Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=157019#p157019



Although "joseki" is a common term, there is no common definition of the term. In the referenced thread, you want to discuss the etymological meaning of the word, while I do not care for that. Instead, I care for theory, application and determination of josekis or related sequences and their results. IMO, theory, application and determination should not be restricted by restricting meaning to etymology or to assumed restricted beginners' needs; also beginners should become aware of more powerful theory, application and determination, so that they can overcome their beginner level.

When assessing approximative equality, neither etymology nor a restricted beginners' view are good enough. Already determining the stone difference is beyond what traditionally has been taught to beginners. However, it is one of the essential aspects needed to determine if equality can be approached. Even beginners must be aware of that, if they want to distinguish josekis from non-josekis during their games.

Language is about communication. If you do not care about communication, then why are you even posting? If you give words new meanings, then whatever you writes becomes meaningless to others unless you add a "Jasiek to English" dictionary with every post.

I have said that, in the referenced thread, I did not care for a definition of the word "joseki". I have not said that, in general, I did not care for a definition.

I do not limit my communication by limiting it to a discussion about a definition of the word. A study of equality, or approximating equality, must not be restricted to a discussion about a definition of the word.

There's a practical reason for restricting joseki to refer to well established patterns. It's not just that the results are near equal, but also that each player did not have better alternatives along the way. This is where the value of unequal joseki come in: White may have traded too much thickness for the meager territory he got in general, but in the right whole board context that could still be good. What's important to white, then, is that he knows he can get at least this much. If the exchange relies on black missing a chance to kill, it doesn't matter how much territory white gets, against a good opponent he won't ever get to walk this path.

Example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +----------------
$$ | . . 7 . . . . .
$$ | . . . 1 6 . . .
$$ | . 5 3 X 2 . . .
$$ | . . 4 , . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Is this joseki? Yes.

Is it approximately equal, locally? No.

It can also happen for non-established sequences that they are the best for both players. Theory applicable to established sequences need not be restricted to them, but can be applied also to non-established sequences.

EDIT:

Herman, there are different meanings of "joseki". One assumes some relation to equality (for early corner sequences), another refers to all kinds of standard sequences incl. those for middle game invasions or reductions.

Absolutely. I would think everybody would be in agreement that as the board develops, it's a mistake to automatically play joseki. And once an opponent goes off the beaten path, you're stuck following them.

And also, I would think everybody would be in agreement that you need to know how to evaluate a sequence, joseki or not. That's largely what go is about.

The original objection was to the use of joseki for non-standard sequences. Although a non-established sequence can be best for both players, it's a much, much larger undertaking to show that that is so. That no seeming overplay could actually turn into a 60 move fight that player could win, or that no tenuki is surprisingly resiliant. Hence it's useful to have different terms for an even sequence and a joseki.

The problem is Robert's mis-definition of an equal result being joseki is that equally bad play results in his term for joseki. Two kyu players can often get an equal result through equal number of mistakes. This does not make the sequence a joseki.

Of course there is.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

In these threads, I have not provided a definition yet, so how can it be a mis-definition...



My evaluation theory evaluates resulting positions. The theory itself does not evaluate sequences (which create results).

In order to use my evaluation theory to evaluate also sequences, a min-max algorithm must be applied to the relevant sequences while the evaulation theory is applied at each leaf, which preferably represents a locally quiet position.

Then one can know whether also a sequence leading to a particular resulting position consists of only good play.

***

Bill, there is the minimal consensus on the weakest meaning of "joseki" ("[established] standard sequence"), but, in the literature, there are also more restricted meanings / subtypes, such as the one used for corner josekis (with some reference to [approximated] equality or fairness). This stated or implied use is actually pretty frequent, so that the long "corner joseki" is rarely used instead of "joseki", while the long "middle game / reduction / invasion joseki" occurs occasionally to emphasise that it is not the standard corner joseki type.

You have included equality as a different meaning of joseki in various posts you have made. However, there is one meaning for joseki, and you don't want to accept it. It would be good for you to do some research here into the meaning.

Please note that I have spoken of a relation to equality - not of equality itself. (Also see my earlier explanations about approximation, compensation for stone difference and global environment.)

(I ignore your research remark.)

In the contexts in which it is usually played in expert games it should be roughly equal otherwise it would not have been played regularly in expert games. Equal understood here as not shifting the balance of territory + influence in relation with extra stone(s) played by some player. I guess there should be some surrounding stones in this example for this to be equal. So the question should be: Is it approximately equal in some common context? If yes then it will be played regularly in expert games and it will be joseki. Applicable in that context.

_________________
I think I am so I think I am.

Joseki are, by commonly accepted definition, sequences. Any theory that applies only to positions can never evaluate them as "joseki".

Who cares? It is, as described, straightforward to relate evaluation of positions to sequences.

The minmax algorithm? Straightforward to describe, not even remotely straightforward to implement. Even if we're conservative and say we'll only evaluate 4 possible moves per position, 8 moves is already over 65,000 positions to evaluate. Any sort of fighting at all, and 8 moves is far too short. And although we may start with a peaceful exchange, we need to make sure that the most aggressive fighting moves for the players don't work.

This is why the standard sequence definition is used. Even with thousands of years of go study, the opinions on joseki are still fluid. New exchanges in any of the branches of the minmax tree can ripple through and change long accepted sequences.

In a game we evaluate a tiny fraction of the moves and hope for the best, but success in even many games doesn't promise you haven't been making a series of terrible moves.

Why not just drop the word joseki altogether and say you're doing theory on common corner sequences? Then you avoid the argument about what joseki means and get to do exactly the same research no?

Or even corner positions, to eliminate the sequence and get at the end result.

Exactly. Neutral jargon free language allows precise definition of what you want to study without any potential confusion amongst your readers. I fail to see the down-side of this.

Polama: Not pure min-max is applied by a go player, but something reducing the calculation complexity by considering only the relevant / interesting variations. Therefore I wrote "must be applied to the relevant sequences". (It is possible to err and overlook part of the relevant sequences, but anyway it is like decision-making can be made.)

Boidhre, skydyr: We can speak of "corner josekis, corner joseki-like variations and other corner variations and the resulting positions of such sequences, for which approximated equality is studied". "Joseki" is just a shorthand for that. ("Joseki" is also just a shorthand for "standard sequences", because it is always open to discussion which are / were / will be those standard sequences.)