The Fundamental Principles of Go by Yilun Yang

Bantari · **#41**

kirkmc wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Always proverbs might have to be either applied or not.

Now that's a proverb to remember... :-)

And then to apply... or not.

HermanHiddema · **#42**

RobertJasiek wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:

The book title on the front and back cover is actually "Fundamental Principles of Go".

I would be convinced by your reason but apparently there are at least two editions of the book. Here is a reference for the edition with the title having the definite article:

http://www.slateandshell.com/images/items/SSYY006.gif

Note that the Chinese language does not contain the definitive article. It is very possible that the subtle difference between "Fundamental Principles" and "The Fundamental Principles" was completely lost on a Chinese native like Mr. Yang. In Chinese, those titles would be rendered identical, and you would have to specifically add "some" or "all" in order to make a similar distinction. Given John's argument that the preface refers only to "various principles", I think the interpretation that the book handles some, rather than all, fundamental principles is more likely.

PS: So, as John's little grandson would be told when he disrespects his teacher, say sorry to Mr Yang

daal · **#43**

Well, OK, Sorry Mr. Yang. :oops:

Here's what prompted me to agree with Robert's comment.

I bought Yang's Fundamental Principles of Go about a year ago, when I was about 8k. I was very eager at the time to find out what in fact the fundamental principles of go were. Well, frankly, I was disappointed that there were only 5 chapters. :roll:

The first one ranks opening moves, and the principles seemed hardly earth-shattering. The second, Relationships and Combinations seems to say that one should efficiently sprinkle one's stones about the board - some high, some low. As you perhaps suspect, part of my problem with the book is that I don't understand anything about go.

The third chapter - Effective use of Joseki - helps one pick the right approach moves and pincers. On re-reading, now that I know more than 3 josekis, (Yang suggests that an amateur need know only some 300 fundamental variations), I am starting to see that the principles this chapter presents are indeed fundamental.

The principles entailed in Chapter 4, on Invasions and Reductions, didn't sink in. This is probably because my reading is too poor to put the principles into effect.

The last chapter details invasions of 10 specific formations. This chapter seems less about fundamental principles and more about specific sequences. Again, this probably reflects my lack of understanding.

In any case, it seemed to me that a book with the title Fundamental Principles of Go should have more chapters and cover more subjects, such as: principles of attack and defense, principles of cross-cut fights, principles of sacrificing stones, principles of timing, principles of counting, principles of ko - just to mention a few. I guess that all that would fill up at least another book, but now that I've apologized, maybe Mr. Yang will consider writing the sequel. :mrgreen:

kirkmc · **#44**

Yang has written six books in his Workshop Lectures series. Each book is short, and has about 4 "chapters," each of which was given at a workshop. They cover a wide variety of topics, and, taken together, may cover much of what you want.

As for the cross-cut, there's a very good Slate & Shell book on the subject that made me really understand this technique. (Really is perhaps an exaggeration, but I understand it more than most players I use it on.)

Andd · **#45**

I just got this book recently so I thought I'd add a few comments as I'm reading through it. The first and second chapters are very good at helping develop a method for evaluating opening and early middle game moves, which I am finding very helpful, but a few of the problems I found myself completely wrong on. I guess I need to read them again.
The joseki chapter is what I'm working on at the moment. I find that it is a very good introduction to the strategies involving different approaches and pincers. This I think is very helpful in giving a more solid grounding to that which most Kyu players probably just play by more intuition than anything else.

Gresil · **#46**

I just got my copy and flipped through the first chapter. It's an odd mixture. Most of the content is very basic, clearly expressed (I'd say it's good 10-20 kyu material, although you can pick up most or all of it by just playing, eventually), but I just burst out laughing when I saw the 17 move continuation that confirms the correct answer of one of the problems. (Of course I got that problem wrong because you need to read out that sequence to know what the right thing to do is.) Most of the problems aren't that hard, but most were challenging to me.

Every one of the lamentably few problems in the chapter is miles above the fare of 501 Opening Problems.

Gresil · **#47**

The invasion chapters are terrific, and not just because of the nominal subject: some of the variations are really inspiring examples of light play in action.

youngjae · **#48**

John Fairbairn wrote:

The bao character is the basis of the Japanese word mamoru. This is almost invariably translated as 'to defend'. It's hard to criticise that, but there is behind it the idea of defending prophylactically. Or, if you want to be even more intellectual, it means exactly the same as Greek prophulaktikos - 'guard before'. The 'before' brings in the time element.

Ordinary, merely responsive defending, as in you punch, I duck, is ukeru in Japanese. The point is, when a Japanese reads a comment that tells him mamori is a good move, he is inferring at once and with no effort that the move is also a sort of honte, and he knows that is probably a good idea, so he finds it easy to accept. When a westerner reads the same piece translated into English, if it just says "defending here is a good move", there is no nuance and his natural instincts possibly scream, "Defend - no way, I want sente!" It is possible, of course, for a careful reader eventually to grasp the full Japanese meaning, but it does require an extra layer of effort that may often go unmade.

I thought this was a very interesting point and I was surprised that it has been passed over without further discussion (well I guess this is a thread about something else... sorry Mr Yang).

It seems a pity that this concept is not more accessible to western readers. I am not sure, but perhaps when Go books were first translated into English, the translators themselves did not consider the significance of the original author's decision when using 'mamori/mamoru' or 'ukeru', simply considering the terms interchangeable.

I think instead of using the word 'defend' in both cases, if 'reinforce' was used for 'mamori', and 'defend' was used for 'ukeru' it would be easier for an English-native reader to distinguish between the two concepts.

