And here is the core problem for you. That's your definition or understanding of the term and not everyone else's. If you use a word like Joseki you need to be extremely careful that you conform to the normal usage or people will get very confused by what you're saying. Get rid of the potential debate of the meaning of a single word, it just makes it more difficult for people to actually approach your research because every time they see joseki being misused (in their eyes) it'll be jarring and distracting. You're generating heat not light with this approach.

Yes, we have lots of heuristics to avoid exhaustive minmax. But my point about 4^8 was that that's already absurdly pruned. One the primary traits of the opening is how unconstrained your choices really are.

I agree that something like minmax is very useful during play, branching out into a handful of interesting paths that seem like the best choices for each player, evaluating the resulting information, and making a decision based on that. And having a principled approach to that evaluation is a powerful thing.

But it's not only possible you've erred and missed relevant sequences, it's certain. When somebody says an exchange is joseki, it communicates to me that this has stood up to extensive analysis by many professional level players.

With a joseki, I can start at the beginning and jump 15 moves to the future and say "this is a path we could take that ends like this". I can be confident that (assuming I'm careful about surrounding stones), I'm not going to be in trouble if my opponent changes direction (other than into another joseki inappropriate for this position).

If, on the other hand, somebody tells me "here's a corner sequence I played that gave me good results", that's interesting information I want to examine, a good path for studying if either player made a mistake, something to emulate in my games even. But I wouldn't start at move 3 and say, 'ok, I can take this path for the next 10 moves'. I'd cautiously proceed down that path, re-evaluating every step, not necessarily expecting to end up where the speaker ended up.

And that's my objection to the use of the term joseki for any good seeming corner exchange we come up with. The distinction between "professionals have been playing this for 50 years, and nobody has found a way for either side to get an advantage", and "I looked at the continuations I could think of and they seem alright" is an important practical one.

The former: this describes that (after the first few moves) alternative better moves have not been found, but it does not evaluate the resulting position.

The latter: Yes, but "seem alright" is not what I suggest. I suggest an evaluation method.

I didn't mean "seems alright" in terms of your positional evaluation, I mean seems alright in terms of 'this position is actually reachable with excellent play by both sides". To a first approximation, this is a reasonable position to arrive at, presumably through this sequence of moves. Is there something extremely subtle that gives a player a chance to sidestep this branch into a better one for them? It doesn't appear so, but we can't know with any confidence yet.

My point is that the former and the latter are orthogonal. Your approach does something traditional joseki don't (a very precise measure of quality), but it doesn't do the main thing traditional joseki's do (extensive confirmation that much better moves don't exist for either player). Thus to call the positional evaluation joseki creates confusion: your approach isn't doing _more_ than the traditional joseki, it's doing something different.

I am not worried so much by the subtle, but by possible better alternatives of a) tenuki or b) an EARLY different move choice.



My evaluation does not exclude such considerations.



Here you compare method with sequence:) So I am not sure which thing you are referring to that allegedly was not being done more.

This discussion arose from your use of phrases like "recognize joseki yourself", "determine joseki on your own". While your evaluation of a position (or your approximate min-max for evaluating a sequence) does not exclude such considerations (the absence of superior paths at earlier points in a sequence), neither does it provide them, or provide a tractable method for determining them. For the traditional meaning of joseki, 'determine joseki on your own' just doesn't make sense: the reason being that traditionally joseki are less about obtaining equal results and more about definitely attaining a minimum quality of result.

Evaluating the balance of a position is not equivalent to evaluating that all the moves leading to it were right. That you could theoretically recursively evaluate all options does not mean that you could do so in practice: supported by the evidence that old joseki do get thrown out, despite hundreds or thousands of years of use.

This is the linguistic mismatch I'm trying to point out. A process for determining joseki would be a process that looks at a sequence and determines that neither player had another option that was superior. At the moment, relying on millenia of professional play is the best we've got for that. You're suggesting a method for evaluating a position. I can buy that it's superior to the alternatives for evaluating a position. It does not follow that it can be applied to determine joseki at anywhere remotely approaching the alternative of relying on collected experience.

That puts me in mind of what an 8 dan pro lecturer said in Kyoto years ago: "If I play it, it's joseki."

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I rather think that also the traditional thinking strives very hard towards approximating equality as well as possible.



But... I do not suggest to abandon knowing representative / standard variations, so that one need not evaluate "all" the moves.



Again, this overlooks a) possible tenukis and b) possible EARLY different move choices.



