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

Terms
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9177		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Terms
Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=150146#p150146

asura wrote:
For some terms it is a feature that the meaning is only rough


I prefer to avoid such "terms". It is, however, possible to let a term depend on parameters.

Quote:
or that it can have different meanings.


In this case, the term must be split into several terms. E.g., I have defined capturable-1, -2 and -3, because three different kinds of capturable are needed.

http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html

Quote:
If you make the definition more specific some statements using this term change from true to false.


Only if it is unclear which more specific variety of a term is being used.

Quote:
when you prove other statements wrong you do it under the assumtion that your definitions apply.


Either this, or I prove them right, or I prove them wrong under somebody else's definitions, or I prove them right under somebody else's definitions.

Quote:
Creating new terms is the only way to be sure that people apply your definitions.


I guess you mean something else: out of context, it becomes immediately(!) apparent only if they apply (only) my invented terms.
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
Bill Spight wrote:
I am not sure of the reasons why you offer your own definitions for go terms.


There are several reasons, in particular:

1) Earlier definitions or descriptions of a term were (too) ambiguous. Unambiguous definitions are needed to always distinguish a thing being something from not being something.

2) Unclear terms (especially such for concepts, e.g., mobility, stability, influence, thickness) belong to the greatest hurdle for becoming stronger. I clarify the term to increase my own chance to become stronger and to help everybody to become stronger. Not knowing well the meaning of e.g. the aforementioned terms greatly slowed down my improvement from 5k to 5d.

3) For go theory (such as principles) relying on terms, clear and unambiguous terms are essential for developing the theory at all, for getting a meaningful theory, for verifying a theory and for good application of the theory in the general case of an arbitrary position.

4) For research in go theory, (3) is even more important.

5) Disambiguation.

Quote:
One difference, I think, between John Fairbairn and me is that he leans towards prescriptive definitions of go terms, while I lean towards descriptive definitions.


Ideally, I combine both, unless I invent a term and there is no evidence for related examples (such as 'default unknown ko'). When I find traditional exceptions that make too little sense, then I do not slavishly include them in my definition, but I might discard them for the sake of simplifying the definition; OTOH, at dan level, tradition is pretty consistent, and excluding bad exceptions is scarcely necessary.

Quote:
I still rely upon usage in go literature, and not just some amateur's bright idea.


In the meantime, I find citing my own definitions 90% of the time, because the literature tends to offer mostly weak, insufficient or flawed definitions or descriptions that simply do not meet the scope and level of accuracy needed by me. E.g., The Go Player's Alamanac's descriptions of gote, sente, ko, influence [missing], thickness [missing], atsumi, atsui, semeai etc. are almost useless to useless.
Author:  oren [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
1) Earlier definitions or descriptions of a term were (too) ambiguous. Unambiguous definitions are needed to always distinguish a thing being something from not being something.


Wrong.

Quote:
2) Unclear terms (especially such for concepts, e.g., mobility, stability, influence, thickness) belong to the greatest hurdle for becoming stronger. I clarify the term to increase my own chance to become stronger and to help everybody to become stronger. Not knowing well the meaning of e.g. the aforementioned terms greatly slowed down my improvement from 5k to 5d.


Wrong.
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
oren wrote:
Wrong. [...]
Wrong.


Not wrong, because e.g. I needed several years to figure out the difference between thickness and influence. This made it especially hard to learn using thickness and influence well. Finally understanding this played a great role for my improvement from 3d to 5d. If I had understood the concepts earlier, I would have improved yet faster earlier.

From 14.5k to 5k, my confusion had been even greater, but IMO this had almost no impact on my improvement in that rank range, where other errors dominated any delay of improvement.
Author:  Boidhre [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
oren wrote:
Wrong. [...]
Wrong.


Not wrong, because e.g. I needed several years to figure out the difference between thickness and influence. This made it especially hard to learn using thickness and influence well. Finally understanding this played a great role for my improvement from 3d to 5d. If I had understood the concepts earlier, I would have improved yet faster earlier.

From 14.5k to 5k, my confusion had been even greater, but IMO this had almost no impact on my improvement in that rank range, where other errors dominated any delay of improvement.


You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?
Author:  asura [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
asura wrote:
For some terms it is a feature that the meaning is only rough

I prefer to avoid such "terms". It is, however, possible to let a term depend on parameters.[quote]
What's about the term "woman" e.g. ?
Until a few years everybody knew what it means but now there are some (ridiculous) problems in sport.


>>or that it can have different meanings.

>
In this case, the term must be split into several terms. E.g., I have
defined capturable-1, -2 and -3, because three different kinds of
capturable are needed.
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j2003.html
<

Which is an easy example, because you could create a partition of the original term. (or a subset relationship would be possible if you wish)
Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".
Depending on the context a tomato is a fruit or not (quiz show vs fruit salad)


>>
when you prove other statements wrong you do it under the assumtion that your definitions apply.
<<

>
Either this, or I prove them right, or I prove them wrong under somebody else's definitions, or I prove them right under somebody else's definitions.
<

What I meant is that any statement always depends on a set of definitions.
Once you change a definition you have changed the whole statement.
Because many definitions are only implicite it's often hard to say if they have changed.
In doubt you must evaluate the statement for ALL possible definitions (and all combinations), which can be quite a lot.