Mike Novack · **#49**

youngjae wrote:

.......
I think instead of using the word 'defend' in both cases, if 'reinforce' was used for 'mamori', and 'defend' was used for 'ukeru' it would be easier for an English-native reader to distinguish between the two concepts..........

Whenever a translator can do this a really good translator will. But it's sad reality that different languages simply don't partition the universe in the same way so it usually isn't that simple. Even when the word itself hasn't changed if it appears in a somewhat different context the skilled translator sometimes needs to use a different trem to translate it.

So while I like the suggestion for this pair of Japanese words in the context of go we can't expect to always be able to do this. And precisely because in general not possible to translate "nuance" translators who aren't top of their trade often don't try (or even get it wrong).

youngjae · **#50**

Mike Novack wrote:

Whenever a translator can do this a really good translator will. But it's sad reality that different languages simply don't partition the universe in the same way so it usually isn't that simple.

I don't know if it is a sad reality (In fact, I think it is one of the most fascinating things about different languages), but I get your point

. It is true that languages are not all structured in the same way. Nonetheless, I think English is flexible enough to get around the differences in linguistic structure in most cases.

Quote:

Even when the word itself hasn't changed if it appears in a somewhat different context the skilled translator sometimes needs to use a different trem to translate it.

Well, if a word appears in a different context even in the same language it usually has to be changed or altered. Again, if the translator is indeed "skilled" I do not see the difficulty.

Quote:

So while I like the suggestion for this pair of Japanese words in the context of go we can't expect to always be able to do this. And precisely because in general not possible to translate "nuance" translators who aren't top of their trade often don't try (or even get it wrong).

I am glad you like my suggestion. Feel free to use it! For me I feel the issue is not so much with understanding the "nuances" within the text, but rather in understanding the correct application of the "nuance" to Go itself. If for example, like the reader the translator does not appreciate the difference between defending beforehand (reinforcing), and defending against an attack, then of course they will not bother to make the distinction in their translation as they simply did not realise it is important.

happysocks · **#51**

snorri wrote:

I think it's a good book, but its value depends on a little bit on whether you've been exposed to Mr. Yang's ideas before. I'd already read his books "Whole Board Thinking in Joseki" and many of his workshop notes, and I'd seen him give lectures in person and online as well, all before this book was published. I think it summarizes his teaching very well, but I didn't see much that was new compared to what he'd already taught before, but that's fine and I think it's great that the book is out there. If you read this book first, what he says in lectures and other books will make more sense.

The approach is a little didactic, and I think it can come off as being overly presciptive to some, especially to those who think that the first four moves can be played anywhere above the second line. ;-)

I don't think he is trying to propose a comprehensive view of how to play go. It's more that he is introducing one way of thinking that is self-consistent and not hard to learn. I think it's great for players who feel lost in the opening and want some heuristics to use to choose better moves. He knows that most amateurs in the West don't have the time or inclination to learn zillions of josekis and opening patterns. Just consider the question: how to choose a pincer? This is not an easy question to answer. Probably a lot of players choose for the wrong reasons. Maybe they choose ones they've studied more, even if they are not best for the board position. Maybe they choose randomly. Or maybe they choose with optimistic reading: "if my opponent plays one of the 3 josekis I'm thinking about right now, I'm still okay..." Maybe they play what they've seen in a recent pro game, without really having thought about it. But at least his system gives you some things to consider that you might overlook otherwise.

If you learn and use such a system, at least you'll be able to explain your moves. That doesn't mean you'll make good moves, but at least you'll have reasons and be able to remember your games better.

The last points here were pretty useful for me to consider. It seems that using these systems can not only help us better understand/explain our moves and the reason behind our play but also serve as platforms to build on. Which may seem fairly obvious but I wonder if actually thinking in these terms as we play and study could further benefit the time we invest in these activities.

Enjoyed reading the discussion here. For some reason this has all somehow reminded me of an interview I read on gobase.org with Yasuro Kikuchi (a very strong amateur). It's from the last part of the interview:

Q. What should people be doing in order to get ahead at go?

A. Getting stronger at go is all about being surprised I think. (!)

Q. Do you mean that moves in a game should resonate in your heart as well as your mind?

A. Yes, that's about it. Being surprised, the ability to be surprised, emotionally being involved is what is necessary to improve I think.

Q. So let me recapitulate this, dealing with go, matters like curiosity, surprise and "feeling" something when looking at moves is what you say is the essence of becoming a better go player?

A. Yes, that is more or less what I want to say. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with just "play" play. Rapidly putting moves on the board without feeling much but just having a good time, nothing wrong with that. But, I strongly feel that this kind of approach has its limits. You'll get somewhere to sho-dan perhaps but that's it. If you on the other hand start thinking like "what is it exactly that surprises me here" (after feeling thrilled by the surprise in the first place) and put some energy into that line of thought, from that very moment you'll start to grow. Once you start growing like that, wow, there is no end to it, growth keeps going on and on.

photograph Yasuro Kikuchi:

tchan001 · **#52**

Somehow I don't think computer programs becoming stronger at go is because they are being surprised.

daal · **#53**

tchan001 wrote:

Somehow I don't think computer programs becoming stronger at go is because they are being surprised.

Exactly. People are just like computers. :roll:

quantumf · **#54**

tchan001 wrote:

Somehow I don't think computer programs becoming stronger at go is because they are being surprised.

Indeed. On the other hand, I find their moves frequently surprising.

happysocks · **#55**

Speaking of surprises...

The Fundamental Principles of Go by Yilun Yang

Who is online