Continuing the discussion on liberty terms
viewtopic.php?p=152479#p152479

IMX, 'approach liberty' is more common than 'approach-move liberty'. Things are different for 'approach ko' versus 'approach-move ko', which are used about equally frequently.

It is understable that you, Cassandra, say that common understanding assumed 'approach-move liberty' to be an equivalent of 'non-physical liberty', because the name is chosen so unfortunately suggestive to refer only to liberties of the moves approaching the physical liberties, until their filling is enabled.

Use 'approach liberty', and you do not as easily confuse the meaning! In 'approach liberty', the thing being approached is the string(s) having the approach liberties. In order to fill all the physical liberties of the string(s), the approaching player needs to play all the approach liberties.

In capturing races, comparing Black's and White's approach liberties provides important information, but it can be necessary to compare their 'fighting liberties', which depend on the approach liberties.

***

In a simple race, do you prefer to

"compare the sum of the numbers of Black's physical and non-physical liberties with the sum of the numbers of White's physical and non-physical liberties"?

I prefer to consider "the difference of Black's and White's approach liberties"!

One number per player is easier than two numbers per players.

***

I use 'approach liberties' as what it is: a go term.

My audience has difficulties to follow me? It must be yours, because you use too many concepts and numbers to express the same.

Things are different here !

"Approach Ko" and "Approach-move Ko" have the same meaning. "Approach liberty" (your understanding) and "Approch-move liberty" ("common" understanding) have not.

"Approach ..." and "Approach-move ..." in the case of "..." = "Ko" mean that one side has to play a preparatory move, before a situation arises that can be called (here: "direct") Ko (= "..").

In the case of "..." = "liberty", "Approach-move ..." means that one side has to play a preparatory move, before a situation arises, wherin a(nother) "liberty" can be occupied successfully.

Most of "Approach ..." (your understanding) can be occupied without investing any preparatory move. This is why I conclude that the usage of "Approach" by you is misleading.

+ + + + + + + + +

As usual, you have made the mistake of re-defining (here: parts of) a term , which has been used by "common understanding" over a very long time.

As a matter of course, there may be some co-incidence between "occupying a liberty", and "approaching a group". But this must not lead to replace "occupy" with "approach", just because the object referred to is not the same.

I prefer to name the sum of physical liberties, and approach-move liberties , (and liberties arising after capturing some Nakade shape), "EFFECTIVE liberties".
In a certain sense, this is a "new" term (Kudos to the community, should this be an "established" one, which I was unaware of), not running the risk of any mismatch with currently "established" terms in the field of "liberties" / "Tsume-Go".

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

IIRC, I have not re-defined 'approach liberty', but contributed a bit to its clarification. The term was used by others before I started to use it. The phrase "approach move liberty" I think I see for the first time today...! (The term 'approach move' is old, of course.)

Go literature in the West is in its infancy. It has grown considerably over the last 40 years, but that is not very long in terms of language. Also, a great deal of Western go literature is translation, which has its own special problems, and translators can argue amongst themselves about terminology. But when it comes to original works, then I say let the author use his own terms. That does not mean that they will not be confusing, or that people will not like them, or that people will adopt them. It does not mean that people will not criticize them. That is all part of the process. 100 years from now we will have a consensus for nearly all terms.

I disagree strongly with Robert's practice of redefining existing terms, such as nakade. It sows confusion and criticism. OTOH, I applaud his use of new terms, such as lake. It may catch on.

As for liberty, it is ambiguous in English. The Japanese distinguish between dame and te, which is clearer. In addition, there are aspects of liberties that will require new terminology. (See the research of Martin Mueller and Nakamura Teigo.) So we really cannot say, despite the way that we talk about liberties now, that that is how we will talk about them 10 years from now. It would not be good to assume that our current terminology of liberties is set in stone. That would impede the development of appropriate terminology to express concepts about liberties. Robert's terminology and usage are part of the process of development.

As example of an ossified term that has impeded progress is double sente. Pros were aware of the problem in the 1970s, and you can see some confusion as they grappled with it. Now O Meien does not even mention it in his latest yose book.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Unless there are new papers I do not know yet, the best of his papers related to liberties was Race to Capture: Analyzing Semeai in Go, 1999. However, his still insufficient understanding of liberties let him make a few wrong assumptions. My research of 2011 and the term 'fighting liberties' overcomes those mistakes and eases the theory.

***

Why do you think does the - good - research by Nakamura Teigo need additional liberty terms? Additional calculations for sure, but terms?

Dear Bill,

This is what I recommended Robert for several times, but in vain so far.

If you wanted to define something that has not be defined before in the way you wanted to do (not so detailed, not so widespread, not so precise, not so ...), you should use a new term for it.

+ + + + + + +

With regard to "liberty":

As a matter of course, there are several types of liberties, and without doubt it would be preferable to have a clear distinction between these. But Robert does not give a clear distinction !

