Quote:
Yes dfan, it seems that the oriental articulation is more dynamic (verb) than how we tend to translate it statically (noun). At least this has been a pattern in what I thought to understand from contributions by John Fairbairn and Charles Matthews.
Quote:
On its face the Korean haengma has a sense of motion that the Japanese katachi does not. But, as I argued ad nauseam at Sensei's Library, you really need to understand shape dynamically. Besides, we talk about the flow of the stones
Bill, Knotwilg: I have harped on in the past about what I see as westerners (especially those brought up on Japanese terms) ignoring the dynamic aspects of play, and have suggested, for example, the formula haengma = katachi + suji. I still think that is very important but I'm not convinced that that is what we are talking about here. I think it risks muddying the waters. I was therefore at great pains to use form and function here as opposed to static and dynamic. I believe it is also highly beneficial to understand technical terms correctly, and this is where Tami's initiative can pay off.
As I see it, S/D is mostly bipolar and relates mostly to tactics or local situations. In its crudest form, we see players making shape moves because they look pretty or like something they've seen before: pure katachi. But if they can learn to spot the dynamic elements their play can improve greatly. To give a couple of examples of the reasoning behind this, if they understand what the follow-up moves are in a given position, they can choose one possible shape over another and so have more control over the game as a whole. At a different level, understanding that ponnuki is
not a diamond shape but a verbal noun (capturing with a satisfying "pon" sound [and it can apply to capturing more than one stone]) is helpful in understanding efficiency. Just making a diamond shape with four stones is not "worth 30 points" as per the proverb, but capturing to produce that shape can be worth 30 points because you have used a net three stones, not four, and you can't get much more of an efficiency gain than that. Understanding terms properly like that also produces efficiency gains in the mind more valuable even than those on the board.
But, as I say, that is a local or tactical issue. I think what Tami is hoping to achieve is something at least as valuable, but different. It is exemplified in the two examples of reading through game moves I gave above. As the first step, Tami wants to be able to go through a game while attaching the correct term to each move. In itself that is not specially useful - not much more than a party trick, really. It's exemplified by the Shinohara example. But if you go through this apprentice stage you can move on to a much more interesting approach where (as in the Sakai/Fujisawa example as originally intended) you can develop your strategic awareness. At this level someone could call out the name of the next move and you play it on the board. That is far from trivial. If someone says "block" or "contact play" (I suspect it might work even better if you use properly understood Japanese terms but it works well enough in English) you have to think about which block or attachment is intended, because the odds are that there is more than one possible block or attachment. You therefore have to think about the whole board, to focus on the active elements of the game, to read the game, or the direction of play. This is what I mean by "strategic" here, i.e. not purely local.
In military terms I see haengma or tesuji or katachi+suji as resembling learning to fight hand to hand or to shoot accurately. But reading the game through terminology is like being the general watching the battle from a hill top, yet able, through giving precise and well understood commands (go terms) to influence each hand-to-hand fight as much as if he were in the thick of the melee.
Obviously tactics and strategy can never be truly separated. At some point, therefore, the S/D approach and the Tami approach merge - but synergistically. At the risk of creating the confusion that I am painfully try to warn against here, I'd like to give an example of how this can apply in a game.
Here is a position from a Genjo-Chitoku game.
(;AB[ek][rb][rd][qd][pc][pe][oe][pf][ce][ck][qm][cp][eq][jq][mq][nq][oo][po][qo]
[rn][fq][pm][nn][nl][ol][kd][id][kf][kc][lc][ib][hb][gb][gc][jp][io][jo]AW[hc][ic]
[hd][he][cf][df][ci][mp][np][op][pq][qp][rq][ro][sp][on][pn][nk][ok][qk][qe][re]
[qg][pg][of][nf][ne][oc][mc][ld][fp][ip][dc][ed][fb][ho][in][hm]TR[hm]LB[en:A][fn:B]
[em:C][cm:D][hn:E]SZ[19]
)
White has just started operations in the lower left and his last move was the triangled one (White 76). Takagawa criticised this heavily as a slack move. The commentary was done in the form a conversation with another pro, Kamimura Kunio, so their words are directed at each other rather than at the reader. In other words, they are reading through the game in a terminological way à la Tami.
Takagawa condemns 76 because it allowed Black to play a "perfect" kakoi move at A (= 77) next. 77, being gote, may superficially be regarded as just as static as 76, perhaps, but it secures an awful lot of profit and sets up a strong attack on the White group.
Kamimura, who at the time was quite a bit weaker than the Honinbo Takagawa, suggested a construction move (kamae) instead. The editors helpfully added a symbol to show this meant B. This is better than the game move, Takagawa said, but is still unsatisfactory. It looks more dynamic but is still basically just a shape move (it has elements of being a "furl out the flag" kind of move that uberdude has been talking about elsewhere) and it is still basically local.
Takagawa suggested instead a fumikomi move. If you understand this you know exactly where he meant, but much more than that it instantly changes your feel for the whole game. It is truly dynamic in that it changes the whole game. It adds a strategic element that the kamae missed, but I think it is better to see it as adding a "function." The term means "barging in" and refers to a play at C. The significance of it is that if Black answers at D (i.e. accepts being forced), White can then go back to 76 (the triangle) with a much better shape than in the game, and a better shape than the simple kamae move of Kamimura - the flag has been furled out further. The end result has been a tactical exchange but one controlled by the general on the hilltop.
If Black rejects being forced and cuts at E instead of defending at D, White moves into purely strategic mode and plays at D himself, attacking the two Black ikken-tobi stones on the left while being prepared to sacrifice his stones around E (for forcing moves or other aji).
To go off at a little tangent of my own, the kind of play Takagawa is talking about, making miai points
for the opponent, is a largely unappreciated skill that was still not fully developed in Edo times. Shuei was probably the first to show true mastery of it. It is especially interesting because, while it creates miai for the opponent it is surreptitiously creating miai for yourself, but in a dynamic way, not the plodding, static way in which amateurs make miai purely for themselves.
At any rate, I think Takagawa's comments show the value of thinking about all these elements in an integrated way, with the use of the correct terms enabling clear thinking and focus, making full use of both tactics and strategy.
Our task is to move towards that goal by breaking down the learning process in a controlled way. Which means avoiding confusion and learning to use terms in an agreed but precise way.