It has been quite a while maybe about half an year that I seldom played baduk. I am a little, really little bored to play this game while now likly being interested in reading books of go, especially the books mentioned on the title or subject.

I would like to ask for opinions from anyone about Jasiek's go books: about the English language from a German native, the contents or their organization, reliability, accessibility, somethingbility etc.

If the auther himself has enough spare time to reply to this post with 'post reply' or 'send private message', I would first of all be thankful, and would like to be given a well organized syllabus which I can follow consecutively in order to understand comprehensively the author's idea or theory.

I have always been curious about what Robert Jasiek is saying about in his posts, for I could mostly not understand properly. Now perhaps is the appropriate time to study 'Jasiecs' while the book shipping prices must be a lot more inexpensive here in Amsterdam than in where I am from.

_________________
Wait, please.

English language from a German native:

Except for Capturing Races 1, my books have been proofread by British English proofreaders, of which most are British or exceptionally Irish. Nevertheless, for a native reader or readers with very good knowledge of the English language, it sometimes is possible to notice that the English language style has the impact of a German native author. In my books, it can be noticed less than in my online messages or than in a number of go books of other authors translated from other languages and not completely rewritten by a native English speaker.

Go Terms:

I prefer English terms to Japanese terms, unless a) the English term is the Japanese term (such as 'ko' or 'gote') or b) an English term would be unnecessarily awkward (such as replacing 'shinogi' by 'strategy / playing style to leave behind weak groups'). I avoid every traditional term that I consider superfluous or useless (such as 'sagari' or 'dog shape'). I invent relevant, necessary or particularly useful new terms (such as 'indirect connection' or 'fighting liberty'). This affects different books differently: Joseki 1 has a number of such terms, because every move type needs a name; Capturing Races 1 has only two such terms, because the other terms were already available. Usually, consistently throughout my texts, I use terms with the same meaning and describe same things by the same terms; where necessary, definitions provide this meaning. Unlike in quite a few books by other authors, the reader need not guess how to translate ordinary English to the right terms, because I use terms as terms and, as far as possible, try to avoid using non-term phrases with the meaning of a term. Terms invented in earlier books and used in later books are at least briefly defined again in their introductions; usually, this affects only a few terms. Where many other books simply use English terms and presume their knowledge, I clarify that they are used as terms, if necessary, define them and then use them in consistent phrases as terms.

IMO, the consistent, clear use of go terms has a much greater impact on the English than introducing a German touch to the English style.

Contents:

The TOCs tell you a lot about the selection of topics in every book:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/books.html

The contents can differ from English go books by other authors mainly in these aspects: 1) a greater to much greater amount of generalising and explicit theory, 2) invention also of new go theory instead of only repeating already existing go theory (not in First Fundamentals *), 3) completeness where or as far as possible and useful for the kind of presentation of a topic (*), 4) accuracy of generally applicable theory (in case of non-absolute principles, this is so for the intended frequency of correctness of a principle; e.g., if it shall apply in ca. 90% of all cases, then for them application must be correct), 5) as far as already possible, high degree of generality of theory (whether definition, principle or something else; e.g., you do not find "Force before living." as a principle in my books, because it is too specialised; you find a more generally applicable principle instead: "Force before acting.").

Organisation:

The books (*) use a very systematic presentation (such as using clear structure or classification).

Reliability:

See above. AFAIK, in my 7 books so far, I have made only ca. 3 mistakes of go theory altogether: a) suggesting a wrong pronunciation for haengma, b) overlooking a ko in one example, c) showing an opening position with the wrong player to move (but it does not matter for the example; it is an aesthetic mistake). It is an indication for the quality of the go theory that, if anything is criticised at all, it is the imperfect English:) Of course, everybody is invited to find a 4th mistake of go theory.

Accessibility:

The books (*) have detailed TOCs, detailed indexes and bold font for important contents. See also above. Printed and PDF versions are available.

