In addition to the beginners' advice to attack or defend the bigger group,

viewtopic.php?p=147989#p147989

intermediate or advanced players can determine sizes of groups involved in fights according to Fighting Fundamentals, ch. 7.2, pp. 227ff by identifying 'fighting regions' and their 'values'. (Simply speaking, 1 point per empty intersection, 2 points per occupied intersection.)

Often, urgency and group strength need not be considered, but it is simply a matter of the fighting region values. Usually, urgency, group strength and other strategic concepts and choices are needed only in case of similar (almost equal) fighting region values. Since unequal values are much more frequent, the simple size criterion often applies.

Without diagrams, this appears contrary to the common advice to move from the weaker group.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I have not read the book, so the following is only my guess:

It means to consider to defend your bigger weak group first.
If you need to defend a group, then by definition it is weak -- otherwise, if it's a strong group
or if it's unimportant to you, then you would not need to defend it.
And if you have multiple weak groups, you need to consider which group(s) to defend first;
and all else equal, you want to defend the larger one(s) first.

HOW you defend it -- by settling, by running ("moving"), by fighting, etc. -- that's another story.

If the weaker group is small, it can be sacrificed, at least temporarily. One does not want to sacrifice the bigger group or miss killing the opponent's bigger group. Therefore, "to move from the weaker group" is not a generally valid principle.

There can be exceptional circumstances when "to move from the weaker group" overrides "play in the fighting region having the greatest value". E.g., the groups in the fighting region with the greater value might be alive and unstable, while one of your groups in another fighting region with a smaller value might be unsettled (between alive and dead); then settling it can be more urgent than fighting about the stability of the groups in the fighting region with the greater value.

Usually, life status strength varies between alive - unsettled - dead, while stability tends to be a secondary aspect of a live group. I.e., usually strength varies between alive+stable - alive+unstable - unsettled - dead. Therefore, usually, "to move from the weaker group" is applicable only if all the groups are alive, but differ by their relative degrees of stability.

If all the fighting groups are unsettled, then they are all similarly weak: one move by the defender makes them alive - one move by the attacker kills them. I.e., "to move from the weaker group" loses most of its meaning. What matters is sizes.

Note that both First Fundamentals and Fighting Fundamentals teach the fundamentals. They do not provide full case studies of all possible exceptions. Size / value is the most fundamental / important criterion for choosing a group for the next play.

I have seen this in beginner games (studied for writing First Fundamentals) and in professional games (studied for writing Fighting Fundamentals). Many (or maybe even by far the most, IIRC) decisions about which group / region to fight for depend mainly on the size criterion.

Accept this simplicity, instead of trying to rely on more specialised theory ("to move from the weaker group"), and your planning becomes simpler and better. Appreciate how closely related the size criterion is to the game's scoring aim (which is 'to have more points' - not 'to have defended more weakest groups').

Go theory is often said to be complicated. It is. But the fundamentals of go theory are simple, as soon as one has found the most appropriate simple principles.

If only somebody would start a thread supporting this viewpoint, that would be awesome! Oh wait, somebody did, and got shut down by Robert. Oh well, since nobody else publicly supports this perspective, maybe it's meaningless or wrong. Guess we'll never know.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=148057#p148057



You infer this from MJK's summary. My book is simpler(!); in chapter 1, the principles

- Avoid premature endgame.
- Choose the bigger space.
- Move to the wider direction.
- Attack or defend the bigger group.

ask for an understanding of "premature", "bigger" and "wider". It is assumed that the reader understands reasonably well without saying the meanings of "endgame", "space", "direction (of moving)", "attack", "defense" and "group".

"Premature" is explained implicitly in "Playing an endgame move while there are still big empty spaces loses 10 or 20 points.".

"Bigger" is not explained in the text explicitly, but text (elementary school anecdote) and examples expect the reader to perceive it visually. I.e., you might say: what looks bigger is bigger. For beginners, this suffices, because everybody can reliably identify the bigger of two things just by visual perception. The important point is to make a choice at all between the bigger and the smaller; this is expressed implicitly by the imperative in the principles.

"Wider (direction)" is associated with the "wider empty space" instead of the "smaller empty space".

I think Cassandra is talking about how MJK's summary uses very broad based terms which do not give away any precise methods you may have discovered and explained within your book for determining values you attach to those terms.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Might be. In this sense, I have no objection to the summaries below the principles.

This is a gross misinterpretation.

RJ did not shut anything or anybody down. He asked not to give away so much of his work for free in an open forum. I think it is a very reasonable request, and has absolutely nothing to do with 'shutting down' anything.

Certainly you do not think that the study journal in question cannot be accomplished without regurgitating the contents of Robert's book page by page, do you?

Now - stop being grumpy - that's my job. Go have some wine and play some go - that's your job.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

OK. That's a very good suggestion, and I will do just that. Thanks.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I certainly did not.

_________________
Wait, please.

I know, I know.
Was just exaggerating to emphasize the point. My apologies.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

_________________
“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?