I finally took the plunge and bought 基本定石使い方事典 (Dictionary: How to Use Basic Joseki). The only real reason for my hesitation was that I have already bought a lot of books, and even with my daily improving reading speed in Japanese, I do need time to work through them. There's nothing sadder than a shelf full of dusty, unread books.

Also, my copy of Chess for Zebras by Jonathan Rowson finally arrived yesterday morning. I have been devouring it apace, despite the great distraction of having had to volunteer at a long Halloween party immediately after it was delivered.

First, I have several books on joseki, including Takao`s big two-volume reference book. However, what I fancy about How to Use Basic Joseki (another MyCom book, btw) is that is combines solutions to several of my needs.

* It is selective - 35 featured joseki (with others en passant)
* It includes detailed discussion of follow-ups
* Each featured joseki is introduced through a set of three whole-board problems - is the joseki a good choice and why?
* Successes and failures are explained, with other ways of playing included
* Nice diagrammatic index at the beginning - useful for reference
* It's printed in a larger format than usual, with big diagrams and easily legible print (a welcome courtesy to a non-native reader and presumably to Japan`s greying target audience)

With this book I can fill up some spaces in my knowledge and train my skills.

The issue I have with Takao`s joseki dictionary, for instance, is that it tells you lots of ways to play, but it`s very difficult to make any kind of inroads on it as an object of study. It`s useful for post-game reference, and sometimes quite enjoyable to read in itself, but reading it feels somewhat like trying to learn French by memorising a dictionary.

Books like 38 Basic Joseki (out of date and I don't know if I still have a copy back in Albion) and Takemiya's 24 Basic Joseki are selective, which at least gives you a feeling of creating scaffolding for further learning, but still involve you only in a passive way - you read the book and try to remember, but you don`t do a lot of thinking.

Then there are many pocket books, which are basically cheap puzzle books asking you to find the correct continuation, but they are seldom useful to me because explanations, if any, are brief and bald (this flavour: "White plays here, Black answers and the result is equal"), and because they tend to be haphazard in their structure.

The problem with dense reference books is that it is difficult to read them in a structured way. The problem with selective instruction books is that you read them too passively. The problem with puzzle books is that although they make you think, they don`t provide enough frameworks or explanation to support your thinking.

This book, How to Use Basic Joseki, seems to solve all three problems. You get reference material (alternative joseki and follow-ups), you get instruction and structure so that you don`t feel lost, and you are actively engaged in the learning process. I believe the two points are crucial: to improve your skill, you must learn to think for yourself, but you need guidance from a higher place. Books that tell you only what to think will not benefit you nearly as much as books that train you to think well.

Further, it might well be worth investing $25 dollars on it even if you don`t read Japanese - with very minimal kanji recognition you can extract a lot from it.

Those are my first impressions, not a review.

As for Rowson. As John said, it`s a very good go book! I don`t play chess any more, but it`s plain to see that many of the issues that affect chessers affect us stoners. People memorise chess openings, but can`t play chess very well; people memorise joseki and fuseki, but cannot play go well.

Many of the things I have been talking about are addressed by Rowson - for instance, what I have referred to a relational memory is discussed.

He brings up the role of words in chess thinking. They start off by being helpful, but eventually they become hindrances by overloading the working memory. Grandmasters think in a much more abstract, streamlined way, with minimal use of words to describe the relationships that they process in their minds.

Apply this to go: go principles are of great help, but they can also be great obstacles. For a long while, I have noticed how very difficult it is to keep reminding myself of verbal principles while considering a move in a real game situation. It is as though they impede thinking rather than facilitate it. Analogy time: at some point you have to study grammar to progress at a second language, but you have to avoid consciously thinking about grammar in order to speak the language. It can be tedious talking to language-learners because you can see the cogs turning behind their eyes, when you already know what they are trying to say.

One exercise Rowson recommends is to take a position from a master game, give yourself about 20 minutes, and then try to work out what happened. Afterwards, compare your game with the real one. It can be instructive to see how your impressions of what was important turned out to be different from what the players thought.

I am certainly going to try this the next time I play through a professional go game - I will stop a several places, and try to play the game for myself, and then compare with the actual game. I have no doubt that it will greatly challenge my ideas about size, urgency, aji, shape and everything else!

The key here is developing thinking skills - it may be rather humbling to find that your thoughts about a position were completely out of tune, but discovering this for yourself and learning how to get back in key should be much more beneficial than merely being told what to think.

To summarise, verbal principles are something to be mastered and then transcended. The goal has to be to learn to see go relationships in an abstracted way, a wordless way that gets straight to the real relationships between stones. That, I believe, is skill.

And this brings me to the last point. I am certain I have now finally identified the most important skill of all, the skill that brings everything else into frame. But, I`m not going to tell you what it is Napoleon Hill-style, I will give you a hint:



And because I`m not a cruel teaser, he`s one more hint:

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

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Tami,

I`m sorry, but that`s not the answer I had in mind. The thing I`m thinking of, though, would certainly help you to get there safely.

It`s not a trick question...

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

This is so only for those (too many) reference (joseki) books lacking good structure. It is much easier to read reference books that have good structure.