Yes, because my method is more powerful: it determines joseki-equivalent results of given positions even long before collected experience for them is available.

What do you think are players doing when they use a traditional approach described as "during their games, they go beyond established patterns and develop very good, new patterns on their own"? Somehow, those players must have a sense of approaching equality without any longer relying on collected experience. I think that such players do subconsciously something similar to what I suggest doing with my evaluation method.

Not the collected experience is so important, but an understanding of when one approaches equality.

The collected experience serves mainly as a profound test sample with which to calibrate my method or such players' advanced subconscious understanding.

Even a proverb has got such insight: do not abide by josekis blindly.

Here's the original diagram for this whole discussion.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 6 7 . 3 .
$$ | . 8 1 5 2 0 . .
$$ | . . . . 9 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Let's look at move 4. Is move 4 definitely good for white? Do any of these marked points, or a tenuki, lead to a black advantage?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . f e . . . .
$$ | . . 4 b c d 3 .
$$ | . . 1 a 2 . . .
$$ | . . h j . . g .
$$ | . . . . i . . .[/go]

Let's look at f, which is among the less likely continuations.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . d . . . . . .
$$ | . a 5 . e . . .
$$ | . 7 4 6 . . . .
$$ | . b 1 . 2 . g .
$$ | . c . f . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

Here's just one possible continuation. Do any of the marked moves lead to, say, an unexpected sacrifice of the corner where black gets better than expected thickness? Or a chance for black to live small, but with an attack on white? Are we willing to categorically state no good can possibly come from this for black with good play?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ----------------
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . 4 . . . 3 .
$$ | . . 1 . 2 . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . 5 . .[/go]

Here's an unusual response by black. That 1-5 gap looks ugly. But are we positive this isn't the start to complicated fighting that gives black an edge?

Where in your analysis did we consider that high 5 move? If it's good for black, we should call that diagram not-joseki, and stop playing 4 here.

In a game, whether intuitively or through your method or any other we explore a tiny fraction of the possible boards. Our opponents explore a similar sized space, so we get comparable result. If the example 5 above unexpectedly leads to an advantage, I would never expect my opponent to stumble onto it in a game. If they play it, I would never expect the two of us to plumb any meaningful fraction of the continuations in that one game.

Except for yose and life and death, every judgement in go is suspect. It's too large a state space. Statistics tells us that if one player sits down to a board and says one thing, and 200 years of experience by 10,000 professionals suggest something different, the 10,000 are probably right. This is what your method, what no method, can substitute: the processing power of many minds over many years.

So when we say joseki, we mean 'battle tested'. We say, it's been offered up as even, and it's yet to be conclusively refuted. That's a stronger claim then any amount of analysis done over the course of a move in a game of go.

None of which is an attack on your process. It's an explanation why those of us who object, object to your calling it joseki. Of course players have to find moves on their own during a game. Of course they should train and learn and make the best moves they can, and of course they can't call 10,000 professionals over to do it for them. But we don't call those moves joseki, because the thought given in the space of one move, no matter how strong the player, can't fairly be called equivalent to the combined work of all the players exploring the consequences of joseki. It's a useful distinction to have between "I played this in a game because I thought it was even and it turned out even" and "This has been played over and over by many people, enough of whom found it turned out even".

I basically agree with most of what you say, and I think what you're getting at has something to do with RJ's method of evaluation being somewhat circular:
he presents an "algorithm" which takes as input the positional judgement of a player and outputs a positional judgement.
(Iirc his method requires evaluation of "thickness" and "stability", both of which heavily rely on playing strength/experience.)

So that's how that search space gets pruned down to manageable proportions: we use our judgement while looking at candidate moves.

An obvious question is: will RJ's method significantly improve upon the quality of the positional judgement?

Like, the algorithm takes as input the judgements of a 3k and outputs the judgement of a 2d. I'm highly suspicious that it does.

To make judgements more meaningful, first create (more) stable / quiet positions, then evaluate.



With a quiet position, the follow-up variations space is "small".



A known method overrides unknown mind processes, which are inaccessible for everybody else.



So what? Unless all those battles are recorded and analysed WRT to a particular joseki, they provide no or only little information, e.g., because other moves of the game can have greater impact on the "battles".



No. For something to be a stronger claim / evidence, it must be described and it must be compared to the analysis.



Where does this combined work consider even the basics of stone difference and influence properly? ALA even the combined work fails on explaining well the basics, it is by far not worth as much as you claim.



