Where is the problem with it ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Igo Hatsuyôron #43
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . X . X . X . . X O O O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . X . X , . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Cheng Xiaoliu mentioned that White could not be killed unconditionally any longer, if any of the Black stones was absent.

So, it's a matter of shape, isn't it ?

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

My aversion is about the myth that shape knowledge (other than that of terminal positions) could significantly increase reading skill by something like providing "missing links" between different phases of reading into a problem or tesuji shapes guiding towards faster reading. I am beyond that illusion. John's advertisement for viewing shapes as something dynamic comes closer to reality because shapes are constantly changing during the sequences. But then we speak of techniques rather than only shapes.



Uh, is he saying anything else than that sequences consist of alternating moves and positions? I.e., both are equally important so to say.



Sequences consist of moves and positions, even if one writes them down only as moves. Each move leaves and reaches a position. So what meaningful are you saying?



Not only #120 :)



The problem with relying on shapes although similar ones can have very different behaviours is that one must not draw (naive) conclusions from one known shape to a very similar unknown shape, although it may be very tempting to do so.



In such a case, if necessary, consider each interesting move. Preferably, in an order of perceived decreasing likelihood of success, else random.

Of course, AFTER having discarded the obvious failures and obviously inferior moves.

Sure. But the question is, which moves have good likelihood of success? As far as I'm concerned, selecting the opponent's refutation as is done in 1-2-3 reading has as much likelihood of success as any alternative method that I know.

I mean, the method works on several problems, even if it doesn't work on all problems.

_________________
be immersed

Perceived likelihood of success can be guessed from the moves' functions or initial purposes. E.g., moves with some functions are more likely successful than such without any apparent function. A single threat is less promising than a) a direct move or b) a multiple threat. Etc.

I think, this is similar to answer the question where your opponent would play if it was their turn. And it will be even better than choosing candidate moves by chance.

A simple example is capturing a single stone for an eye (your opponent's turn) vs. stretching your one-stone-group into a two-stone-group (your turn; probably causing some kind of shortage of liberties).

This is just a strong hint, where a vital point of the shape / the problem might be, nothing more. But we can assume that your opponent will choose their moves on purpose, so it is worth considering to try destroying their initial idea (as a matter of course this is true for your opponents move as turn #2). However, there is no guarantee that this kind of hint will always lead to the "real" vital spot of the problem. Just because there are problems of a more complex kind.

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

Moves selected using 1-2-3 reading have a purpose: the move provided a defense for the opponent, and by playing there, that defense is no longer possible for the opponent to play.

_________________
be immersed

Of course. Otherwise, go would be a much simpler game.

However, 1-2-3 reading can be applied repeatedly:
* Try first move. Didn't work. Opponent's refutation was 'A'.
* Try playing 'A' first. Didn't work. Opponent's refutation was 'B'.
* Try playing 'B' first. Didn't work. Opponent's refutation was 'C'.
...

The fact that this is a 'hint' is all I'm trying to say. And this 'hint' seems useful to me in directing my search.

_________________
be immersed

You are overstating the usefulness of 1-2-3. When applicable it is useful, but even then can be replaced by the simpler move function to prevent something the opponent wants to do. There can be many move functions, among them various of a "prevent" kind, and some of these prevent two or several things while possibly achieving one or several things. 1-2-3 is nothing but a special case.

I don't think so - all I've said is that it's a useful hint. I've also said that it doesn't always work.

But I don't mind disagreeing on this point.

_________________
be immersed

As you surely know, YIN and YANG are of equal importance in East-Asian philosophy.

Dôsetsu understands the position of stones (ishidate; patterns) to be the YIN in the game of Go, i.e. as the "passive" part of the game.

He thinks of combinations (shudan; move sequences) as the "active" part in the game, i.e. to be the YANG, which shines a light through the sceletons of the patterns, so that we can understand how all the elements interlink.

This implies that moves / move sequences / tesuji etc. change the relationships between the elements of the shape (= groups), so the positions themselves cannot be a part / subset of a sequence.

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

Does such philosophy provide anything applicable for reading?

Just interpreting one of Dôsetsu's final conclusions ...

If you cannot find the solution to a problem, only three things will help:
-- work hard,
-- work hard,
-- work hard
in understanding the relationship between "shape" and "sequences".

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

Dosetsu's problems are much better than his advice in the conclusion. Working hard needs to be guided. Dosetsu's means of providing a guide was to show especially difficult problems, but just a reference to some mythical relation between shapes and sequences is unhelpful. Instead, I suggest to use well worked out theory for guiding hard work.

Presumably, by choosing only 1/10 of his problems for the book, Dôsetsu thought that the other 9/10 could be easily done ofter having solved the 1/10.

So, every single clue will be there ...

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