Somethingbility:

The books (*) have a pretty great density of knowledge, so that reading them thrice can be useful. The books can be abused for learning by examples only, if the reader simply ignores all the text and theory; but used for this purpose only, the books are too expensive. Except for problem books to be written later, the books have relatively few problems; readers wishing something like 50% problems in the book won't find enough, unless they use suitable examples in the books as further problems. It can sometimes help to read also problem books by other authors, but quite a few topics of go theory lack (enough) problems in the literature so far.

By all means avoid use of the word shinogi, but please don't misuse it. Hayashi's go encyclopaedia defines it as "Living in such a way that an attacked group suffers no loss. Just barely living while piling up losses is not called shinogi." In the ordinary language shinogu has several meanings but the one relevant to go is "tide over, pull through, stave off [something bad]".

The concept you allude to, but still wrongly, is the phrase "shinogi shobu" which is defined as "the case when, already ahead on the balance of territories, you can win so long as you can live with your one weak group." (Note one.) This is more or less accurately described in English as the "one weak-group strategy", which is widely used and there is absolutely no reason to avoid it.

I'm not aware of any Oriental term or pro recommendation that sanctions a style of leaving behind a plurality of weak groups.

I see. So it is one of the cases where movement of a Japanese word to the West did not always carry all its meaning with it. As usual, referring to a definition helps:) In case of shinogi, since it is a specialised word, maybe it is not too late yet to promote, what you describe as, the full / correct meaning in Japanese also when used in English. This is especially useful, because the additional meaning of living "without" loss is good go theory.

EDIT:

I mention shinogi in relation to the following principle in Fighting Fundamentals, p. 210:

"Defend a group, whose only major purpose is survival, at the last safe moment."

The text continues:

"The 'last moment' is the moment just before the opponent can start a severe attack on the group or on the player's nearby groups. [...]"

I.e., I agree to the "without (severe) loss" idea. (There is always some loss, because the opponent's surrounding stones have outside influence. So "without" is a simplifying exaggeration. Needless to say, a local loss must be compensated elsewhere.)

EUR 3.45 less per book, because you can walk to the shop Schaak en Go Winkel het Paard and browse and possibly buy the books there directly in Amsterdam.

EDIT:



I am not sure when I might have time for that. Given your rank, don't make the mistake to think "It looks simple, I know it all" and put away the books after just a few seconds. IMO, for you part of the books can be interesting if you are open for explanations underlying such theory that looks simple on the surface. It can help a lot to understand why certain simple principles or concepts are right and chosen well. E.g., when you read something like "The development must be fair.", understand what this fairness consists of.

Note from a German reader (who learnt English at the age of four, albeit with little spoken practice since age of 11):

IMHO, in the two books I’m reading in—First fundamentals, Fighting Fundamentals—Robert’s English is somewhat awkward at times, but overall it definitely is readable. Nevertheless, and although I’m usually comfortable with reading English (I read more EN books/internet than DE books/internet, and I prefer EN if it’s the original language of a text), I’d rather read these books in German, perhaps because sometimes while reading it feels like Robert is not too comfortable in EN, and b/c therefore I fear that he may not convey everything he has in mind in a “clean” way as he might do in DE.

Best scenario for these books, IMO: Re-write in German, let them be translated by EN native speakers with a good command of both languages AND great understanding of Go. I understand this would be very costly time- and moneywise, so I guess this won’t happen. Sad for German Go players who don’t like to or cannot read EN.

Greetings, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Thanks for the book shop. It looks quite far from my studio but I will visit there very soon.

I will read your books from the very first to the final end one page after another successively. I think I'll start from 'First fundamentals' and then your three joseki books, after that 'Fighting Fundamentals'. As stated before, my purpose of reading your books is 'to understand comprehensively the author's idea or theory'. Therefore, I will in all likelihood not think 'It looks simple, I know it all'.

_________________
Wait, please.

For this purpose of reading, it is a possible, suitable order, then Positional Judgement and finally Capturing Races (at last, because it is methodically more different). Alternative orders are also possible:) Have fun! Please let me know, if you wish hints about my overall idea.