Not "of a player". The evaluation is essentially independent of the player doing it (if only it is done meaningfully according to the method).



No. It requires stone difference, territory count and influence stone difference. Application is easier for a quiet and stable position. Thickness is not required, but it can be one of the other, possibly significant aspects to be considered optionally.



1) My methods for whole board positional judgement.

2) My "joseki" evaluation method.

(1) is more generally applicable and more frequently relevant. So if you seek improvement in judgement, I suggest you start with it.

For (1) and (2), the quality of my positional judgements in my played, kibitzed or studied games / positions and strategic decision making due to them have improved greatly.



The method (2) does not take player judgements as input.

Ah, I think here is where we disagree. Let's imagine I read ahead as white, analyzing many stable variations, and find a path to equal results that suits me. I play 4, intending to reach those. Let's imagine my opponent instead reads only 5 to great depth and finds that a complicated fight leads to an advantage for him, and that I must take a small loss to keep things simple. I am now behind. In this particular example it's unlikely my opponent could analyze that exhaustively, but in others he could, or he may have a prepared trick play.

Even though I prefer stable, quiet variations, to get to those variations I must accept that my opponent has the option of diverging into complexity. I can only control one player in a game. I can play moves that minimize my opponents aggressive options, but at the same time I must often pay a cost to force us into simplicity.

If, though, I know that move 4 has been analyzed for many hundreds of years and nobody has found a refutation, I can more safely ignore 5. If my opponent forces us off onto a complicated fight I had not read yet, I can be more confident that strong players have read this path, and at the very least some obvious continuation is even or good for me. If, on the other hand, I'm in uncharted territory, I must be more cautious of fighting paths for my opponent, because one of them might lead to an advantage fairly quickly, at a depth my opponent can read.

I can only consider a small selection of positions even spending 20 minutes a move. If a move is established as even, I can use my time to look deeper and analyze deeper stable positions to select a path. If a move is novel, I should spend some of my time making sure the complicated attacks my opponent might launch can at least be sidestepped, if not fought to a draw or win. Thus, knowing whether a move has stood up to examination of many eyes dictates whether I should spend my time looking past it, or spend my time making sure I'm not missing a strong counter by my opponent.

If somebody shows me a sequence and says it's joseki, I want to know whether they mean the end position is even, or if they mean (in the very limited sense possible) that all the variations for each player all the way to this point have been examined, and found to be safe. Because that dictates how I can spend my time in an actual game. Right now, somebody can say 'this is joseki, but better for black', or 'this is even.' and I know both how they evaluate the position and if the surrounding state space has been well explored. If, instead, we start saying 'this is joseki' to mean 'this is even', I know longer have the other information. We've made communication harder. Whether a position is well vetted is interesting to me, so it should have its own word for efficient communication, and in fact it _does_ have its own word: joseki.

Also among the traditional so-called josekis there are lots of those resulting in fights. However, in the literature, they are shown up to moments of partial stability and straightforward fighting options for the involved instable groups. Although the positions are by far too complex to be read out, they are also sufficiently partially stable to allow evaluation. Therefore, the difference between our views is not as great as you might have thought.

I suspect that's true. I think we're very much in agreement about the general ideas in discussion. I approve heartily of the attempt to formalize evaluation, and agree that for actual play it's a more important skill than knowledge of established sequences. In fact, I think the similarity has made the discussion a little trickier, as we've tended to overshoot each others positions =)

My argument has been communication based: that to many of us, it's interesting to have a distinction between a long established sequence and a newly introduced sequence, however that sequence is derived. That word has traditionally been joseki, so to move it to a related but different meaning would work against efficient communication.

The Ishida speaks of "virtually equivalent to joseki". ("Equivalent" is a bit too strong though. "Approximately equal" is more correct. But maybe "virtually" should better have been translated to "approximately"?:) )

Those are some nice weasel words you got there.

Does that mean that a computer program that knows nothing but the rules of the game can use your method and gain evaluations of local positions equal in quality to that of a high dan amateur?

If so, I think you may have just found the holy grail of computer go: a computationally non-expensive evaluation function that produces useful results.

If not, it would appear that playing strength does play a major role in your evaluation method.

It is not quite as you suggest; some programming effort and working out of algorithmic details are still needed. However, I think that it can be done by an applied expert program using the method, implied assumptions and the related principles for territorial positional judgement. More precisely, the basics of the method. When it comes to the "other aspects", the programming effort becomes huge. Possible maybe, but several months of coding at least.