>>
Creating new terms is the only way to be sure that people apply your definitions.
<<

>
I guess you mean something else: out of context, it becomes immediately(!) apparent only if they apply (only) my invented terms.
<

Yes. Whenever your new term is used it must be your's, exept someone else has randomly invented the same term, too (likely with another meaning).
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
Boidhre wrote:
You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?


Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
asura wrote:
What's about the term "woman" e.g. ? [...] Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".


I speak of go terms. Outside go, terminology can have other problems.

Quote:
Once you change a definition you have changed the whole statement.
Because many definitions are only implicite it's often hard to say if they have changed.
In doubt you must evaluate the statement for ALL possible definitions (and all combinations), which can be quite a lot.


Yes.
Author:  asura [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
asura wrote:
What's about the term "woman" e.g. ? [...] Harder would be to define something like "fruit" and "tomato".


I speak of go terms. Outside go, terminology can have other problems.


Until go is completely solved and understand you can't totally avoid such terminology problems if you want to say something about go in general.
Author:  Boidhre [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
Boidhre wrote:
You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?


Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...


No. Fortunately, it has nothing to do with I said.
Author:  oren [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...


And it's precisely wrong because vague terms have been used for centuries with players getting stronger over time. You may have problems with the vague terms, but you are in a minority of go players.

Therefore I will stick with your favorite response here, "Wrong".
Author:  xed_over [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
sometimes terms are intentionally ambiguous.

there's an ironic beauty in that.
Author:  Bantari [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
Boidhre wrote:
You realise that what's true for you isn't true for everyone else, yes? And that it doesn't make something a universal truth?


Sure, but have you or oren become a strong dan player at a time when English literature was sparse and nobody could explain thickness and influence well? If not, try to imagine the age before the internet...


I don't have to imagine, I know, I've been there. ;)
And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available. What you said took you a long time, I have seen others doing in a flash - me included, at least when you talk about the period from 14.5k to 5k. And I feel I can improve and increase my strength very fast from where I am now as well - very fast and without precise definitions - only by hard work and more involvement (which unfortunately I am unwilling to commit to at the moment, or I would have proven it to you.)

But I really do not feel the need for more precision and more definitions in Go, as you do apparently.
To me, its more of a 'nice to have' or 'interesting' - a curiosity rather than a necessity. Sure, come up with them, I look at the, but I strongly doubt this will influence my play in any way. Which is not to say there are not people out there who think differently, so its just my opinion.

For example - to this day if you asked me for a proper definition of 'thickness' or 'influence' I would have a very hard time. And yet I feel I understood the difference between these terms since I was somewhere between 15.23k and 13.97k. I had a pretty good idea of what 'ko' was at around 19.36k, and 'nakade' downed on me around 14.71k (although the last bit of understanding got refined on gradually until I was around 7.37k.)

So, while I understand some need (or better: 'your need') for proper and precise definitions, you have to understand that for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient. What's more, we can see a kind of poetic beauty in them (at least 99.32% of us), and realize that they also have a great value, maybe more value than strict mathematical definitions (this would be only 99.11% of us, though.)

I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what. But that's just me, and I know that you will strongly disagree with this statement. So maybe I am writing the post for others out there instead.
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
asura wrote:
Until go is completely solved and understand you can't totally avoid such terminology problems if you want to say something about go in general.


Yes, but nevertheless go is much more term-friendly than words of everyday life. This relaxes the situation for still ambiguous go terms.

oren wrote:
And it's precisely wrong because vague terms have been used for centuries with players getting stronger over time. You may have problems with the vague terms, but you are in a minority of go players.


I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.

Quote:
Therefore I will stick with your favorite response here, "Wrong".


LOL.

xed_over wrote:
sometimes terms are intentionally ambiguous.


For which go terms, IYO, is this an advantage? Ah, I see: "I am BEHIND (and lucky not to know by how much)!";)
Author:  oren [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.


You are in the minority of a minority. :)
Author:  RobertJasiek [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
Bantari wrote:
And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available.


It is possible to do so until 3 dan. Afterwards, you say, they (or maybe you?) continued lightning fast without knowing terms (and concepts driven by terms) well? Don't hold your breath and tell us HOW!

Quote:
What you said took you a long time, I have seen others doing in a flash - me included, at least when you talk about the period from 14.5k to 5k.


My 10 years delay to 14.5 was caused by the rules, a not replying federation and playing venues inaccessible for children. My ca. 1 year delay to 10k was caused by not having the idea of learning from mistakes. From 10k to 3d was "lightning fast" (17 or 18 months), but could have been faster with better references to terms. My 4.5 years delay to 5d was caused also greatly by weak terms; this is the long time I mean.

