Bill: I shared your bafflement but, having got used to some of RJ's weird thought processes, I thought I discerned what had happened here. His subsequent posts have more or less confirmed this.

As you say, the main proverb in this area is 死はハネにあり. However, this is sometimes phrased 死はハネから. Naturally this can be translated as 'start with hane', or 'hane first'. RJ then (I inferred) believed he made a huge step in his 'research' by extending the idea of hane as a futokoro-reducing move to any type of move and calling them all 'reductions' (ignoring the fact that Japanese books explaining the proverb also say that hane is just one such technique - though the commonest).

Then (or so I inferred) he made an erroneous, but quite understandable, link from the fact that this proverb is often explained by showing one hane, sometimes two, followed immediately by a move (a nakade or oki) at a vital point.

It is very common when this proverb is quoted, to link it with advice also to look at (first - but this is not always spelt out) moves at the vital point. If you are list-driven, like RJ, it is very easy therefore to see this as advice always to play a futokoro-reducing move first and then to follow-up, in the same problem, with a move at the vital point. Understandable, but wrong.

If you look at the reference to page 123 in Kageyama, you will see that RJ's claim that the proverb is quoted there is also quite wrong. There is, instead, a list of ideas to try: 1. Hane; 2. Vital point. He has concocted a proverb out of this list - a wrong proverb that is actually right on many occasions, which makes it a rather subtle bug. Subtle but BIG.

'Reduction' here is a poor choice for various reasons, I believe. RJ's misuse of transitivity is one reason, and confusion with keshi is another. And playing inside is a form of reduction (reducing liberties). The Japanese phrase is futokoro o semaku suru, with hirosa sometimes used for futokoro. 'Narrowing' might therefore be better in English also, since 'narrow' is not normally used for any other go concept.

Cher Robert, I agree with you that to solve a life and death problem, a vital point is likely to be the best place to start one's consideration. However, in a real game restricting the opponent's Lebensraum is likely to be the best place. For one thing, in most life and death problems the group to attack is already confined.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Thanks, John.

This afternoon I was wondering whether constrain or constrict might be good terms to use in English.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Even if hane doesn't kill, it's a good place to start reading. In the worst case, if you can't solve the problem or find a way to kill, at least you make a good play that is likely to reduce narrow (?) the opponent's points.

_________________
be immersed

cyclops, because it was hidden in ordinary text. I see. He writes:

"Fundamentals of Life and Death

Life

1. Get more room (widen your eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

Death

1. Reduce the enemy's room (narrow his eye space).
2. Occupy a central eye-making point (vital point).

[...]

First check the fundamental rule. If it works you need look no further. If it does not, then try something else, but the fundamental rule should come first. The cases where the fundamental rule works without any alteration may be in the minority, but it is where you should start nonetheless."

In this context, the, what he calls, fundamental rule makes more sense than the rule alone. Still I dislike this advice, because,

the generally applicable principles must come first, such as:

1. "If possible, simplify reading".

Then more specific principles / methods can be applied, such as:

2. "If the eyespace consists of one lake and there is only one obvious first move, start with its verification."

3. "Fight about the size of (the attacker decreases, the defender increases the size of) the eyespace."

In a complicated LD situation, generally applicable principles are important. In simple LD situations, (2.) becomes a more specific instance of (1.). Teaching only the principles in (2.) and (3.) would be pretending that all LD situations were simple. As everybody knows, this is not so.

John, I did not

- say that all Japanese books would say the same
- they would overlook other shape moves,
- the proverb would always be shown for hanes,
- suggest only lists (but it can be necessary that principles and methods require a non-sequential application!).

Despite your heroic attempt to show examples of better interpretation of the proverb, what I saw before was mostly the weak, bad kind of presentation. Regardless of the history, it is nice to see that, now, you and Bill give better meaning to the proverb.

I have not started from hane, but I have searched for a shape-independent generalisation of reduction moves and called the generic reduction move a 'reduction'. This simplifies reading: one kind of move for the same function, regardless of the shape.

Since you emphasise my "misuse" of transivity so much, looking up my dictionary, it says that reduce is transitive. I see. This can make sense in ordinary English. However, go writing is specialised English. Go writing about local life and death situations is even more specialised. In such documents, when reduce or reduction are applied to eyespaces or lakes, it is ALWAYS an eyespace or lake that is being reduced. By context, the transitive object is obvious. Therefore, in such specialised use of English, it is more efficient to allow the verb reduce to be transitive or intransitive. The purpose of language is not to be static, but language changes, when new uses are found useful or old uses become extinct.

There is no confusion with keshi. In other texts about territories or moyos, the context there determines the object, or, if the object is non-obvious, it can be stated explicitly.

For liberties, the phrases are "approaching the liberties" or "decreasing the number of liberties". I would not say "reduce the liberties".

Dear Robert,

the "one and only obvious MOVE" is played at the "one and only obvious POINT".

Do you discuss in your book how to IDENTIFY this POINT ?

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

In a go problem, single answers often exists. In real games it is often multiple possibilities. Reducing from the outside is often better.

Robert, how much experience do you have teaching beginners?

1. You need a new dictionary. Reduce can be intransitive - just not in the way you use it.

2. You don't get to decide the language that native speakers use. If you insist on pissing in the wind, don't be surprised if you get splashed. Irritating native speakers and established go players with multiple idiosyncracies is not a way to attract readers/buyers. Teaching raw beginners words in your zoo they will not find when released to the wild will not help them survive. Language changes, but glacially - not by means of bulldozers.



