Not all principles taught by (top) professionals are weak and not all principles taught by me are mighty. For principles for that I make related claims, I can provide, IMO, convincing justification.



I recommend: become aware of the possibility of their partially insufficient or weak teaching. Example: Takagawa 9p wrote that corner moves were 100% moves, side extensions 80% moves, extensions towards the center 50% moves. These are random percentages without justification. The figures pretend non-existing precision of typical relative move values.

FWIW, IMO you are now being much more reasonable. As you may be aware, Awaji Shuzo also uses percentage figures in a similar fashion in one of his books (Countermeasures to Invasions that Amateurs Don`t Know, which John reviewed in the reviews section). The only quibble, though, is that possibly neither Takagawa nor Awaji intended the figures to be taken literally.

If somebody said to me, for example, "I think there`s an 85% chance of rain tomorrow", I would not take that as meaning precisely that, but rather that they thought there was a strong chance of rain, while allowing for a fair possibility of being wrong.

Still, even if the great Takagawa said such and such a move was a 100% I would have to doubt him just a little bit, because that is being exceptionally assertive, and anybody can be wrong sometimes.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I have criticised also those symbolic figures (and suggested a better alternative) and van Zeijst's QARTS. Symbolic figures are not bad per se; I suggest some in my unrest model. The figures must be reliable though. By keeping my numbers small (distinguishing the values 0, 1 or 2+ when making decisions), the risk of bad design is kept small.

I think that they never had this intention. That is because no master of an art is able to "express" all of his knowledge.

Even if they could, it would mean something like "If you encounter the following circumstances (= 87 parameters), act as follows (= 45 single actions)".

I remember a story, once read about Kendô (剣道), the "Way of the Sword".


Even someone, who never had any lesson in sword-fighting, can be a terribly dangerous opponent, even to a master Samurai. If you ask this very talented person (who fights at every given opportunity), how he is doing, he will answer "I do not know. Everything is flowing, everything happens automatically. And I am very sure that nothing bad will happen to me."

This very childish attitude will disappear soon, after he has been told by the master samurai about the most effective points to hit, to decide the fight quickly, because the opponent will become unfit for fighting immediately. However, this seemingly helpful information will proove counter-productive. Now he is very aware how dangerous his doing really is, and that there might be some probability to die.

He is no dangerous opponent any longer, his previous (let's say "intuitive") strength has gone.

However, the master Samurai will help him, giving him lessons in technique, and other relevant fields for sword-fighting, and giving him to opportunity to train his newly assembled knowledge.

After several years of practice, our candidate has become a very good fighter again, but he has not reached the top level. He still has the most difficult step to go to finish Kendô:

He must forget all of his knowledge !!!

He must regain the childish attitude, he had in the very beginning. Then, the sword will be an integral part of his flesh, blood, and mind.

If you then ask him, how he is doing, he again will answer "I do not know. Everything is flowing, everything happens automatically."

However, he has reached the higher master level, so he will continue "And I am very aware that I might die." And now will manage to "win" without really fighting.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Be patient. The researchers in go theory are going to help them with expressing all their knowledge.

(Sorry, Tami, private message and message report to admins have not resolved it, so I need to reply in public. Ignoring Dazz's text is not an option because I cannot allow false rumours about myself to spread. Starting a new thread would be an overkill because I do not intend to start discussion; I just want to correct tone and facts.)



With rare exceptions, calling anybody his own (worst) enemy is very impolite to the extent of being a personal attack. If your opinion were modified to a softer version (such as using "greatest obstacle" instead of "worst enemy"), it would still be factually false; the by far greatest obstacle to marketing my books is the still missing possibility to present copies of them in a few important countries.

I'm sorry, Robert, but you are being your own worst enemy again by showing your ignorance of English as a non-native speaker. This phrase has cliche status in English. It is usually entirely inoffensive or, at worst, only barely offensive. It has no more nastiness to it than (or so I believe) sich selbst im Wege stehen. It could not be further from the idea of der boese Feind that you seem to imagine lurks behind it.

Thank you, John! I have been unaware of the "sich selbst im Wege stehen" meaning of that phrase. This meaning is not insulting, and, WRT to apparently misunderstanding the phrase's meaning, I apologise.