Quote:
only by hard work and more involvement


Was this the cause of your lightning fast improvement since 3d?

Quote:
I strongly doubt this will influence my play in any way.


But, IIRC, you believe strongly in subconscious learning. So any information about terms helps you subconsciously.

Quote:
I understood the difference between these terms since I was somewhere between 15.23k and 13.97k.


Did you have the luck of a club teacher knowing the difference?

Quote:
for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.


50%.

Quote:
I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what.


With exact terms, there is the same scope for thinking and ideas, because strategy and tactics need to apply the rules and terms. The difference is that, with exact terms, planning can be deeper more easily.
Author:  oren [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
RobertJasiek wrote:
Quote:
for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.

50%.


99.35% is correct.
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
Quote:
I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.


I see this whine trotted out quite often, and I don't really accept it. Yes Asia has many strong players but "frequent access" - hardly.

I posted a game recently where a country doctor in Japan had to play by post with Segoe yet was still strong enough to play him on 3 stones. There has been nothing to stop western players playing by post, and with the internet access is now immediate.

I have been in many oriental clubs. My experience is that most strong players there are just like most dan players over here - mainly interested in their own progress (and often hubris). They don't teach weakies.

You can of course pay for lessons, but you can over here, too. Over there you could, in theory get access to a Meijin, but in reality it's like a football fan here wanting access to David Beckham. You'll get it, but just once, if you own a major company that is willing to sponsor a go tournament.

Access to "lesson pros" is possible, but for rather more money than westerners want to pay usually, and with more commitment than westerners usually want (e.g. you may be expected to attend for years and join in the pro's club events such as spa holidays).

The only real advantages I see that Orientals have are social or cultural: notably having parents who are aware that being a go pro is an acceptable profession and having teachers who are part of a network, so that they can feed you up the chain to higher level pros if you have talent. In theory even these avenues are open to westerners, but westerners seem to think these opportunities should be presented free or cheap or as scholarships. In reality parents have to pay the pros for years, and the budding pro may have to be prepared to give his teacher his first few years' income as a pro. Exceptions have happened, but exceptions are exceptions by definition. I can't see that a western 5-dan in his late 20s, say, is ever going to be made an exception of.

The solutions are (a) to stop whining and work, and (b) stop whining and not work.

Quote:
My 10 years delay to 14.5 was caused by the rules, a not replying federation and playing venues inaccessible for children.


Orientals usually don't belong to a federation and children aren't normally allowed to go to clubs in town. A school often has a go club, of course, but usually with no strong players. They accept the rules instantly and don't fritter away ten years on trivia or whining.

Quote:
My ca. 1 year delay to 10k was caused by not having the idea of learning from mistakes.


Are you sure you have now embraced this idea? I don't see much evidence of it here. Every time anyone points something out you just say "Wrong" and dig an even bigger hole than the one you're in (e.g. telling native English speakers about their own language).

I always like to be constructive so here's a third solution: stop whining and stop digging.

Oh, BTW = not sorry for derailing this thread.
Author:  RBerenguel [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
John Fairbairn wrote:
Oh, BTW = not sorry for derailing this thread.


I'd hug you if I could for this line. I'll buy Unfinished Symphony as a minor substitute.
Author:  Bantari [ Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Terms
Hehe... lets do some verbal sparring before I address the only worthwhile point you make.
RobertJasiek wrote:
Bantari wrote:
And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available.


It is possible to do so until 3 dan. Afterwards, you say, they (or maybe you?) continued lightning fast without knowing terms (and concepts driven by terms) well? Don't hold your breath and tell us HOW!


Study, think, play... you know, no shortcuts, the hard way.
Of course, as you grow stronger, the progression speed slows down, with any method you apply, so not sure if 'lightning fast' applies. We would have to formally define this term first.

Quote:
But, IIRC, you believe strongly in subconscious learning. So any information about terms helps you subconsciously.


I strongly doubt that my subconscious (or anybody's) works with mathematical precision. But to be sure, I don't know, so you might have a point there. Although, from experience, my subconscious is usually of much bigger help in the more 'fuzzy' kinds of fields. In math, for example, its influence was much smaller, and most of my work was done consciously. While composing, it plays a much larger role. As it does in Go, especially with regard to ideas and planning.

Quote:
Did you have the luck of a club teacher knowing the difference?


Nope. Just read the usual books, and there were not so many of them at that time.
With rare exceptions, my 'teachers' were more of 'rivals' - friends a stone or two stronger who were clobbering me until I started clobbering them.

All in all, throughout my Go development, from 30.17k to around 5.12d - I felt very little need to formally define each term or move or situation the way you do. And I really doubt it affected my development very much, since I think I developed pretty nicely, thank you. ;)

Quote:
Quote:
for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.


50%.

99.35%
Quote:
Quote:
I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/