'Approaching liberties' is gibberish. I'm guessing you mean 'filling in liberties' but it really is guesswork. 'Decrease liberties' is understandable but sounds very odd. 'Reduce liberties' is best. (Decrease has a nuance of something happening naturally; reduce has a nuance of you making it happen.)

You can't assume even in a L&D that reduce refers to futokoro and leading to a vital point play. You can reduce liberties so as to set up a 'rooster on one leg', which is after all a pretty fundmental L&D shape.

Dear Robert,

Again, your wording does not fit "common understanding".

Being a non-native speaker of English (but being supervised by one in this context), I usually use "to occupy a liberty" in my book on Igo Hatsuyoron 120. In my opinion, "occupy" makes evident that something is absent now that has been there before.

When using "to reduce", this usually happens like "the number of liberties has been reduced to five".

"to approach" gives me the feeling of getting near to something. Placing a stone in the direct neighbourhood of an opponents group would fall in this category, in my understanding.

In my understanding, "to approach a liberty" describes putting a stone in the direct neighbourhood of a liberty.
However, "occupying an approach-move liberty" / "playing an appraoch-move" is something more special, and related to a preparatory move, because directly occupying the liberty in question is impossible.

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

John, from your own irritation concerning language use or preference for something else, you make the wrong implication that everybody would share your view.

'Approach liberties' are considered when some physical liberties cannot be filled immediately, but one must approach them by first filling non-physical liberties.

Not really, because it's based on a lifetime of experience with the native language, and also digging into it deeper as a writer, journalist, teacher and linguist. Of course I may be wrong, but as a German would you want to bet your house on it?



Ah, you are using approach as a noun, is that it? I can accept that, though I'd prefer approach-move liberties. However, I'd expect these points to be points not immediately adjacent to the group being captured. Your definition does not seem to say that, so I infer your real distinction is between physical liberties and non-physical liberties. Those two phrases seem perfectly clear, unambiguous, not pre-empted for other uses, and good English. Why not use them instead? They are so clear you don't even have to define them.

Just a short note: 'physical liberties', 'approach liberties' and 'fighting liberties' are basic concepts of assessing capturing races. Speaking of 'sum of numbers of physical and non-physical liberties' would be clumsy; 'approach liberties' is convenient.

But one of the main problems remains:

"Common understanding" decodes "approach liberty" to be an abbriviation of "approach-move liberty". And -- as John has pointed out -- "approach-move liberty" is the more common term.

"Common understanding" assumes "approach-move liberty" to be an equivalent of "non-physical liberty".

But what are you doing ? You use "approach liberty" as superordinate concept !

It should be evident that your audience will have difficulties in following you, if you use the term "Orange" to name what is generally understood as "Tropical Fruits".

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

Robert, I have read your book "Joseki - Volume 2 - Strategy"and I learned a lot from it. The substance is ok but the language not. Reading it was like digesting sandpaper. Clumsy english vocabulary and style, clumsy definitions and clumsy explanations. The length of the sentences was German style as was the tempo. It makes me hesitate to buy your other books. Not sure I am motivated enough to finish them. Maybe it is tougher for me as a non native. Also I am sure my english would be as clumsy as yours, probably in other respects. I think you should be grateful to John and all other "natives" giving you free advice about how to improve your english. Part of the joy I have from reading John Powers or James Davies books comes from the superb english.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

Are the parentheses in the original text? I kind of like room, instead of eye space, which is ambiguous. Besides which, one can live without eyes, but not without room.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I tend to cite properly: [...] is used to indicate my omissions from or additions to the citation.

I think this whole discussion is missing the point.
And the point is - we are talking about a 'proverb' not a 'fixed universal rule'.

I think the proverb (any proverb) should be applied thusly:
You see a weak group and you suspect you might do some damage, maybe even kill it. You read read read... but you see no good way to kill. Then you remember the proverb - 'first reduce, then vital point' or whatever - and this might, just might, give you an idea for an approach you have not tried yet. Like try to play from the outside first, to reduce eye space, before you pounce. This is not obvious to many beginners, and something they often miss - thus the proverb to remind them of this approach. You don't need proverbs for obvious things.

With more skill, this idea becomes more obvious, and so the proverb becomes less useful.

Bottom line:
A proverb is *never* something to follow blindly.
Nor is it something to understand unconditionally.
If it were - most/all proverbs would be very very bad, to the point of being unusable!

To me, to argue that a proverb is bad because it does not cover all possibilities, or cannot be allied blindly - it is an oxymoron.

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

Bantari, right. Everybody should teach it like you do, and not pretend it to be the complete, universal truth.

Offhand, I can't think of very many who would be so bold as to claim that their teachings contained the complete, universal truth...

In fairness, it seems to me that your claim in general is to be closer to the truth than your predecessors. While my understanding does not allow me to pass judgement on the veracity of such claims, I think it is an interesting question whether we prefer a simple proverb with questionable accuracy or an accurate proverb with questionable succinctness, and whether one or the other is more valuable and to whom.

For my part, I find a succinct statement such as "there is death in the hane" particularly useful because I tend to remember it at an appropriate time. Nobody considers this a universal truth and hanes in every life and death situation, but it has often caused me to consider a hane where without the proverb I might have not.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.