This brief exchange prompted me to get Kajiwara's The Direction of Play off of my shelf, but after a few minutes, I quickly returned it to its place. Although the entire book is devoted to the subject, I failed to get a handle on it the first time I tried to read it, and a glance at the first few pages convinced me that I wasn't ready to try again. Nonetheless, the quote above is so juicy, I thought it might be worthwhile to try to squeeze the general principle into my head. In the book, I couldn't find it presented in a memorable nutshell, so I wondered if anyone else would care to give it a try. Before I get accused of passing the buck, I'll give it a shot myself:



Quite frankly, this sounds pretty lame. Corrections? Improvements?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

It doesn't seem too lame to me.

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

I was again reminded of a sentence John Fairbairn wrote in Games of Shuei: It's the follow-up that counts. (I wrote a small summary here: viewtopic.php?p=119849#p119849) Right now this is my prime directive when I choose a move.

I like to think that you should first think about what you want to accomplish (strategy / direction) and then try to find the best move to achieve it (possible follow-ups / multi-purpose-move).
Of course both parts are tricky because they involve at first an assessment of (among others I assume) what's big and urgent and how's the balance of territory and influence (score) and then more or less good reading and knowledge of shape and Aji to find the best suited move.

As a note to daal's general principle: I would not focus primarily on "advantage". You could play from behind and all you can hope for with a move is confusion and complexity. Maybe "prospect" is better?

My try:

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

I wonder whether what is confusing daal is that the Japanese phrase actually means "the direction(s) of the stones". The version "direction of play" was suggested by Stuart Dowsey at the London Go Centre, and as it proved popular there I used it. However, it seems that now the use of "play" is also being misinterpreted (is this a UK/US thing?. It is not play in the sense of move or "to play". It is the sense of the run of play, as in soccer (play is moving from end to end, etc). In other words it refers to the directions (plural is better) in which stones are exerting their power.



No, no, no and fifty times no! This is again the amateur fault of focusing too soon. Lean back, look at the whole board, assess where the groups are exerting their power across the whole board. Then you choose the move, not the area. The area that offers you the best prospects is, after all, the whole board.

"Direction of play" is used with these (very) different meanings:

Interaction:

- A weak form of haengma (directions in which stones (should) work well together).

Development from existing stones:

- The directions in which stones have influence, and so should be used.
- The development directions for a boundary of a group with access to space, saying in which the group can move (or run, if it is under attack).

Place of next play:

- The region of the board, where the next play should occur.

***

So whenever an author uses the phrase, one must understand with which meaning he uses it.

How about in this phrase: "The most fundamental point was said to be deciding where to play and for this the essential mindset to ingrain was 'First, direction of play; second, the actual point'."

John explains it thusly: Lean back, look at the whole board, assess where the groups are exerting their power across the whole board. Then you choose the move, not the area.

Is this to say, the suggested process to ingrain is first, to look at where the stones are exerting their power and then...

Sorry, I just fell off my chair.

So I'm looking at where the stones exert their power all over the board and then what? Choose a move? That sounds easy enough. Wait. On what basis? It can't just be the fact that the stones on the board are exerting power. That fact must tell us something. Which is why I used the word "advantage" and presumably why SoDesuNe used the word "prospect." But John said that it doesn't indicate the area, but rather...

Ok, Looking at the corner below, can we say that the direction of the stones is indicated by the arrow? I think so. So what does this tell us? Doesn't it indicate an area where a move would be advantageous?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +-----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ {AR F17 K17}[/go]

Certainly I'm an amateur focusing too soon, but if I shouldn't focus on it, what should I do with the information. I might have to ask Robert for a list.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, the different meanings of "direction of play" are not linked easily to each other. From influence directions, you cannot directly infer region-to-play-in direction, because the latter depends also on many other factors.

Consider each meaning of direction of play as a concept, learn its theory and applications. This helps making decisions for region-to-play-in direction. It is not a "one list solves it all" topic.

daal, I too found John's statement rather baffling. Perhaps it will become clearer with further discussion. I'm basically with you - the direction of play indicates the correct part of the board to play in, but it may be that specific moves achieve the goal more effectively than others. In fact, the specific move you choose may fail completely (e.g. you invade the moyo too deeply, and you die), and this presumably improves as you get stronger, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that your move candidates were heavily influenced by the direction of play. Just to be clear, my usage of "direction of play" is intended to mean the direction(s) in which stones are exerting their power and influence, which I think is the meaning meant in Kajiwara's book.

Daal x-xwe all have a habit of making subtle changes which catch us by surprise and lead us far astray, like being only a fraction off on a compass course and ending up miles from where you expected.

I said "assess". You changed that to "look at". I think there's a big difference.

Also, don't forget that Japanese does not distinguish singular and plural, so that "choose a point" can also be "choose points".

I regard RJ's comments as having little to do with Kajiwara's book and more to with hijacking the term for his own work.

When I think of direction of play, two things come to mind. The first is those sort of chain reaction moves where black threatens a white group, and white responds (say, jumps out), and now that threatens a black group further along, which defends. And perhaps that even makes white reply locally over there. Rather than just reinforcing, black forces white to force him to reinforce, and you see a ripple spread across the board.

The other is sometimes in pro games you see what look like incredible slow defensive moves early on. Just a gote move that strengthen a group not in mortal peril, while big moves still abound. And then soon after, that group launches an attack that has a huge influence over the rest of the board. The move was small locally, there were local big moves elsewhere, but 40 moves out that gote move transformed the whole board.