Returning to the main topic... me, me, me, me, me!

* with the help of Segoe`s tesuji books, I feel my reading is becoming tangibly better. I`m seeing one or two ply farther, and that is making a difference in my games. In fact, my attitude to the Segoe books is changing. Previously, I found the A problems just too difficult and frustrating, but they`re becoming "enjoyably hard", like the Times Crossword.

* I`ve started working with pro games in a slightly different way. Instead of trying to memorise them, I`m trying to use principles to work out what`s going on and why. This is because the real skill, IMO, is thinking about positions logically and critically, and principles are tools to that end, rather than move-generating devices. A benefit of this kind of training is that you can do it in short spells, which is ideal if you`re too busy or tired to play, which is how things are for me on Monday and Tuesday. When I consider it, this reminds me of my undergraduate days analysing fugues by Bach and Buxtehude...that exercise brought my understanding of musical structure to a new level, so I hope it will accomplish the same with go.

So many books to read. I have received "Zone Press Park" in Japanese, but I`d quite like to get it in English too, as I`m very intrigued by O Meien`s ideas (which I have been reading about on NewinGo and elsewhere), and I`m particularly anxious to understand them aright.

I took this position from the website
http://gowizardry.com/?p=1962

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Zone Creation
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . 2 4 6 . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 3 5 . 7 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It seems helpful to me to think of White`s play as creating a "zone". That is, it`s overstating it to call the centre White`s sphere of influence, but as the article explains, fighting in the centre/lower left area will be tilted in White`s favour by the helpful presence of 2-6, and Black won`t be able to make a large framework. IOW, perhaps you could use "zone" as a way to describe the effect of moves that create a very large-scale, but tenuous, influence - if you like, to think of it as a precursor to a sphere of influence.

With moves 2, 4 and 6 White creates a "distance" or "width", but there`s a good chance she will discard those stones later, and it looks too early and slow for Black to attack them. Black has gained a few incontestible points on the bottom, but the creation of a huge White zone seems adequate recompense for White. Purely as a matter of taste, I find this kind of play much more appealing than the traditional corners - enclosures - approaches - extensions - zzzzz style.

Zone - area of tenuous influence, creation of "width", some assistance in fights, cramping of the opponent`s plans --> Sphere of influence - usually large-scale, quite likely to transform into real territory or thickness

This could read merely like "undergraduate bafflement", but you`ve got to try at least to digest the ideas you read about.

I don`t know if it was John or T. Mark who was responsible for all the "Rawhide" references in a recent NewinGo article, but I looked up the song and have not been able to get it out of my head since...erm, thank you (or something)

rollin`, rollin`, rollin`

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

White gets two more influence stones towards the center than Black, but I wonder...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Zone Destruction
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . O O . . 5 . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White is not guaranteed center influence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Fight for Influence
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . O O O . 1 . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c Fight for Influence
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . 2 . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . O O O . 1 . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Is Black really too slow?

To Robert, your suggestions remind me that go is a game for two players Of course, Black will not just suffer White`s strategy willingly.

In your first diagram, I feel White 6 is too heavy. Black 5 negates its effect to the East, and there`s nothing for the group in the North. I would play elsewhere with 6. Exactly where I cannot decide for now. The best choices seem to be playing a shimari in the lower right, challenging Black to follow up on his 5, or to take a big point elsewhere, perhaps sanrensei or a shimari at F17.

In the next two diagrams, Black 1 looks interesting. Again, I`d leave the three White soldiers alone; possibly I`d opt for the shimari in the lower right, because otherwise an approach by O3 looks too good in size and shape to allow. White 2 in the second diagram also seems reasonable and consistent.

White 2 in the first diagram appears to be trying too hard. I don`t believe White can forcibly gain a sphere of influence. A "zone" is not so much "influence" as merely a "area with a useful friendly presence", but that`s only my tentative interpretation and could quite possibly be garbage.

I don`t like White`s 4 in the last diagram. It looks like switching to shinogi strategy after opening with large-scale intentions. It feels inconsistent.