An "Approach(-move) liberty" is not the same as an "Occupation(-move) liberty".
(( I assume that you do understand what I have in mind with these terms, following "common understanding" / common sense. ))
Therefore it makes no sense at all to use one of both terms to describe the cumulation of both.

+ + + + + + +

With regard to "approach":

It seems to me that Robert has fallen into a trap that is similar to that several of his predecessors have fallen into.

"Approach Ko" is the translation for the Japanese "yose ko" into English.
"yore" / "yosere" can be translated as "draw near(er)".
A synonym for "draw near" is "approach".
"Approach Ko" is born !

"Approach-move Ko" does not necessarily clarify the matter.
Just because you do not really "approach" a group with this move, despite it looks like that you do (here, approaching a group means occupying one of its liberties), but you do "approach" the state of a (direct) Ko.

This is similar to the usage with "liberty". Occupying an "Approach-move liberty" does not really approach a group, but does "approach" the state of being able to occupy direct (i.e. physical) liberties.

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

Sure, but, as said before, nakade (English go term) has had several meanings, among which are yours and mine, except that yours still awaits clarification: does my description of it convey its meaning?



Not here; the definitions are elsewhere.



How can I have fallen into a trap related to Japanese translation? I do not know Japanese, and can rely only on the traps others might have fallen into;)

Well, as John Fairbairn has pointed out, a number of your readers will know the plain Japanese meaning of nakade, which is also the principal go meaning, and will react negatively if your definition does not accord with their understanding. In addition, you have had access to the discussions on Sensei's Library about nakade, by dan players who do know Japanese. Ignorance is not a defense.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

My answer is the appropriate thread:
viewtopic.php?p=152542#p152542

Did I claim that the trap you have fallen into was situated beside the path from Japanese to English ? And had the same size and depth ?

It is understandable that parts of the original meaning of "yoru" / "yoseru" were lost during the translation process into English. It is also understandable that "approach" has developed a life of its own, at least in the field of Tsume-Go, despite its original connection to "Ko". Please also note that "kakaru" names another kind of "approach".

But you carried the matter to extremes. You added new meanings to "approach", and finally used it in relationships that it was never designed for.

In the field of Tsume-Go, the "common understanding" uses "approach-move" to name a kind of move that definitely does not occupy a physical liberty of a group, but serves as a preparatory measure to do so. Just to have a clear distinction from moves that occupy physical liberties of a group, because these belong to another type of moves.

The necessity for this "approach-move" (related to player 1) increases the number of "effective" liberties of the group. So it is justified to name the point occupied as "approach-move liberty" of the group (related to player 2).

You first stumbled across your equalisation of "occupying a LIBERTY" and "approaching a GROUP", with your massive disregard to the respective objects.

You finally became totally unbalanced with your equalisation of "APPROACH move" and "APPROACH liberty", this time attaching massive importance on the respective object, and completely loosing out of sight that there already existed something in conjuncion with "approach" / "liberty".

The "Orange" has become another name for "Tropical Fruits".
Do you wonder that people ask where lemons and pineapples remained ?

+ + + + + + + + + +

EDIT:

The same kind of overstressing the audience can be seen with your USAGE of "lake" (generating this new term in itself is a suitable idea of yours) that does not fit your DEFINITION (as understood by "common understanding"):

"A LAKE is a connected part of the potential eyespace of the defender's group that is, or can easily become, visually surrounded by his stones [...]"

"Potential" eyespace may, OR may not, become eyespace ("eyespace" = "space of eyes").
After it has become eyespace, the eyespace may, or may not, be sufficient for life. However, we are talking about eyespace, not about "lifespace" here.

An eye can be turned into "no eyespace" by the eye's owner only (please forget the capturing of the entire group here), but which she usually will not execute.

This means that an "eye" does not belong to the "potential" eyespace any longer.
This means that an "eye" cannot be a "lake" any longer.
This is not very surprisingly, just because one aim of the game is to turn "lakes" into "eyes".
You have to accept that the life of "your" lakes is unlasting. They do not exist for ever.

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

No. I have continued to use such meanings used by others. Anyway, "approach" itself is not considered a go term, I think.



For tsumego, this is a possible use. For capturing races, the other use consistent with 'approach liberty' also is a possible use. (And it is unfortunate that ambiguity is implied. Therefore, it is better to be careful and avoid ambiguity when one uses one of the related terms.)



Eh? (I tend to refer to objects more frequently than I see it from quite a few texts by other authors. However, I do not exaggerate references to objects, because I do not want to bore the reader by the obvious.)



The contrary sentence makes more sense, when a dead group's lake is part of a bigger lake of the opponent's group, which has the potential eyes / eyespace.



Nice: you have understood it. (Except that the lakes of a pass-alive group are the core of its permanent eyespace.)