Robert doesn't understand what 'understand' means and he doesn't even use the word right either!

_________________
Occupy Babel!

That is not what I am saying. I say that, from what I have seen so far, Koreans' understanding of ko threat as a term with its meaning is weak. My descriptions of influence and thickness as terms are so good now that I would be interested in seeing whether Koreans (or Japanese, Chinese) offer anything more (or equally) precise in meaning (not necessarily in annotation).



Although they might not be able to define (as carefully), they (or you) could at least explain their best less formal understanding.

Let us learn from you when you provide better explanations of "understanding"!

I am just a new comer to this forum, but from what I see (and if the same rules apply to you both) he can just keep claiming that his definition is the most precise and perfect without ever telling anyone what the definition is (unless they buy his book, of course)!

I jest, I jest...

But the question is real. Can you provide this definitions so that we can judge by ourselves? Given such serious results why don't you publish them in a journal? Or just on the arXiv?

Not sure if you mean me or hyperpape. My (first attempt of a) definition of "understanding" is here:

viewtopic.php?p=65279&sid=1f84d054964abf2b548a62deeabf381a#p65279

if you mean Robert Jasiek, i am sure he would gladly provide his definitions, but i suppose that each is at least paragraph long and written in very precise but not very readable form, so i don't know how many people would actually want to read them

no critics involved, Robert's style is probably perfect in its way, just not very accessible to most readers.

this reminds me question i want to ask some time:

- Robert: do you have a student or just feedback from readers of your books that would qualitatively compare your methods of training and explaining terms with more traditional ones? you seem very confident that your style is superior, but i haven't tried so i can't really judge and i am not sure just from outside observation

by the way i don't think either Robert Jasiek or Magicwand is really wrong in this discussion - Robert's definitions and numerical evaluations are most likely more precise and more general than ones that pros could offer us. on the other hand, pros are superior in applications of their not so exact knowledge, based on their experience and intuition

open question is which approach is better to become strong player, though both history and current situation suggest that the traditional methods win

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

Most readers of my books like it. (If you don't know, it differs very much from my rules definitions.)



There is no such comparison yet (except for saying "different", "filling a gap" or the like). If you like, I can provide some.



Because the alternative has not been promoted sufficiently yet.

You just think you have a working knowledge of it. In reality, I suspect your door opening technique is severely lacking. One day I intend to start a door-opening dojo - by analogy with iaido - so people can learn how to open doors properly, or at least learn to appreciate the depth and beauty of this gentle art.

Needless to say, true mastery of opening doors takes a lifetime to achieve.