It seems to me that it`s important to be willing to discard the three White stones, and not to try too hard to get influence out of them either. They are like the outermost skin of an onion, easily shed. The problem Black may have is knowing when to stop playing around them - does Black kill `em dead? How willing is Black to tolerate their effects?

Of course, I`m only trying my best to understand what White is really up to. It`s the kind of strategy that could easily go horribly wrong in amateur hands, but it`s extremely interesting to think about.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

White wants sente. If he wanted gote, he would play like this:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c gote
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . O . 4 . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

If Black continues:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c gote
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . O 5 O . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Concerning your tenuki suggestions, White must then ask himself whether the moves are aji keshi.

It might be. I had similar thoughts a couple of years ago. The word that keeps popping to my mind now is "conditioning." There are aspects of Go that are very sport-like. I can work at reading better, but if my reading starts to fail near the end of a game, I could lose a won game easily. Depending on the length of the game, there is an aspect of pacing oneself that is completely aside from knowledge.

I think a lot of go strength is present in what we can see instantly. This includes knowledge that is readily available, but also correct reflexes and quick reading/evaluation of common shapes. Those source material for that stuff may come from books or teachers, but constant repeated, correct use is required to make it automatic. That's conditioning.

That book is almost deliberately inscrutable in English. I wonder if it's any better in Japanese. Much of it is lost on me because it relates to humor regarding Japanese cuisine.

O Meien definitely has a different way of looking at the game. He is like the anti-Jasiek, stubbornly refusing to clearly define anything and resisting all attempts to make clear judgments regarding whether some play is good or bad.

Still, there are ideas in O Meien's book I haven't seen anywhere else. He really seems to dislike games that can be reduced to calculation. But I haven't seen anywhere else where a go author even attempts to take on the thinking behind what one can do when it is not possible to read, and that's the part I find the most fascinating.

Some quotes:

I'm telling you this for the hundredth time, but the starting point of the zone press is "I don't understand."

In regards to reading, the correctness of something like Diagram 8 is guaranteed. It's clear that the result is that the "variations in go are finite." On the contrary, for someone who can't read, the meaning is that to the extent that one can't read, the "variations become numerous" and "one can believe more in the possibilities."

It's to be expected that one is weaker regarding things that can't be read out than at the things that can be read out, but when one is put into the standpoint of "not choosing," one's strength is replaced by that weakness and one is saved.

When a lamb is perplexed by the incomprehensible paths, the winding path where a little bit ahead can be seen is the path of reading. However, being able to see ahead is the lamb's delusion and there is perhaps a pitfall, a trap lurking just one step away. For the weak lamb, to the extent that the lamb is week, this path is full of pitfalls. But in regards to the path of the mist, to the extent that the lamb is weak, the mist is dense and it protects the lamb. If the lamb possess the spirit of belief in the zone, it mutters, "Catch me if you can," and without hesitation, can plunge into the mist.

It was hard going getting through the first chapter of Zone Press Park. Now I know a lot more about Chinese food, and I wonder that Mr O is not a great big porker, considering how much he likes to eat. Or is he only teasing?

Well, my impression is that the first chapter might be a kind of ploy to prevent people from picking up the book at the bookstore and skimming the main points, without actually handing over any money. It`s quite easy to do that with, say, the MyCom books because the main points are printed in bold type or presented in highlighted boxes. Indeed, halfway through the opening chapter O actually says "if you`ve got this far, you`ve probably bought the book".

I got my Japanese colleague to read the first chapter, and she said that it was fun to read. Her opinion was that it was an attempt to set up a good feeling between writer and reader, and to make a "cool" effect. Ordinary go books are very dry, but this one is amusing and fun, said she. However, she felt that the conceit goes on a little bit too long - she too found herself wanting O just to get on with it.

However, even in the first chapter the main ideas are stated clearly here and there:

* A zone is a wide area
* A press is pressing into (oshikomu - "push in")
* Go is a perfect information game, so must be limited
* But for humans it is effectively infinite
* You can play in a limited way - for territory, counting points, etc., but
* You can also play in an unlimited way, and for this you need to recognise that "you don`t know" and that feeling is key

As the second chapter unfolds, and O starts giving examples, it becomes clearer

* A zone is like stance - it's taking position like a baseball batter at the plate
* A zone is an area for favourable fighting
* If you enter the opponent`s zone, the thicker it is, the less profit you can expect

And piecing together from other sources:

* Play from the wider side - make an enormous "zone"
* A zone is not the same thing as either a sphere of influence or territory - it`s too big for that.

