The sheer number of books does not make the single Japanese book good - it makes the availability of all Japanese books useful but not always good.

More detail? This is so only for topics not covered by detailed English books yet. In particular, the details and depth convered in the entirety of all Japanese books (as far as I have seen thousands of them or as have been reviewed in English) pale in comparison to the knowledge of those topics covered in my books.

Robert, the OP clearly wants books written in Japanese. Please keep your books out of it and your opinions of how they compare to existing literature, unless you've got a native Japanese version that you're offering.

There is no point in expressing opinions about the quality of Japanese books if the absolute quality is not justified, the contents is not described well enough to allow a rough assessment of quality and a relative quality shall not be assessed by, if your opinion were followed, comparing to other (such as English language) literature.

The OP asks for brilliant Go stuff, so let us find out whether there is more brilliant Japanese literature. Brilliant by quality, not brilliant by unjustified opinion!

The OP actually wants Japanese speakers to recommend Japanese Go literature to help with his Japanese study whilst also doing some go. I think the quality of the Go content is important but a decidely secondary consideration. I don't want a meta-discussion about the comparitive quality of book material with you, but I do want you to respect the OPs original request about Japanese material choices that fit his request. If not, I'll move it to its own thread for a discussion of comparing Western and Japanese go literature content quality

There is no problem with respecting OPs preference. Can you respect that not only the OP has preferences? In particular, not only the OP but also I am interested to learn about any brilliant, e.g., Japanese books. There is no need for a separate thread just because two persons instead of one person want about the same.

Can you respect that our requests are not just for "Japanese" but also for "brilliant" (or, to be more realistic, for "good or better than good")? There is no need to split threads just because two criteria have been mentioned.

The critierion "brilliant" suggests itself justification. Justification can come by different means, including comparison. If comparison were restricted to Japanese reference books, then we can have much greater problems in assessing absolute quality of many books. Although one can attempt to compare Japanese strategy books to those Japanese problem collections that are, IMO (but I can become more specific, if necessary), brilliant, it is difficult to compare problem books with strategy books. It is much easier to compare still rather unknown Japanese strategy books with known strategy books of a quality that can be verified, regardless of the language in which the reference books are written. The choice in which language a book is written is not a factor for quality. Therefore, there is not reason for splitting threads just because attempts of evidence for comparison to reference books are made.

The task of a moderator is not to prevent related discussion but to enable it.

The request for the pretty much highest possible standard of quality (brilliant) suggests usage of all available reference material that, by criteria which can be formulated, has a chance of being characterised as brilliant.

I think that Laman's post, which currently resides here,

viewtopic.php?p=108364#p108364

is also better placed in this thread to fit the context better. Anticipating the moderators' message movement, I am replying here.



To be fair, you should add that I praise also other books (calling a few classic Japanese problem collections "brilliant" or giving ++ ratings to a few English language books).

In this particular instance, I have reasons to criticise Japanese go books (other than the few brilliant problem books) and, in comparison, praise my go books:

- Most Japanese books teach by examples only or almost only. This makes it very hard to study for those wishing to learn by general advice. In comparison, all my books teach both general advice and examples. This allows the reader to choose whether he wants to learn from and apply general advice, examples or both.

- Most Japanese (or other Asian) books teach very little general contents. They teach so little general contents on average that I learnt, e.g., only about 30% of the principles in Joseki 1 Fundamentals from Asian literature and had to invent the remaining 70% by myself. Most of what Asian books teach as principles is not taught explicitly but hidden in a diagram or even in only one move of a diagram. For most of those hidden, implicit principles, I had to notice that there was something noteworthy and new to be learned and had derive and invent the implied, underlying principle by myself. (Those Asian books have only short diagram comments with relatively many move number references and the interesting move is typically not among them. Therefore, it does not require knowledge of Japanese or Chinese to realise that the texts do not explicitly teach what I could learn from those books nevertheless.)

- There are very many Japanese (or other Asian) books with trivial or little contents, e.g., books suitable only for elementary school pupils or a whole book on nothing else than nobi examples (and a next book only with turns). Apparently, Asian bookstores sell such books, but this generates a problem: it makes the good books even scarcer for the "advanced player" than they are.

- In the entirety of those Asian books I have read (over 500) or seen in bookstores (thousands), there was nothing even approximately similar to the quality of contents of my books. The closest one can get appears to be John Fairbairn's presentation of literally only a few Japanese books published since World War II and showing at least an attempt of working out some general advice contents. Including both my experience with Asian books and John's selective description of the creme de la creme, the best contents in Asian is worse or even pales in comparison to the contents of my books: a) A general study and solution of at least some types of capturing races? Non-existent. b) Advice for making the right extension: less frequently correct than my advice. c) General advice on principles for approach moves etc.: below 30% of what I describe, see above. d) Local move selection, unsettled group average, local positional judgement, strategic lines: almost non-existent. e) Number of principles per book: relatively small in even the best Asian books. f) Joseki dictionary structured by strategic choices: non-existent. g) Book explaining all beginners' mistakes (and not just some arbitrary selection): non-existent. h) Evaluation of influence: The best in Asian books is only symbolic number models, i.e., guesswork. Comparison: my books offer a few general(!) theories. (Where a few Asian books are still better is about topics Western writers have not or not sufficiently written about yet: e.g., using thickness.)

- Almost all Asian books do not invent general new theory, although many professionals have had decades of time for invention. Comparison: My books, which are written within a few years, also invent general new theory (such as the New Semeai Formula, general definitions of influence and thickness or the joseki evaluation theory).

I want to learn from books and also from Asian books, but they offer too little knowledge in comparison to the needed amount of knowledge. So why shouldn't I regularly criticise most Asian books? Criticising without saying how it can be done better is only half the value. So why shouldn't I regularly praise books (such as mine) that do it right? By doing neither, nothing will change and Asian literature will remain at an on average pity level of quality. (There is a sign of hope though: Books promoted by the KBA or KABA are, on average, at least much better than the average Asian book.)

Note that there are also very good books from other authors: Lessons in the Fundamentals, Tesuji (Davies), Attack and Defense, Strategic Concepts of Go. However, as good as they are, they do not belong to the "brilliant" category because they excel only at the aspect "improvement" and this only for rather limited ranges of players (e.g., how often do we hear "I am too strong for Attack and Defense") or there are other books with more related contents. So part of the reason why, in this context, I praised my books but not these other English books is that I consider them to be "only very good" but clearly "not brilliant". They do not make any attempt to teach much knowledge or a sufficient percentage of knowledge for a topic; they are more like teasers "improve 2 ranks as SDK and then notice that you need more literature". Compare this to what a brilliant book is: Igo Hatsuyoron. If you can solve its problems easily, then you have top pro level problem skill. If you have solved problem #120, then you are in heaven. This is a kind of quality "brilliant". Other kinds are important inventions or exceptional amount of generally applicable knowledge.

For reference, the initial posts of this thread were moved here by admins and do not at all qualify for the thread subject's claim, which is extraordinarily mighty and requires much more thought than can be seen above. Maybe I will attack the subject later because it is an interesting subject. My previous message gives a few first hints.

In a couple of years, even this weak argument will be outdated. I am working on it:)

What books in Western literature do you consider to be brilliant, Robert? (I think I can make a guess here)

I like to have books in both English and Japanese, but if I had to pick access to one set, I would certainly pick Japanese (or Korean, or Chinese).

Sigged. Robert, whatever your other qualities, you're quite funny at times.

Robert: people who write book are professionals. They are much stronger than you.
There were many amatures tried to sell books n all failed.
Because they woulnt wakeup and smell the coffee.
I saw samples of your writing and it wasnt goood.
and i am a math major.
I think advertising your book should be against policy of this forum..