Bad words are a burden - good words are and remain helpful.

Bad principles are a burden - good principles are and remain helpful.



It can be an advantage (you furthermore claim "skill") to enable oneself to apply good principles so fluently that one does not need to mentally spell out them explcitily whenever using them. Even then, it is an advantage to be able to recall principles explicitly whenever needed for greater precision.



I buy "abstract" and "streamlined", but not "minimal use of words", unless this shall just refer to what you call "transcended".



The better the principles are the easier and more fruitful it becomes.



This does not require wordless thinking. Quite contrarily, the better the words and principles become that one's thinking uses (on the literal surface or in a "transcended" manner), the better the "real" relationships between stones can be assessed.



That is what --- I --- consider to be a skill: knowing good and better terms and principles.



Stay alive and keep everybody else alive.



Make oneself and everybody else happy.

But... what has this to do with terms and principles?!

To drive a car is to focus on where you are going or doing?

Like all car examples, this one does not work:) I guess Tami wants fluent car driving = fluent language speaking = fluent instrument playing = fluent go decision making. There is nothing wrong with fluency, but there are more important skills such as staying alive in a car or making correct go decisions.

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

Sorry, but that is not the answer.

NoSkill is on the right lines.

BillSpight came closest in spirit, even if he was joking.

I`m not going to be too coy. If anybody wants me to tell them, just send a PM and I will be glad to tell them. Like all great truths, the answer will seem a bit disappointing, but you`ll know when you have found it because it makes everything else fall into place. The only thing I will add, though, is that what I have in mind sounds very easy, but is in fact very difficult to do in practice. But if you can improve your ability in this one skill, even I from my own very modest level can guarantee you will play better. You will know why - it's obvious, once you realise it.

As for all the business about principles. The MyCom books are full of excellent guidance from some of the world`s best players. They are indeed very useful. But go is extremely difficult. Some things simply cannot be contained by words. Rowson quotes a famous chess master, Alapin, as once saying that words "give the illusion of understanding". Just buy Rowson`s book, and read how a grandmaster (ranked 150 in the world, btw) describes his own thinking. Even allowing that chess and go are different games, the implications for badukeers are profound.

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

So the skill you want to stress is "know what you want to achieve"? I like it that you contribute to discussing the fundamentals.



Since go is a complete information game, anything can, in principle, be expressed by words. Part of the things can be expressed already now, other parts have not been described well in terms of words and still must be expressed by move sequences (accompanied by the trivial words "probably correct").



From the overall perspective during the middle game, understanding is always partial. So, in this context, there can be an illusion of complete understanding.

A top player's chosen moves convey also an only partial understanding and also can be an illusion of complete understanding.

Words are not a danger but are a chance to express what is and what is not being understood clearly. Understanding in today's world is so far advanced because words about knowledge are excessively shared. Words have the same potential for advancing understanding of go knowledge.

Dear Robert, you can describe a Bach fugue in words easily enough, but does that explain it?

I might concede the possibility of providing a verbal description of any go situation, but it might not facilitate understanding. Just for example, I challenge you to explain in words why a geta works in a way that is better than simply showing. If you need to use a diagram, you lose.



A nice idea, and it may be possible to perform the skill well without effort once you have completely mastered it, but it`s still not the answer I have in mind.

It`s nothing special really. Think really mundane, really blindingly obvious, and you might find it. As I say, you`ll know when you have the answer.

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

Tami,I still think there are multiple valid answers to your question.
Perhaps to you, there is something more crucial than getting there safely,
but to me, that's the most important thing.
Of course, for any human to be able to do anything at all, there must be more fundamental things: say, to breathe,
because if we don't breathe for a few moments, we're already in big trouble.
So if someone replies, the most crucial thing is to breathe,
then you can say, oh no, that's not what you have in mind,
even though "breathing would certainly help you to get there safely."
Then another person says, OK, what's more crucial than to breathe? Aha! How about to exist first?
Then you say, oh no, that's not what you have in mind,
even though "existing would certainly help you to breathe, which in turn would help you to get there safely."
It becomes a word game.

In other words, I think it's the original formulation (phrasing) of the question that's the problem -- it's too extreme.
For example:
"When you're eating, what's the most crucial thing to do?"
"When you're sleeping, what's the most crucial thing to do?"
"When you're crossing the street, what's the most crucial thing to do?"
All these questions, IMO, are too vague, ill-defined, imprecise, and leave themselves open to arguments.
(Which is OK if the point is to generate arguments and discussions).

So I'd much prefer these variations instead -- they are much more reasonable (to me):
"When you're driving, what are some of the most important things to do?"
"When you're [doing X], what are some of the most important things to do?"

You were getting on track for a moment, but I`m not trying to be cute or anything.

There is one skill that I am sure sets everything else in frame. It`s easy, in principle, but actually very difficult to execute well. The good news is that you don`t need to buy any books to practice it. You can practice this skill in every game you play, and when you look over a pro game, and when you solve a tsumego or whole-board problem. I`m currently not very good at this skill, but now I know it, I can work on it with confidence it will help me improve.