OK, this is only my interpretation and I would advise not to quote this as either O`s words or opinions - my Japanese is mediocre, and I might have confused certain things.

I`ve been trying to apply this thinking to my games, and it is both fun and effective.

But this takes me to the next idea that I`m running with:

Skill is much more important than Knowledge

I don`t deny that knowledge is very useful, but even so, I am coming to believe skill - learned ability - is the most decisive factor in your go strength.

Suppose you managed to catch a pro in a trick play. Unlikely, for sure, but imagine you did. Do you think you`d win the game? Think of games which you lost "because" of not knowing a joseki or not knowing a particular shape? In fact, do you think more than a small percentage were really decided by that hole in your knowledge.

I learned a nice little trick move from badukmovies.com and managed to get quite a haul with it. But on reflection, I suspect I would have beaten those opponents anyway, even without tricking them. Conversely, there have been occasions where I pulled off the same stunt twice, and lost by a large margin. The difference, in the end, was in relative skill, not knowledge.

Take the old chestnut about "memorise joseki to become 2 stones weaker, study to become 2 stones stronger". In my opinion, the key issue is not that knowing the reasons for the moves helps your remember them, and not even that knowing the meaning of joseki helps you to apply it appropriately, but above that knowing the reasons for the moves helps you to choose good moves in that and similar situations, even when those moves are not joseki. In other words, study develops your reasoning ability.

Again, I have memorised a lot of information, but never used it directly. The only thing that ever does come in handy regularly is remembering the method, not the moves.

If skill is the key, then you have to identify and train the relevant skills.

GO SKILLS
* Reading
* Positional judgement - knowing what is going on (who is leading? where are you weak/strong?)
* Strategising (i.e., thinking up plans suitable to the position, using principles as guides)
* Applied knowledge (there are things that you need to know, but it`s how you use them that counts for most)
* Meta-skills - time management, controlling your emotions, reading your opponent`s emotions, keeping fit, concentrating, maintaining a positive attitude, learning from mistakes

To end this post, one reason I like the MyCom books so much is that they seem to recognise the precedence of skill over knowledge implicitly. A typical MyCom book contains relatively few principles, and so does not attempt to be an All in One, but is very generous with realistic exercises to develop your ability to apply those principles properly - in other words, they train your skills, rather than your memory. Further, in the best volumes, the mistakes often arise from misapplication of principles - therefore you have to think carefully and practice judgement, because blindly applying maxims is not the same as using them.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Skill without knowledge is nothing and knowledge without skill is nothing - therefore skill and knowledge are equally important.

Only because x times 0 is 0 and y times 0 is 0 does not make x = y.

Did I write a mathematical proposition?

Robert:



This and similar statements you regularly make about intuition etc obviously satisfy you, but I have to alert you to the fact that they do not appear to correspond to the latest thinking in the cognitive sciences as applied to chess. I only discovered the new thinking myself in the past few months, so I'm not criticising you for (apparently) not knowing about it. But I do think you should take time out to appraise yourself of the latest related research (as any good researcher would do). I think you would find it useful as well as interesting. In this regard the differences between go and chess are irrelevant.

Tami: Judging by your comments you may not have picked up on the fact that zone press is a Japlishism relating to soccer. A team can mark man to man or it can mark zones. Rather than 'press' I think we would usually say 'close down' in English. I seem to recall you are from Durham. If so, you will know that, coming from Newcastle, I was born with black and white blood. BTW, as I've said before, I find O Meien a painful writer. I think his wife is a journalist and so he enjoys trying to play at being a popular writer, but I rank him only as an SDK in that area: tries too hard.

My current book is Mycom's "Small Chinese Fuseki". It's pretty well done as all Mycom books are, but ends up being a very detailed fuseki dictionary on one type. So I would say just this one ends up more on the knowledge than skill side. I like the Mycom book on shape though. There it tends to be in the other direction.