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

Brilliant by the criterion of potential effect on improving quickly for players in only the indicated rank range:
The ++ rank improvement books at
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/isbn.html

Brilliant by the criterion of amount of explained knowledge for a topic:
The ++ topical coverage books at that webpage.

Brilliant by the criterion of making very important and, according to today's knowledge, correct inventions in go theory:
- Joseki 2 Strategy
- Joseki 3 Dictionary
- Capturing Races 1
(Other authors' important contributions are not in books. Hunter made too many mistakes at central places of Counting Liberties and Winning Capturing Races. Joseki 1 Fundamentals makes a few inventions but they are minor.)

Concerning Western books not on my webpage: non qualifies as ++, IIRC.

I would call a book "brilliant" if it qualifies in at least two of the three criterions, and this, unfortunately, leaves only a few of my books.

Others view on books as excellent if they a) improve quickly from it (or see potential like that for others) and b) find the book easy (and possibly entertaining) to read. I disagree. A go book must first of all convey knowledge; joyful reading and quick improvement at a particular kyu level is an excuse for learning not enough knowledge. Books must not cultivate excuses but must convey knowledge! Books may be entertaining and may lead to quick improvement, but they must have a greater aim of being useful also for dan level knowledge learning or its conceptual preparation. The first purpose of go books is not to replace novels.

Oh, I think now you made us curious. What have you detected that wasn't good in Robert's books? Something go related or language related e.g.?

Funny? I mean it in earnest.

Lessons in the Fundamentals: It is very weak at teaching fundamentals in detail.

Tesuji (Davies): It is too selective.

Attack and Defense: It does not teach well for 2k or stronger.

Strategic Concepts of Go: It teaches only a small fraction of those strategic concepts taught in Joseki 2 Strategy.

Would you raise books with such shortcomings to a "brilliant" level? Or do you think that they are not even "very good"?

1) You are wrong. Counter-example: James Davies, Richard Bozulich, Rob van Zeijst, etc.

2) There are professional players who write books. Their two professions is usually their disadvantage: they have less time to write a book than amateur players.



Stronger at playing, usually weaker at writing good books.



See (1).



Have you read a full book? What, IYO, was not good? Why?



Please explain the relevance to the contents of my books.

Can you post some here for discussion? I don't find your page all that easy for navigating and finding what you consider brilliant.

I don't know anything about your own books.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

My first dislike is languge related. His book makes simplething more complicated for no reason.
Second dislike is topic.
Capturing race is simple counting and no asian study that topic
it is like learn the theory of addition to college level student.
if you want to improve go skill you should watch 2 top ranked professionals game with professionals comment. Then you will broaden ur reading and view.
Not what is theory of ko

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

RANK IMPROVEMENT ++ books (after reading a book once, for readers of the recommended rank range, in order of occurrence on the webpage):

- Joseki Volume 1: Fundamentals
- Joseki Volume 2; Strategy
- Tesuji (Davies)
- First Fundamentals
- Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go
- Strategic Concepts of Go
- Attack and Defense

TOPICAL COVERAGE ++ book (recall that ++ for a topic in general refers to 9p knowledge completeness):

- First Fundamentals: - (fundamentals in general), ++ (fundamentals for beginners; note: likely a beginner must also practice reading; if you include this in the "fundamentals", then it becomes a + )

Due to my harsh ++ definition for topic coverage, there is no ++ book for a topic in general yet and some topics would require a book series to reach that rating.

would any of mods move my initial post from the other thread to this one? i believe it will fit here much better than to its current home. thanks

Robert Jasiek: thank you for your detailed response. you construct your statements precisely, but i am also careful in my writing, so i can say that i already knew most of your arguments posted here and i still stand behind what i wrote before.

you consider your books brilliant and most others far behind. i don't mind, i haven't read many go books at all, so i cannot judge. my point was that you express this opinion often, that some people might not like it and might not like you for it (it is little tiresome for me) and i was concerned that you might not realize this and might not want it to happen. whether you should do that is another matter, i haven't yet decided what is my stance on that and i made sure not to make any claims on that

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.