions, but following joseki has been translated as doing something by the book.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.