My (limited) understanding of direction of play is that it refers to how the various regions of the board flow together and interact: how thickness or a fight or what have you in one location will change the other locations. How the sequences that follow a move will change where the players are playing. So if your moves have good direction of play your sequences start off accomplishing something locally, and end accomplishing something for another group; you aren't just identifying the biggest region and playing the biggest move their, but playing moves that allow you to jump from advantage to advantage. Or your opponent finds himself in a position where any action has a cost: to attack you is to weaken another of his groups. To solidify his moyo is to solidify yours.

Interesting, I never interpreted "Direction of play" to mean this before. This may indeed be a UK/US English difference causing the confusion. I'll certainly keep this in mind the next time I hear the phrase come up.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Kajiwara, in his book, uses especially one of the meanings, which I have listed.



1) No.

2) The thread title is more general than the OP's reference to Kajiwara's book. In order to answer the thread title's question, one must look more widely than only into this book.

3) All of the meanings, which I have listed, I have seen used by various other authors, mostly long before I started my own "work" (which, BTW, does not emphasise the phrase "direction of play")

Therefore, instead of being "hijacking", I am conveying a broader view on the phrase "direction of play".

Thank you for providing your descriptions. In this context however, I am mostly interested in how to interpret the very general advice given in the first post:

I suppose to some extent, all of your descriptions might apply (good way to move out, influence wanting to be used, next area to play in)* -though the last one contradicts what John said:

The crux of the matter seems to lie in the word "assess." I suppose this is up to the player, who might refer to a list, calculate like a pro or just grok it. I think in Kajiwara's mind, the stones are practically talking to you. I wish they wouldn't all talk at once.

You're right. I supposed I changed it unconsciously because as opposed to "assess," "look at" is something I know how to do.

*here I paraphrase Robert with the intent of expressing what I understood. Even a well written sentence can be mangled by the reader.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Here, mainly it is the "Place of next play" kind of direction of play. "First choose the right region, then, within that region, choose the right intersection for the move." (IMO, this is too simplifying, but it is what I think it wants to say.)



Global assessment must precede choosing the right region. Otherwise, you do not know how to choose the right region.

(Simplifying again.)



No. Just do it:) (Doing it well is, indeed, the great difficulty:) )



He wants you to identify the major "talk".

There are a number of concepts in go that are not easy to define precisely. It takes experience and judgement to understand them well. If you oversimplify them then later on you have to unlearn what you thought you knew in order to improve. At the same time it does not help if they are just mysteries.

IMO go is a science as well as an art. From a scientific point of view I like operational definitions. It is easy to operationalize a concept like snapback, but a concept like influence is very difficult to operationalize. Zobrist tried to do so in his computer program decades ago, but even now there is no consensus about how to measure influence. Modern Monte Carlo programs do not make use of the idea of influence at all.

Why do we say that the enclosure in the above diagram exerts more influence towards the top side than the left side? Let's compare combs.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Comparison I
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . B . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . B . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . W . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ {LN C15 K15}
$$ {LN P11 R5}[/go]

Each player has a small knight's enclosure, but Black has developed towards the top side while White has developed toward the right side (comparable to Black's left side). As the sector lines indicate, Black's framework just looks better than White's.

But looks can be deceiving. After all, if you combine the influence measures of each stone (at least, in the theory that I am slowly developing ) there is not much difference between Black and White. Let's look a little further.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Comparison II
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . W . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

In this diagram we have shown the typical reduction moves for Black and White. (As the sector lines indicate. ) It is obvious that Black can encroach more deeply into the White framework than White can encroach into the Black framework, and also that the Black reduction stone will be easier to defend than the White reduction stone. The relative strength of these reduction stones is a major part of the difference in the direction of influence of the small knight's enclosure. And the relative effectiveness of the reductions depends upon the fact that the direction of development follows the direction of the stones.

So yes, the direction of the stones does indicate general areas to play without dictating specific points.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Hi Bill, usually I do away with the one-space jump and just show the 2 triangles.
Many people can see one is better than the other:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . B . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$------------------------------------------
$$ {LN D3 C5}
$$ {LN C5 K3}
$$ {LN K3 D3}
$$ {LN Q3 R5}
$$ {LN R5 R10}
$$ {LN R10 Q3}[/go]

Hmm... so the less-flat triangle/shape is intuitively better than the flatter one? Why is that intuitive or obvious?

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

Because it's bigger. That's my intuitive answer. But if you ask about the infinite number of variations if the opponent starts a fight locally,
then I give up.

Follow-up questions:
- do you find one intuitively better than the other ?
- if yes, which one ?
- if no, does it mean you find them equal, or you don't know which is better ?

Hehe... The triangle is bigger, but the area is not necessarily so... And is it really bigger, or only visually so? Hat off to geometry, no? And - what does it mean and why should it be good that the shape itself is 'bigger'?

Anyways - another argument can be made that in the flatter shape, the stones are closer together, and thus give each other more support and make it harder to attack.

What I am trying to say that regardless of the picture you draw, there need to be some solid practical reasons to validate it. Especially when you teach.

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

Not sure... Intuitively, I am in agreement with both you and Bill - the less-flat shape looks better and clearly indicates the direction of play.

However - I am pretty sure I am looking at it through the prism of many years of experience, so what does it matter what I find intuitive? I would know which is the proper direction even without the pictures. Its the beginners and weak(er) players we need to ask - they are the ones who matter here, not me or you.

And I would assume that for the beginners, without any experience, both diagrams would be confusing without some kind of explanation. Especially since quasi-logical case can always be made for both.

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