One more hint:



As I say, I am not trying to be too clever for my own good. It is simply that something occurred to me, and it`s so obvious that I had never given it any proper thought before, but when I did its significance was astounding. You will know it when it comes to you, but anybody who wants to save themselves the effort can just send me a PM. I recommend trying your best to work it out for yourself, first, though, because if you were simply told it might come over trivial, but if it comes to you from within, it will make sense.

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

I am certain there is no such thing.
(There are many skills that are very important, yes, but nothing is "the most important of all". Nothing.)

Music is not a complete information game. What I say for a complete information game need not apply to music.



(I prefer 'net' to 'geta' and 'capture' to 'work'.)

Citation from Joseki 1 Fundamentals, p. 129:

"A net is a capture that contains some opposing strings very tightly even if they try to escape, and one that does not allow ladder breakers."


EDIT: removed alternative definition.

How did you define capture? And ladderbreaker? Opposing string? Your mathskill need some improvement.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

I do not think that Tami has asked for a mathematical definition. Nevertheless, your questions are relevant if one wants to approach a mathematical definition.

"A move is a _capture_ if it transforms the status of opposing strings from unsettled to dead." (J1F, p. 126.)

"A move is a _removal_ if it takes opposing (*) strings from the board." (J1F, p. 126.)

(*) Depending on context, under rules allowing suicide, a different variation of the definition is needed.

"Opposing string = string of stones of the opponent."

"Typically, a _ladder_ is a string that moves zig-zag, alternately has one or liberties, but finally ends without liberty." (J1F, p. 131.)

"A _ladder breaker_ is a play not string-connecting itself to the ladder string but changing its liberty status."

(Before you ask, opponent, stone, string, string-connection, liberty are defined elsewhere at obvious places or in J1F.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc You lose!
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X X . . . .
$$ | . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . X . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$[/go]

You're very close, but no cigar...perhaps a quick drag on a Benson and Hedges if you`re lucky...

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

It is this attitude that seems to be the problem, according to the chess literature mentioned here passim. Recall the award-winning book "Move First, Think Later".

A famous chess trainer is mentioned elsewhere as remonstrating with his pupils. When he asked why they played a certain move, they invariably began, "Well, I thought..." And he says, "Stop right there! That's the problem."

What it really boils down to is that you need to do the thinking work before the game, not during. Of course, there's much more to it than that. For one thing it's important to do the work in such as way that it becomes part of your intuition rather than just part of your deep memory. Repetition has a lot to do with that, but I think it's Rowson who made the point that the order of doing the work is also important because that determines how the part of your brain that subconsciously makes all the associations sorts out the connections for you. Efficient associations are obviously valuable, but interestingly they don't seem to depend on a naive "fundamentals first" policy. You can dot around studying what you like, so long as you avoid contradicitions (i.e. confusing your brain as what goes where in the associations library). But even that is not the key. The key seems to be doing your study in a way that avoids ego, in two ways. One is called (I think) self-identification - how you see yourself as a chess or go player. You may think of yourself as, say, an aggressive player. That will get you into the bad habit of learning only things that reinforce your self image. This is not only a severe limitation but may be the biggest problem of all. As we can see for ourselves on L19, many weaker players like to mention that they try to play like Shuwa, or whoever. Apparently the same syndrome exists in chess.

The other problem is over-confidence in one's reasoning, especially when it comes to drawing conclusions. Weaker players tend to be much more confident than strong players. The very strongest players actually are very wishy-washy. Time and again the chess writers report (and you can see this on chess sites where kibitzers are allowed, but of course also in go on kgs) that on being shown a new position weak players say things like, "White is winning" but a strong grandmaster will say,"Maybe White has chances". A very strong grandmaster will just say, "Hmmm". Actually this paradigm (which I gather applies to other fields of endeavour) seems to work so well that I suspect it may be how pros assess the grade of players they meet for the first time.

So in summary, you need to be prepared to study a lot, but with humility and open-mindedness, you need to allow your brain to sort out all the associations for itself (the part called "the beast within") and then you need to trust that beast to supply good moves to your intuition. Obviously, in real play you need to think about these moves, but not in the sense of finding (aka seeing/recognising) them. You need to verify them, either by calculation or by asking yourself whether there are extraneous factors influencing you, such as time pressure or your place in a tournament (e.g. whether to play for a win or a draw).

Naturally, if you can add to that mix the guidance of a teacher who can make sure that your study avoids contradictions as much as possible, then you will make even more progress. Most of us can't afford a teacher, but perhaps studying the games of a single player - as pros so often recommend - is a proxy way of avoiding contradictions over a long period of study.

At the risk of overegging the pudding, I think it would be wise to add another nugget from the chess experience. Among perennially weaker players it is common for them to learn one significant item, such as a proverb, a formula or a new way of looking at things, and then to experience a surge of improvement. Almost invariably, however, they soon fall back to their old grade. A common response then is to buy more books or more snake oil in the hope of getting another "high". But chess or go proverbs and formulas work no better than drugs.

Depressingly, the best advice for playing good go is a four-letter word ending in k and wrapped up in a two-word phrase: