I had planned to offer here for direction of play what I did for honte – a survey of the nexus of words associated with a technical go term, by means of we can jointly come to a better understanding of the go theory behind it and its applications. Plus, of course, a bit of entertainment with some problems.
My investigations led me into much deeper waters than I expected, and I have been much preoccupied with other things, so I’m not going to do that in the way I originally planned. But rather than waste what I’ve done, I thought I would contribute some cursory notes that may kick-start a discussion.
First, it seems we need to be cautious about assuming direction of play (DoP, 石の方向) is a straightforward technical term.
It seems that as a concept it was discovered by Dosaku. However, his role has been overlooked because he did not give it a name. Naming concepts only really took off in the early 20th century, when there were many more pros and go publishing took off. It seems there was no agreement on DoP, either as a term or on where the boundaries lay, and various distinguished pros taught the concept in their own ways. Kato Shin, for example, who was one of the very best writers on go theory and rather prolific, preferred the term 石の歩み (the march of stones). But apart from that there are writers who have used 石の流れ ‘the flow of stones’, 石の運び ‘the progress of stones’, 石のいき方 ‘the march of stones’ or derivations dealing with momentum such as 勢い and 調子.
There are also writers who mix and match all these terms.
I infer that the popularity of 石の方向 is probably due to Suzuki Tamejiro, thence his pupil Kitani Minoru, thence Kajiwara Takeo, who taught in Kitani’s school. The best latest books on DoP are by Takemiya Masaki and Kobayashi Satoru, who were both pupils in Kitani’s school. I think we can say, therefore, that the term 石の方向 has won by because of them, but do note that even these writers also use some of the variants above.
One other point to note is that the dictionary definitions of DoP as ‘the direction in which stones or groups face’ (e.g. Hayashi) are perhaps misleading. In practice the meaning is nearly always where to play next and, in the case of running fights, stones don’t really face any single way anyway.
Whichever term is used, there is general agreement that the main use of the term is for the fuseki, but it is also possible to consider the ‘DoP for joseki’ and ‘DoP for fighting’.
I won’t delve into the other terms or themes associated with DoP or its close relatives, but there are quite a few that appear consistently. For example, writers point out in various ways that DoP applies at decision points in the game, or at points where no severe moves are available, or when a pause point is reached. In short, it is clearly a strategic concept.
When making the decision where to play, quite a few proverbs or quasi-proverbs crop up. For example, 'play in the widest area' – however, Kobayashi does a good job in rubbishing some of these heuristics, and in the process refines the thinking behind them. In the specific case of ‘widest’ area, he shows how it is not to be taken literally but rather as the area with the most future possibilities (though he still uses the word for ‘wide’, as in 広い場所). Readers of my recent books will know that I’ve belaboured this special usage of ‘wide’, mainly because it’s a ubiquitous concept that has strangely not been identified properly so far in English texts. Incidentally, among the useful bits of advice that Kobayashi gives is to study DoP in the fuseki first, simply because that is where the ‘wide’ areas are easiest to see. For what he means by future possibilities I will have to refer you to his books and articles.
Other rules that keep coming up have to do with avoiding fighting where the opponent is strong and concentrating on your weak groups first. Extensions of this include advice on how to decide future policy, which essentially boils down to: consider defence and attack (but always in that order) and make sure you have a follow-up aim. None of these are specially new, but they tend to have a special gloss when seen through the prism of DoP. This is especially important in the case of DoP for josekis, for example, because the hand-to-hand fighting there means that the DoP can actually change from move to move (another reason to start with DoP for fuseki). It is also in DoP for joseki that the occasional uses that stress thinking about where stones face, rather than the next move, crop up.
In the context of strong and weak, I rather liked some dry advice from Takemiya when he defined what is meant by ‘strong stones’. I think most amateurs would come up with a definition (try yours now!) which might include factors such as not being attacked by the opponent, having friendly stones nearby, having somewhere to run to, and so on. Takemiya simply limits it to ‘stones which are alive’. If you analyse the language of DoP, as I have done, and you see the oh so frequent references to the priority of defence over attack, that apparently trite definition takes on special significance, I think. One important thing that emerges from this, for instance, is that in DoP there is a no major difference between ‘weak groups’ and ‘groups that have weaknesses’.
The various bits of advice given consistently in the various texts I looked at convinced me that there is a mini-algorithm for DoP there that can be teased out quite easily, but I did not have time to get that far. Even these notes only scratch at the surface of what I saw, and I hope that is not seen as teasing but as encouragement that there is so much else about go theory that is already available (by all means concentrate on Kobayashi Satoru, not just for DoP but many other aspects of theory).
A couple of problems to finish off with.
This one is from Ishida Yoshio. The choice is between A and B.
Black’s triangled move is correct. Black stones in the upper right are not a weak group, right? Wrong. Well, at least they are a ‘group that has weaknesses’ and since you always have to start with your main weak group, Black’s triangle sensibly adds reinforcement. It also has a follow-up at A to lend a hand to Black’s stones in the centre. Black B is a one-dimensional attack from a group that is very close to being strong. White can force with C for D (and look forward to further forcing moves here later as Black’s group is on the weak side) and so will have time then to hit Black in the solar plexus with E.
A tricky one next. First, what is White’s strongest play locally? Second, what is his best play?
This is from a game 400 years ago between Honinbo Sansa and Rigen. Sansa as White played 1, which is the “locally strongest move” (部分的な最強手) according to Kobayashi, but then White naturally feels obliged to counter Black’s huge thickness with a move at 11 thereabouts. That, however, is giving priority to the side rather than the corner. Indeed it allows Black to take precedence in the lower right corner with what is effectively a forcing move, 12, which, moreover, makes White stupidly approach thickness with 13. Even Sansa had a thing or two to learn.
The modern play, based on knowledge of the theory of DoP, would be as below, where White gives Black some thickness but not enough to demand a play on the side. He thus gets to the corner first with 9 and even leaves an aji stone embedded in Black’s shape for 'future possibilities'.
I like the observation that it may not be a technical term, so to speak.
What always always eventually gets me is that 'finding the correct direction' and 'carefully picking a move' seem to be the same - if you didn't make a mistake, you found the correct direction.
I guess direction might be the heuristics that help you look for the right move, future wideness, strength and weaknesses and so on. I personally balk at the notion that defence is intrinsically better direction than attack. In what way other than making a demonstrable mistake could that be true? And then surely one can make the same sort of mistake defending anyway.
Posts: 2495 Location: DC Liked others: 157 Was liked: 443
Universal go server handle: skydyr
Online playing schedule: When my wife is out.
Loons wrote:
I like the observation that it may not be a technical term, so to speak.
What always always eventually gets me is that 'finding the correct direction' and 'carefully picking a move' seem to be the same - if you didn't make a mistake, you found the correct direction.
I guess direction might be the heuristics that help you look for the right move, future wideness, strength and weaknesses and so on. I personally balk at the notion that defence is intrinsically better direction than attack. In what way other than making a demonstrable mistake could that be true? And then surely one can make the same sort of mistake defending anyway.
My uninformed impression was that the difference between 'finding the correct direction' and 'carefully picking a move' is that the latter could imply the move that is best locally but that fails to take the whole board into account, while the former may be weaker locally but works the most efficiently with the rest of the board. Of course, a move could be locally best as well as being the correct direction, but it's not required.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
John Fairbairn
